Gee, historically this guy would be taking a battlefield souvenir from a fallen opponent. In reality they took Lugers. Easier to get home in a footlocker. I guess technically they were "thieves" too. But spoils of war and all that. Losers lose 'em and winners take 'em.
David Letterman: "France wants more evidence [of Iraqi violations]. The last time France wanted more evidence, it rolled right through France with a German flag." Dennis Miller: "The only way the French are going in is if we tell them we found truffles in Iraq." Jay Leno: "I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!" Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.: "Do you know how many Frenchmen it takes to defend Paris? It's not known, it's never been tried." Blunt again: "Somebody was telling me about the French Army rifle that was being advertised on eBay the other day -- the description was: 'Never shot. Dropped once.'" And even an unwitting French President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." "Do you know it only took Germany three days to conquer France in World War II? And that's because it was raining," said John Xereas, manager of the DC Improv. According to Jed Babbin, former deputy undersecretary for defense: "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." "I assumed the French would be capable of going with us into Iraq so they could be there to instruct the Iraqis on how to surrender." U.S. Rep. Pete King "Had the Eiffel Tower been destroyed on Sept. 11, France's current nouvelle Vichy leadership would now be in full retreat looking for someone to surrender to." Tom Feeney, Orlando Sentinel "The French are always reticent to surrender to the wishes of their friends and always more than willing to surrender to the wishes of their enemies." Dennis Miller
the French fought on an unwinnable battle for another 4 weeks - after their British allies literally dropped all their arms on the beaches of Dunkirk and fled across the Channel
MSFE, you are a character. You gave us some two very applicable contributions : Firstly by bringing up the subject of âLiberating Caenâ and, secondly, your quote : "the French fought on an unwinnable battle for another 4 weeks - after their British allies literally dropped all their arms on the beaches of Dunkirk and fled across the Channel" The value of your contribution of course lies in showing up the high price one may finish up paying when one prefers to bury one's head in the sand. Had the European nations taken action earlier the price would undoubtedly have been considerably less. Unfortunately the memory of the previous large war (1914-1918) made a lot of people incline to walk around during the late 1930's with pins in their lapel showing a broken rifle and the words 'peace' underneath. Unfortunately that pin wasn't a good enough talisman to ward off the dangers to come. freealways
Another four weeks of fighting? What are you talking about? The evacuation of Dunkirk was 27 May to 4 June 1940. On 22 June the French signed an armistice. In any event, You left out the Allied Forces only two possible choices: retreat or be completely destroyed. Should they have stayed and fought? I think not. Now, to the germane point of this rebuttal to yet another one of your slanted "history lesson" posts; of the 338,000 men to evacuate Dunkirk, nearly half, 140,000+, were members of the French Army. The other salient points are the French mistaken dependence on the Maginot Line in the first place and Hitler's bungling interference in command allowing the escape to the French coast. As it was, the weather saved the Allies from decimation by the Luftwaffe.
Too true. The French didn't extend the Maginot Line along the border with Belgium because they didn't want to offend the Belgians. A nice gesture, but one quickly exploited by Hitler as he proceeded to march his troops through Belgium which, I can only imagine, caused the Belgians greater offence. With friends like these.............. you get the picture.
Quote from msfe: most of the German military casualties were afflicted by the Russians - most of the German civilian casualties were afflicted by Anglo-American bombs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- skepik123:`I do not even want to discuss the absurdity of this claim´ Victory on the Volga The anniversary of Stalingrad has inspired major celebrations in Russia, but a strange silence here At Stalingrad the Soviets lost a million people - more than the British and Americans during the whole war. Such sacrifices, as Churchill said, tore the guts out of the German war machine. More than 90% of German losses were suffered on the eastern front, including 10 million military casualties. All other theatres were a sideshow compared with the gigantic battles in Russia. At the time it was clear that the second world war was primarily a Soviet-German war. During the cold war, however, the western narrative of the struggle against Hitler was rewritten to minimise the Soviet contribution and to exaggerate an Anglo-American crusade to make Europe safe for democracy. Stalingrad was the most decisive encounter in military history, a clash of two European superpowers that determined the outcome of the second world war. It meant that the main victor of the war would be the Soviet Union: a result that determined the shape of Europe. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,904535,00.html
True enough as far as human sacrifice, leaving out Lend-Lease and a few other odds and ends. Too bad the Soviets took unfair advantage of their victory and committed the tragedy of later annexing Eastern Europe into the Soviet Bloc.