Miquelon.org The Fighting French

About That “French Surrender” Thing ..

06.14.2009 · Posted in Editorials, Educating Jay, Pop Culture

Update (4th July 2014) – Plus ça change … Now that  France has lost to Germany at SOCCER, social media is replete with more ‘surrender monkey’ and ‘French surrender’ messages. 

Update (14 July 2011): Welcome to one of our most-tweeted articles. It seems everytime the French are mentioned anywhere in the media, legions of lemmings reach for their tweeting apparatus to make rather lame and pathetic “French Surrender” jokes. Be it Strauss-Kahn, Libya, Tennis, Bastille Day, Women’s Soccer.

Our original article from 2009: Pretty much everybody online fancies themselves a comedian; unfortunately most of us are and will remain wannabes. Now that “Eternal September” has hit twitter, legions of newbies clamoring for attention are using the micro-blogging platform to repeat, rehash and retweet their skewed and simplistic view of history and the world.

On average, about a dozen or so anti-French jabs are written on twitter per week, most of them being some form of “French Surrender” joke. While some are deliberately trying to be offensive, others are living proof there is a “long tail” to America’s recent spate of French BashingA few examples from 2009:

  • @timchi – “You can try and run over a french bulldog but it would surrender first”
  • @asianlunatic – “Mantastic: When ur in France for holiday, the French will surrender to u, just to be on the safe side.”
  • @JohnHancock61 – “Great movie line from Flushed Away: Lead French frog: To action! French frog commandos: We Surrender!”
  • @Simon4365 – “ahhhh the weekend or as the French say “we surrender”!!!”
  • @Hondo11 – “I’ll say it. Pietrus is not only French (known to surrender) he looks strikingly erily to a Primate. FACT”
  • @macslash – “It’s nice to hear Serlet attack Windows with a French accent. Would have expected him to just surrender.”

While most comedic outfits have abandoned French Bashing, especially Jay Leno and his forty or so jokes about supposed French cowardice and propensity to surrender, legions of twitterers, bloggers and comment contributors have kept the myth of French cowardice alive.

Having turned a traumatic historical event of epic proportions into a timeless character trait, French Haters have woven prejudice against France and the French into pop-culture.

Thankfully, one of North-America’s most astute international columnists has decided to take the myth of French cowardice and surrender head on. I present to you, Eric Margolis and his column : “Getting to the truth about World War II”. Thank You Eric. Merci.

Here are a few excerpts:

“France’s army did not simply surrender or run away in 1940, as ignorant American Know-Nothing conservatives claim. “

“Britain’s well-trained expeditionary force in France was beaten just as quickly and thoroughly as the French, and saved itself only by abandoning its French allies and fleeing across the Channel. “

“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.”

Eric Margolis is an award-winning columnist who contributes regularly to the Quebecor Media Company and the Huffington Post. His articles appear in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, Times of London to name a few. Eric Margolis has also appeared on CNN, BBC, France 2, France 24, Fox News, CTV and CBC.

See also: French Bashers hit twitter @ Miquelon.org

137 Responses to “About That “French Surrender” Thing ..”

  1. [...] here: Miquelon.org – The Fighting French » Monitoring Anti-French … addthis_url = [...]

  2. Thanks a lot man !

    This article should be posted on the walls of every big american newspaper. Maybe that would help them not to write non-historic crap on every article about WW2, even without mentioning the treatment of french “débâcle” , as with the D-Day glory believed in US to be the turning point in Europe. Not very nice to forget the Russians and the real turning point, which symbollically and on the ground were both the battle of Stalingrad.

    You almost never post now, miquelon, but it was worth keeping you in my rss aggregator ;-)

  3. Thibault says:

    @Moktarama : Totally agree with you. I’m thankfull for the americans that free our country but many often forget that they didn’t saved us from nazi germany, we were saved from communist barbary!
    I’m saying this because between 90% and 95% of whermacht losses were made on the eastern front. The Soviet Union would have completely wiped out the third reich anyways.
    I’m often hear something like “without americans you would be speaking german” the truth is that without them we would be singing the international!

  4. I saw the article on Reddit.com yesterday, Eric Margolis has always been very vocal when it comes to the way the French were portrayed by the neo-cons and Washington.

  5. Fred Orth says:

    Read the Reddit.com link that you provided. It is good to know that there is at least some effort out there to try and have an intelligent conversation. I would also say that the “twitter” is a big pain that seems to have a lot of idiots playing with it.  There are simply some idiots who like to play and will jump at the opportunity to stur up people by insulting them on any subject. Starve them of attention and they will die.

  6. Fred Orth says:

    Is everyone on vacation? Is there a strike that I didn’t hear about? Is there a party that I missed? Did everyone go fishing?

  7. André Wernesson says:

    I have gone… basher-fishing *evil, shifty eyes*

  8. Jean-Paul says:

    @thibault
    “We were saved from communiste barbary”
    This is the way Thibault rewrites history. What is meant by this ? The USSR ? But France is situated westwards of Germany and it is very unplausible, not to say absurd, that the Red Army could invade it. Did he mean the French Underground ? But the Communists were only a part (and a minority) of it, with a very limited control ol local territories. 
    Conclusion: You don’t need to be American to write stupid things about French history.    

  9. Satans Thong says:

    Next you’ll be saying that French arrogance is a lie too.
    LOL
    Awesome blog, I assume it’s a parody?
    If not, LOL @ blog even harder!!

    RUN AWAY!!!!

  10. RUN AWAY!!!!

    Make us, coward.

  11. Thibault says:

    OH really? Then why all the countries liberated by USSR turned communist?
    Why is it absurd to say that the russians would have liberated western europe anyways?
    America fought axis and liberated us, but if it didn’t it would have been the russians and france would have turned communist.

    Also I say it again more than 90% of german losses were on the eastern front.

    And how can you pretend this is arrogance to say this? Arrogance would have been to say we liberated ourselves with the (little but brave) Free French Forces?

  12. Thibault says:

    @Jean-Paul you seem to greatly lack knowledge of WWII and especially USSR military power.

    Read some stuffs about Battle of Kursk, Operation Bagration and the battle of Berlin and you’ll see that USSR would have EASILY push westwards of Europe. At the end of the war they had everything an army could need, numbers, technologically advanced weaponry, and they progressed a lot in operationnal strategy.

    The russian army that tried to invade finland was completely different 5 years later and was considered one of  the best army.

  13. André Wernesson says:

    Dear Satans Thong:

    GTFO of Miquelon.org. Racist idiots like yourself aren’t welcome here.

  14. [...] This post was Twitted by miquelon [...]

  15. The allied success in WWII was collabrative effort. I came here via reddit after somebody (probably a troll) made a crude comment. The american right that makes these offensive comments were not at the beach in Normandy for D-day. They just lay claim to the legacy.

  16. Miquelon says:

    Milwaukee CEO makes over 700 K annually, but has the cultural sensitivity of a 12 year old: http://twitter.com/rmeeusen

    @rmeeusen “French taking over Cathedral Square? Yell at them in German and they’ll surrender!”

  17. Fred Orth says:

    Just another example that wealth does not equal intelligence.

  18. Miquelon says:

    Fred, I find it amazing that people are using twitter in a way that demonstrates complete irresponsibility. The business world is usually very sensitive to such comments…

    It’s quite sad to see today that “French” is now first and foremost associated with “Surrender” in American pop culture…

  19. Find out what business/corporation this CEO works for and call for it’s boycott.  Then we will see just how sensitive they are to such comments. 

  20. Miquelon says:

    Poilu, I’ve already contacted the Alliance Française in charge of the festivities at Cathedral Square.

    Richard Meeusen
    CEO – Badger Meter – Co-chair of M7 Water Council

  21. Bastille Day is now a pretext for anti-French hatred on twitter.

  22. Fred Orth says:

    Miquelon, You indicated that there was approximately one per hour. I’m not sure that that construes a “run on the bank”, so to speak. We’ll never see the total end of this stupidicy, France is of consequence and there is always a negative price for importance. The improtant accomplishment, and you are much responsible for this, is the reduction in hatreds’ volume and number.

  23. Miquelon says:

    Correct, this is not a run on the bank but the LONG TAIL I have mentioned many times. I also believe a lot of this is the consequence of Jay Leno’s influence, he brought this meme to the mainstream of US Culture.

  24. Fred Orth says:

    Miquelon, I do get the impression that you have really hit on something here. You seem to be making headway. Good for you!

  25. Taunting the French is a time-honored tradition that predates the existence of the USA. France has honorable individuals and moments in its history, yes.

    Yet the French, as a culture, have frequently (during my lifetime, at least) adopted an attitude of appeasement, as well as an attitude that America is the most evil/dangerous culture on the planet. It is better, it sometimes seems, to have the correct attitude, than it is to acknowledge a reality that does not match the correct attitude. This is one reason why, in post-invasion Iraq, one of the most common ways of saying that someone was lying was “He speaks French.”

    Even apart from that, we’ve got to get even for the way we’re treated when we visit. :) (Again, not by all the French, but by a noticeable contingent of them.)

  26. Thibault says:

    “This is one reason why, in post-invasion Iraq, one of the most common ways of saying that someone was lying was “He speaks French.””

    This is funny to hear this now that most of americans are against the war… do you say “he speaks Bush” nowadays? cause obviously he was lying about WMD.
    It’s true we don’t treat the tourists as they should be treated . Many complains about it and it’s even and acknowledged fact.

    “as well as an attitude that America is the most evil/dangerous culture on the planet” this sentence is total BS though

  27. Fred Orth says:

    D. Jason, Your reference to “taunting” predating the US is correct, but, it is therefore generated by British prejudice, not American. It has been more of a political tool in the US, not a cultural one, and it is embraced by the more conservative elements who use France as a foil for a general dislike for all things foreign.
    The appeasement is a suttle attack on the use of diplomacy. The old “munich” attack is totally misdirected in that the British were the ones trying to control the discussion, and France was in no position to go it alone. In addition, it was the Brits and the US that were pushing France to backdown (checkout “A Strange Defeat”). As far as Iraq is concerned, the French were right and the US was flat wrong, no argument. All in all, the French are truely not guilty of appeasement.

  28. As a Briton who has lived in France I would just like to add my views. The whole French bashing thing  in the USA when Chirac refused to publicy support the Iraq was childish. Just because they didn’t want to go along with the states does not mean they “betrayed” America and does not mean they are cowardly.
    However, quite a lot of French people have forgotten how bad french conduct in the second war was and why they got a reputation for cowardice. They let the British down by surrendering in just three weeks despite assurances that they would fight on and then collobarated with the Nazis sending thousands of jews to the gas chamber. Not a great courage shown by the French state there.
    But French people (except some of the elderly) unlike other European countries such as Holland, Norway or Greece seem to have forgotten that they owe the freedom of their country to the Americans, the British Empire and Canada. I think this is part of the problem, there is a sort of collective amnesia in France which still struggles to come to terms with its past.

  29. Marc @ Miquelon.org says:

    TheBigM – let me answer you in point form.

    World war II.
    We’re not collectively and perpetually guilty of the sins of some.
    The British Expeditionary Force was crushed in as little time as France.
    France saved the BEF at Lille. We lost 100 000 men in 47 days.
    Britain in WW II : Oswald Mosley is nothing to be proud of. Lord Halifax either. You had the English channel. Easy to bragg with that natural barrier between you and Europe.
    Owing you something ? If I were to believe that, I would owe something to the men of WW  II, not some snivelling loser using their sacrifice to score some cheap points. I also would like to quote  the Information & Education Division’ of the US Occupation Forces : We didn’t come to Europe to save the the French, either in 1917 or in 1944. We didn’t come to to Europe to do anyone any favors. We came to Europe because we in America were threatened by a hostile, aggressive and very dangerous power.

    Now have some respect for the men and women of WW II and stop using them as cheap arguments.

  30. The British Expeditary force took back tens of thousands of French, Belgian and Polish troops so this was not some “crushing defeat” as you suggest. We then continued to fight on ON OUR OWN until the USA joined the war
    I am not suggesting the French people were cowardly but the leadership of the country were inept and lacked the courage to fight. That is clear.
    Of course countries enter the war for political reasons. The UK supported France in both world wars because France was seen as a buffer against German aggression. I’m sure the USA was not that bothered about France, but the fact is, France was liberated at the cost of hundreds of thousands of allied lives. Yet no one in France seems to acknowledge this.
    Thanks for the “snivelling loser” comment, how very haughty and French of you.
     

  31. Barney hasn't left the building says:

    You know you’re a troll when you come to anti French-bashing blog to try and justify surrender jokes.

    Owing something to people who think my family and I are cowardly scum who never bathe ? Not in this life

  32. the BigM says:

    You don’t owe anything to me Barney. But you owe the hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers who died for your country some respect. Is that so difficult for you? Perhaps if the French showed a bit more humility they would not be accused of such things. 
    I, for one, think French coward jokes are wrong and I am not trying to justify them.  But, the actions of your government in WW2 regardless of the brave French people who laid down their lives, contributed to this reputation. Those are the facts.

  33. Barney hasn't left the building says:

    You don’t owe anything to me Barney. But you owe the hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers who died for your country some respect.”

    Those people are respected.
    Armchair generals and otherwise French haters who use this sad page in our history to score some kind of moral victory over us nigh to 70 years after the fact. Not so much.

    “if the French showed a bit more humility they would not be accused of such things. ”

    Humility my ass. What you and the other degenerates over at Bremner’s blog want is for us to laugh along as you make fun of the biggest tragedy in French history so you can feel ok about your bigotry.
    Not gonna happen.


    ” WW2 regardless of the brave French people who laid down their lives, contributed to this reputation. Those are the facts.”

    Nobody is proud of France’s leadership in WWII. So what’s your point ?
    You want us to wallow in sorrow and shame for all eternity ? To admit inferiority once and for all to the brave superhuman anglo-saxons ? Keep dreaming.
    Once again if the Brits hadn’t had their island to run back to you’d be singing a different tune right about now.
    And your willingness to remind us of those “facts” leaves very little doubt as for your true intentions.
    Trolls will be trolls.

  34. the BigM says:

    “Once again if the Brits hadn’t had their island to run back to you’d be singing a different tune right about now”

    Such hatred, ignorance and disrepect from you.
    While you are battling to defend France against anti-french comments perhaps I should set up a blog against anti-British comments made by ignorant, uninformed French people like yourself.
    I assume by “running back” to our island you mean the evacuation of Dunkirk or “Operation dynamo” which involved the evacuation of 300, 000 ALLIED soldiers, including 140,00 FRENCH SOLDIERS.
    In this “running back” 177 RAF planes were shot down  and 200 boats sunk. I presume you know all this though? 

          

  35. Marc @ Miquelon.org says:

    Looks like you’re a master of dishing out historical histrionics but you can’t take it when it’s served back at you. We can debate WW II till the cows come home, fact is nobody has any right to lecture anyone on the actions of some nor to use the sacrifice of others to score cheap points.

  36. Barney hasn't left the building says:

    Looks like you’re a master of dishing out historical histrionics but you can’t take it when it’s served back at you.

     
    Exactly.
    It’s always the same story with those guys.
    They come here to troll their asses off and when they ‘ve pissed everybody off they act all offended when we dare protest.
    And yes the Brits ran as fast as the French after the initial humiliation inflicted on the Allies by the German army but the only difference was that the Brits had somewhere to run to whereas that was pretty much it for the French in France.
    Geographical circumstances allowed the Brits to regroup and fight back Not because they were more courageous than the French. Wether you like it or not.

  37. EdgeOfDark says:

    Hi readers,

    I agree that French Bashing is stupid, especially since my great grandad fought alongside some of the bravest Frenchmen on the planet at the time. For me to ridicule France would have me ridiculing the deeds and memory of those soldiers and my ancestor.

    But…

    When you lump me into a gang of Hateful, Bigotted, Arrogant, and Thoughtless people just because I Retweeted a pointless, non-threatening sqib, it makes me very angry, and makes me wonder who really is the Hateful, Bigotted, Arrogant, and Reactionary Ass.

  38. Marc @ Miquelon.org says:

    EdgeOfDark, my apologies if we led you to think that. I’ve been running an experiment on twitter for some months right now and I respond to all messages about “french surrender”. When I am done with the experiment, I will write a post about it and review the positive / negative outcome of such an activist form of twittering.

    I really hope you do get a chance to read some of the content here and learn more about our issue. Sorry again if I was too brusk with you.

  39. Many thanks for bringing Eric Margolis’ piece to my attention. It is very thorough, lucid, and balanced. It is only unfortunate that it will not really influence French-bashers, since it is based on facts, something those people are not interested in.

    After reading his article I, too, would like to say “merci, cher confrère”.

    For the record: I too am a journalist, I’m French and I live in London.

    Also: my thanks to you for this blog.

  40. Salut Xavier, désolé de retard de ma réponse, c’est un peu la baston entre certains utilisateurs dans les autres sections du site.

    Thanks for giving us some positive feedback, it’s much appreciated.

  41. Learn to take a joke. It’s called a stereotype folks. Stereotypes aren’t necessarily true, and usually they’re exaggerations. White people will always be known for not being able to dance, black men for having large [Comment rule 4], Asians for not being able to drive, blondes for being dumb, and Germans for being Nazis. When used as an insult, yes, it’s not cool, but come on. A joke is a joke. If you’re French and someone makes a surrender joke it’s not a reflection on you, your friends, ancestors, or whatever. It’s based on a stereotype that was generated by one or more instances of it happening, but not absolute fact.

  42. Brook, thanks for dropping by. The issue of what is or is not an acceptable joke has been debated on this site time and time again. All the stereotypes you mention are indeed common, but it does not make them right. By accepting them as merely jokes, you are perpetuating these stereotypes while you – and we – should all strive to do better and know better.

    A joke is not just a joke. Because of social norms and pressures, certain jokes are not longer acceptable today. We – the French  – do not have large lobbies to remind people of the offensive nature of some of those anti-French jokes people repeat with impunity. Our job is to redress this.

    Let me also remind you that you joke about anything, just not with anyone. [quote from Pierre Desproges]

  43. On a similar topic: How to Respond to a Racist Joke
    If you’re a follower, you’ll laugh along at all racist / xenophobic jokes.
    If you’re a leader, you’ll know how to show appropriate dissaproval.

  44. “And yes the Brits ran as fast as the French after the initial humiliation inflicted on the Allies by the German army but the only difference was that the Brits had somewhere to run to whereas that was pretty much it for the French in France.”
    Not exactly true Barny – France had overseas colonies and could have continued to fight the Germans from there. In fact, the prime minister of the time Paul Reynaud wanted to fight on, but other political figures chose not too however and surrended during the mass panic.
    I agree that it is wrong to mock “French cowardice” in this day and age, but the French leadership hardly covered themselves in glory during this period. 
    Denigrating the British for “running away” however, isn’t really correct and won’t do your cause any favours AT ALL. Of course, the Channel helped Britain as it has saved us against other agressive forces like Napolean and the Spanish Armada.
    I respect you right to fight against “French bashing” but don’t criticise the British and suggest that we would have surrended if it wasn’t for the Channel. Nobody knows what would have happened and Britain had a very large empire at that point that could have continued to fight the Germans.

     

     

  45. Barney hasn't left the building says:

    Keep your lectures to yourself, my “friend”.

    You people throw at us half truths and histrionics constantly. I do the same in return.
    You don’t wanna to be offended then lecture your people not to start the bashing.

  46. To Barney:
    Your reply to The Big M  –Post 45–   was “right on”.  The British haven’t been “right” since Hastings; inasmuch, the freeing of the Celtic element from their Saxon overlords  by William the Conquerer did overturn the status of affairs. William’s first act upon taking the island was to have  slave collars, found placed round the necks of the former  –so-called knaves, to be removed.  Among chores relegated to the knave had been that of a runner  –   to follow, on foot, his mounted master in service to his needs (poor fellow) . . . . . . .and it  follows, an old saying emanating from the Celts of that day, was to the affect that  –   A stare from the Saxon was enough to chill the blood !  And so we see the English mind-set  –of perpetuity, existing in resentment against the French to this day.  What a shame; for, the English gained so much from that conquest as be incalculable; i.e., the following period of  imposed French culture.  Mentioned is the Doomsday Book, the  Bayeaux Tapestry that marked the beginning of this transfer, a transfer that included all branches of learning and discipline extant ! 
    I guess what we can learn from the foregoing is to never take away a man’s servant nor his slave.

  47. you are a [tos 3: vulgarity] that picks out 1 tweet to satisfy [tos: personal attack] that is obviously spent defending your country’s supposed honour, get a [tos 3: vulgarity] life….if you bothered to read more than 1 tweet of mine you would realise that I stated instantly that it was a joke and i love France and many french people that i know ……you , [tos 3: vulgarity] ,categorically don’t come in that group ……[tos: personal attack] and get a [tos 3: vulgarity] proper life….i also mock the welsh ,scottish english and some ….but they can take a joke …now fuck off you [tos 3: vulgarity]…

  48. André Wernesson says:

    And you, sir, are a brilliant example of the average French-basher. Smart, refined, and polite. /sarcasm

  49. the sheer fact that Andre Wernesson had to put “sarcasm” at the end of his comment about me being a French basher ,goes to show that he isn’t confident in someone realising it was meant as sarcasm…I however have the intelligence to realise that even a very poor and unamusing little comment like that is sarcasm …I also have a sense of humour so find something very funny him calling me  a basher,as in english coloquialism,that is a person that [tos 2 & tos 3] .So he is saying that i [tos 2 & tos 3] the french ,well it is obvious they need no help with that if he is anything to go by.And as for me not being polite ,well,the irony .

  50. Barney hasn't left the building says:

    [[Not exactly true Barny – France had overseas colonies and could have continued to fight the Germans from there]]

    And that’s exactly what the French did.
    Thank you for showing your ignorance yet again.

  51. Barney hasn't left the building says:



    @oxo, would you be interested to see the sarcastic list of the names of the 1.3 French soldiers who died in WWI ?
    I got hundreds of sarcastic pictures of monuments to the dead in France as well if you’re interested.
    How about a sarcastic picture of the the twin towers on fire ? How many Americans does it take to defend a skyscraper ? Don’t know. Never been tried.
    You have kids huh ? Are they little xenophobes like their dad ?

    [[i tied a  my neighbours cat's tail today and lit it ,neighbour was devestated but the cat was over the moon.......]]

    Yeah, the cutting edge of comedy all right…

  52. Barney hasn't left the building says:

    ^^
    That’s 1.3 millions if you had any “jokes” in mind

  53. America lost of 400k men in 4 years.  That still is less than the 500k Frenchmen that surrended when the Germans captured the Marginot line from the rear SEVEN days.  A big shocker here the French built the Marginot line but failed to complete it on the Belgian border. Those HUNS would never be smart enought to bypass the Marginot line by invading Belgium, would they? 
    Then let’s not start on how many French were more than complicit  with the Germans rounding up Jews to send to camps. 

    Then we have the VICHY issue. 

  54. elvis – the points you raise have been dealt with over and over on this site.

    In a few words, the point I am trying to make is that mocking the French defeat of 1940 is as offensive to us as making jokes about any national tragedy such as 9/11.

    Did France Surrender in 1940? You bet.
    Does that make the French cowards? No.
    Remember, historical facts do not make character traits.

    If you read your history, if you read about the 100 000 men who died in those few days, if you read about the saving of the British Expeditionary Force, the Battle of Lille, you will understand the French were not cowards. The leadership betrayed the country and they were put on trial for that by the end of the war. Imagine that.

    About the Maginot line, yes it was not the most brilliant move. Neither was going into Vietnam, Somalia or Afghanistan. All countries have their moments of glory and moments of great defeats and some cases embarrassment. Nobody has a monopoly on any of these outcomes.

    About the Holocaust, yes anti-semitism was very prevalent in all of Europe at that time and some French “intellectuals” were very involved in the propagation of those theories (De Gobineau, Maurras…). But America also had its share of issues between the German American Bund, Henry Ford and Joe Kennedy’s open admiration for the IIIrd Reich and Adolf Hitler, the issue of Anti-semitism was widespread in the world at the time. Nobody once again had a monopoly on this scourge.

    About Vichy, did you know that America refused to recognize the Free French, those who kept on fighting the war, but recognized Vichy officially? Did you know that when the Free French liberated French islands in North America that Roosevelt and Cordell Hull asked for their expulsion and the reinstatement of the Vichy governors? Of course you didn’t…

  55. Not to mention the CIA helping Nazi war criminals to escape in order to use them in the fight against communism. People like Reinhardt Gehlen, Wehrner Von Braun or Klaus Barbie. Worse than anything Vichy did, in my mind, because by that time, everybody knew the extent of the atrocities committed by the nazis. Wiki “Paperclip”.

  56. American racism does not compare to helping the Germans round up Jews and send them to death camps.  Kennedy’s admired the Nazi’s, I have not seen any evidence that suggest he was helping them round up Jews.  Those comparisons are like apples to oranges.

    I am sure American’s did give deserving Black soldiers their pensions, which is more than I can say for the Algerian’s that fought for France.

    You see it’s easy to cherry pick your facts.

  57. Elvis, Oh if you only knew. Remember the Vetern camps in DC in the thirties (they never did get a dime of the $10,000 bonus they were due)? Remember all of the Veterns whose records were “lost” after WWII – mostly minorities? I remember that my brother couldn’t even get a gravemarker because his Naval record had been lost. Personally, I am told that I am due a pension for my injuries, but, the Army had my records burned in St Louis. Yea, the US really cares about its’ Vets!

  58. Barney hasn't left the building says:

    I am sure American’s did give deserving Black soldiers their pensions,

    Care to expand on that ?

  59. Elvis, you wrote “You see it’s easy to cherry pick your facts.” – My point precisely, that’s what you did, so we responded in kind. Historical histrionics gets you knowhere and becomes a vessel for prejudice.

  60. This site is very entertaining. I particularly enjoy the deranged comments of Fred (midwest) whose lack of understanding of British history is staggering.
    Apparently, according to this great scholar, the British still resent the French because of the Norman conquest in 1066!!! This is bizarre and wrong on so many levels.
    Firstly, it would be wrong to see the Normans as “French”. They spoke French, but were only two generations away from Vikings who had been granted the land of Normandy by the FRENCH king.
    The Normans were hardly a beacon of civilization either. They brutally overthrew all the native landowners and completely destroyed one of most sophisticated governmental systems in Europe at the time. Tens of thousands and English emigrated under this repressive regime.  If that is French culture then it is nothing much to shout about.
    The idea that the Normans “freed” the Celts is absolutely bizarre and makes no sense at all. The ‘Celts’  were dominant in England before the ROMAN CONQUEST and by the time of the Saxon invasions took place in the 4-5 centuries were pushed to the western fringes of the British Isles. I’m not sure how they were freed considering most of them were assimilated into the Anglo-Saxon culture.
    The Normans also invaded two Celtic countries Wales and Ireland, how did the Normans, oh sorry, “French” save them. By invading their countries??
    To suggest also that there was a transfer of learning from the Normans to the English just shows your lack of knowledge about Anglo-Saxon England.
    I look forward to laughing out loud at your next unintentionally hilarious post.
     

  61. André Wernesson says:

    So basically, if two generations ago your family came to the US, you’re not “American”? So much for the melting pot. Double standard much?

    The Normans spoke French, had adopted French customs and are REFERRED TO AS “FRENCH” in the Bayeux tapestry. So much for your racist and half-assed theories.

  62. André – You show no understanding of the history of the time.
    How were the Normans “French” if Normandy was not then part of France? If was not controlled by France until 1204. 
    How could the Normans be French if they were not ethically French and did not live in France?  Just because they spoke a language similar to French?
    You are not making any sense. You cannot live in Canada and claim to be American just because you speak the same language and have the same customs;
    Racist??  No, I just understand history.

  63. Barney hasn't left the building says:

    Typical of the French haters.

    Next thing you know the Big M is gonna tell us that Napoleon wasn’t French…


    [[To suggest also that there was a transfer of learning from the Normans to the English just shows your lack of knowledge about Anglo-Saxon England.
    ]]

    lul what ?

    I’ve rarely seen someone flaunt their ignorance in such a blatant way.

  64. André Wernesson says:

    Sorry, but you don’t know shit about history. The Bayeux Tapestry refers to your beloved “Normans” as FRANCI: Franks, in English. “Regnum Francorum” — Kingdom of the Franks, or Kingdom of France.

    Sone quotes from the Bayeux Tapestry:

    HIC FRANCI PUGNANT.”

    “HIC CECIDERUNT SIMUL ANGLI ET FRANCI IN PRELIO.”

    So where are your “Normans” now? I’ll give you a hint: there isn’t a single reference to “Normans” in the entire tapestry. So read up before spewing BS. The Normans were ethnically French, they had been assimilated by French culture, spoke French and had adopted French customs.

  65. Barny- Obviously, disagreeing with you means that I hate France. Brilliant reasoning Sherlock. Unfortunately, the dictator Napolean was certainly French. You can keep him.

    André – There were indeed some French troops in the  Norman army along with Bretons and Flemings. Were the Bretons and Flemings ethically French also? What do you mean by ethically French?
    If this was a French army, where was the French king? I believe there was
    a king of France at the time.
    Normandy was not part of France at the time, it was a vassal state and the references in the Bayeux tapestry (perhaps the earliest piece of political propaganda) may have been inserted for the benefit of the king of France.
    Barny – So what great gifts did the Normans give us then, apart from some Norman French words?

  66. And of course, it was defeat to this mighty “French” army that scarred Britain for ever.
    How could we ever forgive them?  I can’t stop laughing!!!

  67. Barney hasn't left the building says:

    Is the Big M going to be the new trollie ?

    Troll, no one spends that much time on an anti French-bashing blog (of all places) to try and justify French-bashing by bringing up every negative things they can think of about French history if they don’t hav a major axe to grind about the French.
    You’re not fooling anyone.

    French was the spoken language at the English court for centuries after the Norman invasion. Dieu et mon droit etc… Over 60% of the English language has its origins in French
    So when you make statements such as,

    [[To suggest also that there was a transfer of learning from the Normans to the English just shows your lack of knowledge about Anglo-Saxon England.
    ]]

    you’re making an ass out of yourself and displaying your ignorance for all to see.

    You can keep him.

    Yeah we’ll keep him and shove him down the throat of all the armchair generals who obsessively mock the French military, which of course you know nothing about.

  68. Barny, I have no argument with you, but I felt I had to reply to the absolute nonsense written by Fred (midwest)
    By the way, English owes around 28% of its words to French/Old Norman.  This is not really a great transfer of knowledge though. I guess we have to thank you for those words though

  69. Barney hasn't left the building says:

    [[By the way, English owes around 28% of its words to French/Old Norman.  This is not really a great transfer of knowledge though. I guess we have to thank you for those words though]]

    It’s closer to 60% and it is a huge transfer.

    Even 28% would be enormous.
    That’s more 1/4th of the language. That’s not consequent enough for you ?

  70. André Wernesson says:

     There were indeed some French troops in the  Norman army along with Bretons and Flemings.

    I’m afraid you don’t understand — FRANCI is meant to designate THE ENTIRE ARMY. Not ONCE in the ENTIRE TAPESTRY does the word “Norman” appear. Only FRANCI. That means “the Franks”. So unless you can explain why the name French would be used to designate a “small minority”…

    Furthermore, you ask “why wasn’t there a French king?

    There was a King of France, but the King of France was a Primus Inter Pares — a lord only slightly above the others. He had his own lands, just like any other lord — in this case, the lands around Paris, the Île-de-France — but he had little authority over the other great lords (dukes, &c.) who saw him as a peer rather than as a boss.

    Of course, even though they weren’t under the direct authority of the King of France, these lords were still French. As was William, duke of Normandy.

    the references in the Bayeux tapestry (perhaps the earliest piece of political propaganda) may have been inserted for the benefit of the king of France.

    Nice try, but the tapestry was made waaaay outside the jurisdiction of the King of France. You understand “King” in a modern way, not in an 11th century way. The king back then was just a slightly bigger lord. He only had real authority in his own lands, and little to no political authority, let alone in others’ duchies. This tapestry was made in Normandy in William’s own jurisdiction. If anything, it was William’s propaganda, certainly not the king of France’s!

    Keep in mind, theBigM, that a proper monarchy with a king exerting real authority over his nobility will only start to crystallize towards the end of the Middle Ages, and especially during the Early Modern Age.

  71. The French have been surrendering before the birth of Christ…Gallic times. The reputation is earned.  The last time the French won a war they were led by a schizophrenic chick which they promptly burned.

  72. (frenchie?) your comment is inane. Do some reading.

  73. Fred O.  – I do not believe poster #71 can read very well at all, but instead parrots what is being told to him/her/it. It’s the usual and obvious temperamental behaviour commonly displayed by all French-bashers.  An accurate description of French-bashers would read  -  historicaly illiterate, condecending arrogance, revulsion of facts, a duty-bound sense of vain-glorification in their own immaturity, very feeble arguementation, highly influential by the last things they’ve seen/heard, a complete disregard for their own integrity, and as always…with one or both thumbs up their collective asses.  How can I be offended by people who have yet to stop wearing diapers, whether out of necessity or some perverted fetish?

    We have a saying in France (paraphrasing):  To be so despised by such a bunch of complete and utter morons, is truely an honor.    Brokeback-Mountaineer circle-jerkers…..all of  them!

  74. Barney hasn't left the building says:

    #71

    And yet France is the biggest country in Western Europe.
    I guess all that land mass was given to us for free by Britain, Spain, Prussia/Germany and all the countries surrounding us and is not the result of 1500 years of warfare.

    It’s easier to remain invasion free when your only neighbors have been Canada and Mexico.
    Oh wait didn’t the Canadians kick your ass in 1812 ? lol

    And I won’t even mention the fact that you people claim credit for winning WWI and WWII single handedly. What a joke.

  75. Conquering a country, deposing its nobility and imposing a language is not a “transfer of knowledge” though is it? It is colonialism. 
    Opinion is very much divided as to whether the Norman conquest was a positive thing for England.  Some see it as the moment when England lost certain freedoms which were never returned and a repressive and greedy Norman nobility was put in place.
    England at this point lost its Scandinavian influence and became more influenced by continental European. This is a shame as we can see today that the Scandinavian countries are much more progressive and socially just than most other western European countries.
     André – you are wrong in your point about the monarchy. England became a unified country in 927 and had a king (Athelstan) that ruled the entire country. SO England did have a “King of the English”  In fact the list of English monarchs starts in 827. It should also be noted that Athelstan’s forces  interveaned in France to restore the Frankish line of kings.
     Barney – Why would you want to celebrate Napolean? A man responsible for 6 million deaths and re-introducing slavery???
      

      

  76. Barney hasn't left the building says:

    Conquering a country, deposing its nobility and imposing a language is not a “transfer of knowledge” though is it? It is colonialism.

    OK.
    Go whine somewhere else now.


  77. I’ve read Walter Scott and variou stories about Robin Hood, so I know about how the bad Normans put the poor Saxons into servitude. However, Robin Hood and Ivanhoe (and other saxons) were a bunch of hypocrites. After all, hadn’t they conquered Britain first, displacing the Celts towards Wales, Cornwall and Britanny? In fact, the word for English in breton is “Saozhon”. Says all, doesn’t it?

  78. André Wernesson says:

    SO England did have a “King of the English”

    You’ve missed the point. there was a “King of the French” as well. The difference lies in what that title implies — the King only had de facto power upon his own patrimonial lands. The gradual consolidation of the monarch’s power over his entire territory is a long and slow process which would last until the Early Modern age with the advent of absolutism.

  79. honestly i love the french people it was merely a joke

  80. André Wernesson says:

    Hey no problem, thanks for the comment! :)

  81. I’m not sure taking offense at meaningless jokes is the best way to refute the “French = Spineless” stereotype. You risk reinforcing or intensifying the misconception. I understand the point you’re making, but come on. I think most people understand we’re joking about a false notion just for laughs. Sometimes it’s fun to laugh. Give up the thought-police act long enough to try it, and you’ll see what I mean.

    The “all Americans are stupid” jokes can get annoying as well, but there’s no point in reprimanding everyone who makes such a comment on Twitter. I just try not to be an idiot and move on.

  82. Barney hasn't left the building says:

    There’s been a lot of surrender’ jokes today on tweeter, apparently.

    @Adam

    I’m sure surrender ‘jokes’ are hilarious to you and your American friends.
    They are a lot less funny to us French people. It was a humiliating period and a lot of of people died.

    What’s the most humiliating, biggest catastrophe in modern American history ?
    Please tell us so we can use that to  flood the Internet with ‘jokes’.

  83. Gérard – Are you for real? You have read Walter Scott novels and you think you know about England and the Saxons? These were romantic fiction novels written for a mass audience in the 19th century!
    I also enjoyed the casual racism, i.e. that saxons are “hypocrites” that’s a bit like saying that the French are “cowardly” isn’t it?
    A bit of history also:  The Saxons and Angles turned up in the 5th century AD after the Romans left,  5 centuries before the Norman invasion, so the Angles, Saxons and Celts would have had a fair chance integrating by then!
    It’s the same thing as the Normans (or French as some people claim) did in England in 1066, but do the English go on about how they were “oppressed” by the Normans? No, they do not.
    I assume you must have some Celtic blood as you perpetuate the myths about the Saxon oppression of the “Celts” (whoever they are), which is utter nonsense. Who oppressed the Bretons in France, was that the English also?
    You don’t have to dig very deep on this site to find anti-English sentiment do you? 

  84. Indrid Cold says:

    Mes amis français, J’ai trouvé deux bonnes blagues françaises que je veux partager avec vous :

    Question : Combien de français faut-il pour défendre Paris ?
    Réponse : Personne ne sait, ils n’ont jamais essayé !

    Question : Pourquoi trouve-t-il les arbres toute au long de la Champs-Elysée ?
    Réponse : Pour que les allemands puissent marcher dans l’ombre !

    Vive la France !

  85. Marc @ Cormier says:

    Indrid, vos blagues sentent le réchauffé. La 1e fut d’ailleurs racontée par un membre du Congrès américain, un certain Roy Blount qui a eu le culot de se présenter à une soirée à l’honneur du président Sarkozy quelques années plus tard. Un hypocrite de première classe dirons nous.

    La seconde blague est fort connue, elle aussi date de la campagne anti-française de 2003 et montre à quel point certains manque de respect à la mémoire. Qu’importe, nous sommes dans un monde d’éternel comiques …

  86. Barney hasn't left the building says:

    Question: Combien faut-il d’américains dans un avion pour arrêter une poignée de musulmans armés de…cutters ?
    Réponse:  Personne ne sait, ils n’ont jamais essayé !

    Question: Combien faut-il d’américains pour défendre un gratte ciel ?
    Réponse:  Personne ne sait, ils n’ont jamais essayé !


    You don’t have to dig very deep on this site to find anti-English sentiment do you?

    Any guess as to what might have caused this anti-English sentiment ? Think wisely.

  87. Pour notre “ami” Indrid Cold, qui a tant d’humour,

    Question: Combien de avocats sont mort en 9/11?
    Reponse:  Pas assez.
    Question: Pourquoi la marine naval US a Pearl harbor ont ils des vitrines dans les coques de leurs navires?
    Reponse: Pour mieux voir les navires de l’ancien marine naval US a Pearl Harbor.

    Allons, nous allons tous rigoler ensembles. 
     

  88. Barney: I have no idea what causes some of your contributors anglophobia. But I will try and guess.
    Is it the fact that thousands of British and Commonwealth soldiers lost their lives liberating France?
    Is is the fact that we sheltered the “Free French” leader De Gaulle in London during the war only for him to later veto our membership of the EU?
    Is it because we lost one million troops in the first world war fighting in France, on France’s side?
    Is it because we were not defeated by Napoleon?
    Who knows? But the roots of anglophobia lay deep.  In fact, they probably date back to 1338 when Philip VI of France issued the Ordinance of Normandy which called for a second Norman conquest to “destroy and eliminate the entire nation and the English language”.

    As for those with supposed “celtic” ancestry – I imagine they are clinging to some kind of notion of victimhood, initially based on readings of history that have been more or less been disproved, i.e. the angles and saxons wiped out the Britons, etc. This has now been proved as incorrect.  How could 200,000 angles, saxons and jutes wipe out 3-4 million britons?
    It has also now been shown by recent DNA testing in the British Isles that the whole “celtic” thing is more complicated than initially thought. In fact, parts of England are just as “celtic” as southern Scotland and the dominant DNA in the Welsh and Irish is pre-celtic rather than Celtic.
    So England is just as much a celtic country as Scotland or Ireland.
    It should be remembered that it was the Norman (or French, according to some people here) kings who first invaded Ireland not the “Saxons”. But I suppose that won’t stop inane comments about how “evil” the saxons were to the “Celts”

       
      

  89. Barney hasn't left the building says:

    Barney: I have no idea what causes some of your contributors anglophobia. But I will try and guess.
     
    You have answered your own question in your little rant below.
    But not in the way you’re thinking.

  90. Barney hasn't left the building says:

    I see there’s been a lot of twitter and otherwise hate lately.
    No matter what the circumstances are, a handball at a football game shouldn’t be enough to warrant this much hate.
    Don’t be so apologetic about it, miquelon.

    The people who insult us over this are the same people who insult us over pretty much anything anyway.
    Francophobia is a real disease among English-speaking countries.
    That is the real disgrace here.

  91. The apology about Henry is to initiate dialog. I’ve notice, with the Irish (of which I am a member of diaspora) – that there are ten times more sincere apologies than from Americans.

    The “surrender meme” has been transported accross the entire “anglosphere”, from the US to Britain, to South Africa and now Ireland. The “long tail” I often refer to is not only long – but wide.

  92. Marc @ Cormier says:

    We’ve inspired Incessant Ranting’s latest podcast, available via iTunes. Worst faux-French accent ever, somewhere between Borat and Jackie Mason.

  93. Barney hasn't left the buliding says:

    ^^
    Is that AtheistNation person bashing the French in his podcast as well ?

  94. Yes I am bashing them in my podcast as well. Not in any serious way though. Glen Beck is serious. I, as always, was fuckin’ around. Hope to have Miquelon on the show this week. Oh and sorry about the accent, no one should have to suffer through that. (@atheistNation)

  95. Barney hasn't left the buliding says:

    #94
    Yeah, yeah you’re a great humanitarian.

  96. André Wernesson says:

    I listened to your podcast, AtheistNation, and what you did was pretty lame. All you did was rehash crappy old stereotypes and jokes to pick on a guy who wasn’t even there to answer back. Miquelon certainly isn’t anti-American, and yet that’s what you were basically pushing for the first five minutes. Why don’t you grow a pair and invite him over to your show?

  97. Barney hasn't left the buliding says:

    Miquelon is anti-American now ?
    What a load of BS.

    Americans routinely “joking” about the French being cowards, smelly etc is A- OK but French people taking offense at being called cowards (practically on a daily freaking basis) is for some reason anti-Americanism now ?

    Once again the French-haters and their ilk show us what a bunch of hypocritical morons they really are with a God complex to boot.
    Apparently, they feel entitled to shit on anybody with total impunity but cry bloody murder if we dare do the same thing in return.

  98. Today, two more French soldiers were killed in A-stan.  The Taliban and the anti-French Americans are rejoicing.

  99. [...] nice link Miquelon.org – The Fighting French » About That “French Surrender” Thing .. brought to me by miquelon on Twitter. March 4th, 2010 by Temple Posted in URLs | No Comments [...]

  100. What is it about the English that causes them to be so ‘unsufferable’?  That question has been asked by most people of the nations of the world. If you travel  thru certain states of the U.S. –those known to have been heavily settled by these people, the presence of roadside litter might serve as the indicator of their progeny; or, ‘something lacking’ in their make-up.  The effect of the English on others not of their kind is also remarkable as an indicator and for this we can take a look at the Ulster Irish and how they view themselves in relation to their blood cousins, the Dublin Irish.  This association, English and Northern Irish, has caused the latter to become most proud; i.e., defining himself as most superior –in fact, not wanting to have anything to do with that long-ago cousin.  The English mein of superiority is shown to have been  ‘rubbed off’ here and there is no other way to look at it !  A person might say:  If you wish to perfect an Irishman (Celt) he must adopt English ways and attitudes.  Need we be reminded of the cult-figures a la Bond, etc.
    To the Big M:  Your comments sound like those of ‘a Celt on the make’, sucking up in what has to be the sorry pathway to advancement.

  101. TheBigM says:

    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.

  102. AlexleBrit says:

    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.

  103. Gerard says:

    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?

  104. Barney hasn't left the buliding says:

    “”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.

  105. “”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.

  106. 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.

  107. theBigM says:

    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.

     

  108. theBigM says:

    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. 

  109. 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.

  110. 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.

  111. Grubby is demanding respect.

    LMAO

    Eat shit.

  112. Fred Orth says:

    Barney, you’re such a clever diplomat!

  113. 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

  114. 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.

  115.  “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?

  116. 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?

  117. 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.

  118. 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.

  119. 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.

  120. Et tu Luke ?

    LukeRussert Luke Russert

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

  122. “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

  123. 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

  124. 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

  125. 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

  126. 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

  127. 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

  128. 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.

  129. 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

  130. 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.

  131. 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

  132. 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

  133. #troll

    • Kevin Berger says:

      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.

  134. 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

Leave a Reply