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.

 

French Accuse English Of War Crimes.

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I think we should counter claim against the French.............sorry I meant frogs.

Every year I have to suffer the frogs.............ooops meant French, when they decide to close their ports due to their union not been happy with the reduction of onions allowed for lunch each day and the introduction of soap into the showers, even though the soap would only require 52 uses a year.

You b***dy Europeans screw up my timetable up enough without wanting to claim innapropriate coinage from our dear sceptered isle, considering your fuel costs are lower you should be swarming over to the UK, oh hang on you are already stuffing the EuroStar full of illegals on a one way frogland to England.

Why do think the cliffs of Dover are White..................same colour as our a**e.

Wolfie

P.S. This post is a great example of two nations banter and been able to chuckle at all the replies


[edit on 27/10/08 by Wolfie_UK]




posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Dont get me wrong, I love France. Its just that its full of Frenchmen, thats the problem .......



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

non-derogatory. Checked.


Yes! Precisely! I don't look down on the French as a slave race of no worth because of how they were born - it's not their fault, they're just French. I'm not about to enslave them because of it, and because I'm not going to do that I don't have to worry about liberal guilt for centuries of persecution because of the accident of birth.

It's just a freaking name-calling session. Call me an English bastard all you like, and I'll smugly sit back and say "yep, that's me, 100%!"

When I call the French a bunch of garlic-eating frogs, it doesn't hold the same connotations as when an American calls a black man a 'n-word'.



Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
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?


I'd personally be quite impressed if the English had the time to do that - by the French account (which I don't think you read) we weren't interested in taking prisoners, only winning. It didn't mention it, as far as I saw, and I'm quite an avid student of history, so I don't know quite what source they're using for that information.

And you can't judge the past by today's moral standards. Back then, the French weren't exactly all smiles and sunshine either.



Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23The Telegraph and many in this thread are taking this statement out of context and blowing it out of proportion.


Quite probably, but I don't have many other flimsy pretexts to rip it into those striped-shirt-wearing snail-munching frogophiles!!!


Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23Wow, imagine if these were German historians...


What are you trying to say here? They'd play down the gas chambers? The Germans are literally one of the nicest (and tallest!) people I've ever met. I went to the Oktoberfest in Munich this year, and it was awesome. They are so frickin' patient.



Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
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.


Er no, it was the Americans that made slavery racial, not the British. We used indentured labour, in which a large percentage were white (probably Irish
), who had committed crimes and were being punished for it. Frankly I'd welcome a return to it, 'cause I'm sick of the prisoners getting such a free freaking ride.

There was a time when the Roman Senate wanted all slaves to wear a badge to say they were a slave, before one smart senator said "Well, if we do that, they'll know just how many of them there are..."

Making slavery racial was stupid, because then it's obvious how many there are.




Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23Feel free to use the ignore feature, f***head. However, I'll gladly bow out of this French bashing thread...


Point 1: I never actually insulted you. I didn't call you a f***head, I didn't say piss off, I just recommended you be a little less ball-contrainingly PC because not everyone appreciates it, and you have to be tolerant of everyone, not just those people who are being tolerantly PC about everything - that's what tolerance is about! Your world view actually protects my casual racism! You better tolerate it you hypocritical person!

Point 2: I don't want too, that'd ruin a perfectly good argument.


Point 3: It's no more bashing the French than it would be if I'd said what a bunch of bastards the Scots/Irish/Welsh/Cornish/Liverpudlians/Glasweigans/etc etc are.

They, of course, are, but that doesn't mean I hate them. It's more like a brotherly argument. They aren't going anywhere, we aren't going anywhere, so lets just lighten up a bit and enjoy the ribbing, 'cause we all have our foibles.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Are'nt these Yanks sensitive?



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
As an American, I should have no say in this, but I'd like to give it a go.

We Americans, and especially you Brits should not hold it against France that they elect to revise an old battle. After all, they have a long history of not doing too well in battle, especially against the Brits.

And we shouldn't blame the French for wanting to be in charge of the Normandy Invasion a few decades back. After all, just because they had no Army, no Navy, and a country full of collaborators is no reason for hard feelings.

And just because they wouldn't fight to free their own country is no reason to think any less of them.

Let them have their go at this. Keeps them preoccupied so that they won't worry so much over their current Muslim population.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper

Let them have their go at this. Keeps them preoccupied so that they won't worry so much over their current Muslim population.



Woohoo congrats you win the "most stupid phrase of the thread award" !!
But just to be sure why would we have to worry about that ?



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Marmelade
 

Thank you! I enjoy awards, and have accumulated several.

Why would you have to worry about your Muslim population?

Stick around, kid. You'll be finding out soon enough.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
As an American, I should have no say in this, but I'd like to give it a go.

We Americans, and especially you Brits should not hold it against France that they elect to revise an old battle. After all, they have a long history of not doing too well in battle, especially against the Brits.

And we shouldn't blame the French for wanting to be in charge of the Normandy Invasion a few decades back. After all, just because they had no Army, no Navy, and a country full of collaborators is no reason for hard feelings.

And just because they wouldn't fight to free their own country is no reason to think any less of them.

Let them have their go at this. Keeps them preoccupied so that they won't worry so much over their current Muslim population.



I love every bit of this post.

I'd just like to add that they were willing to fight. Each other. And sometimes the Nazis. As long as the British went first. And didn't startle them into retreat first.

Apparently they kept shopping in various rebellious factions within France to the Nazis, rather than pooling their resources, but Charles de Gaulle did some good work trying to get them organised. From London.

I don't think I could have done better with the resources at hand! God only knows how Napoleon did it. I regularly go to history forums, and I'm always trying to up his standing on the 100 greatest generals list, as he had to work with French forces, unlike, say, Caesar, who had the Sons of Mars to hammer the Gauls with.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
We Americans, and especially you Brits should not hold it against France that they elect to revise an old battle. After all, they have a long history of not doing too well in battle, especially against the Brits.



Well, if they want to ''revise'' some battles against the British, they have 25 battles to take their pick - from the Battle of Sluys 1340 to the Battle of Waterloo 1815 - All were British victories.

[edit on 27/10/08 by Wotan]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Whoever said Britain didn't endorse slavery is wrong. Don't know if that was a mis-typed sentence or what, but Britian did indeed use slaves and even African slaves, believe it or not. They used them on their plantations in the Carribbean and the like.

www.umich.edu...

To their credit they realized way earlier than the Colonies how wrong slavery is.

As for this topic, I agree, burning people alive is pretty brutal, even for back then. Glad I'm living now.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Wotan
 

My apologies. I didn't count, and while I knew the number of times they lost to the Brits, I had no idea it was 25.

Can you believe that even the Italians beat them? You gotta be kidding? And the one they won was French against French!

Funny thing about that Napolean fellow. He wasn't French.

Let's hope that during and after the Second World War, the British and American troops bred back into the bloodlines some fighting spirit!



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
Whoever said Britain didn't endorse slavery is wrong. Don't know if that was a mis-typed sentence or what, but Britian did indeed use slaves and even African slaves, believe it or not. They used them on their plantations in the Carribbean and the like.


It was me, and indeed we did, however we did not base slavery on race, unlike the Americans. We used it as a punishment, and it was called indentured servitude. It wasn't race-based. And yes, we were pretty much the first people of the age to say abolitionism is right, and slavery is wrong. Did you know the Arabs had slaves up until 1963?

Dooper - While I am aware that Napoleon was a Corsican, he did have to use French troops (almost a contradiction in terms) on the battlefield - that gives him even higher marks in my books!

To be fair, though, the French situation is entirely the fault of the English.

With Poitiers, Crecy, Agincourt and the rest, we actually exterminated France's contingent of brave men, leaving only those who didn't want to fight behind. Naturally these cowards bred more cowards, as wolves beget wolves...it's about natural selection, baby!



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Hah, this is a hilarious thread.

Someone earlier asked about names the Scots/Irish/Welsh have for the English. A good Scottish friend of mine always calls us "soft southern shandy drinking poofters" (for people who don't know, shandy is a very weak beer (beer and lemonade), and poofter means homosexual)

I usually reply by asking why he moved here then...

It kind of amuses me that we still use the slurs like 'frog' against the French so casually, but I think most people don't do it in a hateful way, more friendly ribbing, like you would call a friend some names, and they'd do the same back in the pub after a few beers.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Marmelade
 


I say, that's the spirit old bean!




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I'm a Brit and I'm about to do the indefensible and stick up for the garlic munching, frog leg eating Frenchies. There were some Frenchmen in the war who did have a backbone, and whats more, there's many a war veteran who thanks for them for saving their lives and keeping them out of the clutches of the prison camps. I'm talking about the French Resistance. A brave few who, if discovered, had no where to hide and would face certain death.
I know it's fun taking the urine out of the froggies but lets remember the brave few who put their all on the line to save those American and British men who ended up behind enemy lines.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 


Very true.


The reason a lot surrendered or didn't fight etc was because of the memories of WW1 when the Germans absolutely annihilated the French,who were ill-prepared and ill-equipped when compared with the Germans.In the first fighting of the western war,known as the Battle of the Frontiers,the French lost over 75,000 men.Over 27,000 were killed in just one day.Subsequent battles were just as bad for them so the actions of some in WW2 are understandable.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Forgive me if my history is a little rusty, but wasn't the main reason for the French defeat at Agincourt due to the mud? French mud.

The French forces were replete with heavy armour - whereas the English were predominantly barefooted foot soldiers with barely any clothes, let alone armour. The armoured French were bogged down in the mud, and a LOT of them drowned. The English really took advantage of the French forces' immobility and hammered them with everything they had while they floundered in knee deep, sticky mud.

As for the killing of the prisoners, it was purely logistical (I know that sounds really callous, but I'm just addressing the actions not the morality). The English were outnumbered, and out "gunned" as the French crossbow units outnumbered the English archers. The English really couldn't afford the manpower to take the prisoners, or the food!

I may, as I mentioned, be a little rusty on all the various nuances of the battle, but it was an amazing victory for the English given the "on paper" differences between the two forces.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
Yes! Precisely! I don't look down on the French as a slave race of no worth because of how they were born - it's not their fault, they're just French. I'm not about to enslave them because of it, and because I'm not going to do that I don't have to worry about liberal guilt for centuries of persecution because of the accident of birth.

When I call the French a bunch of garlic-eating frogs, it doesn't hold the same connotations as when an American calls a black man a 'n-word'.


As a keen student of history you surely realise that when slavery commenced in the Americas, it was still a British Colony, and that while the Spanish rounded up the native populations in the south, as slaves, they were doing so in competition with the British and the French who had formed human trading alliances with the North African Arab traders. You do realise that the English were largely responsible for the development of the transatlantic slave trade? You do realise that that we did 'own' the West Indies for example and are responsible for the horrors committed there?

The French may be on record as having been the perpetrators of some of the worst treatment to African slaves, we were not far behind them. Remember the new US merely inherited a system already put in place by us, the French and the Spanish.

Slaves were brought to this country and 'negros' turn up all over literature and art from the 16th century onwards. The working class of this country, long oppressed by their rulers would not allow slavery and racial segregation that is by necessity required so the practice did not flourish, here.

Yes, the US following independence, took some persauding to end slavery. We opted out and because we ruled the sea, we enforced the end of that which we started. The US eventually moved towards racial segregation, but not before that form of racial division had been tried and tested with our tacit agreement in South Africa.

Being called a 'n-word' and if you are offended by it depends upon whether you feel you are a 'n-word' or not. And as with much, it is not what you say, it is how you say it.

I am not French, but if I was I would find this thread the high point of amusement, I would know that compared to France right now, the English have very little to be smug about other than 600 year old victories. They are, despite the bloodiness of their revolution, free of their conquerors, we remain, still, despite failed attempts and the odd regicide, at the mercy of ours.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
As a keen student of history you surely realise that when slavery commenced in the Americas, it was still a British Colony, and that while the Spanish rounded up the native populations in the south, as slaves, they were doing so in competition with the British and the French who had formed human trading alliances with the North African Arab traders. You do realise that the English were largely responsible for the development of the transatlantic slave trade? You do realise that that we did 'own' the West Indies for example and are responsible for the horrors committed there?


Indeed! But that isn't the point I was making. I'm not advocating the slave trade by any means, however what I am saying is we did not make it racial.

Plenty of native British and Irish citizens were transported as slaves as well, either as criminals or the spoils of war.

Again, I'm not advocating this.

Our treatment of slaves was not good, no-one's was, however we did not reduce slavery to a racial institution, and therefore we don't have to look at ourselves as racists - we had large white populations of slaves too. The Americans did however reduce slavery to a racial concept, which is why calling a black American a 'n-word' is in now way comparable to an Englishman calling a Frenchman a frog.


Originally posted by KilgoreTroutThe French may be on record as having been the perpetrators of some of the worst treatment to African slaves, we were not far behind them. Remember the new US merely inherited a system already put in place by us, the French and the Spanish.


I think I've shown that slavery was not a racial institution, even if a large number of the slaves were non-white. It was after the revolt of the American colonies that white slavery was phased out, and by that point we'd become fully in the grip of the abolitionists.


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I would know that compared to France right now, the English have very little to be smug about other than 600 year old victories. They are, despite the bloodiness of their revolution, free of their conquerors, we remain, still, despite failed attempts and the odd regicide, at the mercy of ours.


Are you saying you are anti-monarchist? I personally am quite happy with the Queen. She's a stately figure, she's done nothing to embarrass or disgrace the country, and she links us with a thousand years of history.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
I'm a Brit and I'm about to do the indefensible and stick up for the garlic munching, frog leg eating Frenchies. There were some Frenchmen in the war who did have a backbone, and whats more, there's many a war veteran who thanks for them for saving their lives and keeping them out of the clutches of the prison camps. I'm talking about the French Resistance. A brave few who, if discovered, had no where to hide and would face certain death.
I know it's fun taking the urine out of the froggies but lets remember the brave few who put their all on the line to save those American and British men who ended up behind enemy lines.


Make that two of you, or us, or something. It's too easy for other countries to disparage the French over WWII, particularly the British and the Americans who didn't share land borders with the countries it was fighting against.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join