interesting background informations about France
waggg
>Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of
>French history, France is conquered by, of all things, an Italian...
Inform yourself, and you will understand that there nothing really
humiliating in that. The Gauls Won many battles and almost won but
caesar was decidedly a great and strong-willed stratege and helped by
germanic tribes cavalry (BTW there were gauls in the roman legions too
at this time). It was mainly the inter-gallic disputes that caused their
defeat finally, and some strategical mistakes at Alesia.
BTW the gauls in the past invaded Roma, ransacked delphia (Greece) and
invaded turkey (thence the Galates).
>Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, but saved at the last minute by a Female
>schizophrenic who inadvertantly creates The First Rule Of French Warfare;
>"France's Armies Are Only Victorious When Not Led By A Frenchman"...
Some battles were won, some battles were lose, finally the stuff was
going bad (about 120 yrs later) anyway the english had some 'french
allies (burgundians) and the knights and soldiers fighting the
english/burgundians were french, Jehanne d'arc (Joan of Arc) didn't
fight the intruders alone ...
You should remeber what is at the origin of this conflict : in 1066 the
Duke of Normandia (France) invaded England and won at Hastings, what
explains that the french language was the official language of the
english court at least 2 centuries, and that explains that TODAY, you're
talking in a huge part in old french your whole day (in fact almost
everytime that you open your mouth) - BTW nowadays the motto of the
English monarchy is : "Dieu et Mon Droit" ( french ) and the motto of
the Most Noble Order of the Garter, which was founded in 1348 by King
Edward III as a noble fraternity consisting of the King, the Prince of
Wales (or heir-apparent to the throne) and 24 Knights Companion is
"Honni soit qui mal y pense".
Plantagenêts is nor saxon neither angles ...
>Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first & only country ever to lose
>two wars when fighting Italians...
More precisions needed we won some wars VS italians, with françois the
1st ! We brought back Leonardo da
Vinci from those wars. Read about the Bayard knight BTW.
Are you talking about war VS Charles Quint (the 5th) because you should
be informed that it is a lot more difficult to win when you're fighting
a mega-power and that you're not one
yourself ....
>Wars Of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huegonots...
? ? ? anyway it's Huguenots. Well more precisions needed, for what I
know we won and in fact even if at one
moment english were implied, they left before fighting AFAIK. If i'm
wrong highlight it. Oh BTW, the Huguenots were French.
>Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to
>get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually, the other
>participant began ignoring her...
Wrong ! we were implied from 1635 to 1648 and it was rather a favorable
upshot AFAIK.
Sheesh ! what about the Franco-sapnish war that we totally won (gaining
territories) wise-ass !
Strangely enough, your memory seems selective !;-)
>War Of Devolution - Tied...
>The Dutch War - Tied...
No. We won AFAIK. We won many territories and cities.
>War Of The Augsburg League/King William's War/French And Indian War - All
who VS who, count the armies and the soldiers.
The seven years war : humiliation, true ! (I want just highlight the
fact that in north america in 1754, the
french were 85,000 in the "Nouvelle France" and the english people were
1,485,634 in New England...
IN 1763, we lost : India (bar 5 cities), Ohio, Canada, left side of the
Mississipi, Antilles (bar 3 islands) and Senegal (that will be retaken
later)
>Lost, but claimed as ties. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles
>the world over to label this period as the height of French military
>power...
>
>The War Of Spanish Succession - Lost...
Anyway it's a Bourbon (french dynasty) on the Spanish throne, isn't it ?
>American Revolution - In a move that will become familiar to future American
>generations, France claims a win even though American colonists saw far More
>action. This is later known as "The De Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to The
>Second Rule Of Fench Warfare; " France Only Wins When America Does Most Of
>The Fighting"...
http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html
read from the start to the end. Just do it, wiseass !
--
To understand the background of the Revolutionary War, it is necessary
to understand the history of the preceding twenty years, and especially
the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763). The Seven Years’ War was fought by the
European colonial powers from Canada to the West Indies and from Europe
to far-flung colonial empires in India and the Phillippines. In North
America, we know the part of the Seven Years' war that was fought here
as the French and Indian Wars. The Seven Years' War was largely a
disaster for France and her allies. In the aftermath of the war, which
resulted in the loss of most French territory in North America and
India, the French instituted sweeping reform of the army and navy. The
French army that landed in Newport in 1781 was the product of this
thorough and fundamental reorganization.
The English victory, however, was dearly bought. The cost of fielding
the army that secured the safety of the English colonies was tremendous.
This expense, together with the continuing cost of protecting these
colonies after the war, led to English demands that the American
colonists contribute to the cost of their own protection. As a result, a
series of Acts of Parliament imposed a variety of taxes on the colonists
during the 1760s and early 1770s. For many colonists, the chains that
had linked them to Britain for almost 150 years became the chains of
servitude, foreign domination and unjust tyranny. These taxes ultimately
fueled the tensions and passions that burst into flames on Lexington
Green on April 19, 1775.
From the outbreak of armed rebellion in 1775, many in France sympathized
with the colonists. Young, idealistic French officers like the Marquis
de Lafayette volunteered their services and in many cases their personal
wealth to help equip, train and lead the fledgling Continental army. The
French government hoped to redress the balance of power that resulted
from the French humiliation in the Seven Years Wars, which gave
considerable economic and military advantages to Britain. While
maintaining formal neutrality, France assisted in supplying arms,
uniforms and other military supplies to the American colonists.
This clandestine assistance became open after the defeat of General
Burgoyne at Saratoga in 1777, which demonstrated the possibility of
British defeat in the conflict and led to French recognition of the
colonies in February 1778. As a result of the victory of the Continental
forces at Saratoga, Benjamin Franklin, who had gone to Paris as
ambassador in 1776, was able to negotiate a Treaty of Amity and Commerce
and a Treaty of Alliance with France. From this point, French support
became increasingly significant. The French extended considerable
financial support to the Congressional forces. France also supplied
vital military arms and supplies, and loaned money to pay for their
purchase.
French military aid was also a decisive factor in the American victory.
French land and sea forces fought on the side of the American colonists
against the British. At the same time, British and French (and to a
lesser extent, Dutch and Spanish) forces fought for colonial wealth and
empire around the world. From 1778 through 1783 -- two years after the
defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown -- French forces fought the British in
the West Indies, Africa and India.
From the perspective of the American Revolution, however, the high point
of French support is the landing of five battalions of French infantry
and artillery in Rhode Island in 1780. In 1781, these French troops
under the command of Count Rochambeau marched south to Virginia where
they joined Continental forces under Washington and Lafayette.
Cornwallis, encamped on the Yorktown peninsula, hoped to be rescued by
the British navy. A French fleet under the command of Admiral DeGrasse
intercepted and, after a fierce battle lasting several days, defeated
the British fleet and forced it to withdraw. This left the French navy
to land heavy siege cannon and other supplies and trapped Cornwallis on
the Yorktown peninsula.
At that point, the defeat of Cornwallis was essentially a matter of
time. On September 14, 1781, the French and Continental armies completed
their 700 mile march and soon thereafter laid siege to the British
positions. After a number of weeks and several brief but intense
engagements, Cornwallis, besieged on the peninsula by the large and
well-equipped French-American army, and stricken by dysentery,
determined to surrender his army. On October 19, 1781, the British
forces marched out between the silent ranks of the Americans and French,
arrayed in parallel lines a mile long, and cast down their arms.
Abbé Robin, who witnessed the surrender, described the victorious
American and French forces present at the ceremony. "Among the
Americans, the wide variety in age -- 12 to 14-year old children stood
side by side with grandfathers -- the absence of uniformity in their
bearing and their ragged clothing made the French allies appear more
splendid by contrast. The latter, in their immaculate white uniforms and
blue braid, gave an impression of martial vigor despite their fatigue.
We were all astonished by the excellent condition of the English troops,
by their number -- we were expecting scarcely 3,000 and they numbered
more than 8,000 -- and by their discipline."
George Woodbridge summed up the Yorktown campaign in the following
words: "The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet
was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle
were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to
Washington; in total naval and military participants the French
outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was
Rochambeau’s victory.
How strange it must have been for these French troops and their
new-found colonial allies, some of whom had fought each other as enemies
barely fifteen years earlier, to stand shoulder to shoulder in armed
conflict with France’s ancient enemy and the colonist’s blood kin! In
the end, these French soldiers became the hard anvil upon which the new
American nation was forged and the chains of British imperial domination
were finally broken.
--
>French Revolution - Won, primarily due to the the fact the opponent was
>French...
Wrong (For instance : Valmy etc...) see later ...
>The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember The First Rule!)
>due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British
>footwear designer...
The french armies were composed of corsicans ?
We fought generally alone VS the whole Europe and we won, we possessed
almost the whole Europe during 15 yrs, Moscow burnt - who did this
things other than us ?
I know : who cares you're not here to be just, but to troll, sorry to
make you lose your sparetime making you quickly reading this.
Even at Waterloo, we were at some moments near to win against the
COALITION.
>The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany's first go around at playing the
>drunk frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on Saturday night...
Crimea wars, Italy wars won by Napoleon III in the 185* ...
>World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United
>States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep
Wrong. and not tied, asshole - so, you're a propagandist ...
1913 :
Population :
Germany : 67 millions
France : 39.6 millions (only country of those 4 countries that will be
devastated by the war)
UK : 46 millions
USA : 95 millions
Germany : 1,700,000 dead soldiers
wounded : 4,216,000 soldiers
France : 1,500,000 dead soldiers (maybe underestimated for political
propaganda reasons / some even say about
2,500,000 - I dunno, it seems a lot, but you see what i mean)
wounded : 3,600,000 soldiers
UK : 740,000 dead soldiers
wounded : 2,090,000 soldiers
USA : 116,000 dead soldiers
Italy : 700,000 dead soldiers
Austria-Hungary : 1,500,000 dead soldiers
Russia : 1,700,000 dead soldiers
The plans of the germans was to crush the french before Russia have
mobilized all its army (germany at this
time was reputated being the most powerful army)
Result : We stood untill the victory, on the contrary of the Russians
..
BTW Greece stood (and so the blockade) because of the French troops over
there IIRC.
1914-1918 : The French army was the major military actor on the Western
front for 4 years. The British took a very active part on that front for
4 years too. The allies under Marechal Foch's French command eventually
won the war. The American troops massively arrived on the front only 4
months (July 1918) before the end of the war (November 1918).
Western front March 1918 : 174 allies divisions : 99 French + 58 British
+ 12 Belgian + 3 US + 2 portuguese.
Western Front November 1918 : 211 Allies divisions : 104 French + 60
British + 30 US + 12 Belgian + 2 portuguese + 2 Italian + 1 Polish.
After the war, the French were universally saluted as the country that
saved democracy and the victor amongst all the Allies (and especially in
the US) and their international prestige was very high, just like that
of the US in 1945. It just seems like history is no longer taught in the
US now.
Spitting on the tombs of the 1,500,000 dead French soldiers just because
the French DARE not agree with the present American policy in Iraq will
only expose you to contempt.
The USA that entered the war et the end of the war refused to hear
about the agreements that the Europeans made before :
The result : Because of the versailles' treaty as wanted by the USA
(that won't finally be recognized by the
USA), the italians that had about 700,000 dead soldiers, didn't have the
territories that was promised to them
in secret agreements made in London in 1915. The Italians were totally
torqued and thought there were deceived,
what were indirectly one of the vectors causing the birth of the fascism
in 1919.
BTW USA and Uk pledge them that they will help France in case of German
agression, pledge that will be abandoned in 1919 by both.
Not even mentionning the fact that G. washington didn't honor his treaty
with the French in 1794 for trade advantages with The UK that was at war
with the French. Maybe because we were surrounded wy the whole europe
wanting our end. Ingrates !
I add that The UK made many unconditional concessions to Germany with
the agreement of the French, since France merely abandoned its
diplomatic sovereignty to the UK from 1923 till WWII (why, will you say
? Because we needed them to face Germany. We needed allies).
Chamberlain said yes to the nazis about the rebuilding of the of the
german war fleet in 1935.
France wanted to respond to the German army's reoccupation of the
Rhineland in 1936, but the UK opposed the idea giving thereby Hitler the
greenlight for what he had in mind. They said that the remilitarization,
of the Rhineland wasn't a threat to our vital interests... you
understand what it means in diplomatical language, don't you ? ;-)
>with a winner, but one who doesn't call then "Fraulein". Sadly, widespread
>use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French
>gene pool...
moronic insult to your country since with such sentences , you make seem
US dudes like degenerated conceited jerk-offs.
>World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States &
>Britain, just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song...
We lost after 6 weeks because of BIG STRATEGICAL mistakes, ( I
insist on this because of the eternal "cheese eatin' surrender monkeys"
coming from posts from your charming country) - BTW blitzkrieg was
partly inspired to Guderian by a book from De Gaulle (so all french
generals are not sorta genetically incompetents like you guys seem to
think.) you knew it I suppose since you're so learned !
The french army was in fact defeated because of a strategy of
encirclement that seemed impossible to realize for our gernerals, the
german armored divisions pass thru the Ardennes (highlands and woods)
that was reputated impossible to pass ! from the moment where the front
was cut and that we were encircled in our biggest part, it was lost !
it's easy to understand !
BTW, 130,000 French soldiers died in this "lost for the beginning
battle" from the 10th may to the armistice 6 weeks later (allowing to
the english soldiers to go back to england though they were put in
pieces by bombing stukas and german tanks ! (see at the end))
[ BTW, 1 month after the beginning of the attack against France by the
Germans, Mussolini wanted his part of the cake and attacked France that
was already in a total skedaddle ! His troops entered France and was
stopped and repelled in Italy by the very few French soldiers that were
there.
French : 150,000 (casualties : killed : 38 / wounded : 42 /
disappeared : 180 )
Italians : 500,000 (casualties : killed 631 / wounded : 3,400 / captured
: 1140 )
He was more successful in bombing the civilians fleeing on the roads !]
Oh BTW... just a little digression ... England is an island (without any
frontiers with another state), TIA to notice it !
With such a hammering, humiliating and "downcasting" defeat (and the
half of the country lost), the people needed a bright figure to give
them back hope and a slight confidence. It's a national hero from
1914-1918 that took power, P. pétain - 84 years old. He was renowned to
have been kind with the troopers in WWI.
He set a sort of regime near fascism to get the nation up (BTW some of
the government was people hating French revolution and wanting to give
back some old values to the people, pro-facists, cynic go-getters, and
antisemitic men.)
The first thing Petain had in mind was the survival of France (weird, eh
?) what implied collaboration with the threatening, more powerful
germans - and Nazis, btw.
Oh I forgot : "France the collaborator", eh ? What about the free french
and De Gaulle, the 2nd DB (Koufrah, Bir Hakeim), General Leclerc, Jean
Moulin, FFI, 1st army of De Lattre, Monte Cassino (general Juin) etc...
In 1939, after Germany and USSR invaded Poland, We tried some military
operations in Norway (France & UK) we wanted to helped Finland but
Norway denmark and sweden (IIRC) didn't wanted us to pass their strait
to go help the finnish ... they didn't want to irritate Hitler ! Yeah we
didn't attck directly when Poland was invaded...
Attacking at this occasion would have mean attacking germany and USSR
.. It was not a little affair... And BTW what you have to know is that
the germans had a "maginot line", the Siegfried line (even longer than
ours) and guess what : there were divisions in there, so ... was it the
good plan to go to the slaughterhouse without a better way to act since
the german divisions busy in Poland would have had the time to come back
on us in a not so long time ....
Oh ,BTW where were the USA ?
Obviously not fighting the Nazis ...
In UK and France the horrid and frightening memory of WWI was a
cold shower for anybody (look at the stats I put above and) and I
add that we were with belgium the only western country to be devastated,
the moon landscape left after the war would have make ponder anybody (in
2003 we always find shells from WWI !) the young generation was in big
proportion decimated ... the north - north-east was an important
economical industrial joint ... the germans before leaving drowned our
mines too ...
So yes, we were less eager as a peaceful democracy with a trauma to go
to war than the pumped brain-washed nazi war-machine ... it's a fact ...
But when the war started after a moment the combativity appears more
strong and the more the situation was bad the more decided was the
soldiers (see dunkirk)
At some place French soldiers stopped the german thrust and opposed an
harsh resistance (well, of course I suppose that those kind of thing
happen in almost any war ... but it means that there were some
sufficiently ballsy and combative soldiers ...)
I add that after that Belgian surrended unconditionnally, after the
english left, after the big nunmber of prisonner in dunkirk and
elsewhere, the french soldiers kept on fighting outnumbered till the
armistice though it was pretty clear that all was lost !
They stopped when the marechal (Marshall) Petain demanded them to stop.
Before the war, France was a democracy though the biggest part of Europe
were autocracies (often for the 20's) and you despise France for what
happened and the way it acted !?!
It's easy to brag and give lessons when you never have been and probably
will never be in such a huge crisis. we will never see you in this kind
of situation, pure noble son of the USA, "in god you trust" : you can,
you are living in a hyperpower, wise-ass ! (and far from any real direct
danger)
You are / were an hyperpower and you, despite this fact, dare make
comments on the weakness of the others and their attitude ! cheeky !
You came also because you could and had to earn. I thanx and respect the
US soldiers that came and freed us, but as I said in other
circumstances, how being sure that you would have come - it relativizes
the "gallant white knight eikon", guy !
The US had official links (embassy and all that)
with the nazis until they were bombed by the Japs and that Hitler and
Mussolini declared war to them ? What they were doing until the dawn of
1942 ? Selling for cash only (cash and carry law)... No wonder they had
3/4 the gold reserve of the world after WW2, they surely knew how to
take advantage of Nations fighting against nazism... And by the way, the
US had links with illegitimate government of Vichy far into the war, and
recognized De Gaulle's government just few days before the Liberation.
BTW :
According to classified documents from Dutch intelligence and US
government archives, President George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott
Bush made considerable profits off Auschwitz slave labor. :
www.clamormagazine.org
Nasty Nazi Business - Corporate Deals with Nazi Germany :
www.ranknfile-ue.org
The 1941 affaire : When Washington was at war with the FREE FRENCH and
backed the VICHY REGIME :
www.st-pierre-et-miquelon.com
http://www.hereinreality.com/familyvalues.html
http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
BTW The French Fleet was under the Vichy's government control .... In
1942
when the german invaded the 'free' territory of France they directed
quickly towards the French Fleet at Toulon (South of France) The French
admiral gave the order to scuttle all the fleet in order that the
germans don't take it...
According to De Gaulle that lived in England at this time, England had
very few troops on their soil and if the germans had taken the french
fleet, they could have succeeded in invading England.
In a way, maybe this admiral changed the future of the war ?....
casualties :
France :
dead soldiers : 211,000 to 213,300
dead civilians : 330,000 to 350,000
USA :
dead soldiers (on 2 fronts) : 292 to 298,000
civilians : negligeable - almost none.
UK :
dead soldiers : about 245,000
dead civilians : 92,700 to 150,000
Japan :
dead soldiers : 1,220,000 to 1,300,000
dead civilians : 672,000 to 700,000 (and some due to 2 nuking on
japanese cities)
Germany :
dead soldiers : 3,500,000 to 3,850,000
dead civilians : 780,000
USSR :
dead soldiers : about 7,500,000 to 11,000,000
dead civilians : about 7,000,000 to 10,000,000
Italy :
dead soldiers : 230,000 to 242,200
dead civilians : 150,000 to 153,000
China :
dead soldiers : about 1,310,200
dead civilians : 10,000,000
As you can see France (and others) suffered more of the war than USA ...
so pack back your lessons ...
>War In Indochina - Lost. French forces claim illness, take to bed with the
>Dien Bien Flu... (sic)
1946-1954 , I thought that you didn't do better but you dare to brag
about it anyway, waow, cheeky, wise-ass.
In the same situation even the USA would have certainly lost this
battle.
The US didn't help, France left Vietnam split in 2, the Northern
part being communist. The US left Vietnam reunited under communist
rules, doesn't look to be a better job...
>Algerian Revolution - Lost. Loss marks first defeat by a western army by a
>Non-Turkic Muslim force since The Crusades, and produces The First Rule Of
>Muslim Warfare; "We Can Always Beat The French". This rule is identical to
>the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish,
>and Vietnamese...
We won in Algeria but De Gaulle gave up for personal political reasons,
what proves your overt lack of knowledge - thanx.
Talking about the crusades, we won and founded christian realms that
lasted 2 centuries despite the fact that the muslims were more numerous.
Have you ever heard about the Templars, BTW ?
>War On Terrorism - Keeping in mind it's history, France surrenders to
The 12/26/1994 the GIGN (our SWAT) stopped algerian islamists to crash a
plane on Paris (Possibly on the Eiffel tower)
>The Germans and Muslims. Just to be safe, they attempt to surrender to
>Vietnamese Ambassador, who takes refuge in a McDonalds...
Trolling is forbiden by the Geneva Convention...
>In closing, let me ask this question of French Military Trivia:
>
>Q. How many French troops does it take to defend Paris?
>A. Who knows? They've never tried.
wrong : 1870-71 and against the vikings in 885 and 910...
Your historical knowledge is thin ... some of your examples are true but
a lot are incomplete or wrong and you unfortunately forgot to talk about
some of our victories sometimes wonderful, like when we stood alone VS
the whole Europe and won - BTW in the revolutionnaries war we fought
also VS other countries' armies and we won though our country was broke
! (without money I mean)
What about the Franco-Gallic emperor Charlemagne (769-814) and its
European Empire ?
What about Clovis(465-511) (first king of France (Merovingian Dynasty)
[Louis, Ludwig, Lewis, Lodwick, Ludovic are names coming from the name
"Clovis"] that will conqueer almost all the Gaul and is the ONLY reason
of the survival and the re-propagation of the official catholic doctrine
in Europe (the other "germanic tribes" at this times were arians
(christian heretics (cf. Arius)) or heathen - What explains that France
was also known as "the oldest daughter of the Church". Clovis was the
only catholic king of Europe and is the one that won against all the
others !
What about Charles Martel (The Hammer) that Stopped the muslim expansion
in 732 and 739 (the Wisigothic Spain was invaded since 711)
France was a powerful realm.
Mathew paris an english chronicler qualified Saint Louis [1226-1270]
(aka Louis the IXth - and yes this is the very same saint louis from who
the name of the big city in Missouri is taken) as "the King of the
King". Louis the IXth was become the arbiter of the Christian Europe.
His fame had gone beyond the western Europe. The mongols proposed him to
take the Turks in the back in the near orient (This proposition is kept
nowadays, in the "Archives Nationales" in Paris.
At the beginning of the XIVth century, the italian poet, Dante, was
complaining that "the Capetian" (king of France - at this time "Philippe
IV le Bel"(1285-1314)) was extending his shadow upon all the
christiannity and was thinking about being crowned as Emperor like
Charlemagne.
Everywhere, between th XIVth and XVth century, "The Realm" (or The Big
Realm) or "The King" (or the Big King) designated the King of France
that was seen as the archetype of the King.
At the beginning of the XVIth century, the King of France was seen as
the ideal to reach. Machiavel, the politic theorizer, was admirative of
the institutions of the realm of France.
Maybe you heard about the Magna Carta (1215) : it was imposed to the
king of England by his barons because he was weakened after the battle
of Bouvines won by the french...
you want a great french victory : in 1124, when the german emperor
invaded the Champagne region (France), the only fact that the french
king Louis the VIth deployed his army of knights, forced the emperor to
go away without any fight ...
Napo during the campaign of Italy in 1796 won against 80,000
well-equiped professional Austrian soldiers, though
his soldiers were starved withouth good clothes, without any artillery
.. and were 40,000... (At this time France, its population and its army
was in a pitiful state, there were no more money, we were broke)
BTW, France is the biggest European country by the size (Russia and
Ukraine apart what is kinda special you will admit !) is this just by
chance ? (of course Germany was amputated after WWII but ...)
----
Dunkerque : 26/05/1940 - 04/06/1940
"Lord Gort, Commander of the British Expeditionary Force, (240,000
troops) saw that he could not complete his orders to retreat to the
Somme. On May 25, he indicated to Churchill that he could not link up
with Weygand's forces and he was creating a perimeter around the town of
Dunkerque on the Pas de Calais. From May 27-30, the BEF consolidated
around Dunkerque, along with half of the French First Army. Five French
Divisions set up a roadblock at Lille, where they held out for four days
against seven German Panzer divisions. This allowed the British and the
French in Dunkerque to set up a defensive perimeter and wait for
evacuation.
The plan had called for 48,000 men to be removed. By the evening of May
30, 120,000 were rescued. Among these only 8,000 were French; this
worried Churchill greatly. He asked for more French soldiers to be
evacuated. "So few French have got out so far.......I will not accept
further sacrifices by the French."
On June 4, the last day of Operation Dynamo, over 26,000 French troops
were returned to England. The remaining 40,000 French troops were left
on the beaches and were taken by the German Army that very day.
The evacuation owed much to the unstinting bravery of the French First
Army fighting at the Dunkerque perimeter and to the RAF. 340,000 troops,
more than 100,000 of them French, could be evacuated to England to fight
again another day
Most of the French went back to fight in France, but the rescue of the
BEF gave heart to the British public all out of proportion to the defeat
it suffered."
== OTHER VERY INTERESTING STUFF ==
By John Chuckman, 19 March 2003, YellowTimes.org
"As probably only a few dozen people in middle America even likely
appreciate thanks to hyper-patriotic history texts, America's
Revolutionary War succeeded only because the French supplied arms,
cash, men, leadership, and a navy. It wasn't just help; it was
decisive.
There were two key battles in the Revolutionary War. The first was
Saratoga in 1777. That stunning victory over Britain's General John
Burgoyne was only possible because of a secret French gun-running
operation, much like those undertaken by the CIA today, directed by
Pierre de Beaumarchais, grand adventurer and author of The Marriage of
Figaro. America then was a relatively simple society with little
capacity for manufacturing the weapons necessary to take on the
British army.
Of course, France's secret assistance now may be viewed as the
greatest example of what intelligence people today call ''blowback''
in Western history. It makes the blowback of 9/11 -- directly
attributable to the CIA's work in Afghanistan -- seem tame by
comparison. For France played mid-wife to the birth of something that,
a little more than two centuries later, would arrogantly claim the
right to determine the fate of the planet.
The main importance of the victory at Saratoga lay in gaining
something the revolting colonists desperately wanted: a formal treaty
with France and a great bounty of loans, gifts, and military forces.
Of course, France's main interest was to hurt its great rival,
Britain, but then it certainly was not America's main interest to
liberate France in 1944-5.
The deciding battle of the Revolutionary War was Yorktown in 1781,
although a peace treaty was not settled until 1783. The truth is that
Yorktown was overwhelmingly a French victory. Washington didn't want
to attack Yorktown, but then Washington was a terrible general who
lost almost every battle he fought.
In 1781, Washington was fixated on a battle whose prospect was almost
certain failure, an attack on New York. It was General Rochambeau's
foresight and planning that made Yorktown possible, but it took a lot
of arguing to have Washington finally agree. One of Washington's most
trusted young generals, the Marquis de Lafayette, was given a
substantial role in the action.
French Admiral de Grasse blocked a British fleet from entering the
Chesapeake and evacuating the British army at Yorktown. French troops
in the thousands were among the most active. French engineers guided
the building of the entrenchments that sealed the fate of General
Cornwallis's army in a fortified encampment that had its back to the
water and no fleet to help.
The American forces carried French arms, and what pay they received
came from the French treasury. It was during this last stage of the
war that Americans massively lost interest. There had never been great
enthusiasm, with about a third of the population against it from the
beginning and another third indifferent (contrary to myth, revolutions
are almost always the work of minorities) -- the real explanation,
along with a stubborn unwillingness to pay taxes still evident today,
behind Washington's chronic lack of resources despite his countless
pleas for help from the colonial governments. But by the late 1770s,
Americans had become even more indifferent. It was around this time
that M. Duportail, a French officer serving under Washington, made his
famous observation about there being more enthusiasm for the
Revolution in the cafes of Paris than he saw in America.
America never repaid the massive loans made by the French. Years
later, when France underwent the agonies of a much more terrible
revolution, then-President Washington maintained a very cool distance.
Even when poor old Tom Paine was rotting in a French jail, expecting
any day to be executed, Washington ignored his pleas for assistance.
This was the same Tom Paine whose Common Sense and Crisis Papers were
so important in stirring support for America's revolution.
Well, despite the great chorus of gastric disturbance just south of
here, I shall proudly continue wearing my beret. After all, it was the
wonderful Ben Franklin who said that every man has two countries, his
own and France."
Johan Halvarsson
"waggg" <f...@ic.al> wrote in message news:3e9c06b1...@news.free.fr...
>
> >Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years
of
> >French history, France is conquered by, of all things, an Italian...
>
> Inform yourself, and you will understand that there nothing really
> humiliating in that. The Gauls Won many battles and almost won but
> caesar was decidedly a great and strong-willed stratege and helped by
> germanic tribes cavalry (BTW there were gauls in the roman legions too
> at this time). It was mainly the inter-gallic disputes that caused their
> defeat finally, and some strategical mistakes at Alesia.
> BTW the gauls in the past invaded Roma, ransacked delphia (Greece) and
> invaded turkey (thence the Galates).
Why you explain why the gauls lost the point of the post is that they lost.
In my opinion they were great and valiant warriors and it was a tragedy
for the future of europe that Gaul became dominated by Rome.
>
> >Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, but saved at the last minute by a Female
> >schizophrenic who inadvertantly creates The First Rule Of French Warfare;
> >"France's Armies Are Only Victorious When Not Led By A Frenchman"...
>
> Some battles were won, some battles were lose, finally the stuff was
> going bad (about 120 yrs later) anyway the english had some 'french
> allies (burgundians) and the knights and soldiers fighting the
> english/burgundians were french, Jehanne d'arc (Joan of Arc) didn't
> fight the intruders alone ...
The point again is that France lost.
>
> You should remeber what is at the origin of this conflict : in 1066 the
> Duke of Normandia (France) invaded England and won at Hastings, what
> explains that the french language was the official language of the
> english court at least 2 centuries, and that explains that TODAY, you're
As I pointed out a while back to you waggg (to which you finally
failed to respond) France did not invade England....the Duchy of Normandie
did. The Duchy of Normandie was a separate political entity from France.
Had it been the Kingdom of Fance that invaded England, there would have been
a french king on the english throne (or no throne at all) and the upcoming
hundred
years war would not have taken place. As it was the hundred years war was
fought
between the Kingdom of France and the decendants of William of Normandie,
now ruling the Kingdom of England of which Normandie was now a part.
The hundred years war was over the possession of Normandie and other
lands across the channel from England.
>
> talking in a huge part in old french your whole day (in fact almost
> everytime that you open your mouth) - BTW nowadays the motto of the
> English monarchy is : "Dieu et Mon Droit" ( french ) and the motto of
> the Most Noble Order of the Garter, which was founded in 1348 by King
> Edward III as a noble fraternity consisting of the King, the Prince of
> Wales (or heir-apparent to the throne) and 24 Knights Companion is
> "Honni soit qui mal y pense".
>
> Plantagenêts is nor saxon neither angles ...
Still doesn't change the historical FACT that the duchy of Normandie
invaded England....not the Kingdom of France.
>
> >Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages
to
> >get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually, the other
> >participant began ignoring her...
>
> Wrong ! we were implied from 1635 to 1648 and it was rather a favorable
> upshot AFAIK.
In the thirty years war the french waraim was to stop Habsburg power from
dominating europe.(specifically Germany).France beeing virtually surrounded
by Habsburg ruled lands (Spain / Spanish Netherlands) and now facing a
Habsburg dominated Germany.They financed the protestants for many years
and eventually joined in the fighting directly. As things turned out, truth
be told,
the french did achive their waraims and therefore this must be regarded as
a french Victory! Funny no french has pointed this out clearly.
>
> The seven years war : humiliation, true ! (I want just highlight the
> fact that in north america in 1754, the
> french were 85,000 in the "Nouvelle France" and the english people were
> 1,485,634 in New England...
Yes but still a loss. A most regrettable outcome for all the indians I might
ad.
>
> >American Revolution - In a move that will become familiar to future
American
> >generations, France claims a win even though American colonists saw far
More
> >action. This is later known as "The De Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to The
> >Second Rule Of Fench Warfare; " France Only Wins When America Does Most
Of
> >The Fighting"...
Regardless of who did the fighting, the french policy of aiding the rebels
in America
in overthrowing english rule must be seen as a victory as their main enemy
at the
time was England.
>
> http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html
>
> British imperial domination
> were finally broken.
> --
>
> >The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember The First
Rule!)
> >due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a
British
> >footwear designer...
>
> The french armies were composed of corsicans ?
>
> We fought generally alone VS the whole Europe and we won, we possessed
> almost the whole Europe during 15 yrs, Moscow burnt - who did this
> things other than us ?
> I know : who cares you're not here to be just, but to troll, sorry to
> make you lose your sparetime making you quickly reading this.
>
> Even at Waterloo, we were at some moments near to win against the
> COALITION.
I wonder what Europe would have looked lide had Napoleon not
comitted the blunder of invading Russia?
>
>
> After the war, the French were universally saluted as the country that
> saved democracy and the victor amongst all the Allies
Too bad France in the peaceagreement following the war laid the
foundation for the third reich by imposing enormous reparations
on Germany (against US advice) Even some french saw the risks
early on. Marshall Foch (I believe) stated: This is not peace. it's a 20
years ceasefire.
Boy, was that an accurate asessment!
>
>. They said that the remilitarization,
> of the Rhineland wasn't a threat to our vital interests... you
> understand what it means in diplomatical language, don't you ? ;-)
France were strong enough to take on Germany in '36 by themselves
Should have.
>
>
> >World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States &
> >Britain, just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song...
>
> We lost after 6 weeks because of BIG STRATEGICAL mistakes, ( I
> insist on this because of the eternal "cheese eatin' surrender monkeys"
> coming from posts from your charming country) - BTW blitzkrieg was
> partly inspired to Guderian by a book from De Gaulle (so all french
> generals are not sorta genetically incompetents like you guys seem to
> think.) you knew it I suppose since you're so learned !
> The french army was in fact defeated because of a strategy of
> encirclement that seemed impossible to realize for our gernerals, the
> german armored divisions pass thru the Ardennes (highlands and woods)
> that was reputated impossible to pass ! from the moment where the front
> was cut and that we were encircled in our biggest part, it was lost !
> it's easy to understand !
Again no amount of excuses changes the facts. If the germans thought you
could
cross the Ardennes why didn't the french?????? True HUGE mistakes were made
that doesn't mean you quit the fight.
>
>
>
brgrds Johan
waggg
<boz...@earthlink.net>, nous a gratifié de ceci :
>Why you explain why the gauls lost the point of the post is that they lost.
They lost against Caesar (it's not by chance that this name was used as
a title untill about 2000 yrs later ! - Kaiser, Tsar) ... it wxasn't
anybody ... He left his name in history ...
>In my opinion they were great and valiant warriors and it was a tragedy
>for the future of europe that Gaul became dominated by Rome.
>
>>
>> >Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, but saved at the last minute by a Female
>> >schizophrenic who inadvertantly creates The First Rule Of French Warfare;
>> >"France's Armies Are Only Victorious When Not Led By A Frenchman"...
>>
>> Some battles were won, some battles were lose, finally the stuff was
>> going bad (about 120 yrs later) anyway the english had some 'french
>> allies (burgundians) and the knights and soldiers fighting the
>> english/burgundians were french, Jehanne d'arc (Joan of Arc) didn't
>> fight the intruders alone ...
>
>The point again is that France lost.
huh ... we ... lost ?
No if you were right there were no France but an english region named
France ....
Jehanne d'Arc, Charles the VII th and the french knights won ! stay
focused ...
>> You should remeber what is at the origin of this conflict : in 1066 the
>> Duke of Normandia (France) invaded England and won at Hastings, what
>> explains that the french language was the official language of the
>> english court at least 2 centuries, and that explains that TODAY, you're
>
>As I pointed out a while back to you waggg (to which you finally
when ?
>failed to respond) France did not invade England....the Duchy of Normandie
>did. The Duchy of Normandie was a separate political entity from France.
The Duchy of Normandie was a vassal of France ...
So the england was a vassal of France ...
Inform you and you'll see that i'm right !
>Had it been the Kingdom of Fance that invaded England, there would have been
>a french king on the english throne (or no throne at all) and the upcoming
>hundred
Yeah, but the "separate entity" was vassal of the kingdom of France.
>years war would not have taken place. As it was the hundred years war was
>fought
>between the Kingdom of France and the decendants of William of Normandie,
>now ruling the Kingdom of England of which Normandie was now a part.
>The hundred years war was over the possession of Normandie and other
>lands across the channel from England.
There were a rivalry between the 2 houses : angevins : england and
Capétiens : France ...
THe capetians want to unify the realm and the The angevin want to weaken
the power of the Realm of France although fighting the realm of France
is a "felony" since the King of France is the Overlord of the England
.. Check it out ...
There were in fact to hundred wars (the 1st one : 1159-1299 and the 2nd
: 1337-1453) the 2 have quite similars reasons ...
>> Plantagenêts is nor saxon neither angles ...
>Still doesn't change the historical FACT that the duchy of Normandie
>invaded England....not the Kingdom of France.
Normandy was a part of the kingdom of France, a vassal of the king of
France ...
BTW, The Plantagenêt gained the duchy of Normandy but they were
originally lords from Anjou, they were angevin (other region of France
souther than normandy)
That is pretty clear ... though the american revolution waspopular for
ideological reasons in certain part of rthe population, it's obvious
that The king was aiming the english ...
But there again, the USA didn't come in France to save us but to crush
Hitler and his army BECAUSE the Axis declared war to the USA (what if
they didn't do it ?) . Luckily, we were on your way to Berlin ... ;-)
>> http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html
>>
>> British imperial domination
>> were finally broken.
>> --
>>
>> >The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember The First
>Rule!)
>> >due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a
>British
>> >footwear designer...
>>
>> The french armies were composed of corsicans ?
>>
>> We fought generally alone VS the whole Europe and we won, we possessed
>> almost the whole Europe during 15 yrs, Moscow burnt - who did this
>> things other than us ?
>> I know : who cares you're not here to be just, but to troll, sorry to
>> make you lose your sparetime making you quickly reading this.
>>
>> Even at Waterloo, we were at some moments near to win against the
>> COALITION.
>
>I wonder what Europe would have looked lide had Napoleon not
>comitted the blunder of invading Russia?
I already asked the same question to myself ...
And I aked myself the very same question but with Hitler ...
>> After the war, the French were universally saluted as the country that
>> saved democracy and the victor amongst all the Allies
>
>Too bad France in the peaceagreement following the war laid the
>foundation for the third reich by imposing enormous reparations
>on Germany (against US advice) Even some french saw the risks
Well I understand this point of view ... but Germany unlike France
wasn't partly devastated by the WWI, France : yes !
the moon landscape left after the war would have make ponder anybody (in
2003 we always find shells from WWI !) the young generation was in big
proportion decimated ... the north - north-east was an important
economical industrial joint ... the germans before leaving drowned our
mines too ...
No plants destroyed in Germany, no rebuilding in the whole part of the
country ... regions that have some economic importance (mines, steel
industry, etc ...)
The USA and the UK made us go away from the Ruhr in 29 IIRC and abandon
all german money for war reparations ... but we were always in debts
towards the allies (US mainly)
>early on. Marshall Foch (I believe) stated: This is not peace. it's a 20
>years ceasefire.
>Boy, was that an accurate asessment!
>
>>. They said that the remilitarization,
>> of the Rhineland wasn't a threat to our vital interests... you
>> understand what it means in diplomatical language, don't you ? ;-)
>
>France were strong enough to take on Germany in '36 by themselves
>Should have.
I gave you the reason ... they didn' twanted displease to their allies
.. Now What our leaders knew about the real strength of the german army
at this time ?
>> >World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States &
>> >Britain, just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song...
>>
>> We lost after 6 weeks because of BIG STRATEGICAL mistakes, ( I
>> insist on this because of the eternal "cheese eatin' surrender monkeys"
>> coming from posts from your charming country) - BTW blitzkrieg was
>> partly inspired to Guderian by a book from De Gaulle (so all french
>> generals are not sorta genetically incompetents like you guys seem to
>> think.) you knew it I suppose since you're so learned !
>> The french army was in fact defeated because of a strategy of
>> encirclement that seemed impossible to realize for our gernerals, the
>> german armored divisions pass thru the Ardennes (highlands and woods)
>> that was reputated impossible to pass ! from the moment where the front
>> was cut and that we were encircled in our biggest part, it was lost !
>> it's easy to understand !
>
>Again no amount of excuses changes the facts. If the germans thought you
>could
>cross the Ardennes why didn't the french?????? True HUGE mistakes were made
>that doesn't mean you quit the fight.
It seemed impossible to them ... It was the "old school" BTW ... A lot
of youngsters were killed in WWI so it changed the face of the french
society, in the army too ... indirectly, maybe ... some people say that
...
Anyway ... they thought it was impossible ... too bad ...