French Accuse English Of War Crimes.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
It's OK. I'm personally willing to accept a personal apology from the my French friends across the water, as long as it's delivered personally by a couple of their delightfully attractive women. I've a mind how to show them how to conjugate some English verbs.

smooths down eyebrows in the manner of Leslie Phillips and adjusts silk dressing gown.

As long as they don't try to teach me the value of having masculine and feminine inanimate objects, that sounds good to me!


Also: I hate adverts, but that Tango ad was actually highly amusing...

Originally posted by Heratix


Your French??....and you dont know about Agincourt??

:

Nope never heard of it...is that important ?

And I, seeing how you use "your" instead of "you're" ,hope you're not English !!

[edit on 26-10-2008 by Marmelade]

Originally posted by Marmelade

Nope never heard of it...is that important ?

In the greater scheme of things, no, not really. It was a battle 600 years ago, where both sides had lots of men killed. Nobody really wins in a war then or now.

reply to post by Man_Versus_AntiMan


I'm Scotch Irish and the Two fingers Up are in our family crest.
Story goes it was the sign given by a kinsmen to Alexander 3 during a battle. Not the Big FU. But hey, I like that explaintion too. No doubt a Norman Scotchmen would hold that in high regard too if it's directed at the English!
Call me geentically biased but glad to hear the English history requires a revision.

reply to post by C.C.Benjamin


Firstly, no one in the article is bringing up "charges" against the English. The headline is exaggerated and the byline is taken out of context. (Probably targeting their jingoistic readers... looks like it's working)

Secondly, these historians happen to be studying that particular battle. If you wish to study the Mongol-Chinese battles you'd need to look up different historians.

One bad doesn't justify another. Ever.

It looks like quite a few readers cannot accept their perception of the Battle of Agincourt being challenged. The Americans get the same way if you dare mention JFK's war crimes. If you use the standards of the Nuremberg Trials, then many national heroes are in fact, war criminals. (ie Winston Churchill)

Note: I wish kings (leaders) still fought their own battles today. (Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura might have a shot at the presidency)

I'm quite appalled that the mods let references to "frogs" and "froggies" slide. Are we allowed to refer to people as "'n-word's" and "kikes" now?

Could we please have common decency guys?


[edit on 27/10/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by Heratix

Originally posted by Marmelade


On topic : I've never heard of Christophe Gilliot nor of Agincourt, I believe this conference will be a small one

, some people have to much time on their hands.

Bye, Marmelade

Your French??....and you dont know about Agincourt??

:

Probably because in France we spell it "Azincourt" ...

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin

 

I'm quite appalled that the mods let references to "frogs" and "froggies" slide. Are we allowed to refer to people as "'n-word's" and "kikes" now?

Could we please have common decency guys?


[edit on 27/10/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

I cant believe you have said that!

The terms Frog and Froggie are not demeaning, just like the term Yank or Limey or Rosbif. These are age old terms of slang or endearment. Nothing insulting is meant by their useage. In England we call people from Scotland - Jock, people from Wales - Taffy and people from Ireland - Paddy - we do not insult them by using those terms. I have to admit, I do not know what the Scots, Welsh and Irish call Englishmen, but they probably have a name.

Get a life!

Originally posted by Wotan
The terms Frog and Froggie are not demeaning, just like the term Yank or Limey or Rosbif.

List of ethnic slurs for the poorly educated. Personally, I find it demeaning. So did most people I showed this thread to. For future reference if you don't know what a word actually means, don't use it.

Get a life!

Get an education!

Just tell the French to ''F*** Off''

I'm sure this isn't demeaning either...


[edit on 27/10/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Maybe I am more thick-skinned than you are. Its just a name, get over it.

reply to post by Wotan

That's quite possible. I tend to get thicker-skinned towards the week-end.

I honestly didn't know that British people employed the term in such a casual way and that it had no derogatory meaning in Europe.

This side of the pond the term is quite insulting. The whole separation thingy could be partly to blame...

Sorry for derailling... back to topic

Is anyone suggesting that some part of history should be free of reexamination?

I'm just not understanding some of the emotions expressed towards the French, as in the entire French people in this thread.

We are talking about one newspaper journalist misquoting a French historian on an area of History which appears to be sensitive to the British. It's not like it would change anything today. If there were truly 12,000 French, instead of 150, 000 originally claimed by the victors, it is important, historically.


[edit on 27/10/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by Wotan

 

That's quite possible. I tend to get more thick-skinned towards the week-end.

I honestly didn't know that British people employed the term in such a casual way and that it had no derogatory meaning in Europe.

This side of the pond the term is quite insulting. The whole separation thingy could be partly to blame...

Sorry for derailling...

No problem. You are probably right in that 'the pond' separates our ways of thinking.

When we Brits use the term 'Yank', it is used in a non-derogatory way, a sort of friendly nickname. To us, the word 'Limey' actually means very little to most Brits and is considered as an old but quaint name and certainly not an offensive term.

As for the French, well, they have been the 'traditional enemies' for hundreds of years and there is no love lost between the two nations, even in this day and age. Most Britons will call Frenchmen 'Frogs'.

There are obviously certain terms that are not acceptable like the 'N word', but most other nation-type words are usually used in a friendly jestful way.

Sorry for the confusion. Like you said, it may be that stretch of water between us.

Originally posted by Wotan
I have to admit, I do not know what the Scots, Welsh and Irish call Englishmen, but they probably have a name.

I believe the word you are looking for is "bastards". Usually prefixed by "English".

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
I honestly didn't know that British people employed the term in such a casual way and that it had no derogatory meaning in Europe.

Zut alore!

Of course it's derogatory. Why the hell else would we say it?

However, we didn't perfect the art of racial slurs like the Americans, because we never endorsed the slavery of one race over another. For Europeans, slavery was the punishment for a crime, not an accident of birth.

Thus calling a Frenchman a frog, et al, is simply akin to calling your mate a dick. He'll say "yeah yeah f*** off!" and that's where it ends.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23Is anyone suggesting that some part of history should be free of reexamination?

I'm just not understanding some of the emotions expressed towards the French, as in the entire French people in this thread.

Mon dieu!

Of course that isn't what we're saying, it's just we don't expect a bunch of garlic-eating frogs to tell us that we were bad men because we annihilated the French aristocracy. Hell, if it wasn't for us, the French Revolution probably wouldn't have occurred. Which was horrendously bloody and frankly quite stomach-churning.

It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23If there were truly 12,000 French, instead of 150, 000 originally claimed by the victors, it is important, historically.

Sacre bleu!

This is where you clearly don't know what you're talking about, because, amazingly, these were the sort of numbers claimed by the French themselves!

www.deremilitari.org...

This is an amphibious account of Agincourt. You can tell, because we would have been more humble. We would have said something like "the Frogs had an aversion to longbows" rather than "instantly killed by the English, who kept advancing and slaying, without mercy, all that opposed them".


I hope you've learned something here, and please, for your own sake as well as the sake of those who have to endure you: leave off the PC bollocks, eh? Especially when it comes down to what the English and the French say to each other. We've been neighbours for a thousand years. If you don't belong to either nation, butt-the-f***-out.

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
...we don't expect a bunch of garlic-eating frogs...

non-derogatory. Checked.

It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

What the historian said was:

The middle ages were a very violent time, of course, but some might accuse the English of acting like what might now be called war criminals.

He is in no way stating the incident was exclusive to the Battle of Agincourt. The spinners at the Telegraph did that. Burning people alive would probably be regarded as a war crime today. Would you agree that some people might make that statement? Would you regard burning people alive as a war crime today?

The Telegraph and many in this thread are taking this statement out of context and blowing it out of proportion.

Wow, imagine if these were German historians...

For Europeans, slavery was the punishment for a crime, not an accident of birth.

Oh, I see more like a holiday with the in-laws... the good old days... I see why you guys have a thing against history.

If you don't belong to either nation, butt-the-f***-out.

Feel free to use the ignore feature, f***head. However, I'll gladly bow out of this French bashing thread...


[edit on 27/10/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

[edit on 27/10/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Wow, people are getting way too heated over this.

Let them have their trial. If it makes them feel better about what happened to their ancestors, there's no real harm done. It's not like there's anyone alive to be falsely accused or anything.

If you're thinking this is a ploy to create hatred for the British... the French have always hated the British. Let them get this little remainder of steam out of their systems. What harm could it possibly do?

All it can do is give a few people ammo for an argument when they get into a debate over history. I see no harm in that... unless you're arguing the losing side of the argument... then that's your own problem.

Don't like to state the obvious argument here but you would think the French would be grateful to us Brits since we liberated them only 60 years or so ago from the clutches of the Nazi's and Agincourt was 600 years ago. When are brave soldiers ran up the beaches on D-Day to kick the huns out of France I don't remember any Frenchies gathering on the sea front hurling abuse at us, and asking us to go home because of what we did to them at Agincourt!
If this thread proves one thing it is that the French have extremely short memories. . .

Originally posted by johnsky
Let them have their trial.

..and let them eat history, or was it cake?

I don't remember the quote to be honest, it was just something some french bird was twaddling on about, so didn't bother paying attention

Wow you guys need to chill out lol, will it change your life ? mine ? Not in any way =)...shhh relax, get a glass of french win everything's gonna be ok...
I'll ad that I don't hate any country, be it England, Italy, USA...gotta be stupid to hate a whole country dont ya think ?
And I dont mind being called a frog or surrender monkey or whatever...I know who I am thanks anyway =)
All I see is that names calling comes more from one side of the channel that from the other...dunno must be the lack of sun

*drinks another glass of Bordeaux* Cheers mes amis =)

Marmelade

Demos

Now please let's remain civilized on both side of the channel.

I believe the replies are mainly tongue in cheek and are not meant to be taken seriously.




C.C.Benjamin

And we still executed her.

Only because the French refused to pay her ransom.




ANNED

the House of Stuart is the rightful royal famility of Scotland and england not the House of Windsor

There is more than one family with claims to the throne,its the same way for most monarchies.






ConspiracyNut23

Do you believe all historical research should be stopped? Or just those who study the Battle of Agincourt? Hopefully the research will eventually be peer-reviewed by English researchers for those who can't see past their own jingoistic views.

You missed my point.
I'm not talking about the historical value i'm talking of the accusations of war crimes from a time in history when such behaviour was the norm.It is the accusation that serves no purpose.

I'm quite appalled that the mods let references to "frogs" and "froggies" slide. Are we allowed to refer to people as "'n-word's" and "kikes" now?

Where do you draw the line with that?
Every country and its people have nicknames,the n-word and k-word refer to skin colour and religion not nationality and are therefore unacceptable.






[edit on 27-10-2008 by jakyll]

It's pretty predictable that when there is a war there will be 'war crimes'. WW2- Bombings of Rotterdam by the Nazis, bombings of Dresden Tokyo Hamburg by the allies come to mind. How about the American Napalming and agent orange usage during Vietnam?? How about the Soviet Union/Russia in Chechnya.

Really the real crime is the fact that disputes lead to the war's that create conditions for these terrible things to happen

As for Agincourt...well the French got done basically

Originally posted by jakyll
As the French suffered a catastrophic defeat,is this just a case of sour grapes?

Yep. Flavoured by the taste of bile from their ever so legendary braveness during WWII.