French D-Day losses

[etoile]

Originally posted by insein
I see mr. Marbles is known as the "Oh shit! evidence!" Troll.

Whenever this species of troll is confronted with solid evidence refuting an assinine statement it has made, they spontaneously blurt out "Oh shit" while sitting alone in their cave. They then proceed to go on to other threads acting as if the one where they have been refuted never existed.

A common troll species seen on the internet. Only dwarfed in comparison to the "I'm Right no Matter what, Asshole!" Troll.

I beg everyone's pardon for being rustic and untutored, but can anyone tell me the definition of Internet troll?

 

[Annie]

Troll:

1. One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

2. A person who posts shit on the Internet because he is too weak to face people in the real world.

 

[robgmiles]

Originally posted by insein
So why even have a military?

Instead of having their soldiers at least try to defend the civilian population, they laid down their arms, gave Germany the country with little resistance and allowed their civilians to be killed. Thats the one job of a military. To protect the population from harm. They failed miserably. At least if they fought and died, they could have saved face and possibly saved a few thousand of their civilians.

Come on mate, the original post was stating how many french civilians died AND how many people in the french military died, hundreds of thousands of them!!!! What and they didnt fight against the Germans?????????? How else did they die???????
Like the previous post said, the germans were just too powerful, in the end it took the British, the Americans and the Russians as well as French resistamce and numerous other groups to stop the Nazis, the French just didnt have the military might to stop the germans, but you can NEVER say that the French did not fight against them!!!!

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by robgmiles
Come on mate, the original post was stating how many french civilians died AND how many people in the french military died, hundreds of thousands of them!!!! What and they didnt fight against the Germans?????????? How else did they die???????
Like the previous post said, the germans were just too powerful, in the end it took the British, the Americans and the Russians as well as French resistamce and numerous other groups to stop the Nazis, the French just didnt have the military might to stop the germans, but you can NEVER say that the French did not fight against them!!!!

Obvious their appeasement gave them no choice in the matter. The French dominated the German's 100,000 home defence militia years after the terms of the treaty was violated and after Hitler's aggressive intentions were clear.

http://www.geocities.com/iahistory_uhelskib1/germanyrhineland.html

German Re-Occupation of the Rhineland

On March 7, 1936, Hitler ordered German troops to re-enter the Rhineland, the area of Germany that borders France. This was in direct violation of both the Versailles Treaty signed after World War I, and the Locarno Pacts signed in 1925. Hitler had previously voiced distaste over the stipulations in the Versailles Treaty requiring German disarmament, believing that it left her unfairly vulnerable to other European powers. He secretly began strengthening the German military, and in 1936, against the advice of his military advisors, he sent two battalions of German troops into the Rhineland

The nation most offended by this action was France, due to the fact that this directly threatened their borders. It called Germany's reoccupation a "hostile action" and asked its European allies for assistance in removing the new German threat. Invoking the Locarno Treaty, the other nations had a right to use force to remedy Germany's treaty violation. However, France did not want to risk taking action alone, and the other nations were too hesitant. Consequently, no action was taken and Germany was allowed to fully refortify the region. Had Germany been stopped now, World War II could perhaps have been avoided.

Had France called Hitlers bluff, he ordered that his forces were to retreat.

France alone could have matched Germany in 1936.

But after three more years of embolding Hitler more with greater acts of appeasment and ignoring their own defences until obviously too late, it's a lesson they still haven't learned.

 

[robgmiles]

Originally posted by insein
Have some evidence on me.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/...17/141224.shtml
WMD's in Syria. Terrorist Plot to kill 80,000 foiled.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482
Debka announces before the war began that weapons were being shipped to Syria.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109338,00.html
Al Queda training camps in Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...,779359,00.html
Liberal Newspaper concurs.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast.../jordan.terror/
Terrorists from Syria received training in IRaq.

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/27/100047.shtml
And some new information that has just recently come to light that shows a DIRECT LINK with Saddam and Al Queda on 9/11.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133
Reiterated in the Wall Street Journal.

Plus are you really putting your faith into the UN at this point?

I really think this evidence is mostly nonsense, i have heard it all before but none of it definately true, i mean al queda have never had any training camps in Iraq, there was a group of Islamic miltants fighting in northern Iraq who had nothing to do with al queda although the governments and media tried very hard to create a link, again no solid evidence of a link.
Al queda are probably operating in iraq at present but this is only because americans are now there. Dont forget Osama hated Saddam and everything he represented because Iraq was not an Islamic fundamentalist country.

Id there was really a direct link between Iraq and 911, dont you think it would be masdsive news and everyone would have heard about by now, i think this is the biggest bullcrap of them all, lets face Iraq had nothing to do with it whatsover.

The whole basis of this war was false, yes Saddam was an evil sod, but he was never involved with Al queda or 911 and most likely never had any of WMD we sold him left over.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by robgmiles
The whole basis of this war was false, yes Saddam was an evil sod, but he was never involved with Al queda or 911 and most likely never had any of WMD we sold him left over.

The whole basis? There was more to the basis of the war than either of these issues. The items in Bush's speech included the need for human rights, democracy, and to fight Islamic regimes as well. Are these false?

 

[robgmiles]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Well if you are so sure of yourself why not provide your source of info?

You want to knock down all the links provided, please show us you source that provides facts otherwise!

Surely if your gonna do something so drastic as go to war with a country where you may lose your own soldiers lives and civilians then you need to come up with some solid backable evidence Not just go to war on a few, 'ifs' or 'maybes'. All im saying is that there is no hard evidence of these links, none whatsover and that is a fact. You honestly find me some solid evidence that Iraq had something to do with 911 and then maybe i will start listening

 

[robgmiles]

Originally posted by Comrade
The whole basis? There was more to the basis of the war than either of these issues. The items in Bush's speech included the need for human rights, democracy, and to fight Islamic regimes as well. Are these false?

I totally agree about the need for human rights and everything, im not questioning the fact that Saddam was an evil s.o.b. Your definately right on that one, but in reality that wasnt the main focus, if it were then there are tens of countries we could go to war with. the main reason for the war was WMD and al queda links, it is the war on terror after all

 

[robgmiles]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Hmmm, typical answer! Unfortunately that was not an answer fitting the question put forth to you!

Again, if you are so sure that there is no way this is possible then please provide your evidence or links!

what im saying is there doesnt have to be evidence against it there just has to be evidence for it. anyway how can you prove there definately isnt any links like that, is like asking me to prove there definately isnt any links between al queda and george bush, you know it aint right but you cant give solid evidence to back it up can you.

Basically you cant just go to war with a country that 'might' have links. people in britain probably has more links with al queda than iraq, london is full of al queda sympathisers, there has been lots of arrests in the past several months

 

[robgmiles]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
You are not getting the picture here! You dismissed every article posted by Insein as being B.S., I say provide evidence otherwise!

Take away WMD's & terror links and there is still plenty good reason to remove Saddam from power!

How about the Anthrax and VX poisoning that were unaccounted for, and Blix himself said that Iraq was not being co-operative with this.

If by some chance a terror attack occurs by one of these means you best pray that someone you love doe's not fall victim to it!

talk about us getting carried away and talking off the subject. really forgotton how we got from france to this now. I will keep my ears and eyes peeled for any hard eveidence, you know i wanna see this evidence just as much a sthe next person. Must go before i get sacked from my job
cheers

 

[insein]

Originally posted by robgmiles
Surely if your gonna do something so drastic as go to war with a country where you may lose your own soldiers lives and civilians then you need to come up with some solid backable evidence Not just go to war on a few, 'ifs' or 'maybes'. All im saying is that there is no hard evidence of these links, none whatsover and that is a fact. You honestly find me some solid evidence that Iraq had something to do with 911 and then maybe i will start listening

I see that "Actual Links" to real "News organizations" that find stories for a living arent "Real" enough for you.

Therefore no response is needed for your ignorance. The evidence speaks for itself.

 

[English Guy]

And having suffered so badly in the war (also from internal division on supporting or opposing the Nazis) one can see why they don't want any war, anywhere.

....

What you have to realise about the French is that, far from not wanting any war, anywhere, the French poilitical class is playing a different diplomatic and strategic game altogether. The French have not hesitated to assert themselves militarily since the end of WW2, particularly where colonial interests were at stake (think Algeria / Indochina).

One of the reasons Chiraq opposed the assertion of British and American military power in Iraq is because of his idea of 'multipolarity' - the French are philosophically and instinctively opposed to what they call 'Anglo-Saxon' power and are trying to build a united Europe as a diplomatic, military and economic counterweight to the US under French leadership. The roots of this reflexive aversion to all things 'Anglo-Saxon' can be traced back to their 900 year rivalry with the English and is heightened by the humiliation of their defeat at Agincourt, and their later defeats in the Napoleonic Wars at The Nile, Trafalgar and Waterloo, and by their showing in WW2.

Another reason points to personal hubris and vanity: in the years preceding 911, Chiraq had grown increasingly uncomfortable with Tony Blair's growing international profile - and popularity - and resolved to wrest the 'leadership of Europe' from his 'young rival'.

There is more going on than meets the untrained eye!

 

[insein]

What you have to realise about the French is that, far from not wanting any war, anywhere, the French poilitical class is playing a different diplomatic and strategic game altogether. The French have not hesitated to assert themselves militarily since the end of WW2, particularly where colonial interests were at stake (think Algeria / Indochina).

One of the reasons Chiraq opposed the assertion of British and American military power in Iraq is because of his idea of 'multipolarity' - the French are philosophically and instinctively opposed to what they call 'Anglo-Saxon' power and are trying to build a united Europe as a diplomatic, military and economic counterweight to the US under French leadership. The roots of this reflexive aversion to all things 'Anglo-Saxon' can be traced back to their 900 year rivalry with the English and is heightened by the humiliation of their defeat at Agincourt, and their later defeats in the Napoleonic Wars at The Nile, Trafalgar and Waterloo, and by their showing in WW2.

Another reason points to personal hubris and vanity: in the years preceding 911, Chiraq had grown increasingly uncomfortable with Tony Blair's growing international profile - and popularity - and resolved to wrest the 'leadership of Europe' from his 'young rival'.

There is more going on than meets the untrained eye!

You should speak to newguy. Your ideas are similar.

 

[Annie]

What you have to realise about the French is that, far from not wanting any war, anywhere, the French poilitical class is playing a different diplomatic and strategic game altogether. The French have not hesitated to assert themselves militarily since the end of WW2, particularly where colonial interests were at stake (think Algeria / Indochina).

One of the reasons Chiraq opposed the assertion of British and American military power in Iraq is because of his idea of 'multipolarity' - the French are philosophically and instinctively opposed to what they call 'Anglo-Saxon' power and are trying to build a united Europe as a diplomatic, military and economic counterweight to the US under French leadership. The roots of this reflexive aversion to all things 'Anglo-Saxon' can be traced back to their 900 year rivalry with the English and is heightened by the humiliation of their defeat at Agincourt, and their later defeats in the Napoleonic Wars at The Nile, Trafalgar and Waterloo, and by their showing in WW2.

Another reason points to personal hubris and vanity: in the years preceding 911, Chiraq had grown increasingly uncomfortable with Tony Blair's growing international profile - and popularity - and resolved to wrest the 'leadership of Europe' from his 'young rival'.

There is more going on than meets the untrained eye!

Good God! We have a thinking European amongst us!

 

[Comrade]

What you have to realise about the French is that, far from not wanting any war, anywhere, the French poilitical class is playing a different diplomatic and strategic game altogether. The French have not hesitated to assert themselves militarily since the end of WW2, particularly where colonial interests were at stake (think Algeria / Indochina).

One of the reasons Chiraq opposed the assertion of British and American military power in Iraq is because of his idea of 'multipolarity' - the French are philosophically and instinctively opposed to what they call 'Anglo-Saxon' power and are trying to build a united Europe as a diplomatic, military and economic counterweight to the US under French leadership. The roots of this reflexive aversion to all things 'Anglo-Saxon' can be traced back to their 900 year rivalry with the English and is heightened by the humiliation of their defeat at Agincourt, and their later defeats in the Napoleonic Wars at The Nile, Trafalgar and Waterloo, and by their showing in WW2.

Another reason points to personal hubris and vanity: in the years preceding 911, Chiraq had grown increasingly uncomfortable with Tony Blair's growing international profile - and popularity - and resolved to wrest the 'leadership of Europe' from his 'young rival'.

There is more going on than meets the untrained eye!

Hey, where the hell did this dude come from?



Holey crap Batman, he has a brain!!!

 

[Comrade]

Apologies, English Guy, WELCOME!

 

[EuroIrish]

Fair point English Guy, well to a degree at least, the English also have their silly fantasies about how the World looks. You won at Agincourt but lost the War, you pretend that 1066 was your last defeat on British soil; this is a myth version of History. Over history the Impregnable Dover Castle was ruined. Several South of England cities where destroyed by the French, the Dutch nearly took London and inflicted savage defeats upon the English all the way up the Thames. The Spanish took large areas of Cornwall at another stage. A Franco-Welsh army invaded England. A Scot army invaded England (technically a British conflict I know). Yes I know the next one was prior to 1066, but remember Danelaw. Then there was the American (!!!!) raid on a large British Navel port in the West of Britain (this was carried out to a limited degree of success by a group of Americans using guerrilla tactics). Then there was the Franco-Irish Army which took control of 1/3 of Ireland when Ireland was under the British Crown. The channel islands where taken by the Germans.

British people who lean towards the United States tend to be unaware of the above because they dream of Empire.

Please also stop going on about 1966 Well done to your boys down in Australia, hard luck in Twickenham, we just had to ruin the party.

 

[8236]

Also, France was one of the quickest nations to aid Hitler in his "final solution of the Jewish question." While they executed Jews in Poland, Ukraine, and everywhere else they conquered (remember, they reached Moscow, where- like Napoleon before them- they were deterred by the inhuman winter), the Soviet government never handed Jews over to the Nazis (they had their own methods of dealing with the Jews). Other nations, such as tiny Denmark which was taken without a fight, were much more resilient. In fact, Denmark smuggled out most of the 7,500 jews living there at the time across the border to Sweden. But in France, well, let's say there was no such smuggling.

Nonsense. Sweeping generalisation. First of all, Denmark was under German civil administration. Their king even stayed on during the war. France was under military admin. Also, the Danes were considered Germanic, and so were treated far better than the French- that treatment extended to the Danish jews. That better treatment was also extended to jews in Romania, Italy, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Hungary, at least until they came under official German occupation towards the end of the war.

Also, plenty of jews were smuggled out of France.
Just as was the case everywhere else there were collaborators and resistors, even in Denmark.

About France's defense, most of the battles I recall studying about in WW II did not involve French troops, merely french land.

Well, that is prob. because if you are American all you tend to study is the US involvement in WWII, ditto for the Russians and Brits. WWII- 1941-1945 or was it 1940-1945 or was it 1939-1945.

 

[8236]

Take away WMD's & terror links and there is still plenty good reason to remove Saddam from power.

How about the Anthrax and VX poisoning that were unaccounted for, and Blix himself said that Iraq was not being co-operative with this.

If by some chance a terror attack occurs by one of these means you best pray that someone you love doe's not fall victim to it!

Indiddlydeedy, how about the Anthrax terror attacks in America. Whose strains were traced back to... American bio-warfare labs.

Hmmmm..... Plenty of good reasons.... Aha! I have it! America is going to invade....... America! I'm sure the powers that be will find plenty of WMDs there to satisfy their cravings.

Blix also said that the neo-cons in the US were being down right obstructive.

 

[8236]

Fair point English Guy, well to a degree at least, the English also have their silly fantasies about how the World looks. You won at Agincourt but lost the War, you pretend that 1066 was your last defeat on British soil; this is a myth version of History. Over history the Impregnable Dover Castle was ruined. Several South of England cities where destroyed by the French, the Dutch nearly took London and inflicted savage defeats upon the English all the way up the Thames. The Spanish took large areas of Cornwall at another stage. A Franco-Welsh army invaded England. A Scot army invaded England (technically a British conflict I know). Yes I know the next one was prior to 1066, but remember Danelaw. Then there was the American (!!!!) raid on a large British Navel port in the West of Britain (this was carried out to a limited degree of success by a group of Americans using guerrilla tactics). Then there was the Franco-Irish Army which took control of 1/3 of Ireland when Ireland was under the British Crown. The channel islands where taken by the Germans.

British people who lean towards the United States tend to be unaware of the above because they dream of Empire.

Please also stop going on about 1966 Well done to your boys down in Australia, hard luck in Twickenham, we just had to ruin the party.

No, we would claim that 1066 was the last succesful invasion of England/Britain (although obv. Britain didn't exist then).

The channel islands and ireland(N or S) don't count as they are not part of Britain.

As for 1966- yep it gets on my tits too. It must be pretty easy for the host nation to win the world cup, as it happens more often than not. So, yeah, 1966, load of rubbish