It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The French Will Never Forget

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by coven
if this is the case, and you are so assured of it... go talk to Al Qaeda and tell them you have a sure fire way to attack the French... I'm sure they'll load you up with explosives and let you walk right into the middle of Paris. the only problem is the French police (Gardien de la paix), or Police Nationale, are going to catch you. They are the best police force in the world(intriguing for a country that isn't concerned about its national security) and French prison is NOT fun... so enjoy

Im curious as to where you get the idea the French police are the best in the world? Most brutal? Probably, biggest smokers of cigarettes on duty? probably. Slowest to respond to a crime call? probably.
They most certainly arent the best in the world dear, nowhere near.

I have posted a lot about the French Nation during the war. I feel I have a right to as I have house in France, and live part of the year there.. St Maur des Fosses to be exact, to the East of Paris, consequently I have a lot of French friends and speak French fluently.
Many of my French friends detest what the French Government did in the war, selling out to the Germans and speak out about it quite strongly, just as many are quite horrified by their President's actions before and during the Iraq war.




posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Oooh-la-la! The French police, now there's a subject!

You have three levels, the local gendarmes, the national CRS, and high-level intelligence no one really sees. The last are certainly very good at what they do.

France is about the most-policed country on earth, as in the most police per-capita. On the face of it this sounds ominously totalitarian, but in practice it's anything but, because the police are really a socialist make-work program, and they're way over-staffed.

In Paris, you have police on horses, on rollerblades (!), trailbikes, and yes, even on foot and in patrol cars. It's a bit of a joke. Foot patrols are four-person minimum, because they're easily spooked by a real threat. I've seen one scrawny, unarmed kid who purse-snatched be cornered in a blocked off street by 5 police, who were afraid to catch him, and he squirmed and twisted and ran away, laughing as he turned the corner. In NYC or LA he would have been on the pavement in the blink of an eye.

As for the CRS, they are the national police. They look intimidating in their paramilitary swat outfits and toting machine guns, but they like to sit in these big, specially outfitted vans through which invariably you can see wine and the rest of the makings of a good time on the tables through the heavily tinted windows. They arrive for any protest or gathering place during big holidays (the French love to take to the streets en masse) with dozens of these vans, and then stand around and watch. If things get dicey, they're not particularly effective in catching the perpetrators or at crowd control.

There are whole areas of immigrant ghettos to the north of Paris that are well known to be beyond the law because the police are afraid to police them. Much of Sarkozy's popularity rests with the perception he won't tolerate all this and will finally put some spine into the police.

As for the last area, the French intelligence services are very effective and routinely break up clandestine cells with great efficiency. Much of it is never heard about, but they're on the ball where it really counts.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by gottago]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   
When in France.....

Why don't they show it by being polite when we visit there country? My experience is not a positive one. When I visited I happened to get lost and was looking for my hotel, I happen to over hear two people speaking English so I thought I would ask them for help. There response was "no English" and then turned and ignored me!


I've visited France many times and never had a problem with communication and the solution was quite simple - A home study French linguistics course!
I did a German linguistics course well before I set off for Germany and became quite fluent. Yes the 'odd' word or two had me head scratching a few times but that was to be expected.
The Germans and Austrians respected my attempt to string a conversation together just as the French did on my visits abroard. When the 'wall' came down (Yes, I was there at the time) I was glad I could communicate with the people.
Where ever you choose to go in europe or elsewhere in the world native speaking people will give you some credit for attempting their lingo.
I believe it is a tourists responsibility to learn some common words to help themselves when visiting other countries.
A tip.... learn the language!



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Entering WWII may have been in our self interest, but for self-preservation not financial reasons. I don't think Germany and Japan would have stopped after conquering all of Eurasia.


Japan couldnt conquer much more of Asia than it already had, they didnt have the manpower.

And Germany would never had taken the UK, there are various reasons but Air superiority by the UK would have been one of the major reasons.




Ohhh so that's why the Luftwaffe wasn't bombing the hell out of London and burning the whole city to the ground. And that's why over 51,000 brits didn't die in the fires and explosion from the German blitzkrieg. It was the UK air superiority. Ohhhhh...[/sarcasm]


Don't rewrite history



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Did you even say "excuse me" in French? Or try to speak some French?

I find that if you at least try, they will talk back to you in English. But the point is to TRY. They get miffed because people come to their country and don't speak a word.

We get miffed for the same reason. Imagine if a Pakistani came up to you in London or Birmingham and spoke in his native tongue asking for directions. You wouldn't bother, would you?


I think we Americans can understand people coming to our country and not trying to speak our language. Try dealing with millions of illegal aliens who couldn’t care less about the language of choice. Seems to me people could be a bit less impatient. Not to mention the amount of tourist money Americans dump into the coffers of many European economies. And yes I know Europeans give very generously to the US tourist market to. Not bashing anyone here. Just think people in general are way to me,me,me and selfish. Long gone are the days of helping someone out of courtesy. Being courteous now there’s a novel thought.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by merryxmas

Ohhh so that's why the Luftwaffe wasn't bombing the hell out of London and burning the whole city to the ground. And that's why over 51,000 brits didn't die in the fires and explosion from the German blitzkrieg. It was the UK air superiority. Ohhhhh...[/sarcasm]


Ohhhhh I guess you missed the part about the Battle Of Britain?
After that Germany didnt realy attempt any more serious bombing.
The Blitzkrieg was in the early part of the war
We had air superiority

Do try to keep up, theres a good chap
Pip Pip

[edit on 23/7/07 by Chorlton]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by geemony
Long gone are the days of helping someone out of courtesy. Being courteous now there’s a novel thought.


Indeed. Several weeks ago on the London Underground I stood up and offered my seat to a heavily pregnant girl.
She looked at me, then at the seat and said, quite loudly "I dont need any help from a man"
I was tempted to reply to the tune of her needing it when she got pregnant but just smiled and sat down again.

If you open a door for a woman now thats sexist.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Ahh, the French! Personally I think they're a splendid Nation, I enjoy their their poets (especially the racy ones!), philosophers, history..... and their truly exceptional standard of graphic art (particularly their graphic novels/comics for grown ups).

Fortunately (when I'm in France and anywhere else in the world apart from the UK and US) I look extremely "French" for want of a better description. I also speak "Parisian" French and am frequently Lampooned by rural rascalls as a city-boy! A Gendarme once stopped me, simply to ask if he could have a go on my motorbike.

I'm sure the French as a people are very grateful for the defeat of the Nazis, however, I don't feel that they should be expected to wake up every morning voice their gratitude. By choosing to disagree with the US and UK's foreign policy they are exercising their freedom, which is one of the things that the allies fought for wasn't it?



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Thanks for the info on the French police, both good and bad. Wasnt trying to stir the pot, I was genuinely interested. Did some of my own reasearch on it as well.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   


Did you even say "excuse me" in French? Or try to speak some French?


Not only did I say excuse me but I explained I did not speak French! also for the record I am 1/2 French.

Also when some one approaches me here (US) and does not know how to speak English, I ALWAYS sympathize with them and do my best to help them. Honestly! We should all help tourist who come to our country, take pride in your home land and be the representative of your culture so to speak.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by merryxmas
Ohhh so that's why the Luftwaffe wasn't bombing the hell out of London and burning the whole city to the ground. And that's why over 51,000 brits didn't die in the fires and explosion from the German blitzkrieg. It


The intention of hte Battle of Britain was two fold, to crack Fighter command and allow for German Air Superiority over the channel to support Operation Sealion, and also to try and break the moral of the people under heavy bombing.

Hitler and Goering knew that a sea borne invasion without Air Superiorty was pointless, as they could not match the strength of the Royal Navy in its home waters and needed the Luftwaffe to be able to drive it out of the English channel instead. They also needed to invade before the full weight of the Empire was bought to bear.

As it turns out, the Luftwaffe drastically underestimated the capability of the RAF, which although undermanned and understrength at the start of the War, had rapidly made up ground and they also underestimated the British production lines which had reached peak performance a few months earlier and were more than capable of making up for losses of airframes.

The RAF had home advantage and a pilot who bailed out could be back with his home squadron fairly quickly, whereas the home guard and spotter units were able to co-ordinate the capture and imprisonment of downed German aircrews.

As soon as Hitler and Goering realised that they did not have air superiority they called off the invasion and then - bizarrely, made the same mistake about production capacity again and attacked the Soviet Union.

Theres a difference between being able to attack targets with overwhelming force and just causing - for want of a better term - a nuisance. The bombing after the Battle of Britain was a nuisance rather than a threat.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I wonder how many americans actually know of whom they got the statue of liberty and who helped them get independent.. The french, and hack..we helped them too
[specially with weapons] all though it cost us a war with England.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by merryxmas
Ohhh so that's why the Luftwaffe wasn't bombing the hell out of London and burning the whole city to the ground. And that's why over 51,000 brits didn't die in the fires and explosion from the German blitzkrieg. It


The intention of hte Battle of Britain was two fold, to crack Fighter command and allow for German Air Superiority over the channel to support Operation Sealion, and also to try and break the moral of the people under heavy bombing.

Hitler and Goering knew that a sea borne invasion without Air Superiorty was pointless, as they could not match the strength of the Royal Navy in its home waters and needed the Luftwaffe to be able to drive it out of the English channel instead. They also needed to invade before the full weight of the Empire was bought to bear.

As it turns out, the Luftwaffe drastically underestimated the capability of the RAF, which although undermanned and understrength at the start of the War, had rapidly made up ground and they also underestimated the British production lines which had reached peak performance a few months earlier and were more than capable of making up for losses of airframes.

The RAF had home advantage and a pilot who bailed out could be back with his home squadron fairly quickly, whereas the home guard and spotter units were able to co-ordinate the capture and imprisonment of downed German aircrews.

As soon as Hitler and Goering realised that they did not have air superiority they called off the invasion and then - bizarrely, made the same mistake about production capacity again and attacked the Soviet Union.

Theres a difference between being able to attack targets with overwhelming force and just causing - for want of a better term - a nuisance. The bombing after the Battle of Britain was a nuisance rather than a threat.





I guess if you call 51,000 people being killed a "nuisance" and not a threat.


While Hitler was a fool to add another front to his war there is no doubt that if America hadn't entered the war and he hadn't invaded the Soviet Union that they would have obliterated England contrary to what Chorlton believes. England going up against the might of the Axis was suicide and Churchill knew it.

Don't forget that this response began to a supposition that Germany never could have taken England.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by merryxmas
I guess if you call 51,000 people being killed a "nuisance" and not a threat.



I didn't. I said "for want of a better term"



While Hitler was a fool to add another front to his war there is no doubt that if America hadn't entered the war and he hadn't invaded the Soviet Union that they would have obliterated England contrary to what Chorlton believes. England going up against the might of the Axis was suicide and Churchill knew it.

Don't forget that this response began to a supposition that Germany never could have taken England.


Up until they came to the English Channel the Germans fought on the hoof using Blitzkreig tactics against armies who had very little time to mobilise prepare for the attacks and were caught on the hoof .

After Dunkirk the British knew exactly what was coming, and what to expect, and they had the cushion of the English Channel and the most powerful navy in the world to bring to bear to protect the island.

The Germans in the meantime had an inferior Navy and lacked the landing capacity to put a serious force on British soil. They were equipped for a land war, not an amphibious assault.

The British didn't have to cross the channel to attack, and instead had the luxury of being able to pick off paratroops as they dropped or attack a landing force as it approached. They also could, if need be, move RAF squadrons to the extreme range of the Luftwaffes reach. The Stukas and medium bombers that had been so effective against lesser airforces and could provide ground attack for the Blitzkreig were no match for the fighters of the RAF and had their operating range reduced by 60 miles or more by the fact they had to cross the channel to get here.

In order for the Germans to have any chance they would have had to land a sizeable force, take a port and forward airfield and stage from it while offloading their massed armour - in the face of determined prepared resistance that had home advantage. Even without the invasion of the Soviet Union, with the British mobilising the Empire and the time it would have taken the Nazis to prepare an amphibious assault force and a decent Navy the British would have been more ready than any country the Germans had faced.

Its true that, without US help, Britian would have faced some very hard times and the Normandy landings wouldn't have taken place when they did, but the notion that the Germans could have taken the UK without US intervention is a fallacy.

The English Channel may only be 30 miles wide but its one hell of a strategic advantage.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I know this is a bit off thread, but I remember reading that after the war some British and German generals played a "war game" to try to simulate an invasion of Britain. As I remember the Germans would most likely've failed due to overstretch and the extensive defenses that were built at the start of the war. It seemed that they wouldn't even reach london.

It may not have worked out like that in real life but the theory was quite interesting.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyAllKnowledge
As I remember the Germans would most likely've failed due to overstretch and the extensive defenses that were built at the start of the war. It seemed that they wouldn't even reach london.


I was trying to find a link for that, but I couldn't in the short time I looked.

It was actually the subject of a History Channel documentary which detailed a few things I was unaware of about WW2, like the plans to flood the coastline with petrol and set it on fire to decimate landing craft etc, and the deliberate flooding of fields to deter paratroop drops/hope that paratroops would drown.

The general consensus of the war game appeared to be that landings would have been repulsed completely within 72 hours.

[edit on 25/0707/07 by neformore]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by merryxmas

I guess if you call 51,000 people being killed a "nuisance" and not a threat.


While Hitler was a fool to add another front to his war there is no doubt that if America hadn't entered the war and he hadn't invaded the Soviet Union that they would have obliterated England contrary to what Chorlton believes. England going up against the might of the Axis was suicide and Churchill knew it.

Don't forget that this response began to a supposition that Germany never could have taken England.


I would suggest you step back and take a bit better look at military tactics.

WWII wasnt the first war the UK had been involved in. The history of Military tactics goes back many hundreds of years.

I repeat my premise that the Germans would never have taken the UK.
It wouldnt have been very nice but they would never have taken it.

We had total air superiority and a far better Navy than the Germans.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   
England would of eventually fallen. Germany was not only working on the V1 & V2 rockets but also atomic weapons (where do you think the US got the tech).

Also the amount of material support both before and after the US entry into the war would not of been there.

Who would of routed the Germans from Africa?
Who would of supppiled the necessary resources for the British and Russian production lines to manufacrture new weapons?
You have to remeber that Russian was not a 'strong' country, they were still assualting German tanks with horse calvary. Russia just had an extremely large population. 20 million russians died in WWII mainly from defending their homeland.

If the US had not entered the war, Germany would not of run out of fuel for their tanks (which were superior to any others) or of had to re-allocate troops and materials and could of continued their push.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
England would of eventually fallen. Germany was not only working on the V1 & V2 rockets but also atomic weapons (where do you think the US got the tech).


Unless I'm greatly mistaken Edward Teller had an awful lot to do with it, as well as Robert Oppenheimer and a whole host of other people from the US, Canada and the UK, and the technology was nothing to do with the Germans whatsoever, unless you count some of the initial research by Einstein and a few others in Austria prior to the War.



Also the amount of material support both before and after the US entry into the war would not of been there.


I'll partly concede on this one, but I'll remind you that at the time Britain had an Empire that was either ruling, protecting or colonising approximately a quarter of the the Planet containing 458 milion people, with all the resources that it needed, the question was time, not availability.



Who would of routed the Germans from Africa?


Not sure what you are getting at here. British Forces (the Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans that fought came under British control)operated in Africa and the US had no direct involvement



Who would of supppiled the necessary resources for the British and Russian production lines to manufacrture new weapons?


I covered this above. It wasn't a question of lack of resources, more a question of lack of time



You have to remeber that Russian was not a 'strong' country, they were still assualting German tanks with horse calvary. Russia just had an extremely large population. 20 million russians died in WWII mainly from defending their homeland.


Why is it that the Russian contribution to WW2 is always underestimated? The world actually owes a huge debt of gratitude to Russia, because they fought an entire front on their own for most of the war and broke the back of the German Army, and they did it by sheer numbers and determination. They packed up whole factories and production lines and moved them hundreds of miles East out of the range of German bombers and started them up again. They paid a bigger price than most of the other allies combined.



If the US had not entered the war, Germany would not of run out of fuel for their tanks (which were superior to any others) or of had to re-allocate troops and materials and could of continued their push.


When Sealion didn't take place, Hitler went East. It was a numbers game from that point onwards and Germany was always going to loose eventually.

The US involvement in WW2 shortened the conflict considerably. Without it the world would have looked very different but it wouldn't have looked Nazi - Europe may have become a Communist bastion instead. The help was most welcome and very much appreciated, and should NEVER be forgotten. I do my best to remind people of it, and the sacifices made by ALL the Allied troops in WW2, but I don't like the whole "US saved the world" rhetoric, because there were equally massive contributions from the Empire and the Russians as well.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I'm not a big fan of the french - or cheese eating surrender monkeys if you prefer.

There is a national superiority complex (in my experience) that I find quite hard to fathom.

Then again, we all know that a superiority complex generally comes from a feeling of inferiority.

I'm not a big fan of the food, champagne was invented by an english monk, and their wine industry was saved by the US after the philloxera grape pest pretty much wiped out their vines.

Nor am I a fan of hairy women who smell of garlic.

The French, IMO, have made a national pastime out of hating more successful countries whilst doing nothing to address their own shortcomings - apart from rioting at the drop of a hat.

Yes they have given the world some good things, but this is no reason to behave the way they do.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join