I'm just curious, but how long will it take for the French to live down their humiliating defeat in WW2?

I mean, it's 2006 (over 50 years), and every Franceaphobe just loves to pick on a French loss which occurred over 50 years ago.
Isn't that just a little petty? Considering that the French, on average, kicked ass. It was the French who fought on the Western Front in WWI, while the other allies got their shit together.

How long will it take for the Americans to become realistic about their role in WW2?

Forever?

The French never really gave up after the first defeat. There was the resistance and French forces outside france.

Would america have been overrun if it had been sharing a border with Germany? Yes.

Viva la french fries!

How long will it take for the Americans to become realistic about their role in WW2?
some of us are.



The French never really gave up after the first defeat. There was the resistance and French forces outside france.
yeeeeaaaah......they got beat up like the skinny kid at fat camp.

Would america have been overrun if it had been sharing a border with Germany?
there was almost zero wartime production before we joined the war, so you are probably right...at least until they hit the midwest where every farmer has an armory of their own, including explosives.
Viva la french fries!
thats FREEDOM fries...and "french" implies the cut of the potato. frietjes are a belgian creation. shows you again how ignorant the american redneck constituancy truly is....i mean....at least be mad at the right country, for fuck's sake!

I already gave notice of my worshipping of vlaamse frietekes in another thread.


With Dutch mayonaise of course.

:D

dutch mayonaisse IS better, i admit. even belgians admit it...they even go so far as to call it "frit saus" here.
but i prefer ketchup, catsup, or nothing at all.

Anyway...how can french fries resist the raw pounding power of bratwurst?

I'm just curious, but how long will it take for the French to live down their humiliating defeat in WW2?First they have to live down their defeat at Waterloo.

How long will it take for the people in the American South to live down their defeat in the War between the States? Actually it's just the American southeast, but it happened so long ago (140 years) that the country was smaller then. None of those people are even alive any more.

How long will it take the Jews to forget the Holocaust?

How long will it take the Sunnis and Shiites to forget whatever the frell bizarre thingamajig happened 1300 years ago that made them hate each other and everybody else forever? Talk about people who aren't alive any more!

Apparently some things are not easily forgotten.

How long before we stop worshipping the military-industrial complex? How dare the French not devote all spare money towards the production of weapons and soldiers? ...'cause they were busy making wine, cheese, and love, that's why.

How dare the French not devote all spare money towards the production of weapons and soldiers?

Huh? France spends more on its military than any other nation in Europe. Worldwide, only America and China spend more.

Edit: Oh, also Russia; they spend more than France. I'm always forgetting that the World Factbook doesn't include Russian expenditures...

I meant in the aftermath of WWI to prepare for WWII. It was quick, but it did take some time for Britain and the US to catch up with Germany.

France is always targeted by uneducated rednecks in the US. They didn't bend over for Bush in his war on Iraq, so the 3rd Reich Radio stations had a field day! Thing is; France is a representative democracy, meaning the government responds to the will of the people. The vast majority of French citizens wanted no part in the Bush Wars, so their government responded accordingly. Alien concept in the US. Americans can only hope to achieve what they have. Viva la France!!!

Do people in any countries besides America ever bring up France and WWII?

Keep in mind the French were possibly more anxious to kill their jews than the Germans. For the nazis, it was simply the most efficient thing to do (in their mind). The French, despite not having the proper means or money, pleaded to send their Jews to Germany, then opted to kill some themselves.

Apparently some things are not easily forgotten.

Very true.

The germans are still despised for their occupation of the Netherlands in WW2.

But we have forgiven the Spanish for their silly resistance to our independence which lead to the 80 Years' war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years'_War) (1566–1648)

Keep in mind the French were possibly more anxious to kill their jews than the Germans. For the nazis, it was simply the most efficient thing to do (in their mind). The French, despite not having the proper means or money, pleaded to send their Jews to Germany, then opted to kill some themselves.

Killing jews was a last resort for the Nazis when they realised that time was running out for them.

the honest answer

never

Do people in any countries besides America ever bring up France and WWII?
a ukrainian did 3 weeks ago, in my presence.

Here in the UK, we generally dont like to mention it, because we're polite.

Except when we arent being polite.

Killing jews was a last resort for the Nazis when they realised that time was running out for them.

That's not true. Killing them was one of the most efficient ways to handle the problem, but they never bothered very much to look into other options. Hitler and a small other band of the elites were very sincere about wanting to kill them all; what is true is that the rest of the nazi elites generally saw it as repugnant and against the Third Reich. However, the genocide was far from a last resort.

Right, although many were finished off at the last minute in order to destroy the evidence of their crimes.

Considering that our armed forces still had horse back divisions and no significant armored tank divisions, the United States would have been annihilated by Germany.

That argument's starting to get old and has nothing to do with the questin. The question is How long...loss in WWII? Nothing about America. And America, like Russia is just too big to be conquered. Especially with all the countries that pose a threat on the other side of the world.

Russia has about a million factors that historically have made it impossible to conquer. I know you yanks consider your winters in certain areas to be harsh, but believe me, compared to the Russian winter that ain't shit. On top of that you have the poor infrastructure in more remote parts of Russia, and the autumn and spring rains that turn those crappy dirt tracks into slippery mud.

The USA for the most part is flat, and has nice mild winters and flat, well laid out highways. I'm not saying it would be piss easy to conquer the USA, but Russia it ain't.

The easiest way to conquer the US would be biological weapons; its the only thing guaranteed to spread fast enough for a sustained disaster. And all you'd have to do is post it, on a delayed release system or something.

Russia has about a million factors that historically have made it impossible to conquer. I know you yanks consider your winters in certain areas to be harsh, but believe me, compared to the Russian winter that ain't shit. On top of that you have the poor infrastructure in more remote parts of Russia, and the autumn and spring rains that turn those crappy dirt tracks into slippery mud.

The USA for the most part is flat, and has nice mild winters and flat, well laid out highways. I'm not saying it would be piss easy to conquer the USA, but Russia it ain't.
this really shows your ignorance.
the american highways werent built before ww2. they were mostly a project in the 1950's and 1960's.

and i would pit the winters in southwest michigan against ANY russian winter, anyday.

this is just another case of you disliking america and americans for no real reason.

Let me get this straight. You are comparing relatively mild american winters with Russian winters?

On top of that I didn't mean highway in the american sense. Any long straight road is a highway, and my original point still stands that any dry, flat road, be it paved or made of dirt, still beats a sea of mud that is two feet deep.

This is just another case of you thinking that americans will always win simply because they are american.

The easiest way to conquer the US would be biological weapons; its the only thing guaranteed to spread fast enough for a sustained disaster. And all you'd have to do is post it, on a delayed release system or something.


The easiest way to conquer the US is through TV.

Let me get this straight. You are comparing relatively mild american winters with Russian winters?

On top of that I didn't mean highway in the american sense. Any long straight road is a highway, and my original point still stands that any dry, flat road, be it paved or made of dirt, still beats a sea of mud that is two feet deep.

This is just another case of you thinking that americans will always win simply because they are american.
guy, the winters in my hometown averaged anywhere from -15 to -34 celsius, depending on how the wind acts. the -15 is fairly average for a day with no wind, and -34 is for a day when it is really whipping around...not to mention the meter of snow that lays on the ground for 5 months of the year. i dont call that "mild".

you didnt specify what you meant by "highway". a dirt road is not a highway.

and about the mud...what do you think happens in the entire northern part of the country come springtime?


stop being so obstinate and arrogant.

and i would pit the winters in southwest michigan against ANY russian winter, anyday.

Are you out of your goddamn mind? Southwest Michigan winters aren't as bad as Toronto winters. Toronto winters aren't as bad as Montreal winters. Montreal winters aren't anywhere near as bad as Quebec City winters. And, having said all that, Quebec City winters sure as fuck don't match up to Siberian winters.

You might as well have said "It doesn't get as hot in the Amazon as it does in California!"

The easiest way to conquer the US is through TV.
right on, brother monkey.

tv is their teacher, confessional, and preacher.

guy, the winters in my hometown averaged anywhere from -15 to -34 celsius, depending on how the wind acts. the -15 is fairly average for a day with no wind, and -34 is for a day when it is really whipping around. i dont call that "mild".

That is exactly what I call mild. If it were -15 F (or C for that matter) on a February day in Quebec City, I would be really quite happy. Of course, no one likes -34, but it gets quite worse in QC.

And how's about this...
I've gone through Toronto, Montreal, Michigan and Quebec City winters. Parts of Michigan are worse than Toronto, but no worse than Montreal or QC.

And for comparisons sake...

Vladivostok is a warm city of Eastern Russia. It's average winter temperature is arond -16C with lows of -35C. In fact, Vladivostok is one of the most southernly cities in Eastern Russia (if not the most Southern, I think). So it only gets worse from there mi amigo.

The length of winters also matters.

november to march, for michigan. give or take a month on either end.

Michigan min temperatures in celcius.
-9 -8 -3 3 8 13 16 15 11 5 0 -6
vladivostok min temperatures in celsius
-21 -16 -8 0 4 10 15 16 9-8 -17
Helsinki min temps in celsius (warm southern finnish city)
-9 -9 -6 -0.7 4 9 12 11 6 2 -2 -7
Moscow min temp in celsius
-12 -12 -6 2 7 12 14 12 7 2 -4 -8

Keeping in mind Vladivostok is one of the warmer cities in Siberia; it's still much colder than Michigan.

Spurious - do you have QC numbers from whatever source you got that?

And as a question...
What type of insanity leads you to think that Northern Russia isn't colder than the United States? Russian winters are notorious even in comparison to Northern Canadian ones. And you'd have to have some serious mental lapses to think the coldest area of the U.S. (Alaska notwithstanding*) are anywhere near the coldest areas of Canada.

*Even Alaska doesn't get as cold as Northern Quebec or Nunavut.

From personal experience I know that Helsinki winters are quite mild compared with those in middle and nothern finland.

Even so, i easily can be -20C here during the day for prolonged periods of time. And even -25C is not rare. The lowest temperature being -35 or so.

But it isn't just quite the same as moving up a few hundred kilometers. A few degrees difference in average temperature make a lot of difference in daily life.
For instance Rouvaniemi:
-13 -15 -10 -4 0 8 11 8 3 -1 -7 -13
as compared to Helsinki:
-9 -9 -6 -0.7 4 9 12 11 6 2 -2 -7

As you can see Helsinki is already colder than michigan, with longer winters. Russian temperatures are much lower than those in Helsinki. Comparable to Rovaniemi for instance, where life is a bitch in the winter. Darkness, cold, snow.

what's QC?

Quebec City

The score list (min temperatures in celsius):

vladivostok
-21 -16 -8 0 4 10 15 16 9-8 -17
Quebec city
-16 -15 -9 -1 5 11 14 13 9 3 -4 -12
Rouvaniemi
-13 -15 -10 -4 0 8 11 8 3 -1 -7 -13
Moscow
-12 -12 -6 2 7 12 14 12 7 2 -4 -8
Helsinki
-9 -9 -6 -0.7 4 9 12 11 6 2 -2 -7
Michigan
-9 -8 -3 3 8 13 16 15 11 5 0 -6

With the note that there is no clear winner between rovaniemi and QC. January is colder in QC, but winter is longer with lower temps in Rovaniemi.

Interesting. Well, I plan on visiting Moscow->St. Petersburg->Finland sometime around mid-October in a couple years, so that weather doesn't sound so unbearable.

But yeah, QC is a bitch come Jan/Feb, I'm sure Rouvaniemi is as well.

Where's that dude that thought Michigan was colder than Siberia?

Maybe he went to Michigan and froze to death, lol.