After having suffered yet another Hollywood history falsification together with a couple of friends, we started discussing why the French martiality are always belittled in Anglo-American media productions. There's often remarks about French being generally traitorous cowards (with questionable personal hygiene), and we can't help wonder why this notion is so widespread in the Anglo-American societies? Have they forgot all about how La Fayette helped secure American independence, or how the Napoleonic French conquered large parts of Europe (with USA as a minor ally) or how Verdun was held?

The obvious answer might be the WW2: the French army collapsed in 1940 because of bad leadership, nonexisting coordination of service branches, a defensive doctrine causing passivity, a rotten supply system and sub-standard training of the reserves, and some mistake that as cowardice.

There's also the Vichy state, a truly despicable political creature, but noone is blaming the Norwegians for what Quisling and his Hird did, or any other collaborators in other countries.

After WW2 there's Indochina where the French troops were defeated by the North Vietnamese, but so were the US troops later on.

There's also the French withdrawal from NATO cooperation in 1966 as a protest against the US dominance of the alliance, not easily forgiven by some.

What do you think caused the phenomena of French-bashing?

The French battled hard only twice - first time under small girl and second time under small man.:D

I think that main reason is their (gay) language and Americans got hate from English tradition.

Don't worry, the canadians take part of the bashing too ya know. :D
BLAME CANADA

Sorry - that song is stuck in my head. :lol:

It might just be the language; i dunno. But England & France have always (minus last century) been suspicious about eachother - and the english/american culture is dominating things in this whole globalisation thingy (at least in this part of the world).

And don't you think there are english jokes in france ?
Just search through steph's posts and find them. :mischief: :D

The French battled hard only twice - first time under small girl and second time under small man.:DYep, that's a good joke, and understood as a joke by most people with basic history knowledge. What I find so ridiculous is that so many people actually seems to believe it to be true :rolleyes:

Don't worry, the canadians take part of the bashing too ya know. :D
BLAME CANADA

Sorry - that song is stuck in my head. :lol:It's a good song and an excellent movie :D and of course I include Canada among the Anglo-American societies.

I think that main reason is their (gay) language and Americans got hate from English tradition.
It might just be the language; i dunno. But England & France have always (minus last century) been suspicious about eachother - and the english/american culture is dominating things in this whole globalisation thingy (at least in this part of the world).Odd, I find Italian and Norwegian to be much more gay languages than French, but I don't believe Italians and Norwegians to be traitorous and unwashed cowards just because of that.

The heritage thingy might be more of an explanation, but considering the great amount of French help to the young American republic during the war of independence (would there even be a USA without France?) and the good relations between those two nations all the way to WW2, in stark contrast to the open animosity between USA and Great Britain all the way to WW1, I find it hard to believe that such notions would have survived. Who gave the Americans the Statue of Liberty? I rather think it's a late 20th century prejudice.

And don't you think there are english jokes in france ?
Just search through steph's posts and find them. :mischief: :DOf course there are, but do many Frenchmen believe those jokes to be true, and does their movie and television industry repeat those jokes ad nauseam? :vomit:

The heritage thingy might be more of an explanation, but considering the great amount of French help to the young American republic during the war of independence (would there even be a USA without France?) and the good relations between those two nations all the way to WW2 I find it hard to believe that such notions would have survived.

One thing you leave out is the fact that France turned against the US after the War of Independence. The reason war wasn't declared like in 1812, was the fact that the Royal Navy was on our side against the French privateer navy.

And the US didn't have any kind of lovable affair with France through out the 19th century. It wasn't until WWI that the two countries became "allies" of anysort.

The fact is that France and the US only had excellent relations in the first half of the last century.

And France doesn't have spectacular record of good foreign policy either. That accounts for alot of French bashing as well as American bashing.

Odd, I find Italian and Norwegian to be much more gay languages than French, but I don't believe Italians and Norwegians to be traitorous and unwashed cowards just because of that.
And here we find an intresting fact.

I think hungarian is a gay language :lol: - no i'm not kidding; you should hear the guy in charge of the magyar party in the parliament. :crazyeye: So it's some sort of per country thing.

And it seems english ppl think french is a gay language. Add massive globalisation and we got everywhere in the media bashing the french.
Let's face it, almost all of the movies we see today are american or british.


But the french shouldn't feel alone in this one. Like Bugfatty said, the americans are next to them for the bashing. I mean, racism toward americans is practically legal. :mischief:

One thing you leave out is the fact that France turned against the US after the War of Independence. The reason war wasn't declared like in 1812, was the fact that the Royal Navy was on our side against the French privateer navy.But on the other hand the French sold Louisiana to the USA thereby doubling the size of the latter, and the gratitude towards Royal Navy seems feeble indeed in 1812.

And the US didn't have any kind of lovable affair with France through out the 19th century. It wasn't until WWI that the two countries became "allies" of anysort.I've never claimed them to be allies, merely on cordial terms with eachother, and I know that things sometimes were a bit strained between Napoleon III's France and USA. But I was under the impression that the French Republics generally had cordial relations with USA. And why shouldn't they; they were both suspicious bordering on paranoid against the Brits, and 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

The fact is that France and the US only had excellent relations in the first half of the last century.That's not what I've learned and read, but I'm happy to learn more about your view of this.

And France doesn't have spectacular record of good foreign policy either. That accounts for alot of French bashing as well as American bashing. Is there any country in the world that have an acceptable record of good foreign policy? Liechtenstein perhaps... That can't explain this prejudice about French cowardice.

After having suffered yet another Hollywood history falsification together with a couple of friends, we started discussing why the French martiality are always belittled in Anglo-American media productions. There's often remarks about French being generally traitorous cowards (with questionable personal hygiene), and we can't help wonder why this notion is so widespread in the Anglo-American societies? Have they forgot all about how La Fayette helped secure American independence, or how the Napoleonic French conquered large parts of Europe (with USA as a minor ally) or how Verdun was held?

The obvious answer might be the WW2: the French army collapsed in 1940 because of bad leadership, nonexisting coordination of service branches, a defensive doctrine causing passivity, a rotten supply system and sub-standard training of the reserves, and some mistake that as cowardice.

There's also the Vichy state, a truly despicable political creature, but noone is blaming the Norwegians for what Quisling and his Hird did, or any other collaborators in other countries.

After WW2 there's Indochina where the French troops were defeated by the North Vietnamese, but so were the US troops later on.

There's also the French withdrawal from NATO cooperation in 1966 as a protest against the US dominance of the alliance, not easily forgiven by some.

What do you think caused the phenomena of French-bashing?
First of all, France and England were traditional enemies for several centuries, and you generally don't play up the courage of your enemies. America is an offshoot of England, so we inherited the whole anti-French sentiment. Sure we were glad Laffeyette helped us out, but we also know that with the exception of Lafeyette and a few others, the French helped us because they wanted to cause trouble for England, not out of love for America or our cause. Even though the French fought well in the Napoleonic wars, they were led by a foreigner, and were eventually defeated anyway. France's military history from there is even less auspicious. They got smashed in the Franco-Prussian war. Then they incompetently fought WWI(though to be fair, all sides in WWI were pretty poor in the tactics and preparation department), but the end result was Britain and America bailing the French out. We all know how miserably the French performed in WWII. Plus, while the French army was physically defeated by the Vietnamese, American soldiers won every battle in the war, the reason we lost the war is because of political pressure at home.

Now lets talk about other nations reputations: Germany is regarded as a nation of murderous, psychotic warmongers because even though they lost both world wars, they almost won them both, plus the German language is just menacing to listen to while French sounds a bit effeminate to our ears. Most Americans probably couldn't find Norway on a map, and even if they could, their first thought would be about vikings, not Quisling. For Italy, people tend to remember the Romans. Britain, people think of them stoically fighting through the blitz.

But the french shouldn't feel alone in this one. Like Bugfatty said, the americans are next to them for the bashing. I mean, racism toward americans is practically legal. :mischief:Touché! as the 'traitorous coward' would say. Yep, of course Yankee-bashing is rampant too, and one very common stereotype is the ignorant American who when looking at a map thinks Russia is USA because it's the largest. If able to discern between European countries at all he thinks Sweden is the country in the Alps with yodeling cheeses and clocks, while Switzerland is the communist state with polar bears on the streets in wintertime and nude girls in the summertime.
But most people don't usually believe this to be true, even though Jay Leno does a good job in reinforcing this stereotype with his Jaywalkers :lol:, and it's not common to see this on European movies or TV shows. So my original question stands.

There is a fine tradition of frog-rosbeef baiting. Sometimes in war, but more often simply bause we have always been geographically close and evenly matched. Generally these days this takes the manner of a friend who supports the towns other team - there is a need to constantly bait them, but more often than not without any real venom.

The Americans seem to have inherited this baiting but to take it seriously.

Oh, and for the Brits the Italians are the but of the bad soldier jokes.

First of all, France and England were traditional enemies for several centuries, and you generally don't play up the courage of your enemies. America is an offshoot of England, so we inherited the whole anti-French sentiment. Sure we were glad Laffeyette helped us out, but we also know that with the exception of Lafeyette and a few others, the French helped us because they wanted to cause trouble for England, not out of love for America or our cause. Even though the French fought well in the Napoleonic wars, they were led by a foreigner, and were eventually defeated anyway. France's military history from there is even less auspicious. They got smashed in the Franco-Prussian war. Then they incompetently fought WWI(though to be fair, all sides in WWI were pretty poor in the tactics and preparation department), but the end result was Britain and America bailing the French out. We all know how miserably the French performed in WWII. Plus, while the French army was physically defeated by the Vietnamese, American soldiers won every battle in the war, the reason we lost the war is because of political pressure at home.The question was if French generally are traitorous cowards. La Fayette certainly wasn't, and the French troops that fought in North America performed well in all accounts I have read. La Grande Armée might have been led by a Corsican, but he didn't do the fighting himself, right? 'Britain and America bailing the French out' of WW1 is one of those mythical beliefs that really doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The French soldiers showed on most occasions exemplary courage and élan (again: Verdun!), and reinforced the Brits on several occasions when the latter wavered. The Americans had to taught to fight a modern war by French and British officers. During the Entente offensive in 1918 the US were still the junior partner and the war would most surely be won also without them; it was a question of time by then.
WW2; yep the French performed miserably in the summer of 1940! Look at what Free French troops performed later on, like Leclerc's men in North Africa.
Indochina; Dien Bien Phu was a defeat, but does anyone really question the bravery and martial prowess the French Paratroopers and Foreign Legionnaires showed there?
And here we get to my point; your reasoning seems to be that if you win you're brave, if you're defeated you're a coward. I disagree with this.

I see the claims about french cowardice to be overblown and probably a more recent public relations thing.

The latest French-bashing is obviously to score political points because nobody my age or younger gets where the stereotype came from. It's like saying "people with blond hair are stupid". You are doing it to make yourself feel better, maybe because of the stereotype "blonds have more fun". I'm not so sure about either one.

You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs!
Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur King, you and all your silly English k-niggets.

I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

Some of it must have to do with how "British" in the 18th c. came to be defined as "not French". It was a good way of finding common ground between English and Scots in this still relatively new union, depsite the Scots being old allies of France

The French otoh have never defined themselves as "not English" in the same way. There's always been a strong streak of Anglophilia among the French elite, occasional snide remarks aside. The British seem more grudging in their respect for French accomplishments.

It seems to have been a received idea in the Americas, at least to the extent the citizens of the new republic still regarded themselves as "Anglosaxons".

As for the prestige of the French military, I think we have to factor in what an extraordinary reputation as warriors the French acquired in the Napoleonic wars. The French reputation for military prowess can be compared to the German one today. France lost the Napoleonic wars but went down fighting with such élan for a century it was implicitly assumed they were the masters of land warfare. (The Brits can stick to their seas.)Compare that to the Germans. You hear no German surrender jokes, and they got the snot kicked out of them twice in the 20th c. But just like France in the 19th c. they way they lost made their reputation.

So the French reputation had a very long way to fall, beginning with the war of 1870-71 (where the empire of Napoleon III was already considered "the New Babylon" in Britain), to make a very rough landing in 1940.

if you're defeated you're a coward.
Yes, the suspiscion is that some Americans, and Brits for that matter, assume that military success is a decent measure of moral fortitude and righteousness.:scan::confused:

The French otoh have never defined themselves as "not English" in the same way. There's always been a strong streak of Anglophilia among the French elite, occasional snide remarks aside. The British seem more grudging in their respect for French accomplishments.

There is a quote on anglo-french relations to the effect that the elites of both countries love each other, while the common men despise each other.

Cann't remember who it was and quotes are a hassle to attribute online.

The question was if French generally are traitorous cowards. La Fayette certainly wasn't, and the French troops that fought in North America performed well in all accounts I have read. La Grande Armée might have been led by a Corsican, but he didn't do the fighting himself, right? 'Britain and America bailing the French out' of WW1 is one of those mythical beliefs that really doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The French soldiers showed on most occasions exemplary courage and élan (again: Verdun!), and reinforced the Brits on several occasions when the latter wavered. The Americans had to taught to fight a modern war by French and British officers. During the Entente offensive in 1918 the US were still the junior partner and the war would most surely be won also without them; it was a question of time by then.
Is that why the French army was on the verge of mutiny by the time we got there? Nah, I think that if America hadn't intervened, WWI would have probably ended diplomatically in Germany's favour.

WW2; yep the French performed miserably in the summer of 1940! Look at what Free French troops performed later on, like Leclerc's men in North Africa.
I don't know what else to call having 2/3 of your homeland occupied, the rest turned into a puppet state, and losing 1/3 of your army in the frist real battle with your enemy. There is also the fact that without British and American help, the Free French would have been simply wiped out along with the rest of the French army. That sounds like pretty miserable perfomance to me.

Indochina; Dien Bien Phu was a defeat, but does anyone really question the bravery and martial prowess the French Paratroopers and Foreign Legionnaires showed there?
Of course the foreign legionnaires were brave, they are not French. Might be why they are called Foreign.:p

And here we get to my point; your reasoning seems to be that if you win you're brave, if you're defeated you're a coward. I disagree with this.
Not necessarily. I consider the Germans were brave, but they lost the war. Besides, the stereotype is not just that the French are cowardly. The full stereotype is that the French are either cowardly, or incompetent, often both. But hey, this is just a stereotype. It is about as accurate as most other stereotypes, ie inaccurate. You did ask where it came from, and I told you.:)

And it seems english ppl think french is a gay language.

What, so anti-French sentiment is really homophobia in disguise? So that's perfectly all right then...

Why on earth would anyone think French is a "gay" language? Surely the stereotype of the French is of incredibly virile romantic lovers, who seduce women by murmuring sweet nothings in their amazingly romantic and seductive language. Not that it ever works for me - maybe my French accent is too atrocious. Cue bad joke: "Je t'adore," he whispered passionately in her ear; "Shut it yourself!" she yelled back at him.

Seriously, the reason the French and the English traditionally hate each other is the simple fact that they're next door to each other, plus of course their tendency to invade, conquer, or simply migrate to each other's countries. As for why Americans don't like the French, I assume it's primarily to do with the French opposition in the UN to Bush's policies in the past few years. However, perhaps it's also connected to the fact that one of the stereotypes of the French is as very cultured, intelligent, sophisticated, and generally too clever by half. Since this is the opposite of the prevailing stereotype of Americans it's no wonder they don't like each other...

Also, don't forget the French love/hate affair with America too. France is full of American influence - I remember when I first visited America I thought it looked just like France. Yet at the same time they hate the creeping influence of American English into their language and do their best to stop it. That vaguely hypocritical behaviour ("We'll buy your Big Macs but we won't speak to you in your language even though we speak it perfectly") is pretty annoying.

Germany is regarded as a nation of murderous, psychotic warmongers because even though they lost both world wars, they almost won them both, plus the German language is just menacing to listen to while French sounds a bit effeminate to our ears. Most Americans probably couldn't find Norway on a map, and even if they could, their first thought would be about vikings, not Quisling. For Italy, people tend to remember the Romans. Britain, people think of them stoically fighting through the blitz.

I think this sums it up perfectly. I don't know if you're American, but this summarises the way Americans view the world: primarily in military terms. The American obsession with temporal power, understood mainly in a military way, means they tend to evaluate other countries on the basis of their most famous wars or recent military actions! Britain and Germany make them think of WWII, Scandinavia makes them think of Vikings, etc... The French haven't done well in wars in the past century or two, so Americans don't think much of them. The fact that (a) they did pretty well in wars before then, and (b) this is a totally insane way of judging countries in the first place doesn't seem to make much difference.

[QUOTE=Wolfhart;5042153]But on the other hand the French sold Louisiana to the USA thereby doubling the size of the latter, and the gratitude towards Royal Navy seems feeble indeed in 1812.

I've never claimed them to be allies, merely on cordial terms with eachother, and I know that things sometimes were a bit strained between Napoleon III's France and USA. But I was under the impression that the French Republics generally had cordial relations with USA. And why shouldn't they; they were both suspicious bordering on paranoid against the Brits, and 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

The USA had an undeclared war with Fracne 1798-1800 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi_War). Lousiana wasn't a move of friendship on behalf of Napoleon, just a means of getting money and getting rid of territory he didn't want to spend resources on defending (especially after losing Haiti).

France and Britain alike weren't well liked prior to 1812. After the war though the US and Britain began to get along much better compared to the US and France. Britain was our unofficial muscle which upheld the Monroe Doctrine until the 20th century when we develped our own powerful sea-going fleet. Britain did this because it was an unofficial way for them to keep the status quo in the Americas, one where they were getting rich off the caribbean and held power in Canada. The de-militarization of the Great Lakes in the 1840s greatly symbolized how well the US and UK got along.

Americans have picked their fellow english-speaking companions over the pond over France since thw War of 1812.

It comes from france getting beaten in world war two, do you thing the american army of 1940 could have defended the french boader against the germany army at the time?

If you ask the French, they'll say that the antipathy comes from the 16th century when colonization of America began. The people who colonized America were the riff-raff. The French aristocracy believed that the immigrants were scum that couldn't make it in France, had wrong religious believes etc. Thus, the French still feel superior over the American people.

If you ask the French, they'll say that the antipathy comes from the 16th century when colonization of America began. The people who colonized America were the riff-raff. The French aristocracy believed that the immigrants were scum that couldn't make it in France, had wrong religious believes etc. Thus, the French still feel superior over the American people.
Sounds as if you missed the French revolution somehow.:p

In what way shape or form do you imagine French 17th c. aristo sentiments have any relevance to the Republic of France?:crazyeye:

And don't you think there are english jokes in france ?
Just search through steph's posts and find them. :mischief: :D
Me? Making jokes at England's expanse? :mischief:


Even though the French fought well in the Napoleonic wars, they were led by a foreigner, and were eventually defeated anyway
Napoleon's was not a foreigner. France bought Corsica to Genoa 3 years before his birth to be sure he would be French.

About the language: it's a bit suprising French would be considered gay by English speakers, given that a good part of English words are of French origin. I think French is the main contributor to English "main" words. Or perhaps it's because the grammar as be been extreamly simplified so the English could understand it. Therefore, French looks more sophisticated and refined, and sophistication is associated with gay??

More seriously, we have a saying in French
"Qui veut noyer son chien l'accuse de la rage"
The guy who wants to kill his dog says his a rabid dog

A few historical reference:
- About WWII:
The French did lose the land war, as any other European countries, including Britian and Russia. The British were saved by the Channel, and the Russian by ... Ruuuussssssiiiiiiiaaaaaa (what a large country!) so they had time to build up their forces, learn how to fight the Germans. The French didn't, and it leads to Vichy. Only 7,000 French joined De Gaulle in England after his famous call of July 1940.
However, some are quick to forget that despiste France being occupied by the Germans, the Free French Forces fought in Tunisia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Syria, Lebanon, reached 100,000 men in Italy (1943). In june 1944, they numbered 400,000 people


The 2nd Division landed in Normandy on August 1, 1944, about two months after the D-Day landings, and served under General Patton's Third Army. The division played a critical role in Operation Cobra, the Allied breakthrough from Normandy, when it served as a link between American and Canadian armies and made rapid progress against German forces. They all but destroyed the 9th Panzer Division and defeated several other German units. The 2nd Division's losses amounted to 141 killed and 58 medium and light tanks while they killed 4,500 Germans, captured 8,800, and destroyed 118 heavy and medium tanks.

The most celebrated moment in the unit's history involved the rescue of Paris. Allied strategy emphasized destroying German forces retreating towards the Rhine, but when the French Resistance under Colonel Rol staged an uprising in the city, Charles de Gaulle pleaded with Eisenhower to send help. Eisenhower agreed and Leclerc's forces headed for Paris. After hard fighting that cost the 2nd Division 35 tanks, 6 self-propelled guns, and 111 vehicles, von Choltitz, the military governor of Paris, surrendered the city at the Hotel Meurice. Jubilant crowds greeted French forces, and de Gaulle conducted a famous parade through the city.

Eventually, after liberating Strasbourg, the 2nd Division finished its campaigning at the Nazi resort town of Berchtesgaden, in Southeastern Germany, where Hitler's mountain residence, the Berghof, was located.

By September 1944 the Free French forces stood at 560,000, which rose to 1 million by the end of 1944, and were fighting in Alsace, the Alps and Brittany. By the end of the war in Europe (May 1945), the Free French forces comprised 1,250,000, including 7 infantry and 3 armoured divisions fighting in Germany.

The French were beaten in 1940, but were resilient and tenacious and managed to be there at the end.

- About the unwashed smelling French
After the liberation of France, France was still in a very bad economical shape after the occupation of the country by Germany. Rationning remained in force for a relatively long time while the country was reduild.
Soap was one of the rationned goods. So it's true that when the Americans were in France in 1944-1945, the French didn't wash much, as soap was to rare to allow daily showers.
But nowadays, we have running water, and even hot water :eek: !

Conclusion
I think the real explanation of the bashing is simply that :
- the British were the arch ennemy during the Napoleonic wars, and try to diabolize Napoleon, downplay the French results at the time, and promote their own deeds and Wellington. See the posts from PrivateHudson, he's clearly brainwashed ;) (a friendly :p to PH if he reads it).
- the Americans try to undermine French influence in the world, as we are not supporting their current policy the way Tony Blair is. In fact, from here it seems the bashing from the Americans has enormously increased in 2003, when we opposed them about Iraq.

That vaguely hypocritical behaviour ("We'll buy your Big Macs but we won't speak to you in your language even though we speak it perfectly") is pretty annoying.

For many French people the normal behaviour would rather be "I don't like your Big Macs, and I won't speak to you in your language, because I hardly speak it given the poor way language are taught in that country"

It comes from france getting beaten in world war two, do you thing the american army of 1940 could have defended the french boader against the germany army at the time?
What? A post from Nobody with France in it, and no reference to the Rainbow Warrior? Tradition are really falling appart :(

Is that why the French army was on the verge of mutiny by the time we got there? Nah, I think that if America hadn't intervened, WWI would have probably ended diplomatically in Germany's favour.Nah, when Americans began to arrive at the front the mutinies were over a long time ago, and the summer offensive of 1918 didn’t depend on the Americans for its success, but they did help.


I don't know what else to call having 2/3 of your homeland occupied, the rest turned into a puppet state, and losing 1/3 of your army in the frist real battle with your enemy. There is also the fact that without British and American help, the Free French would have been simply wiped out along with the rest of the French army. That sounds like pretty miserable perfomance to me.So because of the collapse in june 1940 the French soldier is forever condemned as a coward? And the Free French couldn’t be brave soldiers because they had British and American help? Ever heard of the battle of Bir Hakeim, or how the Free French 2nd Armoured Division defeated German Panzer divisions and liberated Paris? [Edit: crossposting with Steph, see his account above]
Even the Vichy forces put up a brave and stubborn defence in Oran against the American invaders. So I still don’t see your point here. I agree about the miserable performance in the summer of 1940, but that’s all.


Of course the foreign legionnaires were brave, they are not French. Might be why they are called Foreign.:p There were French paratroopers, and French officers (and NCO's I think) leading the legionnaires, who were trained by the French Army.


But hey, this is just a stereotype. It is about as accurate as most other stereotypes, ie inaccurate. You did ask where it came from, and I told you.:)Point taken :lol: and you're right. Even though I don't agree with you about the above, it is what too many people believe to be true.

The USA had an undeclared war with Fracne 1798-1800 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi_War). Thanks, I knew nothing about that :)
Lousiana wasn't a move of friendship on behalf of Napoleon, just a means of getting money and getting rid of territory he didn't want to spend resources on defending (especially after losing Haiti).

France and Britain alike weren't well liked prior to 1812. After the war though the US and Britain began to get along much better compared to the US and France. Britain was our unofficial muscle which upheld the Monroe Doctrine until the 20th century when we develped our own powerful sea-going fleet. Britain did this because it was an unofficial way for them to keep the status quo in the Americas, one where they were getting rich off the caribbean and held power in Canada. The de-militarization of the Great Lakes in the 1840s greatly symbolized how well the US and UK got along.

Americans have picked their fellow english-speaking companions over the pond over France since thw War of 1812.Point taken, I can be mistaken in my beliefs about the cordial American-French relations. But if I remember correctly the Brits did humiliate the Americans on more than one occasion when the latter wanted to enforce the Monroe doctrine and the Royal Navy showed that the Brits didn’t feel bound by this doctrine. I believe that is why the Americans developed their sea-going navy at last.

It comes from france getting beaten in world war two, do you thing the american army of 1940 could have defended the french boader against the germany army at the time?

What American army? It wasn't until the Cold War that we began to keep a sizable professional army; our army in 1940 couldn't have stopped much of anyone. As was our wont, though, we ramped up pretty quickly, and by the end of the war we had a very formidable force.

One thing I'd add to the discussion is that a lot of Americans seem to dislike the French for a perceived self-importance. Many Americans are very proud of our role as the world's lone superpower and cultural hegemon, and they look poorly upon others who have pretensions to such roles. France is a country that, in their estimation, thinks of itself a bit too highly.

As for the prestige of the French military, I think we have to factor in what an extraordinary reputation as warriors the French acquired in the Napoleonic wars. The French reputation for military prowess can be compared to the German one today. France lost the Napoleonic wars but went down fighting with such élan for a century it was implicitly assumed they were the masters of land warfare. (The Brits can stick to their seas.)Compare that to the Germans. You hear no German surrender jokes, and they got the snot kicked out of them twice in the 20th c. But just like France in the 19th c. they way they lost made their reputation.

So the French reputation had a very long way to fall, beginning with the war of 1870-71 (where the empire of Napoleon III was already considered "the New Babylon" in Britain), to make a very rough landing in 1940.That's the most reasonable explanation I've seen yet :)

In fact, from here it seems the bashing from the Americans has enormously increased in 2003, when we opposed them about Iraq.I agree, that is my impression too up here in my corner of the world. Freedom Fries and other such crap.

I agree, that is my impression too up here in my corner of the world. Freedom Fries and other such crap.
I'll tell you a secret... The world being a flattened sphere, it has no corner :eek:. Don't spread this informationto quickly or it may lead to a worldwide panic.:woohoo:

It comes from france getting beaten in world war two, do you thing the american army of 1940 could have defended the french boader against the germany army at the time?

If there were anyone within French, he should modernize Maginot line and build enlargement in boarders with Belgium and Luxembourg:D

Or perhaps just not advance the bulk of his best forces into Belgium where they could be cut off, but maintain an agressive defence of the French border.

That's the most reasonable explanation I've seen yet :)
You can add to it the way the US reacted to the fall of France in 1940 on the highest political level, Roosevelt himself, Admiral Leahy the US ambassador to France and Cordell Hull of the State Department. They concluded that France was a morally spent, useless nation, the logical conclusion of which was Vichy France, being "the Real France". The Free French had it the other way around of course.

Not backing the Mickey-Mouse operation of The Free French the Brits set up in London in 1940 made every sense at first. But when the US admin by the time The Free French had 400.000+ troops fighting under allied command (by 1943 iirc) still refused to even recognise de Gaulle, preferring to court the old Vichy hands under Darlan's leadership, then they were just being contrary, refusing to acknowledge that their first assesment of 1940 might have been erroneous.

Admitting being wrong doesn't seem to be the most prominent trait of Americans (though Eisenhower did, and personally apologised to de Gaulle for the US treatment of the Free French during the war), and somehow the Roosevelt admin's view of France in WWII as generally useless seems to have been perpetuated.

There still seems to be a debate over what "The Real France" is, and not just in France, as might be expected, but in the US as well. That's one hell of a recognition of the importance of France in the eyes of Americans, even if it's entirely negative. Something is at stake here for the Americans...:goodjob:

I suppose it may also be relevant that the United States and France both, at approximately the same time, reinvented themselves as post-monarchical republics with lots of fanfare about the rights of man and so on. You could say that ever since then they've been rivals for the post of flagship "modern" nation.

this is an interesting thread :)

i guess my take on it all is that, imho at least, French bashing is simply a 'joke'; a mixture of stereotype and fallacy that is imo unwarranted.

of course, i can joke and toss the 'frog' reference around in private correspondence. however, it is totally in jest and most importantly, in private. i mean, it is a generaliztion like Jerry, Tommy, or Yankee.

i wholly disagree w/ the nature of 'french cowardice'. the french fought w/ tremendous bravery during ww1 and in certain instances during ww2. if memory serves me right, it was poor leadership during ww1 which led to the end-of-war strife that the french army suffered (or at least primarily so).

otoh, during ww2 i think france got caught flat-footed. by that i mean that the static defense strategies in 1940 were very obsolete, the military hardware in use was clearly outdated (and poorly constructed in many cases), memories of the sacrifices of the previous war, and put simply, they were tremendously overwhelmed by the German war machine. yes, the French got smeared. but there's always more to a story than what is on the surface...

what i personally have a problem w/ is the post-ww2 obsession of France to retain its colonial holdings despite the pleas of her allies. this stubborness in algeria and vietnam was a huge mistake imo. so i guess it's de gaulle and his policies that i don't like.

a sidenote re vietnam:
i am keenly aware of the american pressure put on the french to act as a bulwark against communist expansion in SEA. however, this does not diminish france's poor showing and poor calcualtions here.

the allegations of wide-spread anti-semitism in france is disturbing to me. of course, this biasness exists in many corners of the globe. but i still find it disturbing nonetheless.

in sum - i have no hard feelings against the french. i actually feel bad for them to a certain degree (in the context that i think they're unfairly portrayed). i am aware of her contributions to the american republic, culture, democaratic ideals, cuisine, and even music (i'm a debussy fan myself). i laugh a little though when a frenchman puffs out his chest and declares to anyone who will listen that it is them who created the ideals of democracy etc :lol: however, such minor quibbles as this does not make for a negative image imo.

lastly - i find the american stereoptype that we think strictly in "military" terms in complete hogwash. it's offensive actually - at least to any american who is educated and can form a qualified and enlightened opinion. sure we like to poke fun at our traditional allies like france and britain, etc. but to generalize a statement like that is disappointing to see...

Americans are generally short-sighted with short memories. We generally don't know all that much about the world outside of our borders, and we generally don't know much about history predating the birth of our nation. With that in mind, I provide my take on the source of anti-Frenchism in America.

First, the American colonists did a noble thing and shed much blood in the Revolution. We defeated the world's foremost military power and asserted the rights of man. In highschools across the country the children are taught that French assistance was mainly relegated to hand-wringing, and once the issue had moved to our favor only then did the French decide to help. Even then they did not participate in any real fighting, their contribution mainly being naval bombardment at Yorktown.

Not only that, but after the noble Americans stood up for the rights of man in the face of a Europe dominated by aristocrats, then the French decided to copy our ideas and call them their own. To top it off, the French botched the French Revolution, and allowed Napoleon to not only become a dictator but to also crown himself Emperor. Sure, his military victories are taught in schools as being top rate, but they didn't really involve America. Napoleon's affect on the American state comes from the Louisiana Purchase, where he sold us a ridiculous amount of land for two cents on the dollar. What an idiot!

Eventually, Napoleon III came not long after Napoleon, and he was a resoundingly poor leader that did not deal fairly with America. After that came WWI, where France decided it would be a good idea to engage in trench warfare. Only after the United States brought true military initiative and prowess to the field were the Allies able to defeat the German menace.

Of course, this was followed by WWII, when the French decided to let the Germans take over the country in a mere two weeks time. In American schools it is often said with more than a small dose of seriousness that the French army lost more men by drowning in the Atlantic Ocean after they couldn't find anywhere else to retreat to than they did fighting the German army.

Of course, throughout the war and for sometime thereafter France remained an economically and militarily poor country that was constantly supported by American donations and protection.

Then, of course, the French government, which has never shown real intelligence, though they could beat up on some Vietnamese farmers armed with pitchforks. So they decided to send the same old poorly trained and cowardly French soldiers to Vietnam only to be beaten by the Vietnamese farmers at Dien Bien Phu. Once again, America had to clean up the mess the French made. So the French left and we sent in real soldiers. By this time, Vietnam had militarised, but the Americans, unlike the French, never lost a battle.

Currently, the French government has continued to waffle in the face of the obvious threat of terrorism. Once again the Americans and British forces have been deployed to hostile lands and are fighting a conflict which obviously benefits the French, but the French are making no real contributions (and that might be a good thing).

So, in sum, the Americans gave the French the Revolution and saved her from Germany twice. We generously paid their way through the reconstruction following WWII and bailed them out of Vietnam. Currently, our forces are fighting overseas for a direct benefit to them.

And what does America receive from France for our benevolence? Hostility and arrogance. The French have tried to assume the ideals of the Revolution as their own. They prohibit some American words from being used in print and official circumstances. To American tourists the French are downright mean and abhor their presence. And forget any military or monetary assistance in international affairs. The French don't provide it, they just demand it. This is how they treat America, the savior of the French.

I haven't re-read any of what I just typed, but I think that just about every sentence I wrote is grossly exaggerated if not an outright lie. Nevertheless, the above is what is being taught in American schools in regards to history and the US-France relationship. The teachers obviously don't state these things so overtly, but the message is there in the omissions.

That's where the French-bashing is coming from.

The quality of your school system really needs reforms. Or just abolishing an copying an existing. Would perhaps be better.
BTW the ones at Dien Bien Phu, who really fought were the French paratroopers and the German legionaries...

Adler

Adler, unfortunatly, not many people know about the former wermacht soldaten in the foreign legion.

Adler, our school system is in utter ruin, starting from kindergarten all the way through university. Even some of our top universities, such as the Ivy League schools, which are renowned throughout the world, are a joke. I honestly believe that I would have learned more and been better prepared to enter the work force if I had chosen not to attend school altogether.

But that is a topic for another thread (and another forum).

Just wanted to point out that a lot of the American mis-perception of the French is based on our school system.

I want to know what is taught about Austria-Hungary and Czechoslovakia than. Wow :0

I want to know what is taught about Austria-Hungary and Czechoslovakia than. Wow :0

Haha...those aren't even real countries anymore. Because of this I'm not sure a fresh highschool grad could even tell you what Austria-Hungary or Czechoslovakia is, but...

A studious and intelligent American student should graduate college with the following knowledge about Austria-Hungary and Czechoslovakia:
1. The Hapsburgs have something to do with Austria-Hungary.
2. Austria-Hungary was a Central Power in WWI.
3. Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo, and that might be somewhere in either Austria-Hungary or Czechoslovakia.

After reciting those facts, the American student will then say that he thought Austria-Hungary had split up (not knowing that it did). If the student is really intelligent, they'll be able to tell you that Czechoslovakia broke up into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, but most don't know that. My cousin is 16 years old, which puts her in 10th Grade, and her history teacher still refers to Russia as the Soviet Union.

A student that did all of their homework and read all of their assignments might be able to tell you that Austria's capital is Vienna and the Czech Republic's capital is Prague. Beyond that, American students are told absolutely nothing about either Austria-Hungary or Czechoslovakia.

A college student that majors in history might learn a little more than the above, but I'm not so sure.

what i personally have a problem w/ is the post-ww2 obsession of France to retain its colonial holdings despite the pleas of her allies. this stubborness in algeria and vietnam was a huge mistake imo. so i guess it's de gaulle and his policies that i don't like.
I think you have to exonerate De Gaulle on that count. He was recalled only in 1958, when first Indochina and then Algeria had gone down the toilet to try to sort out the mess that was the Fourth republic.

Which he did, not least by granting Algeria independance, pointing out in a televised public adress to the French people that colonies were simply the status symbols of yesterday, stuff that might make you feel good for sentimental reasons, but as obsolete as steam trains; i.e. it's time to move on people.

De Gaulle also had a special relationship with the sub-Saharan African colonies, all of which had an easy transition to independance.

Actually, if you look into it, Algeria and Indochina were very special as colonies go. In Morocco and Tunisia independance was granted with a signature, no problem, no violence, the countries were simply handed back to their traditional elites. Syria and Lebanon had rebellions crushed in blood in the 1920's, but were promised independance during WWII, and then let go with no major French bellyaching.

Algeria otoh was a French province, technically as French as Champagne within the administrative structure. Also in Indochina the French had set down roots pretty hard to just yank up. That might have been a thorughly bad idea in retrospect, but Algeria was clobberd into submission and then made a target for European colonisation already in the 1830's. If the level of violence involved in sewering it from France looks disproportionate, I think a fair comparison is the mess Britain made over Irish independance.
the allegations of wide-spread anti-semitism in france is disturbing to me. of course, this biasness exists in many corners of the globe. but i still find it disturbing nonetheless.
Have you tried checking up on them, if you find them disturbing? For what it's worth me saying this, those are simply allegations...
I'd be interested to hear who's making them. That could give a clue about their worth.

Thanks, I knew nothing about that :)
Point taken, I can be mistaken in my beliefs about the cordial American-French relations. But if I remember correctly the Brits did humiliate the Americans on more than one occasion when the latter wanted to enforce the Monroe doctrine and the Royal Navy showed that the Brits didn’t feel bound by this doctrine. I believe that is why the Americans developed their sea-going navy at last.

Firstly the US developed it's sea-going fleet to support it's ever growing imperial ambitions. A sea-goign navy is vital to protecting world-wide economic activiyties, as well as projecting your power across the globe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Influence_of_Sea_Power_upon_History



I'm sure that French and American relations weren't bad. They weren't great either. There was never any push for America to try to befriend France in any real relationship until WW1. Yes you are correct, Britain had on several occasions been the focus of several 19th century affairs:

-The Caroline Affair (1830s) in which Canadian rebels took control of an island in the Niagra River (Canadian side) declaring it independent; Americans (citizens) aided the rebels and when the British seized a private American ship which was shipping aid to the rebels, in retaliation American citizens burned down a private Canadian ship. Both nations went as far as to militarizing the borders. Eventually both sides backed down. The Webster-Ashburton Treaty settled the Maine-New Brunswick border, and Minnisota border which was also in dispute. It also de-militarized the Great Lakes.

-The infamous 54-40 or fight! Which resulted in tensions over the Oregon border. Due to America's soon-to-be war with Mexico they both settled on the 49th.

- The CSS Alabama was a ship sold to the Confederate States during the Civil War by the British. Eventually

the British paid 15 million dollars in collateral damage after an international tribunal.


Thats about the extent. The USA and Britain worked together multiple times during the century. For example:

1850 Clayton-Bulwer Treaty: Neither nation would seek to take over any nation in central america; and a joint effort would be made in any canal building.

1855: British Ships aid in the protection of American citizens during a Uruguayan revolution.

1857: As per the 1850 treaty the US deposes an American citizen who had taken over a central american nation.

After the Oregon deal and Clayton-Bulwer treaty there was never any real tensions between the US and UK. SUre the UK didn't mind aiding the CSS: it meant money and a chance to split growing American power; but they weren't going to get directly involved and after the war Britain never tried to really oppose American power. (Until the 1920s naval arms race which ultimatly led to the Washington Naval agreements)

Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
It comes from france getting beaten in world war two, do you thing the american army of 1940 could have defended the french boader against the germany army at the time?

no because we would have been in germany attacking:p

Americans are generally short-sighted with short memories. We generally don't know all that much about the world outside of our borders, and we generally don't know much about history predating the birth of our nation. With that in mind, I provide my take on the source of anti-Frenchism in America.

First, the American colonists did a noble thing and shed much blood in the Revolution. We defeated the world's foremost military power and asserted the rights of man. In highschools across the country the children are taught that French assistance was mainly relegated to hand-wringing, and once the issue had moved to our favor only then did the French decide to help. Even then they did not participate in any real fighting, their contribution mainly being naval bombardment at Yorktown.

Not only that, but after the noble Americans stood up for the rights of man in the face of a Europe dominated by aristocrats, then the French decided to copy our ideas and call them their own. To top it off, the French botched the French Revolution, and allowed Napoleon to not only become a dictator but to also crown himself Emperor. Sure, his military victories are taught in schools as being top rate, but they didn't really involve America. Napoleon's affect on the American state comes from the Louisiana Purchase, where he sold us a ridiculous amount of land for two cents on the dollar. What an idiot!

Eventually, Napoleon III came not long after Napoleon, and he was a resoundingly poor leader that did not deal fairly with America. After that came WWI, where France decided it would be a good idea to engage in trench warfare. Only after the United States brought true military initiative and prowess to the field were the Allies able to defeat the German menace.

Of course, this was followed by WWII, when the French decided to let the Germans take over the country in a mere two weeks time. In American schools it is often said with more than a small dose of seriousness that the French army lost more men by drowning in the Atlantic Ocean after they couldn't find anywhere else to retreat to than they did fighting the German army.

Of course, throughout the war and for sometime thereafter France remained an economically and militarily poor country that was constantly supported by American donations and protection.

Then, of course, the French government, which has never shown real intelligence, though they could beat up on some Vietnamese farmers armed with pitchforks. So they decided to send the same old poorly trained and cowardly French soldiers to Vietnam only to be beaten by the Vietnamese farmers at Dien Bien Phu. Once again, America had to clean up the mess the French made. So the French left and we sent in real soldiers. By this time, Vietnam had militarised, but the Americans, unlike the French, never lost a battle.

Currently, the French government has continued to waffle in the face of the obvious threat of terrorism. Once again the Americans and British forces have been deployed to hostile lands and are fighting a conflict which obviously benefits the French, but the French are making no real contributions (and that might be a good thing).

So, in sum, the Americans gave the French the Revolution and saved her from Germany twice. We generously paid their way through the reconstruction following WWII and bailed them out of Vietnam. Currently, our forces are fighting overseas for a direct benefit to them.

And what does America receive from France for our benevolence? Hostility and arrogance. The French have tried to assume the ideals of the Revolution as their own. They prohibit some American words from being used in print and official circumstances. To American tourists the French are downright mean and abhor their presence. And forget any military or monetary assistance in international affairs. The French don't provide it, they just demand it. This is how they treat America, the savior of the French.

I haven't re-read any of what I just typed, but I think that just about every sentence I wrote is grossly exaggerated if not an outright lie. Nevertheless, the above is what is being taught in American schools in regards to history and the US-France relationship. The teachers obviously don't state these things so overtly, but the message is there in the omissions.

That's where the French-bashing is coming from.

Now I'm not usually a champion of our schools, and I don't know where on earth you went to school, but this is just ridiculous.

@Warman

The second opium war, 1860. When Admeral Hope was taking a pounding bombarding chinese forts US Capt (eventully Commodore) Josiah Tattnall fired on the forts and aided Hope's withdrawl, justifying his exceeding of his authority with the famous "Blood runs thicker than water".


OT - So what do the myopic anti-french say to the resistance? Have to believe those fellas had balls the size of coconuts.

no because we would have been in germany attacking:p
Repeat this to yourself. You might actually come to believe it. The fact is, no country was even remotely a match on the ground against the german war machine in 1940. Most of the equipment USA used during WW2 was still on paper at that time.

Repeat this to yourself. You might actually come to believe it. The fact is, no country was even remotely a match on the ground against the german war machine in 1940. Most of the equipment USA used during WW2 was still on paper at that time.sarcasm and you call americans stony:mischief:

lastly - i find the american stereoptype that we think strictly in "military" terms in complete hogwash. it's offensive actually - at least to any american who is educated and can form a qualified and enlightened opinion. sure we like to poke fun at our traditional allies like france and britain, etc. but to generalize a statement like that is disappointing to see...

Well, of course it's a generalisation and a stereotype, but like all generalisations and stereotypes it's not without truth. All the discussions I've ever seen on this sort of subject seem to turn into arguments about military prowess. Just look at this very thread. No-one ever seems interested in what contributions the French have made to literature or political theory, or their philosophy, music, or economy. No, the only question that seems remotely important is how well their soldiers have done on the battlefield. I don't see why military prowess is remotely important to an evaluation of a country or its inhabitants, or indeed particularly interesting at all. And yet whenever Americans and French collide on the boards we just hear endless retreads of WWII...

no because we would have been in germany attacking:p
What with?:crazyeye:

And yet whenever Americans and French collide on the boards we just hear endless retreads of WWII...
Let's go way back then. The War of 1812. Americans are cowards, they run away from a bunch of brits and allowed them to capture their capitol.:D

....
I realy didnt want to know it :cry:.
Well, but with this level of knowledge, what are you learnig in history lessons? Some extensive knowledge about Maya or Aztecs culture? Or you only learning very detailed history of you town/city? In which topics are schools interested?

Verbose,

a nice thoughtful response. thanks for sharing :) however - colonialism is colonialism dude. i know that fdr tried like hell to get the allies to abandon the colonies yet the French were extremely reluctant. and they paid for it in blood, treasure, and prestige. so on that note, i think the colonial transition that the French underwent could've been handled much better imo. of course, hindsight is 20/20.

additionally - i think de gaulle wore his heart on his sleeve. and that can be a detriment at times. some of his public remarks were probably uttered in poor taste imo. another factor that turns me off to de gaulle was his support for the quebec independence movement. it is my opinion that no european nation ought to publicly support seccession like that in today's day and age. if i was Canadian, i'd have been real p-o'ed over that.

as for the anti-semitism remark:
yes, it is speculation and rumor i suppose. however, i always get a little squeemish when i read this stuff. but you're right. i have no iron-clad proof. just mentioning it as an off-the-cuff remark after googling it. of course, i don't beleive everything i read...but here's link w/ some stats from a fairly reputable outfit:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=252

Plotinus,
well - i see your point. however, to generalize is often unfair imo. and not every discussion you've seen on these boards re Americans and the French devolve into a military one. if you look closely at what i wrote, i applaud the French for many things - and i do not have that harsh of an assessment of the military failings of ww2 and the immediate post war scene. so i guess what i'm trying to do is to dipsell the myth and stereotype that all Americans see things so abstractly like that. it's absurd actually...to even consider making such blanket statements.

i know that fdr tried like hell to get the allies to abandon the colonies yet the French were extremely reluctant. and they paid for it in blood, treasure, and prestige. so on that note, i think the colonial transition that the French underwent could've been handled much better imo. of course, hindsight is 20/20.

another factor that turns me off to de gaulle was his support for the quebec independence movement. it is my opinion that no european nation ought to publicly support seccession like that in today's day and age. if i was Canadian, i'd have been real p-o'ed over that.

So, you think Canadian are OK to be pissed when De Gaulle says the Quebec colony should be freed from Canadian domination, but you consider it normal that FDR, i.e. an American nation, tried to get France abandon colonies and don't like it when France was reluctant to do so?

colonialism is colonialism dude. ;)

quebec is a province my friend, not a colony. i can't see the correlation i'm afraid.

seccession is, imho, borderline treasonous and to have a foreign element like de gaulle stirring the pot like that is reprehensible imo.

quebec is a province my friend, not a colony. i can't see the correlation i'm afraid.

Algeria wasn't a colony either, it was an integral part of France.
Quebec was conquered too, by the British in 1763, that's only 90 years before we did the same with Algeria.

The main difference is we killed 1/3 of the native population during the conquest of Algeria(from 1830 to 1900), while there's only 130,000 natives left in Quebec out of 600,000 when the British took over.

i don't see your point Steph. i mean, i understand what you're saying but fail to see any relevence.

could this be a franco-phone issue perhaps?

The point is you are using double standard.
- You disagree that De Gaulle speaks about the independance of Quebec (seen as a province from Canada, but could be seen as a conquered colony with a different language from France), and find it normal that Canada resented it.
- You find it normal that Roosevelt asked Allies to free their colonies (Algeria = conquered colony), and don't like that France was reluctent to do so. But France saw Algeria as an integral part of France.

Or am I assuming wrongly?

quebec is a province my friend, not a colony. i can't see the correlation i'm afraid.

seccession is, imho, borderline treasonous and to have a foreign element like de gaulle stirring the pot like that is reprehensible imo.

But as Verbose pointed out, technically Algeria was a part of metropolitan France too...
On the real world though, De Gaulle's, and recently Ségolene's, remarks about Québec are off the mark, I agree.

Regarding the military power thing, a funny thing is that up until some 150 years ago, the french would have been widely seen as the european warmongers, militaristic leaning and french the language of war (just count how many military words are french), while the germans, prussians aside, following from the early 19th century german romantism, were a bunch of peaceful and lovely quiet farming people. IIRC, when Napoleon invaded Germany, defetead Prussia (which quickly surrendered ;)) and marched over Berlin he commented something like "What a people! The austrians at least have honour!", out contempt from the military abilities of germans.
Funny how events and perceptions are so quickly inverted.

Regarding the military power thing, a funny thing is that up until some 150 years ago, the french would have been widely seen as the european warmongers, militaristic leaning and french the language of war (just count how many military words are french), while the germans, prussians aside, following from the early 19th century german romantism, were a bunch of peaceful and lovely quiet farming people. IIRC, when Napoleon invaded Germany, defetead Prussia (which quickly surrendered ;)) and marched over Berlin he commented something like "What a people! The austrians at least have honour!", out contempt from the military abilities of germans.

Your historical references have some errors in them, but the parallel is interesting. When Napoleon invaded Prussia, he indeed defeated them easily. However, the Prussia of Frederick the Great, a few years earlier, (he died only in 1786), Prussia was seen as a strong military. But they fought in 1806 as they did 25 years earlier, and it was not adapted to the new warfare of Napoleon. However, Napoleon had a lot of respect of the Old Fritz, and when he arrived in Berlin, he went to his tomb and said to the French Generals to
remove their hats in respect, as they won't be there if Frederick was alive.

In 1806, Prussia had a glorious military past, and was seen as a strong military, but was defeated very easily by Napoleon's new way to fight wars. However, the Prussians adapt, reformed their army, were outraged by the French occupation, and finally were instrumental in defeating the French, exhausted by 20 years of warfare.

In 1940, French had a glorious military past from WWI, and was seen as the strongest military of the world, but was defeated easily by Germans new way to fight wars. However, the French reformed their army, were outraged by German occupation, and finally fought with the allies until Germany was defeated.

Conclusion : in each case, we had an overconfident country, relying on old tactics and hardware, defeated by an innovative country. But after initial defeat, the defender finally manage to reform and win, with the helps of allies.

So I think safer knowing people are laughing at French military instead of praising and fearing it. It just means will take them with their pants down, and they won't see it coming ;)

Verbose,

a nice thoughtful response. thanks for sharing :) however - colonialism is colonialism dude. i know that fdr tried like hell to get the allies to abandon the colonies yet the French were extremely reluctant. and they paid for it in blood, treasure, and prestige. so on that note, i think the colonial transition that the French underwent could've been handled much better imo. of course, hindsight is 20/20.
I'm certainly not disputing this. Colonialism is colonialism, and the colonised are the ones entitled to make the call on the matter. (Applies for Québec as well.):)

I'm just saying that there are colonies and colonies. France let Lebanon, Syria, Morocco, Tunisia and all of subsharan Africa go with no real problems. (Iirc there was some feet-dragging about Syria that annoyed the US post WWII.)

Algeria and Indochina were different due to the way they had been framed in the mind of the French, the emotional and political investments made in these places were huge, and more important than the economical side of things.

That's why I think the painful process of decolonisation they both displayed is more comparable to how Britian acted in Ireland. A similar bloodyminded unwillingness to let go.

I don't know if this has been said already, but to me the recent surge in French bashing originates in French opposition to the Iraq war.

When I lived in the US back in the early '90s, I heard a lot of bashing about hygiene, girls don't shave, blah blah blah, but I never heard a single thing about the military. And believe me, since I lived in Texas, if they could have, they would have.

Now I'm back in the US, and what do I hear? Nothing but French military jokes. A quick search on the internet will also bring all of these "wonderful" ads about chicken and French , they popped up around 2003 when it was cool to be anti-French (hey, Freedom fries anyone?)
http://static.flickr.com/24/38975699_c73f29da37.jpg

So to me the French army bashing was something that might have been latent for a long time, but that really exploded over the whole Iraq matter.

That the first rule of military history (France has never won a war against a significant enemy without foreign help) get repeated so often is a direct result of an American desire to take attention away from the Second Rule (America has never won a war against a significant enemy without French help)

:-D

No one like Monthy Python? Or my post was misplaced. Either way, i like it. Ever seen the Monthy Python sketch with two french dudes and the sheep? Hilarious.

No one like Monthy Python? Or my post was misplaced. Either way, i like it. Ever seen the Monthy Python sketch with two french dudes and the sheep? Hilarious.

Loved the quote! French people have quoted it at me a couple of times in taunting sessions.

EDIT - The REAL cause of the 100 years war http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDglm-vGES8

No one like Monthy Python? Or my post was misplaced. Either way, i like it. Ever seen the Monthy Python sketch with two french dudes and the sheep? Hilarious.


Oh yeah, don't worry I got it ;)

For unknown reasons i love British humour and like to poke fun at the British and French rivilaties. I'd also like to point out that i'm also glad its all in good fun now. However, i have to confess that i don't get it the same way when a British calls me a cheese eater froggy and an American does. Why? Because the American is most likely believing what he's saying while the British is joking. I'm probably wrong though but i could go on and tell about that one time in a pub... Herm anyway, he was drunk so he doesn't count i guess.

I'm certainly not disputing this. Colonialism is colonialism, and the colonised are the ones entitled to make the call on the matter. (Applies for Québec as well.):)

I'm just saying that there are colonies and colonies. France let Lebanon, Syria, Morocco, Tunisia and all of subsharan Africa go with no real problems. (Iirc there was some feet-dragging about Syria that annoyed the US post WWII.)

Algeria and Indochina were different due to the way they had been framed in the mind of the French, the emotional and political investments made in these places were huge, and more important than the economical side of things.

That's why I think the painful process of decolonisation they both displayed is more comparable to how Britian acted in Ireland. A similar bloodyminded unwillingness to let go.
another nice response :D and i can see your points regarding vietnam and algeria.

i think you hit the nail on the head as they say about de-colonization being a "painfull process". no question and it really had no historical precendent. so yeah, it was a peculiar time in history.

that is a nice analogy regarding Ireland and England. well done. :goodjob:

The point is you are using double standard.
- You disagree that De Gaulle speaks about the independance of Quebec (seen as a province from Canada, but could be seen as a conquered colony with a different language from France), and find it normal that Canada resented it.
- You find it normal that Roosevelt asked Allies to free their colonies (Algeria = conquered colony), and don't like that France was reluctent to do so. But France saw Algeria as an integral part of France.

Or am I assuming wrongly?
there's no double standard from my point of view.

regarding quebec - it is and has been a province of a sovereign nation. and before it was sovereign, it belonged to the british. so for de gaulle to get on his soapbox and claim support for the seccessionists is clearly out of line in my opinion.

i mean, it'd be like a dude in Sweden trying to rally around a few knuckleheads in New Jersey who want to secede from the US. well, New Jersey was once New Sweden they say! well, who cares? it's the US now (and british before that!)

re France seeing Algeria as an integral part of her nation/empire:
this is where i fundamentally disagree. and i say this out of respect for the 'consent of the governed' clause of the American Consitution. of course, this is an American document and has no bearing of french intl affairs. but my point is that whether it's algeria, quebec, vietnam, etc - it is the people of these lands, and notably in quebec, that ought to be able to form their own interpretations and identities and not have what i consider unwarranted and unsolicited opinions from former colonizers (and 200+ years ago to boot!). so in the spirit of this concept, i think that de gaulle's comments regarding the quebec seperatist movement were way out of line.

regarding quebec - it is and has been a province of a sovereign nation. and before it was sovereign, it belonged to the british. .
And before that it was French and got invaded.

And regarding Algeria: it was a integral part of a sovereign nation, and before France was a sovereign nation, well... it was 1500 years ago, much longer than Canada.

What's the point of your remark about ownership of Quebec?


re France seeing Algeria as an integral part of her nation/empire:
this is where i fundamentally disagree. and i say this out of respect for the 'consent of the governed' clause of the American Consitution.

Does it apply to native americans too?


whether it's algeria, quebec, vietnam, etc - it is the people of these lands, and notably in quebec, that ought to be able to form their own interpretations and identities
So, Roosevelt could express its sympathy toward the people of Algeria and promote independance of French colonies, but De Gaulle can't express sympathy toward the people of Quebec?

What? A post from Nobody with France in it, and no reference to the Rainbow Warrior? Tradition are really falling appart :(

That is why new zealand bashs the french, that and the 1999 world cup of rugby. We have every right to after the bombing but no one else really cares, outside of new zealand. So it dosent add to the whole "French bashing a orgin"

I think that most nations or groups of people enjoy certain types of jokes, no matter if that joke is based on ignorance or stereotypes. Humour does tend to play on stereotypes anyway, subtle or otherwise. One example of this would be the "Irish" joke, in which the humour derives from the idea that an Irish person does everything the wrong way round, or is just plain stupid. Speaking to people from abroad you tend to find that there's an equivalent in other countries where they make fun of a particular neighbouring country in the same way.

Personally though I think that the ability to laugh at eachother and ourselves is important, so as long as it is good natured I don't think it matters too much. Its when the humour is designed to be spiteful or when it derives from an underlying dislike that the problems occur. In that sense I don't think that the British and French making fun of eachother matters much, it is after all not taken very seriously in either country and we both to a degree derive satisfaction out of annoying the other. :D

Some of the humour coming out of America about the French in recent years though is a different kettle of fish.

...to me the recent surge in French bashing originates in French opposition to the Iraq war.

That's my impression too - I only noticed it after Iraq War II.

It seems particularly asinine, as the French were surely proved right about that fiasco.

That's my impression too - I only noticed it after Iraq War II.

It seems particularly asinine, as the French were surely proved right about that fiasco.

Yeah, well. Trying to gloat over the fact that the French were right is not the best way to stop the French bashing, I've learned :)

I'm sick of hearing it actually. It seems to be immature and jingoistic in nature.

For unknown reasons i love British humour and like to poke fun at the British and French rivilaties. I'd also like to point out that i'm also glad its all in good fun now. However, i have to confess that i don't get it the same way when a British calls me a cheese eater froggy and an American does. Why? Because the American is most likely believing what he's saying while the British is joking. I'm probably wrong though but i could go on and tell about that one time in a pub... Herm anyway, he was drunk so he doesn't count i guess.

I agree. The jokes are the same, but in general the Frogs vs RosBifs thing is light-hearted and perfectly healthy. The Americans seem to have a different thing going on...

In that sense I don't think that the British and French making fun of eachother matters much, it is after all not taken very seriously in either country and we both to a degree derive satisfaction out of annoying the other. :D
Agreed, and there is indeed different degrees. It think the English derive more satisfaction when they annoy the French that the opposite. That's because for you to succeed in annoying us is a real achievement, while for French to annoy the English is not so thrilling. The French have so much more wit compare to you that it's not a real challenge. :p

Agreed, and there is indeed different degrees. It think the English derive more satisfaction when they annoy the French that the opposite. That's because for you to succeed in annoying us is a real achievement, while for French to annoy the English is not so thrilling. The French have so much more wit compare to you that it's not a real challenge. :p
Like the difference in the expression used for describing when you'ven been rendered speechless, but a while later come up with a real cutting remark that would have been the perfect come-back.

In English it's "taxi wit". It comes to the English when they're finally sitting in the car, headed for home,

In French it's "esprit d'escalier", staircase wit. I.e. the French are still on the staircase when it occurs to them.:lol:

That's because the French can't do two things at once, so when they start thinking about their response they stop moving and have to sit down on the stairs. The British, by contrast, are much more efficient, and are capable of thinking of the response whilst continuing their journey home...

Sitting in a taxi is difficult for you Plotinus? :p
Also as a postscript to my post above if it's just a silly joke I see no problem with it. As others have been saying; it only annoys me when it's clearly meant in a mean spirited way.

I think it goes back to the XYZ affair, that's when our relationship started to go bad. And, if you look back, that's when those nasty political cartoons of the French started popping up.

That's because the French can't do two things at once, ...
That's a falacious statement, look at my title below my name


they stop moving and have to sit down on the stairs.
First, I know that in England you are a bit retarted and have nowhere to sit down but stairs, but don't generalize, in France we invented comfortable chairs long ago.
Second, thinking in the stairs doesn't imply we are sitting down, just that we think while climbing the stairs, i.e. when doing something else.

The British, by contrast, are much more efficient, and are capable of thinking of the response whilst continuing their journey home...
Yes, I guess that being sitted in the rear of a taxi while someone else is driving you home requires a lot of concentration. :p

Yes, I guess that being sitted in the rear of a taxi while someone else is driving you home requires a lot of concentration. :p

It certainly does if the driver's French. They don't even know what side of the road to drive on!

They don't even know what side of the road to drive on!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Can i quote you in my sig with "The French don't even know what side of the road to drive on!" ?

I know it's out of topic - but that makes it even funnier. :mischief:

According to some studies, it seems driving on the left side of the road generates less accident than driving on the right.
So Belgium has planned to change from driving on the right to driving on the left to reduce road death.
However, they fear it may to drastic a change and so plan to make it progressively.
Thirst first month, only the trucks will change, followed by the car one month later.

Aha, another national prejudice comes to the fore - the French attitude to the Belgians!

Not an attitude entirely confined to the French, though. One passage comes to mind:

But though even words like joojooflop, swut, and turlingdrome are now perfectly acceptable in common usage, there is one word that is still beyond the pale. The concept it embodies is so revolting that the publication or broadcast of the word is utterly forbidden in all parts of the galaxy, except one - where they don't know what it means. That word is "Belgium"...

[Heretic Cata] Naturally anything I post on the forum is quotable!

[Heretic Cata] Naturally anything I post on the forum is quotable!
:goodjob:
Aha, another national prejudice comes to the fore - the French attitude to the Belgians!
And let's not forget that vs Switzerland moment a while back. :mischief: I should go look for a link - it was quite funny. :goodjob:

Aha, another national prejudice comes to the fore - the French attitude to the Belgians!

If we directed all our jokes toward the English, they would soon be overwhelmed... So we try to spread it on several people.
Link good hunters who kills just enough preys for their enjoyment, but keep a large enough population for reproduction.
And in the case of English, reproduction can indeed by a serious issue.

As the judge who asked the man in the courthouse "But how could you have raped a corpse ???" And the man answer "I thought it was an English woman".

I don't know why, but I have a distant feeling that we may have wander a bit to far from the original topic.

Stay focused gentlemen, stay focused!

I don't know why, but I have a distant feeling that we may have wander a bit to far from the original topic.It is quite educational though, for me up here in my corner of the world :D, to see the mechanisms of bashing revealed like this. :eek::lol:

It is quite educational though, for me up here in my corner of the world :D, to see the mechanisms of bashing revealed like this. :eek::lol:
That's not bashing, that's wit fencing.
And in the Olympics game, France has won 278 medals at fencing. Great-Britian only 24

Steph,

it think that it is pretty irrellevant that france had been in control of quebec. it is the fact that the province of quebec is part of a sovereign nation. and for de gaulle to stick his nose into the affairs of a province of a sovereign nation is pretty pathetic and meddlesome imo.

iow, the point about my remark on the ownership of quebec is that it matters not who owned it in the past. the fact of the matter is that quebec had been a province of canada since the 1860s and for de gaulle to stir the pot like he did is a slap in the face of the canadian govt. if i was a lawmaker in ottawa, i'd have been pretty darn pissed over that.

wrt your native american commnent:
obviously, you're trying to throw a wrinkle into the argument. the context of what i wrote was that i wonder what the avg algerian would have thought about france considering their lands to be an "intergral part" of her empire. i'd say that they'd probably have preferred their own identity, not one associated w/ france. this is where i have a beef w/ france's mgmt of decolonization. if the the principle of the 'consent of the governed' is considered, then i am rather dubious wrt french intentions at this time. that imo is a double standard.

i don't see why fdr couldn't voice his opinion about decolonization. after all, the people of these lands were essentially opressed (for lack of a better term) and forced to live under the rule of their colonizers. and by 1962 - colonialism was clearly on its last breaths. again - quebec at this time was not a colony, her people were clearly not oppressed, and most importantly - quebec was part of a sovereign nation.

to compare algeria to quebec in the same vein is like comparing apples and oranges imo.

El Justo,

I still don't understand why you make such a difference between Algeria and Quebec, on this ground. Wasn't Algeria a part of France, in the French views? Wasn't France a sovereign nation?

The Algerians were perhaps oppressed, but at least we had still left enough alive to protest loudly enough to be heard.

And what if the Quebec people would have liked to have their own idendity? Why can't De Gaulle voice something about it, while Roosevelt can do it for Algerians?

You are in shaky ground here I think.

1) France can say nothing about Quebec, because France oppressed the Algerian people. But Roosevelt, president of a country who killed almost all the natives living their before colonist come can say something...
2) American can speak about Algeria because Algerians wanted to be independant from France, a sovereign nation, but France can say nothing about the people of Quebec wanting their independance from Canada, because it's a foreign nation?

That's not bashing, that's wit fencing.
And in the Olympics game, France has won 278 medals at fencing. Great-Britian only 24

Perhaps the british failure at olympic fencing contrasted by the french olympic fencing sucess but military failure can be explained by us giving our soldiers guns? If our squadies still used the epee and the foil perhaps we would have similar sucess at the olympics ;)

Steph,

i'll have to politely disagree w/ you. i am not on shaky ground.

you are failing to see my point and it's becoming rather burdensome.

Quebec: she is not a colony. plain and simple. she is and had been part of the dominion of canada. and most importantly (and what yoiu clearly fail to see or acknowledge) is that she is part of the dominion on her own volition. iow - not by force and clearly under the premise of the 'consent of the governed' principle.

Algeria: a colony depsite you claiming it to be an "integral part" of france. this statement is very subjective although i respect your opinion on it but vociferously disagree.

you wrote "left enough alive" - i suppose you're referring to the extermination of the native americans. well - all i can say is: oh how nice :rolleyes: you're grabbing at straws here...

that's the thing! let the people of quebec decide! and de gaulle should've kept his trap shut! plain and simple!

roosevelt is imo able to freely voice his opinion b/c the people of algeria were being supressed against their will. what part of that do you not understand man? quebec - part of a sovereign nation and willingly. is that clear enough?

fdr did not kill native americans. sure his predecessors did but they learned that tactic fromt he english and french. plus - it was water under the bridge at that point. i'm talking about immediately after ww2, not the 17th through the 19th century.

refer to my statement about quebec above and it will directly answer your question regarding sovereignty.

Perhaps the british failure at olympic fencing contrasted by the french olympic fencing sucess but military failure can be explained by us giving our soldiers guns? If our squadies still used the epee and the foil perhaps we would have similar sucess at the olympics ;)
France : 53 medals at shooting, Great Britain 94. It's a bit better, but it doesn't compensate for our overwhelming greatness at fencing compared to you.

As the judge who asked the man in the courthouse "But how could you have raped a corpse ???" And the man answer "I thought it was an English woman".

Well, English women do tend to go like that when they're too close to a Frenchman. I'm sure I needn't explain why in any detail.

Just to reiterate, by the way:

The jokes are the same, but in general the Frogs vs RosBifs thing is light-hearted and perfectly healthy.

I think the typical English approach to this sort of thing is that of Flanders &
Swann's "Song of Patriotic Prejudice" (http://oules.lightentertainment.org/myths/prejudice.html), which satirises patriotism and xenophobia by taking them to ridiculous extremes. It seems to me there's very little genuine dislike of the French among the British in general - the American anti-French sentiment of the past few years is indeed very different in tone and origin.

El Justo, what would you say if a Frenchman, in 1960, suggested that you should free Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, and Wyoming and give them back to the Sioux?

Well, English women do tend to go like that when they're too close to a Frenchman. I'm sure I needn't explain why in any detail.

One word: awe. Our manlyhood leave them speechless and paralyzed in joyfull anticipation.

Lets see the definition of a fence: “a person who receives and disposes of stolen goods”

France better than Britain at fencing? Yes, makes perfect sense to me. ;)

OT – hasn’t de Gaulle been responsible for a lot of French bashing by the Brits since the war (“France has no friends, only interests” etc.).
I mean, denying us from entry into a club we didn’t want to be a member of anyway is so rude. ;)

Steph,

i'd probably say that you're about 90 years too late.

Steph,
i'd probably say that you're about 90 years too late.
Can you elaborate?
Do you imply that the American president had a higher morale ground because you exterminated the Sioux in 1870, and so the French have nothing to say about your occupation of the area for 90 years, but you can speak about the Algeria colony, occupied for 130 years, because we failed to kill all the natives?

Steph,

yeah - i can elaborate.

the extermination occurred in a previous century.

higher moral gorund? hell no. it is a tragedy what occurred to the native americans. and for you to even insinuate that i may be thinking along those lines is rather condescending imo.

the french can talk about the extermination until they're blue in the face.

i think what you're just not getting or you're simply unwilling to acknowledge is that the native americans, the algerians, and the quebecers are all very different and to compare them side-by-side like you've done is simply untenable. the cicumstances of each varied greatly, the socio-political machinations of the eras were all pretty different, and the military aspects invloved make direct comparisons a dicey proposition at best.

I don't have any problem about Americans speaking against the French colonization of Algeria.

But I still don't see why the opposite couldn't be done

The Québecers were not oppressed, true.

The assumption that it makes the desire of a large proportion (not majority, but large proportion), for self-determination and independance somehow less legitimate (and this is what your claim boils down to, Justo) than that of the Algerians is, frankly, insulting - and I'm not even an independantist.

There was, perhaps, a difference in the urgency of the situation, but a desire from a specific culture for self-determination is always equally legitimate. And commenting on it - for foreign politicians - is legitimate as well, provided they're willing to deal with the diplomatic fallout of such a comment.

At least that's this Québecer's opinion.

(Also, several American politicians, journalists, etc have intervened more or less subtly in favor of Can unity in the past, so...)

Agreed, and there is indeed different degrees. It think the English derive more satisfaction when they annoy the French that the opposite. That's because for you to succeed in annoying us is a real achievement, while for French to annoy the English is not so thrilling. The French have so much more wit compare to you that it's not a real challenge. :p

Oh please I've seen your films and TV, I'd rather undergo Chinese water tortoure than sit through 10 minutes of any one of them ;)

Then again we still have to appologise to the rest of the world for the Carry On series :cringe:

Oh please I've seen your films and TV, I'd rather undergo Chinese water tortoure than sit through 10 minutes of any one of them ;)


I thought everyone likes Movies from french authors. But i understand if you were watching a TV when there was either "Loftstory" or "La Ferme" on.

And what with all the retired English people invading southern France?! Actully, you can come but don't bring your food with you, thanks you very much!

And what with all the retired English people invading southern France?!

You'd have to ask someone who is retired for an answer to that one.

Personally I much prefer tramping around Normandy and drinking Calvados. :)

I thought everyone likes Movies from french authors.

For every Emelie there is an Alien Ressurection. :p

Oh please I've seen your films and TV, I'd rather undergo Chinese water tortoure than sit through 10 minutes of any one of them ;)

You watched them :eek:
Then you fell for the trap, you are not supposed to do that. We make them exclusively to laugh thinking how stupid the English people who do watch them are.

For a country that claims to derive very little satisfaction from annoying the English you spend an awful lot of time, money and effort producing films and TV specifically for that purpose. :lol:

And what with all the retired English people invading southern France?! Actully, you can come but don't bring your food with you, thanks you very much!

We have been through this. We are still moody about loosing SW France to the bloody frogs so we are sending our OAP's to buy it back, converted barn by converted barn. We almost have a majority in the dordogne valley and in another twenty years we will have the lot valley too. They we will vote the buggers back into the union and institute an anual parade where we wave overcooked roastbeef at the bally forigners.

That and the cheap booze.

For a country that claims to derive very little satisfaction from annoying the English you spend an awful lot of time, money and effort producing films and TV specifically for that purpose. :lol:
No, we don't. That's why the said movies are crappy. It's not our fault if the English lack the intellectual means to see the trap and think we do. It may be all that fog that sips into your brain through the ears and cloud your mind

No, we don't

Amount to make Amelie: 11 Million Euros (something like 7.2 million pounds)
Amount to make Alien Resurection*: 70 million dollars (A little under 36 million pounds or 53 million euros)
Amount to make The Full Monty: 1.8 million pounds (something like 2.7 million euros)

You see we're a prudent people and we know how to get value for money here. We see a country spending a significantly larger amount of money on making something than we do and we assume that the people of that country would require quality in return. It's amazing that the French will put up with such utter rubbish specifically to catch out the British. Clearly the truth is that they are incapable of producing decent comedies and dramas unlike good old blighty. :)

The fact that they do this knowing that the enormous majority of the British public would rather watch paint dry than a French film shows how petty minded and bitter they've become :D

* Well it had a french director :p

My inner french want to find something witty to reply with, but, the full monty was awesome. I enjoy british cinema so there i said it.

I would also like to point out that my father had a Triumph motorcycle back in the days, like this one http://bricologie.free.fr/photos/collection/triumph.JPG. And it rocked.

*grits teeth*

Amelie was a great movie.

*feels shame of ancestors shaking their heads sadly*

*grits teeth*

Amelie was a great movie.

*feels shame of ancestors shaking their heads sadly*

All I can say is its a good job they don't make you take a citizenship test ;)

The French are ungrateful

Okay, but ungratful reguarding what?

Okay, but ungratful reguarding what?

I am Mystic Meg, I see trough the vail a future that includes some misinformed jingoism about the second world war...

The French are ungrateful
Unlike the British? Known for their immense gratitude?:crazyeye:

Unlike the British? Known for their immense gratitude?:crazyeye:

Oi! He's a yank!

So Mr, insulting-the-wrong-nation-silly-man-whos-father-smells-of-elderberries, what have the Brits been ungreatful to the French or Sweedish for?

Oi! He's a yank!

So Mr, insulting-the-wrong-nation-silly-man-whos-father-smells-of-elderberries, what have the Brits been ungreatful to the French or Sweedish for?
Ooops! Didn't notice any Americans around before. Sorry!:blush:

I just find the oblique statement "They're ungrateful" inherently funny.:lol:

Since when is "gratitude" in general terms considered a much asked for virtue in a nation? (I know that's not how he meant it.)

And that goes for Britain as much as anyone else.;)

The French have much to be grateful to the English for!

They founded the Sorbonne, so we kindly built Oxford to show them how it should be done.

They produced Joan of Arc, and we sensibly burned her so they could have a martyr all of their own.

They produced Descartes, and we thoughtfully provided Newton and Locke to show why he was completely wrong.

They produced Napoleon, and we helpfully defeated him to save them the trouble of having to run the whole of Europe.

They produced Derrida, and we dutifully laughed at this excellent joke!

The French have much to be grateful to the English for!

They founded the Sorbonne, so we kindly built Oxford to show them how it should be done.
But no one else ever looked at Oxford.:confused::scan:
Which for most of its history has been an excellent place, if you wanted to instill a smattering of classics in the progeny of the upper crust and turn out "muscular Christians" for the CoE. At least until the Germans showed every one how a Uni should really operate. Curiously except for the French with their grand ecoles doing the same job.:D
They produced Joan of Arc, and we sensibly burned her so they could have a martyr all of their own.
For which the English should be eternally greatful. Winning that war would have left you eternally in bed with the French.:groucho:
They produced Descartes, and we thoughtfully provided Newton and Locke to show why he was completely wrong.
No matter. We still live in a Cartesian world most of the time. The rest of it we spend in the one of Einstein and Heisenberg. In the intermediary period we inhabited the Kant-Laplacian world.:cool:
They produced Napoleon, and we helpfully defeated him to save them the trouble of having to run the whole of Europe.
Intsead setting the Germans up to spend the next century and half trying to do it instead...:p;)
They produced Derrida, and we dutifully laughed at this excellent joke!
You liked that one? Try Deleuze next time then!:lol::goodjob:

i think it's a modern phenomenon. it only goes as far back as :vomit:Charles Aznavour!