# France, My country,My Fatherland



## François le Français (Mar 10, 2011)

Hi 

I have discovered this forum because of a post in my french favorite forum.

I don't understand how some members of your forum can be so vile about what happened during WW2.Yes, French Government made mistakes, yes people were killed by barbarians, yes we are not proud of it.

But I think every country has his own cross to bear.Every history revealed some flaws. USA, Great Britain, Russia, Brasil, Japan,etc.... how many massacres, how many deaths?


Thanks for reading me.

Benoit


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 10, 2011)

Welcome to the forum, François le Français!
French culture still fascinates me and the people also look unique to me.


----------



## Torch (Mar 10, 2011)

Bonjour Benoit, I think there is a perceived thought of extreme arrogance that French people exhibit, I was born in France(LaSeyne-sur-Mer) and there are many times that I see things the French govt does that irritates the hell out of me and also the media is quick to dump on the French when something does not go our way. As for the country itself it is a wealth of beauty,culture,culinary arts etc. I have not been back since 1981 but I still have family and friends that I would like to see again. I'm sure you are thrilled when the loud american tourist shows up, they are not indicative of all Americans either. Please introduce yourself, where are you in France?Hobbies etc. and welcome to the board.


----------



## javlin (Mar 10, 2011)

I do not think we so much hate but do we make fun yea sure but what country does not make fun of another?I do like the harder line that Government has taken of late.My mother was full blooded Canandian French I am 1/2 myself but she was not fond of the French people so much but loved France.She visited a couple of times to France and I always remember the cab driver that thought she was a stupid American.He talked and talked berating the US and Americans for much of the ride till she responded in fluid french upon which he shut up .Cheers


----------



## Marcel (Mar 10, 2011)

javlin said:


> I do not think we so much hate but do we make fun yea sure but what country does not make fun of another?


In the past France was victim of this 'fun' quite a bit more than other countries. Anti-France sentiments ran quite high a few years ago. I had several attacks because of my French name (the idiots apparently didn't know a Dutch from a French flag) and we even had a thread called "how to piss on the French". I think this is where the topic starter got this idea from. Fortunately things improved quite a bit and I haven't seen structural anti-French sentiments over the last 2-3 years, apart from some teasing and individual incidents of course.


----------



## javlin (Mar 10, 2011)

To me Marcel it was probably the mid-80's with the Libya deal that got a few in the US upset.Beyond that I seem to remember as you mention a time not long ago were there was a few slams on France.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 10, 2011)

I am glad that you a patriot, Francois. So am I. When one country and culture sacrifices itself - blood and treasure - to help another, rightly or wrongly they feel they have earned the right to criticize.

After the debacles of WW2 both Germany and Japan have re-defined themselves. After WW2 did France ...? 

Francois, please share with us the things you are proud of ... so we can appreciate them. 

MM
Proud Canadian


----------



## mikewint (Mar 10, 2011)

François, d'abord et avant tout permettez-moi de vous souhaiter la bienvenue à ce forum
Next I do apologize if you took what I consider plain statements of historical fact as a personal attack on your country. Speaking for myself it was certainly not meant in that way. I am of German descent and not proud of many of the horrible things done by Germany. I am also a very proud American but by the same token my head is not in the sand over some of the things our *POLITICIANS* have done in the name of my country


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 10, 2011)

Welcome.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 10, 2011)

Francois - the following was posted by FlyBoyJr some years ago and addresses some interesting issues
(in the interests of accuracy and objectivity):

THE FRENCH AIR FORCE

MM


----------



## François le Français (Mar 10, 2011)

Thanks to all of us for your replies.

Best regards

Benoit


----------



## Wayne Little (Mar 11, 2011)

Welcome aboard....


----------



## wad59 (Mar 12, 2011)

Salut Benoit le Françouais !!!


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 12, 2011)

I think it's pretty much here as it is between Norway and Sweden, tough broderly love with all that it includes, bit of banter, a punch here and a kick there, but still....brotherly love! Would love to visit France, see the nature, castles and so on! France have done a lot, just look Andree' Chapelon(?) who designed some fantastic steam locomotives, French aviation (love the Mirage III)... Not to mention the colourful history, not always without it's flaws....but, what country doesn't have it's skeletons in the closet?
Being a Swede, Sweden hasn't always made the right decisions or done the right actions that I'm proud, last during the WWII...the German troop trains that we let pass through the country, to mention one thing.... Then we have the most sympathetic of all, the Vikings! 

Anyway, welcome to the forum and our family my friend, hope that you'll stick around.


----------



## imalko (Mar 12, 2011)

Hey Jan, isn't the Swedish royal family descended from Bernadotte, one of Napoleon's marshals? There's a French-Swedish connection for you.  

Also, welcome to the forum Benoit. At the Kalemegdan fortress in Belgrade there's a Monument of Gratitude to France erected in memory of French-Serbian alliance in World War 1. It was officially unveiled on 19th September 1930. Inscription on the monument says "We love France as she loved us 1914-1918".


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 12, 2011)

True Igor, missed that!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 13, 2011)

Hey, that's pretty cool.

Welcome aboard Benoit!


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2011)

Hi, Francois, and welcome.

It would be cool if you can toss some not-well known articles about French air force armed forces in general - perhaps something Imalko (Igor) has done many times


----------



## Njaco (Mar 14, 2011)

To quote the Cape Buffalo: "ribbit"

Far too many thin skinned around. I don't remember any particular vicious threads about France but I do remmember some nasty remarks about

USA
Britain
Germany
Canada
etc., etc., etc.......

Everybody is welcome here, just strap yourself in for the ride.

"He who laughs first, laughs at himself!" _Sam Slade_


----------



## parsifal (Mar 14, 2011)

Hi and welcome

I think there is some bias against france in this place, but i also thik there are times when it cuts both ways.

In the context of WWII what really gets my nose out of joint is when the early debacles that befell france are blamed on the British. Or that britains responses to the co-belligerent biases expressed in Vichy were somehow out of line. I cannot agree with that in the even the smallest degree.

The french have a long and proud history that deservedly commands respect. Some things they have done courageously and effectively. Perhaps we should concentrate on their accomplishments and sacrifices rather than dwell on the nations failures....


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 14, 2011)

"... The french have a long and proud history that deservedly commands respect. Some things they have done courageously and effectively. Perhaps we should concentrate on their accomplishments and sacrifices rather than dwell on the nations failures...."

Let's review, shall we. Before the 'Revolution' or 'after'. Or both? 

Let the greatness flow, parsifal.

"... early debacles that befell france are blamed on the British."

No. Never.

MM


----------



## parsifal (Mar 18, 2011)

Regarding the 'greatness" in no particular order, I would say their stands at bir hacheim and later at Cassino are worthy of mention


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 19, 2011)

What's wrong with French revolution?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 19, 2011)

"..... What's wrong with French revolution?"

Tomo, I never suggested there was anything "wrong" with it . It's history. Fact. _Wrong_ doesn't enter the equation.

The question is rather: "Was it effective"? 


MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 19, 2011)

Glad you know facts.

As for effectiveness, it was vastly more effective than doing nothing. Think of Austria, Spain, G. Britain, Russia, minor powers. Doing nothing to rectify the FACT that 4 out of 5 people between Atlantic And Ural were poor and/or hungry, illiterate, plus likely to die before turning 45 in 18th century.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 19, 2011)

".... Austria, Spain, G. Britain, Russia, minor powers. Doing nothing to rectify the FACT that 4 out of 5 people between Atlantic And Ural were poor and/or hungry, illiterate, plus likely to die before turning 45 in 18th century."

Did the French Revolution change that .... in your view, Tomo? I'm not sure " Austria, Spain, G. Britain, Russia" are all in the same league.

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 19, 2011)

French revolution showed that present kind of government (relying on a small, but rich group of people, while majority is poor) can be replaced. With most of European governments against it, it's miracle it survived that enough.

As for major powers I've listed, it's true that majority of people were living poorly, while minority was rich powerful.


----------



## imalko (Mar 19, 2011)

French revolution fallowed by the conquests of Napoleon started irreversible process which ended feudalism in Europe by the mid 19th century. It only lasted so long because, as pointed out, all major European powers were against it.
Also, you may think what you want about Napoleon, but his legacy - Code the Civil, Metric system, etc. - shaped the Europe we know today.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 19, 2011)

Short French rule in better part of today's Croatia initiated many roads hospitals to be constructed, land reform, 1st newspaper at Croatian language, while reducing the power of Catholic Church. Compared with 300-400 years of indifference, repression aggression experienced from Austrian, Venetian Ottoman sides.
No wonder a street in Split, town I was born, was named after Napoleon's marshal Marmont, once a governor of that part of my country.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 19, 2011)

"... French revolution followed by the conquests of Napoleon started irreversible process which ended feudalism in Europe by the mid 19th century..."

No doubt about that .... no doubt. But Napoleon's Empire _was_ an empire - and the next time Europe saw anything like it (his Continental Plan) - it was under the Nazis. 

I have no doubts about Napoleon being perceived as a "liberator" to peoples in many European countries - that's why the 1848 revolutions occurred - long after Napoleon's death. People were NOT going to move _backwards_. 

Not to be too cute - but if you lived in a country that had already absorbed _many_ revolutions - the British Isles - and already thrown off the Church (in Rome) and the feudal rule of Aristocracy - then you didn't need liberation - a Napoleon Emperor - you just needed *gold* and a solid General (Wellington) to defeat the him. 

Napoleon converted chaos (the Revolution) to disciplined order. Stalin did that too. 

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 19, 2011)

Comparing napoleon with Stalin and Nazis IS French bashing. Pure simple.

And for needing British general to defeat Napoleon, that was done after the later defeated many, many more armies, only to suffer a defeat by Russian winter Russian general. By time of Waterloo, Napoleon his army were just a pale shade of the army that marched on Russia short time before.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 19, 2011)

Yeah i would say there has been anti french sentiment on this forum. Its even happening now.

Not exactly pro French but not anti myself. If one wants some French military history then look at Verdun.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 19, 2011)

Even though long dead, that statement concerning the dfeat of Napoleon is just plain disrespectful of the soliders that fought in the campaign. 

The facts are that napoleon, like hitler, was defeated by a coalition, which just happened to be lead by the superpower of the age.....Britain. athough i am not a serious student of the napoleonic era, I believe that at the time of battle, the allied armies consisted of Dutch, pan germanic, Prussian armies, with Russian and austrian armies on the way. in the south there were british, potuguese and spanish troops heading into france.

Like WWII the Russians had played a key role in blunting the enemy war machine, as had the Royal navy's blockade tactics. So too had the Austrians played their part, basically being overrun in their resistance of aggression. The prussians had hesitated at first, but were there at the end. But whereas previous alliances against the french had been weak and rather disunited, enabling nappy to defeat his enemies in detail and individually, this alliance was led by the one country that had always resisted him, and had always been at war with him....hence the significance of a british general leading the forces against napoleon. It was probabaly one of the first examples of successful coalition warfare. that ought not be sold short in the intersts of national pride.

I dont think napoleons attitudes and performance are at all comparable to Hitlers. Whilst he was ruthless and opportunistic, and a despot, he also did some great things, like recognize polish sovereignty, overhauling the french legal system, capturing the imagination of the common people, and to a degree basing his assessment of combat performance on the basis of ability, rather than on the basis of birthright. I dont believe he was all that guilty of national pograms or genocide, though people may know otherwise. And perhaps not least, he was a military genius, compare to the other little corporal that followed him 120 years later

I


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 19, 2011)

Call it 'bashing' if you like - but the comparisons are absolutely valid - scale differs but the "capabilities" for social control were less in Napoleon's time. 

As for: "... And for needing British general to defeat Napoleon, that was done after the later defeated many, many more armies, only to suffer a defeat by Russian winter Russian general. By time of Waterloo, Napoleon his army were just a pale shade of the army that marched on Russia short time before."


Wellington spent years fighting Napoleon's armies in the Iberian peninsula. It was all rehearsal for his final match:* (Wikipedia)

"... The Peninsular War[3] was a war between France and the allied powers of Spain, the United Kingdom, and Portugal for control of the Iberian Peninsula during the Napoleonic Wars. The war began when French armies crossed Spain and invaded Portugal in 1807 and then in 1808 turned on its ally, Spain. The war lasted until the Sixth Coalition defeated Napoleon in 1814.
Spain's liberation struggle marked one of the first national wars[4] and the emergence of large-scale guerrillas (Guerrilha, in Portuguese), from which the English language borrowed the word.[5] The French occupation destroyed the Spanish administration, which fragmented into quarrelling provincial juntas. In 1810, a reconstituted national government fortified itself in Cádiz and proved unable to recruit, train, or equip effective armies due to being under siege. British and Portuguese forces secured Portugal, using it as a secure position from which to launch campaigns against the French army while Spanish guerrilleros bled the occupiers.[6] Combined, the regular and irregular allied forces prevented Napoleon's marshals from subduing the rebellious Spanish provinces.[7]
The many years of fighting in Spain gradually wore down Napoleon's famous French Army. While the French armies were often victorious in battle, their communications and supplies were severely tested and their units frequently cut off, harassed, or overwhelmed by partisans. The Spanish army, though beaten and driven to the peripheries, could not be stamped out and continued to hound the French relentlessly.[8]
The constant threatening presence of a British force under Arthur Wellesley, which became the most experienced and steady force in the British army, guarded Portugal and campaigned against the French in Spain alongside the reformed Portuguese army. Allied to the British, the demoralised Portuguese army underwent extensive reorganising, retraining and refitting under the command of British General William Carr Beresford,[9] appointed commander-in-chief of the Portuguese forces by the exiled Portuguese Royal family, and fought as part of a combined Anglo-Portuguese army under Wellington.
In 1812, as Napoleon embarked upon an invasion of Russia which ended in disaster, a combined allied army under Arthur Wellesley pushed into Spain and liberated Madrid. Marshal Soult led the exhausted and demoralized French forces in a fighting withdrawal across the Pyrenees and into France over the winter of 1813-14."

Please don't accuse me of "bashing". It's a misuse of the word and of historical fact. Sorry if that offends you .

MM


----------



## imalko (Mar 19, 2011)

I'm sorry, but I could never agree with your comparison of Napoleon with Hitler and/or Stalin. Though you are entitled of your opinion, this simply doesn't stand.

Wellington fought against Napoleon in person only once - at Waterloo, and this was a victory of Prussian and Dutch soldier as much as the British. However, by that time Napoleon was fighting the lost cause. He lost his finest soldiers in Russia, but his decisive defeat came at Leipzig in the "Battle of the Nations" in 1813 (largest battle fought on European soil by that time). Before that Napoleon achieved some victories in 1813 (Lützen, Bautzen, Dresden to name the few), at one point cease fire was declared and some kind of compromise peace seemed possible. However, when peace negotiations failed and three day Battle of Leipzig ended with French defeat, there was no turning back. From that point no matter what Napoleon did he could not change the final outcome.
Waterloo two years later was only sealing the deal.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 20, 2011)

It doesnt sound right to me that the wars fought allover europe up to that time, plus the blockade by the RN were of no importance in securing allied victory, or that the differences between the final alliance, and those that came before it was also of no consequence. My opinion remains that there was a multitude of factors that contributed to nappys defeat, and that no single nation, and no single person can lay claim to being responsible for that victory, to the exclusion of all other players.

Like it or not, the various members of the coalition trusted the British the most out of all the possible leaders. With britain there would be no doubling back, no separate backdoor deals with napoleon, or at least there was a lesser likleihood of it happening. All of the major players up to that point, at some stage or other, had done just that at some point in their ddealings with napoleon. Not England. They remained at war, no matter what others did. The minors trusted that committment.

the camapign in spain ought not be discounted, and neither should the repeated british efforts in italy. These were a constant drain on the french, and a constant source of attrition. And the blockade was a serious economic penalty that constantly wore down the french


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 20, 2011)

Thank you, parsifal, , you are right.

As for: ".... Wellington fought against Napoleon in person only once - at Waterloo, and this was a victory of Prussian and Dutch soldier as much as the British. "

Quel surpris, tomo. I _KNEW_ you were pull out the old mano-a-mano chestnut about match ups between the 2 generals.  . So what ... jousting is NOT the point. And yes, victory at Waterloo _was_ that of a coalition of nations, not just one. But Britain had stuck by its mission - in Iberia and at sea - and was trusted.

I am NOT taking anything away from Napoleon as a brilliant general and organizer, I am NOT slagging the man or his skill

But the Emperor of France (and his entourage) was just a *modern* replacement for the Sun King, his vanity, and his cardinals and courtiers.

To this day I will never understand why Napoleon blundered into Russia - less reason to go than Hitler - less need too.

If Napoleon had consolidated what he held *before *invading Russia and focused on breaking Britain's tireless and effective naval blockade he would have preempted many events that followed. But he was delusional - like other 20th Century leaders who will remain nameless ...... 

Good thread this has turned out to be .

Chairs,

MM


----------



## imalko (Mar 20, 2011)

Ah, so we _can_ agree on something! Both with Persifal and you MM (By the way, my name is Igor, don't confuse me with my neighbor Tomo...  )

Britain was the most consistent opponent to Napoleon - agreed. 

Peninsula campaign was great drainage of strength for the French - agreed. (Remember how Austrians declared war on Napoleon in 1809 figuring he was too committed in Spain and won't be able to oppose them in force. Though he proved them wrong at Wagram.) Spain and Portugal played a role in Emperors downfall, but were not decisive factor. Napoleon's defeat was the result of collective effort of all European powers. Hell, even Bernadotte who received crown of Sweden thanks to Napoleon fought against him at Leipzig!

_"I am NOT taking anything away from Napoleon as a brilliant general and organizer, I am NOT slagging the man or his skill..."_ - Agreed!

Twentieth century figures shall remain nameless - agreed. 

Fine discussion it is - agreed.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 20, 2011)

> Quel surpris, tomo. I KNEW you were pull out the old mano-a-mano chestnut about match ups between the 2 generals.



Check again whom you are quoting


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 20, 2011)

mea culpa, mea culpa .... 

MM


----------



## parsifal (Mar 20, 2011)

so, was napoleon a net positive, or a net negative for french achievement?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 20, 2011)

Since the topic on this thread is La France - terre paternal - 
And since we are basking in agreement - at the moment -
I put it to you - that everything characteristic about France is reflected in the French *preoccupation *with *language* - la belle langue francaise.

We see it in Canada. Not just language - every little detail of life and political life.

French preoccupation is with *perfect language* - with official language police overseers of meaning and correct usage - L' Acadamie Francais - speaks to precise form over substance. Languages are living organisms - they evolve to reflect what people are experiencing - and *for a culture to just accept that kind of word policing control* - illustrates dillusion IMHO .

So - with those thoughts about language in mind:

When the Normans invaded the Isles in 1066 they had been Frenchmen for about 100 years (GoT)  - they were Normans - Norse before that. Just like the Norse cousins they came across the Chanel to Conquer in 1066. Yet *they thrust* French and Frenchness on the British populations with violence and zeal - they purged the governing classes and ultimately created an unreal world with French being the High language of government and salon; with Anglo Saxon (or Gaelic, or Celt) being the Low language(s) of the barnyard and the servants. In short order - a few hundred years later Wm Shakespeare emerged - and a great flowering of English literature .

And, yes I've watched Molierre  - he wrote great farce comedy for the amusement of the ladies and clever gentlemen. Shakespeare wrote for the unwashed and washed masses in the street - that hungered for well-turned spectacle and tales of glory and intrigue.

I put it to you - the history of modern England is reflected in how the British (as they came to be known) *absorbed the Frenchification imposed after 1066* - and went on to evolve as a world commercial power and global langua franca. No similar event occurred in France - altho the Russian Occupation cavalry troops did introduce Le Bistro to Paris  [origin of fast food]. (1940 to 1943 is off limits in this discussion).

Still - despite being ' a-retentive ' about language, French - and French culture - continues to be attractive and persuasive to people around the world - triumph of form _and_ function. . I just don't get it and then I see .....

The Dassault Rafels in Libya today, .

MM

PS - Parsifal. 100% net *positive*. He came from The Army - the one sector that had and respected discipline. (Interesting parallels with Ataturk and the post-1918 Turkish state)


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 22, 2011)

Yup! The vikings regrouped as the Normands and returned to the UK.....


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 22, 2011)

Personally, I prefer to blame the Swiss for everything.


----------

