Whatever I never work on Thursdays

XFroG wrote:

Whatever I never work on Thursdays

Pourquoi, tu es Druze?

Atlantic wrote:

For you, Berlu: French troops liberating Rome.

'Tonton Bébert' my mother's uncle a funny man always happy and smiling, was here, only to be shot dead in Jan 1945 by a German sniper in the Black Forest.

We celebrate his (and his comrades') courage and sacrifice (not the victory of Scots over Picts): the fuck with your ass ...
Get out and buy yourself a crêpe with cider - traitor.

WilyB wrote:

[q=XFroG]Whatever I never work on Thursdays

Pourquoi, tu es Druze?[/q]

Non quand j'était petit c'était le jour de Spirou!

Maintenant c'est mon jour sacré (avec samedi et dimanche), je me défonce surtout le vendredi j'ai juste le temsp de manger un sandwich au jambon ce jour-là..

The French are very lazy indeed it's a shame, but:

They still richer than the Brits!

and

The French are shameless monkey surrenders, but:

They managed to get their land completely free and occupied Germany for 50 years, plus a seat in the Security council of the UN, plus atomic warfare of their own, plus a few other things.

Does it mean that they are smart?

Charal can't even spell "loser".

How embmelatic is that...?

TheCaledonian wrote:

How embmelatic is that...?

Chabal is the only aerospace professional Ffucker in Caledonia. Please pay your respect.

ohmygawd wrote:

1 000 000 French soldiers who fought the nazis until the victory day in europe?

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Caldo,

When you say the fwench lost WWII, were you referring to their humiliating defeat at the hands of the Germans in 1940, their humiliating defeat by the British at Mers-El-Kebir or their humiliating defeat by the Allies in 1944?

ohmygawd wrote:

1 000 000 French soldiers who fought the nazis until the victory day in europe?

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Good one OMG.

Caldonia has more than one person cleaning planes, you fat four flushing sack of crap.

WilyB wrote:

[q=TheCaledonian]How embmelatic is that...?

Chabal is the only aerospace professional Ffucker in Caledonia. Please pay your respect.[/q]

Don't forget that popfrost :


" I had not realised before that the defenders of the last Nazi perimeter in Berlin, around the ruined chancellery and Hitler’s bunker, were Frenchmen. They were survivors from the Waffen-SS Charlemagne Division, a handful of battle-hardened French Fascists who now took on the full strength of two converging tank armies in a blatantly hopeless struggle. With them, in the remnants of the Nordland Division – also Waffen-SS – were young Danes and Norwegians, still with a few heavy tanks. Hitler and Goebbels were dead, and most remaining German troops had wisely melted away, but the Frenchmen fought on in the wreckage of Gestapo headquarters. They were last seen fighting and dying in a vain attempt to cover the escape of Martin Bormann"

the germans were 80 millions(with austria the twin),france 40 millions only. So, there was nothing to do.

Now, let's add in the populations of the Netherlands, Belgium and Great Britain, all of which had forces on that front as well. The Allied forces and the Germans were virtually equal on 10 May 1940. The Allies had a slight advantage in number and in quality of armor, the Germans had a slight edge in the air.

The difference is that the Germans were much better commanded and organized. There is no way, given competent Allied leadership, that the Germans could have won a total victory using any strategy. Given good Allied leadership, the Manstein Plan should have resulted in the total cutoff and destruction of the best German armored forces.

The German General Staff fully expected to get their asses kicked if they tried an attack. The Manstein Plan was adopted because it was the only plan that gave Germany a chance--provided that Gamelin was an idiot. And he was.

They send 10 divisions, and instead rely on their ally, letting him supporting 90% of the war burden, as Churchill sadly noticed.

BTW, how does it feel to see that even Belgium, a neutral country, disposed of an army 2.5 more important than your

Gamelin told the British he didn't need any more soldiers. He was so sure he was going to win, he even let Poland get wiped out while he faced nothing but a dozen second-rate German divisions.

If he had thought for a second that maybe, just maybe, the Germans would try something different than they did in 1914, he might have won in spite of his arrogance.

They were last seen fighting and dying in a vain attempt to cover the escape of Martin Bormann

The survivors were either shot by General Leclerc in a fit of rage, or enlisted in the Foreign Legion, where they died under incompetent Frog leadership at Dien Bien Phu. The Froggies got their revenge on these Waffen-SS men, if they felt like they needed it.

it was an anecdot. True but an anecdot .

simplefrench wrote:

Don't forget that popfrost :


" I had not realised before that the defenders of the last Nazi perimeter in Berlin, around the ruined chancellery and Hitler’s bunker, were Frenchmen. They were survivors from the Waffen-SS Charlemagne Division, a handful of battle-hardened French Fascists who now took on the full strength of two converging tank armies in a blatantly hopeless struggle. With them, in the remnants of the Nordland Division – also Waffen-SS – were young Danes and Norwegians, still with a few heavy tanks. Hitler and Goebbels were dead, and most remaining German troops had wisely melted away, but the Frenchmen fought on in the wreckage of Gestapo headquarters. They were last seen fighting and dying in a vain attempt to cover the escape of Martin Bormann"

All the brave soldiers on the eastern front were dead before the Battle of Berlin. If the fwench hadn't run like the cowards they are, they would have been killed long before Berlin.

Turkey and Albania in the EU - Oh Yeah

and Moldavia ?


more seriously, the french in ww2 have had several faces if you consider all the country.


extract :

"A last thing about WWII and this famous coward French soldiers. Do you know wich army breakthrough the strong German front in Italia in 1943-1944 when US and England failed for 6 months to do so ? It was simply the fucking French army full of wimps. This army has attacked the Germans in the Italian mountains and has opened the road to Rome."

JacquesChIRAQ wrote:

the germans were 80 millions(with austria the twin),france 40 millions only. So, there was nothing to do.

Now, let's add in the populations of the Netherlands, Belgium and Great Britain, all of which had forces on that front as well. The Allied forces and the Germans were virtually equal on 10 May 1940. The Allies had a slight advantage in number and in quality of armor, the Germans had a slight edge in the air.

The difference is that the Germans were much better commanded and organized. There is no way, given competent Allied leadership, that the Germans could have won a total victory using any strategy. Given good Allied leadership, the Manstein Plan should have resulted in the total cutoff and destruction of the best German armored forces.

The German General Staff fully expected to get their asses kicked if they tried an attack. The Manstein Plan was adopted because it was the only plan that gave Germany a chance--provided that Gamelin was an idiot. And he was.

They send 10 divisions, and instead rely on their ally, letting him supporting 90% of the war burden, as Churchill sadly noticed.

BTW, how does it feel to see that even Belgium, a neutral country, disposed of an army 2.5 more important than your

Gamelin told the British he didn't need any more soldiers. He was so sure he was going to win, he even let Poland get wiped out while he faced nothing but a dozen second-rate German divisions.

If he had thought for a second that maybe, just maybe, the Germans would try something different than they did in 1914, he might have won in spite of his arrogance.

They were last seen fighting and dying in a vain attempt to cover the escape of Martin Bormann

The survivors were either shot by General Leclerc in a fit of rage, or enlisted in the Foreign Legion, where they died under incompetent Frog leadership at Dien Bien Phu. The Froggies got their revenge on these Waffen-SS men, if they felt like they needed it.

I will try to sum up my point on this relentlessly coming tume about the French surrendering in 1940.

It started to dawn on me during the late seventies while I visited Roman monuments in the Roussilon and the Cathar castles in the Corbières in Southern France.

In each vilage we toured there was a WWI monument, after seeing a few I was intrigued to notice a pattern: there were often more names engraved on the stones than homes in the village.
I started to think about the family having lost one or two men to that war, the lonely women, the younger mot marrying having to leave their home place, the older raising children alone ....
No wonder this turned into an anti-war generation, calling WWI 'la der des der' the last of the last.
The man returning from the front having understood that his german counterpart was no different from him, didn't want to go for it again.

The difference between France and Germany was that the German had been humiliated and deprived from a lot of their land therefore had 'some' reason for willing a replay.

When the war started nobody was that happy, but the German got the high morale edge with that certainty to be in their right, plus their successes in Poland and Norway.

On may 1940, the French and British headquarters were clearly outsmarted, and after Rommel's seventh panzer crossed the Somme at the weakest point of the Allied front at Montmedy, there was quasi collapse of the Allied Armies - no ordnance reaching the troops, officers freed their men: 'chacun pour soi'.
A good many fought for their ground but there was no more coordinated command.

I am not going to rewrite history here, but it is obvious that much of it could be explained by an unwillingness to fight a war that had little meaning for the French people as compared to joyful German who believed in their rights to reclaim lost parts of their nation.

The will to fight grew afterward among the French as they took measure of the defeat and the growing suffering of the nation under German rule.

It is to be added that most of the pictures of the desolate French people running away as well as the fleeing French troopers were taken after the meltdown of the Army when there was nothing left but a terrible mess.
The German propaganda made its delight of them and gave them a fame they still have now.

About the German army and propaganda there's something to notice: the Wehrmacht was never as strong as it loved to let think.
Behind the motorized division there was infantry progressing with horses and wagoons, this was still true in Russia and in Normandy in 1944.

The much lauded panzers and elite divisions had a lot of good equipment while the rest of the Heeres, had its shortcomings.

The strength of the German attack on may 1940 was in its famed Schwehrpunkt, or concentration of forces on one point.

By the way this should have been the French strategy echoing Bonaparte teachings but French generals of 1940 weren't as they used to be.

Extensive information about forces in 1940 here:
www.militaryphotos.net . . .

How embmelatic is that...?

Could you please translate little foxy ?

Gamelin told the British he didn't need any more soldiers.

Please, give me a link to prove me wrong.

Britain was perturbed by France s half-heartedness, the French would
have been thoroughly alarmed had they known the truth about
-Britain s war strength. Strictly speaking, it was non-existent. True, her



navy was one of the three largest in the world and her fine air force was
equipped, albeit inadequately, with excellent machines. But she had no
land forces whatever, apart from a small professional army scattered about
her Empire. True to her traditions Great Britain had never been willing to
introduce conscription at home; thus if she wished to levy divisions she
would have neither barracks to house them in, nor equipment to arm them
with, nor sufficient trained personnel to instruct them.

Ever since Germany s reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936 the
French High Command had been eager to ascertain the size of Britain s
contribution should there be a war. Britain s leaders had constantly
evaded the question. They had never agreed to the principle of a joint
strategy, nor to the notion of their High Command s forfeiting the right
to take independent decisions. They had jibbed at any suggestion that they
should alter their view.

In any case, how could Britain s forces be made subordinate to the
French High Command when none existed? On September loth, 1938, at
the time of the Sudeten crisis, M. Georges Bonnet asked the British
government what forces it could place at France s disposal if there were a
war over Czechoslovakia.

The question was put several times without eliciting any response.
Finally, the British Cabinet announced that for the first six months of the
war all that it could send was a hundred and fifty aircraft and two un-
motorized divisions. It can only have been led to advance these laughable
figures by the fact that it genuinely had nothing further to offer. [b]

Why, then, had Britain embarked on the risky policy of lavishing pacts
and guarantees of independence on the threatened countries of Eastern
Europe, knowing full well that she had not the strength to enforce them?


Because she had counted on France to enforce them on her behalf. She
had trusted entirely to the French army, treating it as her secular arm.

[b]Some clear-sighted Britons had seen the defects in this reasoning. They
had pointed out that in the 1914-18 war France had withstood the
German onslaught only with British (and American) support; this time her
position would be infinitely more dangerous. For one thing, the force
that Britain could afford to send would be much smaller. For another,
France would have to face the combined strength of Germany and Italy
(population: 125,000,000) and keep careful watch on the Pyrenees all
this without the certain support of her African troops.

There had been the risk that if Britain continued to stand idle France
might tire of the policeman s role so generously allotted to her. In order to
prevent this, Britain had at last made up her mind to promulgate com
pulsory military service. The law had been passed on April 2yth, 1939 a
mere five months before the outbreak of war. Even then the House of
Commons had been reluctant. It had adopted conscription, not so much
to increase Britain s military potential as to reassure France and impress the
outside world. The law had been applied with extreme slowness. The men
had been unconscripted, undrilled, untrained.

Despite the reiterated appeals of the French High Command the War
Office remained as casual as ever. A single class of 200,000 men had
registered in June 1939. They were to be called up in waves. The first
wave, conscripted on July i5th, amounted to only 34,000. And that was a
mere six weeks before the outbreak of war !

Did the announcement of hostilities at least have the effect of rousing
Britain to action and urging the War Office to make up for lost time ? One
would like to be able to say so, but it did not. In France one man in eight
was called up. In Britain the proportion was one in forty-eight. Her initial
aid was very slight: first two, then four, divisions, and 240 planes. No
tanks. Even the respite afforded by the phoney war was not turned to
account. Between September 1939 and May 1940 she managed to equip
only six new divisions, as against forty raised by the Reich in the same
period.

On January i6th, 1940, Churchill wrote to the First Sea Lord, Sir
Dudley Pound:

Our army is puny as far as the fighting front is concerned; our air
force is hopelessly inferior to the Germans ... We maintain an attitude
of complete passivity, dispersing our forces ever more widely ... Do
you realize that perhaps we are heading for defeat?


Doubtless the reason for all this lay in the fact that Britain is first and
foremost a maritime power and that such powers have always had an
idiosyncratic conception of war. As Michel Dacier writes:

Thucydides has summarized the principles that activate them in the
speech that he ascribes to Pericles in the first book of his History of
the Peloponnesian War. To them time and space are of little conse
quence. This is due to the wide distribution of their sources of supply,
which their enemies can never exhaust. They are adept at striking from
a distance. The thraldom of fighting on land does not appeal to them.

Britain under George VI was no exception to this rule. She still ruled the
waves and her Home Fleet gave her a sense of security. She placed more
reliance upon the effectiveness of blockading and her ability to draw on
massive reserves of raw materials all over the world than upon the number
of her battalions. Convinced that time was on her side, she was calmly
organizing herself behind the French shield.

But that shield was to prove flimsier than she had imagined. At the
crucial moment British troops and planes were to be though not non
existent far too sparse to avert defeat. And France would have to per
form alone the harsh and bloody task of the land fighting.

ia310105.us.archive.org . . .

He was so sure he was going to win, he even let Poland get wiped out while he faced nothing but a dozen second-rate German divisions.

Quietly protected by the siegfried line. Add to this a 3 weeks mobilization and a lack of ammo of all kinds, especially for the heavy artillery, and you will explain us how to do a breakthrough into Germany.

The French are very lazy indeed it's a shame, but:

They still richer than the Brits!

That's not you again, is it Trafalgar/Mers_El_Kebir/Jose?

According to the Economist Intelligence unit, Brits in 2006 were 26% more wealthy than the french, forecast to grow to 32% by 2016.

France is slightly ahead of uk. Due to the increase of the €.
Read serious sources.

But the difference has no importance.

"The French are rich and charal is an aerospace professional...".

Now I've heard it all.

Charal is the only idiot on FUCKFRANCE.COM who knows almost as little about aerospace as the moron.

Emble-fucking-matic. Bunch of French arseholes.

France is slightly ahead of uk. Due to the increase of the €.
Read serious sources.

But the difference has no importance.

Simple, this is going to be tough but try to concentrate.

france is not slightly ahead of the UK in anything. What the Daily Mail did was to suggest that france GDP had overtaken UK GDP. But it did so by taking france performance from when the euro was low and adjusting it to today when the the euro is high, ignoring the fact that the high euro is destroying french industry.


Even if you weren't clinging to this one article in the Mail, you must understand that GDP is not a good indication of personal wealth of the people of that country.

First you have GNP. This allows for earnings made abroad and since the UK is second only to the US in income from overseas this makes a big difference to any wealth comparison.

France's GDP is all about the government taking your taxes off you to pay for things to make it look good, like the TGV, Airbus, supporting companies that would otherwise be bankrupt like Alstom, and building monuments to corrupt leaders.

It doesn't make the person in the street any wealthier.

It's a pity they don't teach economics in french schools because french people would realise what a shithole they live in.

i'm not sensible to your inflated ego.
The total gdp of france is above but yes it is not the best indicator.
It is per capita which is more important.

So provide me the numbers and we will see.It is possible you are above.

Charal is the only idiot on FUCKFRANCE.COM who knows almost as little about aerospace as the moron.

Your comment is as crap as your poor dog's life.

But it did so by taking france performance from when the euro was low and adjusting it to today when the the euro is high

Well, that's only fair considering that the only reason why the UK once surpassed France was also due to currency exchange rates fluctuation.

We're just back to normality.

The UK, despite longer working hours, less holiday and less unemployment, is behind France, and the difference says little about the huge gap of modernity and quality of the infrastructures.