France accuses UK military of war crimes.

[Al R]

French accuse English of war crimes and exaggeration over Agincourt - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/3253160/French-accuse-English-of-war-crimes-and-exaggeration-over-Agincourt.html)

With that in mind, I would like to offer this by way of an apology and an expression of my profound regret at the sense of injustice and inadequacy that the little poppets must be feeling.

YouTube - Henry V- Speech (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OAvmLDkAgAM)

[Farmer 1]

no English academics have been invited to today's conference in France

Can't imagine why. Anybody any ideas?

[extpwron]

Can you blame the English after this earlier humiliation?


YouTube - Monty Python and the Holy Grail: The French Taunter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFFeE7FbZms)

[charliegolf]

So will this in turn mean that in WW2, the French lions were all set to kick the schnitzel out of Jerry until the tripe-eating surrender-monkey Brits ran home to Blighty then?

CG

[lasernigel]

Wouldn't suprise me with this lot if an apology of some sort in offered,they don't care about our present day Armed forces.:*

Trouble is that we whipped the Froggies that often that they can't decide which battle to bring up. Still maybe they ought to think that the two fingered salute originates from our longbow men showing their drawing fingers intact in that very battle.:ok:

"Cry God for Harry, England and St George":ok:

[arandcee]

"they will say that the foreign invaders used numerous underhand tactics against an honourable enemy"

"When the Duke of Alençon, who commanded the second division of the French army, had failed to put an axe through Henry, he tried to surrender but was killed by the King's 40-strong bodyguard"

[tonker]

If you ever visit Waterloo i recommend you visit the giant donut shaped building that has an huge wrap around painting of the battle, complete with a battlefield type noise effects.

Built by the French in the early part of the last century it depicts the battle as seen by the French, except for one vital bit!!!!:hmm:

[Load Toad]

Storm, Cup, A, Tea, A, In.

[Farmer 1]

Storm, Cup, A, Tea, A, In.

Absolutely definitely not. It was a major battle.

[Exnomad]

I always thought reason the French were do upset by Agincourt was that their aristocracy in the shape of their mounted knights were slaughtered by the English peasant archers.

[randomname]

Perhaps the French are planning to seek reparations as a way through the credit crisis. I do hope our beloved leader is ready for it

[themightyimp]

Have a look at www.google.com (http://www.pprune.org/www.google.com) type in French Military Victories and click "I'm feeling Lucky" (also worth clicking on what comes up)

An oldie but a goodie

[arandcee]

not done that before - lmfao!

[Jackonicko]

History is written by the victors.

Thus the French don't really do military history.

[Eagle402]

I always liked the Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf observation that "going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion."

[Ivor Fynn]

The French can sod off! It must have been a good scrap, one of my ancestors was knighted on the field by the king!!

Sour grapes because they lost!!!

Ivor:ok::ok::ok:

[PPRuNeUser0139]

Don't forget though that the Frogs did show big match temperament and scored the all-important away goal at Hastings in the 1066 UEFA Cup.

[EGAC_Ramper]

Strictly speaking though the Normans were in fact scandinavian norsemen who settled in "Normandy" so truth be known the French lost there land to Vikings who then attacked England in 1066, so in actual fact no away French goal... :ok::} or where fielding an ineligible player!! :}

[newt]

So why do the French plant trees all along the side of the road??

[BEagle]

So that invading armies can march in the shade.....;)

[Flyingblind]

Ah Boom Tisch!

[Baron rouge]

You Brits have always been tough bastards, and surely AZINCOURT was a battle your archers won against la creme de la creme of French aristocracy.

But why not admit the feat was greatly exagerated, as in the end the glorious soldiers were booted out by a French woman :D:D:D

But what to expect of a nation which still now worship KITCHENER, the butcher who invented the concentration camps and killed thousend of women and children to win a war he would have lost otherwise, had he not acted as a criminal of war.

[LBGR]

Of all the things the French could of chosen to have a go at us Brits over, I would suggest that military prowess should of been at the bottom of their list.

But then again, they've never been very good at picking their battles have they...

[The Helpful Stacker]

But what to expect of a nation which still now worship KITCHENER...

Could you be so kind as to point out something like a Kitchener worship website?

From what I know of history he was regarded as a bit of a butcher by his own troops and still is. Hardly the sort of person that usually garners worship.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Qui dans le RAF gagne à £3.32 par heure ?

[artyhug]

Ah but how many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?

[High_lander]

None- they've never tried:E:E

[oxenos]

Not only did the French lose the battle, they get the spelling wrong.

[exscribbler]

Once upon a time in the Kingdom of Heaven, God went missing for six days. Eventually, on the seventh day, the Archangel Michael found him, resting.

He inquired of God, "Where have you been?"

God sighed a deep sigh of satisfaction and proudly pointed downwards through the clouds, "Look, Michael, look what I've made."

Archangel Michael looked puzzled and said, "What is it?"

"It's a planet," replied God, "and I've put life on it. I'm going to call it Earth and it's going to be a great place of balance."

"Balance?" inquired Michael, still confused.

God explained, pointing to different parts of the Earth, "For example, North America will be a place of great opportunity and wealth while South America is going to be poor; the Middle East over there will be a hot spot. Over there I've placed a continent of white people and over there is a continent of black people." God continued, pointing to different countries, "This one will be extremely hot and arid while this one will be very cold and covered in ice."

The Archangel, impressed by God's work, then pointed to a small land mass and said, "What's that one?"

"Ah," said God. "That's Britain, the most glorious place on Earth. There are lakes, rivers, streams, and hills. The people from Britain are going to be modest, intelligent and humorous and they're going to be found travelling the world. They'll be extremely sociable, hard-working and high-achieving and they will be known throughout the world as diplomats and carriers of peace."

Michael gasped in wonder and admiration but then proclaimed, "What about balance, God? You said there will be balance!"

“Ah,” God replied wisely, "just wait until you see the w*nkers I'm putting next door to them in France."

:E :E :E :E :E

[L1A2 discharged]

The French Surrender Page (http://www.code7r.org/Bintoons/allies2.htm) :ok:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/French.gif

[S'land]

But then again, they've never been very good at picking their battles have they...

Wrong, they are very good a picking their battles. It's winning them that they are not very good at. :rolleyes:

[GreenKnight121]

From:
Taliban capture MILAN launcher with missiles from French - The Land Forces - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board - Yuku (http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/7493)

FRANCE PLAYS DOWN TALIBAN CAPTURE OF ANTI-TANK MISSILES
Agence France-Presse via the Toqueville Connection, 24 Oct 08
Article link (http://www.ttc.org/200810241040.m9oae3f04195.htm) France played down Friday the capture by Taliban forces of two French anti-tank missiles seized after the insurgents launched a major attack on hundreds of its troops in Afghanistan.
Defence Minister Herve Morin said Western forces in Afghanistan sometimes had to abandon weapons in the field and that the main concern had been to get the troops out of last Saturday's ambush alive.
"It was an ambush in a narrow valley, with a lot of Taliban," said Morin as he visited an army unit in the eastern town of Annecy that was about to send some of its soldiers to Afghanistan.
"The essential thing is that everyone is alive," he said, adding that the Milan anti-tank missiles abandoned would be difficult to use for anyone without the proper training.
Fourteen Taliban were killed in the clash, according to NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
The ambush took place in the Alasai valley north of the capital Kabul, near where 10 French soldiers were killed in another Taliban ambush in mid-August.
But the French army waited until Thursday to publicly announce the incident.
It said that around 300 French troops were attacked by about 100 Taliban and had to retreat after fierce fighting.
Air cover was called in to help them get out of the ambush, said Lieutenant Colonel Bruno Louisfert, a French army spokesman in Afghanistan.
He said a missile launcher was also abandoned along with the two Milan portable medium-range guided missiles.
About 70,000 international troops -- 40,000 of them under NATO command -- are helping Afghans fight the Taliban who were ousted from Kabul in a US-led invasion launched after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
France has around 2,600 troops there.

[Yamagata ken]

I blame the Romans. What did they ever do for us?

[alwayslookingup]

Some years ago there were moves in France to rename Bastille Day (celebrated 14th July) because of its martial sounding overtones. A wag suggested calling it "Letting the Germans March Into Paris Without a Shot being Fired" Day. Didn't catch on.

On the other hand, they have got the Rafale and the Etendard, Mig, Tiger, Exocet, the Charles de Gaulle (a real aircraft carrier), along with a very handy Foreign Legion AND they still have 2 years' national service. In fact I'd say they do okay for themselves and perhaps we shouldn't be smirking so much.

[The Helpful Stacker]

...along with a very handy Foreign Legion...

Made up mainly these days of Brits, Germans and East Europeans.

[Baron rouge]

What about the great achievment of the British Army in Afghanistan .It looks like some here are definitely missing important points of their less than glorious military history.

The British Are Forced to Flee
Sir William Mcnaghten, who had been trying to negotiate a way out of the city, was murdered on December 23, 1841, reportedly by Muhammad Akbar Khan himself. The British, their situation hopeless, somehow managed to negotiate a treaty to leave Afghanistan.

On January 6, 1842, the British began their withdrawal from Kabul. Leaving the city were 4,500 British troops and 12,000 civilians who had followed the British Army to Kabul. The plan was to march to Jalalabad, about 90 miles away.

The retreat in the brutally cold weather took an immediate toll, and many died from exposure in the first days. And despite the treaty, the British column came under attack when it reached a mountain pass, the Khurd Kabul. The retreat became a massacre.

Slaughter in the Mountain Passes
A magazine based in Boston, the North American Review, published a remarkably extensive and timely account titled “The English in Afghanistan” six months later, in July 1842. It contained this vivid description (some antiquated spellings have been left intact):

On the 6th of January, 1842, the Caboul forces commenced their retreat through the dismal pass, destined to be their grave. On the third day they were attacked by the mountaineers from all points, and a fearful slaughter ensued…
The troops kept on, and awful scenes ensued. Without food, mangled and cut to pieces, each one caring only for himself, all subordination had fled; and the soldiers of the forty-fourth English regiment are reported to have knocked down their officers with the butts of their muskets.

On the 13th of January, just seven days after the retreat commenced, one man, bloody and torn, mounted on a miserable pony, and pursued by horsemen, was seen riding furiously across the plains to Jellalabad. That was Dr. Brydon, the sole person to tell the tale of the passage of Khourd Caboul.

More than 16,000 people had set out on the retreat from Kabul, and in the end only one man, Dr. William Brydon, a British Army surgeon, had made it alive to Jalalabad. The garrison there lit signal fires and sounded bugles to guide other British survivors to safety, but after several days they realized that Brydon would be the only one. It was believed the Afghans let him live so he could tell the grisly story.

A Severe Blow to British Pride

[The Helpful Stacker]

No thats what is known as a lesson learned.

France too have learned their lesson of course. They generally try and avoid all wars* unless the enemy are armed with nothing more dangerous than soft fruit but if they have to go somewhere dodgy they send the FFL (those Brits, Germans and East Europeans I mentioned earlier).

* Well avoid fighting but they love selling weapons, especially to regimes others in the security council are less than impressed with. Hence the hissy fit when said other security council member states decide they want to remove a good customer of France.

[Al R]

Baron,

Look what even our medics are made of eh? What an achievement! :D

[doubleu-anker]

Reminds me.

You know why the French helped with the Channel tunnel don't you? No? Well I'll tell you. It was to assist the French to get to London before the Germans get to Paris.

[CirrusF]

There is some very tasteless posturing going on here from people who should know better. The French unit that was ambushed in Afghanistan recently were Marine-paratroopers who are just as well trained, fit and courageous as our own Marines and Paras. The reason they were so badly caught was because they did not have enough ammunition, they had comms failure, and no air support was available until too late in the action. Yes, there were failings higher up in the command but no failings of the blokes on the ground. Rather similar to the deaths of our redcaps in Iraq in fact. Were they cowards then? No, of course not.

You might also try reading some unairbrushed accounts of the Dunkirk evacuation (eg Clive Ponting - 1940 Myth and Reality). We tend to regard it through rose-tinted glasses as a noble, strategic retreat. In fact, we basically abandoned our agreement with the French allies to defend France, and ran away in considerable disarray, with plenty of looting and raping of French civilians, leaving the French to hold off the Germans at the bridgehead. The French General Wegard wanted to try a counter-attack at Arras to cut off German supplies and therefore perhaps allow the encirled troops to rebuff the Germans, but the British General Cort refused. The senior RN officer at Dunkirk, Captain Tenant, said at the time "The French staff at Dunkirk feel strongly that they are defending Dunkirk for us to evacuate, which is largely true". Some of the French soldiers who had been fighting shoulder to shoulder with the Brits were not allowed to evacuate and were forced off British ships (though they were allowed to evacuate once all or most of the Brits were out). The French actually held the bridgehead until 4 June, taking very heavy casualties, by which time all the Brits were out. Vastly outnumbered, they were forced to surrender and taken prisoner.

Also, try reading some WW1 history. The general consensus was that the French army out-performed the British army. For example, one of the reasons for the Battle of Verdun was that the German high command realised that they could never defeat Britain (who they considered the real enemy) without first defeating the French, who they believed were defending Britain. As everybody knows (or should know) Verdun was an incredible bloody and courageous display of tenacious defending by French, who lost 400,000 men.

History is written by the victors.

Thus the French don't really do military history.

Jackonicko that is particularly pathetic coming from somebody who purports to be a journalist. There are in fact plenty of French military historians who have published some intriguing research, which is well worth reading to get a balanced picture of history. I suspect the reason you have not read any is that you can't read French?

It is frankly rather juvenile to try to pretend that Brits are somehow braver or more noble in battle than the French.

[Yamagata ken]

It is frankly rather juvenile to try to pretend that Brits are somehow braver or more noble in battle than the French.

Well put. I'm not claiming that, hence my reference to the Romans. All nations need to tread a little carefully, because we all have less-than flattering episodes in our histories. Opening Pandora's box wrt to Agincourt (however misrepresented by the Anglo-press) is to invite the responses seen above.

[Yamagata ken]

Baron Rouge: But what to expect of a nation which still now worship KITCHENER, the butcher who invented the concentration camps and killed thousend of women and children to win a war he would have lost otherwise, had he not acted as a criminal of war.

My professional life is paid for by teaching English to children. I greatly prefer the "ability to communicate" over "correctness", but I'm calling you over this. I don't know what your native language is, but if you equate the Boer "concentration camps" to Nazi and Soviet extermination camps, then you really need to get a life. Don't bother trying to communicate in English until you can tell the difference between turd and merde.

[exscribbler]

Ken: Cirer de la merde; c'est possible? :}

[Wensleydale]

Perhaps the war crime that the French are complaining about is the killing of the French prisoners at the end of the battle? Much money could be made by the rank and file by capturing a noble who would then pay a ransome for his safe return home - a man of high rank could set a squire up for life, and as for a King's Ransome..... Many French nobles had surrendered during the fighting (nothing new there then), but when there was the threat of a French attack late in the day - an assault on the baggage train - King Henry ordered all the prisoners killed to avoid their release. Mind you, this probably upset his own troops more than the victims because it cost them much in lost allowances!

How familiar it all sounds......

PS. I don't hear the French complaining about the murder of the Hugenouts during C16.

[TalkTorqueTorc]

Try reading Alitair Hornes book, 'How to lose a battle' about the German invasion of France. Very interesting and shows that the French effectively defeated themselves in the years preceeding the invasion with poor planning, a number of totally useless Governments and internal dissent. Yes they fought well at Verdun, but that is where the seeds of loss were first sown for 1940.

Considering the French 'Counter-attacks' that had already happened, the incompetence of their high-command and the defeatist attitude already in place at all levels of the army then Gort was probably right to pull back to the channel and scarper.

[CirrusF]

defeatist attitude already in place at all levels of the army then Gort was probably right to pull back to the channel and scarper


That's a question that nobody can answer. But Gort's acitons were viewed as very defeatist, even cowardly, by the French, especially as he effectively abandoned about 34000 French soldiers who were defending the rearguard to annihilation by the Luftwaffe and vastly superior numbers of German attackers.

[Doctor Cruces]

I don't see how the French can accuse anyone of cowardice. After all, don't they blow up peaceful foreign vessels tied up in foreign harbours without warning?

How brave is that?

Many, many brave individuals. Shame their governments have not been up to the standard of their citizens.

Doc C:confused:

[Yamagata ken]

France had the largest army in Europe, but they couldn't defend themselves. Blame the BEF? Tough tittie situation.

[Wensleydale]

General Gamlin, autocratic Commander of the Allied Armies in 1940, had his HQ in the Chateau de Vincennes near Paris. He had no radio in his HQ - and was 15 miles away from the rest of his miliatary staff (being frightened of DF and subsequent Air Attack). It was said that his orders, which were dispatched by motorcycle twice a day) took 2 days to reach the front - this was one of the main contributing factors for ineffectual French coordination during May 1940.

By coincidence, Chateau de Vincennes is where Henry V, victor of Agincourt, died in August 1422.

[CirrusF]

How about the RAF deliberately targeting civilians with incendiary carpet bombing raids on German cities during WW2? Even if you argue that it was strategically necessary, it doesn't alter the fact that it was a war-crime.

[Jackonicko]

J'ai lu l'amende de Français juste, merci, Monsieur Cirrus. J'ai un problème écrire le français, et bien que je puisse parler assez français pour me faire compris, mon accent est terrible, et le bruit en résultant est moins qu'élégant. Vous pourriez dire que Jacko parle français comme une vache espagnole.

As a historian by training, I do have a problem with revisionist historians - especially those inspired by empty nationalistic posturing, and the selective vision of Francophiles amuses me.

The French have not been much of a martial race since the defeat of Napoleon, and many of the jokes have some grounding in truth, though the reason that most of us repeat them is precisely to get up the noses of the French, and of the Francophile Brits. Why would we want to do such a thing? Well perhaps it's because the snail munchers display altogether too much envy and dislike of the 'Perfidious English' and what goes around......

It's amusing, though inaccurate, to make accusations of cowardice. That, of course, is unjust, as the French military problem has never been one of lack of courage, but rather one of poor procurement and a lack of competence and leadership.

As to the performance of the French Army in the Great War, you only have to compare losses, and to look at the mutinies of 1917.

In WWII, if you're asking questions, then how about the following:

1) With a massive superiority (90 odd divisions to 40 odd) why did the French not attack Germany properly in the Saar? Keitel thought that they'd have won a resounding victory.....

2) Would sacrificing more British troops at Dunkirk in order to evacuate more of the French forces have been a good plan, when so many of those that we did rescue ended up going home to fight for Vichy? Of course some French forces fought exceptionally well, but the effectiveness of the overall French effort was soon eroded by defeatism and panic.

3) How could the UK be accused of 'abandoning' the French when British and Canadian forces remained engaged elsewhere in France, when Britain attempted to form a second BEF, and did not finally complete its pull out (from Cherbourg, St Malo, Brest and elsewhere) until 25 June? Though some 300,00 withdrew from Dunkirk, more than 200,000 withdrew in this later evacuation.

4) You can't judge the French in WWII without acknowledging the alacrity with which the Vichy regime rounded up Jews and other undesirables, making themselves entirely complicit with Nazi atrocities and crimes against humanity.

[CirrusF]

4) You can't judge the French in WWII without acknowledging the alacrity with which the Vichy regime rounded up Jews and other undesirables, making themselves entirely complicit with Nazi atrocities and crimes against humanity.


How do you respond to my point about our own carpet bombing of civilians in WW2? I haven't researched it but I would guess we killed more German civilians than the Vichy French deported jews.

Nobody's pretending the French have conducted themselves perfectly, but I find it irritating to read insensitive jokes about French courage. How would people here react to a joke or snide remark about the redcaps being overun in Iraq?

[Wensleydale]

Cirrus,

You are applying modern thinking to problems of history - you are making the same point about "carpet bombing" that the French are making about Agincourt.

The maxim in 1939-1940 was that the bomber would always get through and many thousands of civilians would be killed by high explosives and especially poison gas. The German use of bombers during the Spanish Civil War (I can't spell Guernica) led to the belief that total destruction would follow once aircraft started bombing. The French were especially paranoid about German bombing - they were more scared of the prospect of bombing rather than the act itself. (Hence no radio at Gamlon's HQ as I stated above).

When the Germans bombed Rotterdam in 1940, about 900 civilians were killed. The hysterical western media reported 30,000 dead - Holland capitulated soon after. The French army actually blockaded some Advanced Air Striking Force (AASF - 1 Gp deployed supporting the BEF) airfields rather than have RAF bombers drop munitions should retaliation take place. Bomber Command was retricted to dropping leaflets during the phoney war - this backing up the strategy of inaction should the Germans turn the Luftwaffe on the civil population.

Once the Germans did start air attacks, they used their heavy (sic) bombers to create terror and refugees in order to destroy morale. They tried the same during the Blitz, and the RAF, completely in tone with the belief of the period, sowed the whirlwind - this strategy used because of the inaccuracy of night bombing.

Yes, the killing of many civilians was not "cricket" however it was the policy of the day and a method of creating a second front to appease the Russians. It would not be tollerated today, but to put today's politically correct thinking into the past does not fit either the circumstances or the desperate race for survival during those dark days.

[teeteringhead]

But even the Romans exaggerated their victories over the French....

....... when Julius Caesar returned from the Gallic Wars (and like modern politicians wrote about it) many of his erstwhile comrades in arms thought he had overblown the extent of their victories....

... in such and such a battle, he claimed 10 000 Gaulish casualties, in another 5 000 when a trusted centurion thought the real numbers were only about half this.....


.... finally emboldened by his indignation, said centurion approached JC and mentioned it.

Cent: "Excuse me sir, but when you said 10 000, it was more like 5 000, and when you said 5 000 I only remember about half that number....."

JC:"I understand your concerns, but it's quite Ok ............








..........













......... 'cos in Europe away Gauls count double!!"


I'll get me coat....

[dakkg651]

Wensleydale.

I agree with you entirely. As my late father (BEF and then four years as a desert rat) once said to me. There are people who like to question what happened between 1939 and 45 and try to bend history in an effort to make it justify their modern viewpoint. THEY WEREN'T THERE, I WAS.

So apologies to Cirrus if I go with my dad's opinion and not his.

That reminds me. One of my father's favourite recollections concerned some Vichy French battlewagons lying in Oran harbour. When invited by the allies to come out of their hideyhole and help us defeat the axis lot, they showed their true colours and refused.
So the Royal Navy sank em!

[cazatou]

In June 1944, as the Liberation of Europe was about to commence, the Royal Air Force included in its Order of Battle a total of 57 Squadrons "formed from men who had, by one means or another, escaped from occupied countries and made their way to British Territory - in other words, men cast in the heroic mould." The quote is from "The Right of the Line" by John Terraine.

Those 57 Squadrons came from the following Countries:

Yugoslavia 1 Sqn

Belgium 2 Sqns

Greece 3 Sqns

Holland 3 Sqns

Czechoslovakia 4 Sqns

Norway 4 Sqns

Poland 13 Sqns

France 27 Sqns

[Al R]

Before we go OTT about being British, it seems that Britishness Day has been dropped.

BBC NEWS | Politics | Britishness Day plans 'dropped' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7692933.stm)

[brickhistory]

The reason they were so badly caught was because they did not have enough ammunition,

Apparently, they did still have at least two Milan rounds left.

[Yamagata ken]

"How about the RAF deliberately targeting civilians with incendiary carpet bombing raids on German cities during WW2? Even if you argue that it was strategically necessary, it doesn't alter the fact that it was a war-crime."

Why don't you bugger off to a nursery to suck a tit, rather than hang around on a war forum? War is hell. Dad didn't jack in his day trade as a travelling salesman to incinerate German babies. He joined the 8th Army to get the Fascists out of Europe. Perhaps he shouldn't have bothered, then you can be polite to your Jew-free, Gypsey-free masters.

[Al R]

Can we please stop the prevarication?

Ken, spit it out lad. :cool:

[endplay]

Re the carpet bombing of German cities and the casualty claims. I read recently that the Dresden figure of 200k to 250k has been debunked as Nazi propaganda by German historians who put the figure at less than 20k.

Not saying that that's not a big number but it does serve to show how even the best intentioned historians can get it wrong.

Dresden bombing death toll lower than thought - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/3123512/Dresden-bombing-death-toll-lower-than-thought.html)

I edited this to add a link .

[Yamagata ken]

Sorry mate, I've been beating around the bush.... ;)

Why didn't the frogs fire back with back with baguettes? Maybe a little pate here and fromage there? That should have done the trick.

[8-15fromOdium]

Ah yes the famous 'English' victory at Agincourt commanded by a King born in Monmouth, with the majority of the archers coming from Gwent.

With around 5000 archers firing at a rate of approx 10 arrows a minute the effect must have been devastating. All told a great British victory.

BTW even Shakespeare portrays 'Henry V' as a welshman.

[Wensleydale]

Henry V Welsh?

Might be worse - he could have been Lancastrian! :uhoh:

W

[Yamagata ken]

Oh dear. A Welshsman ;)

Second to the Scots for leaving a cold/wet place and telling the world the cold/wet place that is so wonderful that you will never return to the cold/wet place. That's why you lot bet on the French.

How do you spell looser ;)

[brickhistory]

How do you spell looser

Not like this anyway...

[Baron rouge]

My professional life is paid for by teaching English to children. I greatly prefer the "ability to communicate" over "correctness", but I'm calling you over this. I don't know what your native language is, but if you equate the Boer "concentration camps" to Nazi and Soviet extermination camps, then you really need to get a life. Don't bother trying to communicate in English until you can tell the difference between turd and merde.

Kirchener death camps, were specialy designed to starve to death thousands of civilians, mainly women and children. Even in the nazi death camps they had what Kirchener denied to those prisoners: FOOD

You may pride yourself with your perfect mastering of English language, (English is so easy, look in England some very young children manage to speak properly)but you are nothing but a bloody revisionist, and a (c)unt.

[BEagle]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

Steady on, Baron mon vieux!

All the dealings with the French Air Force I've had has shown them to be highly skilled and professional. With a strong sense of patriotism and a splendid 'Gallic' attitude to stupid rules. Their observance of Spam-stupidity at Incirlik was classic, for example.

Great wine and smelly cheese too! Just don't eat too much or you'll end up surrendering.

A new aeroplane enters service. It is flown by Spams, Rosbifs and Grenouilles.


The Spam looks through the book of rules to find out how to do something. No rule = no can do.

The Brit looks through the book of rules to find out if there's anything to prevent him from doing what he wants. No rule = game is on.

The Frenchman? Looks puzzled and asks "Book? What book?"


Vive la difference!!




BTW I cannot find any reasonable excuse whatsoever for the wanton destruction of Dresden. It was purely a set piece demonstration to the Soviet Union to show that they'd be next in line if the Bolsheviks didn't watch it - the war was all but won and Churchill b£oody well knew it was. Harris should have queried his political masters, but didn't.

[Jackonicko]

BEags,

Dresden was the logical culmination of the campaign that Harris wanted to wage (and which he believed could bring victory all on its own). The idea that it was something pressed on him, or that he'd have wanted to resist, is silly.

Moreover, Dresden was a legitimate target - the capital of Saxony, and a major industrial centre and transport cross roads, Dresden was one of a number of eastern cities whose bombing was intended to hamper reinforcement from the west and to disrupt fleeing refugees and army units from the east.

Area bombing was the best means of ensuring success, as even by 1945, Bomber Command's Main Force accuracy was insufficient to take out pinpoint targets.

Wiping out Dresden ensured that its railways, bridges, and administrative centre would be destroyed. Specifically targeting these would not have ensured that.

Baron Rouge,

Witless and hysterical propaganda, dear boy!

"In South Africa, there can be no question that the infamous concentration camps were tragically mismanaged but the false notion that they were somehow a manifestation of a darker, cruel side of Kitchener's nature originated in the 1950s. In fact, both the British authorities and the Boers were quite unprepared for the spread of contagion within the camps and the Boers twice refused the offer to remove their families from British protection. Kitchener was horrified by the casualties that occurred and, contrary to report, did visit the camps to see what could be done."

[BEagle]

Jacko,

Balls.

In a word.

Here's what Harris had to say:

"With the German army on the frontiers of Germany we quickly set up GH and Oboe ground stations close behind the front line and this ensured the success of attacks on many distant objectives when the weather would otherwise have prevented us from finding the target. At the same time the bombers could fly with comparative safety even to targets as distant as Dresden or Chemnitz, which I had not ventured to attack before, because the enemy had lost his early warning system and the whole fighter defence of Germany could therefore generally be out-manoeuvred.


In February of 1945, with the Russian army threatening the heart of Saxony, I was called upon to attack Dresden; this was considered a target of the first importance for the offensive on the Eastern front. Dresden had by this time become the main centre of communications for the defence of Germany on the southern half of the Eastern front and it was considered that a heavy air attack would disorganise these communications and also make Dresden useless as a controlling centre for the defence. It was also by far the largest city in Germany - the pre-war population was 630,000 - which had been left intact; it had never before been bombed. As a large centre of war industry it was also of the highest importance.

An attack on the night of February 13th-14th by just over 800 aircraft, bombing in two sections in order to get the night fighters dispersed and grounded before the second attack, was almost as overwhelming in its effect as the Battle of Hamburg, though the area of devastation -1600 acres - was considerably less; there was, it appears, a fire-typhoon, and the effect on German morale, not only in Dresden but in far distant parts of the country, was extremely serious. The Americans carried out two light attacks in daylight on the next two days.

I know that the destruction of so large and splendid a city at this late stage of the war was considered unnecessary even by a good many people who admit that our earlier attacks were as fully justified as any other operation of war. Here I will only say that the attack on Dresden was at the time considered a military necessity by much more important people than myself, and that if their judgment was right the same arguments must apply that I have set out in an earlier chapter in which I said what I think about the ethics of bombing as a whole."

[Jackonicko]

Harris' post war justification, written after the outcry, is what is "balls" old chap.

There's plenty of more reliable, less 'interested' coverage of the Bomber War than Butch's apologist self justification.

[Maple 01]

Beags suggest you read Dresden by Frederick Taylor - shatters the myth of Dresden as the innocent cultural centre that spent WW2 manufacturing porcelain Sheppardesses. To argue the point that the war was nearly over …..then all they had to do to avoid the bombing was to surrender – despite David “Hitler was misunderstood” Irving’s best efforts to make the German people out to be martyrs they brought it on them selves

[Yamagata ken]

With respect, baron rouge (and read my postings above), I am not a cnut, I am not an apologist, and I'm not a revisionist. I wrote earlier that all nations have historical reasons for shame. Pointing the finger and muddying the waters with the "concentration camp" pejorative brings you no respect. What is your evidence for systematic genocide in South Africa? Where are the Gas Chambers? Which race/religion was targeted for extermination?

[Warmtoast]

I always thought reason the French were do upset by Agincourt was that their aristocracy in the shape of their mounted knights were slaughtered by the English peasant archers.

Could well be.

The English victory at Agincourt was one of the most overwhelming, and unexpected, results of any medieval battle, but it wasn’t the first time the
French were comprehensively walloped by the English during the Hundred Years War.

The Battle of Sluys in 1340 was the first major battle of the Hundred Years War and was a dramatic naval victory for Edward III.

Six years later the French were particularly miffed after the Battle of Crecy in 1346 when Edward III defeated a vastly superior French army. At
Crecy, with the defeated French having fled the field, the English looked through the wounded French to see who was worth taking prisoner for
ransom. Those knights who were too severely wounded to be easily carried off the field were dispatched with misericordias (mercy-givers). These were long daggers which were inserted through the unprotected underarms and into the heart, or through visor slits and into the brain. This was against the chivalric codes of warfare, since peasants were killing knights - rather than in face to face in combat with their peers - it just wasn’t on.

The French suffered again ten years later when they were defeated by Edward III’s son Prince Edward, the Prince of Wales (the Black Prince) at
the Battle of Poitiers in 1356. During this battle Prince Edward’s army captured the French King John, along with his young son Philip together with many French nobles. The capture of King John altered the balance of power in the war, and gave the English a vastly improved negotiating position.

In medieval times (and later) slaughter of the wounded during and after a battle was normal practice regardless of which side of the battle you were
on. “Atrocities” as we acknowledge them today didn’t exist; it was normal and accepted medieval military behaviour. The incidents that were
commented upon by the chroniclers of these events was when an ordinary peasant soldier killed a knight or a lord as he lay wounded or dying,
such a thing was against all the rules of chivalry.

Gallic hauteur and pride is so universally accepted as a national characteristic that its display goes almost without any notice, even by the French themselves and over the years, France like most European nations committed “atrocities”. What about these for example:

1. The putting down of the heretics during the Albigensian crusade against the Cathars in 1209? (Particularly at Beziers, Minerve and
Carcassonne, at Lavaour 400 Cathars were burned to death, “the biggest human bonfire in history” as a contemporary chronicler recorded.

2. Philip IV of France arresting the French Knights Templar’s, charging them with numerous heresies, torturing them to extract false
confessions of blasphemy. These confessions, despite having been obtained under duress, caused dozens of Templar’s to be burned at the stake in Paris.




http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/TemplarsbeingBurntattheStake.jpg

3. Massacre of Huguenots (French Calvinist Protestants) on St. Bartholomew’s Day in 1572.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/StBartholomewsDaymassacre.jpg

4. Congo (French) in the late 1800’s as reported by Pierre Brazza.

5. Casablanca in 1907.

6. Algeria in the 1950’s and 60’s.

Mind you we have to live with some not very nice historical “atrocities” of our own such as the battle of Culloden Moor (16 April 1746), the battle where the Duke of Cumberland earned his nickname “Butcher Cumberland” after the defeat of the Jacobite army at Culloden Moor when he ordered the death of any wounded Jacobite found on the battlefield. The redcoats clubbed or bayoneted surviving Jacobites to death, often mutilating their bodies before moving onto the next wounded combatant. Any that managed to flee from Culloden Moor to neighbouring villages were hunted down by the redcoats and slaughtered along with those harbouring the fugitives. Innocent women and children were murdered; homes, barns, outbuildings and agricultural implements were destroyed.

France-UK rivalry goes back centuries. But perhaps things are changing, witness President Sarkozy's comments during his visit earlier this year when he acknowledged that the UK had twice come to the aid of France, and the French would not forget that.

As far as Franco-British customs go, personally I much prefer an unhurried long lunch with a bottle of Sauvignon blanc to a pie and chips at the pub, so there is one French custom that I like!

PS. Apologies for the sloppy pagination above. It looked good before I submitted the post, but came out as shown.

[Wensleydale]

"Concentration Camps" in South Africa.

The concentration camps in South Africa were not built as death camps for innocent women and children.

The Boers initial strategy for the Second Boer War was to besiege major settlements in the hinterland of the country and prevent relief by throwing up a defence line to prevent relief from the ports. Initial British strategy was to force these lines by frontal assault - this culminated in "Black Week" where 3 major attacks were bloodily repulsed. Eventually, the defence lines were worn down and Mafeking, Ladysmith and Kimberly were relieved. Following this, the Boers turned to hit and run tactics - ambushing pockets of British Troops then riding off into the Velt before reinforcements could arrive. These raiders were sheltered by the many isolated farms in the area. (Winston Churchill was captured during one of these raids on an armoured train).

Kitchener's plan was to enclose the Velt to deny freedom of movement to the Boers - he achieved this by using wire to fence across the grasslands with a small outpost of soldiers every mile or so along the wire. He deied shelter by burning down "hostile" farmsteads and housing their inhabitants in camps - by concentrating the farmers' families together they were known as "Concentration Camps". Sadly, there was little hygene in these camps - no toilet facilities and limited water supplies. Needless to say, disease was rife and many thousands died - especially the old and the young.

These camps were not designed to kill/exterminate the civilian population - they came about from a military policy to bring the Boer to heel -admittedly a cruel and ultimately deadly policy. The policy brought the word "Concentration Camp" to the English language to be used 40 years later during WW2.

[Baron rouge]

cher "tartine de pain grillé chaud"

If your English pride entice you to say:

The English victory at Agincourt was one of the most overwhelming, and unexpected, results of any medieval battle, but it wasn’t the first time the French were comprehensively walloped by the English during the Hundred Years War.

You are just convenientely forgetting the main thing : the result of that war because if the English won some battles , in the end they were booted out of France.

These are juste some battles were the English were comprehensively walloped by the French during the Hundred years War.

· 1429, 17 July Battle of Patay In a reverse of Agincourt/Crécy, a French army under La Hire, Richemont, Joan of Arc, and other commanders break through English archers under Lord Talbot and then pursue and mop up the other sections of the English army, killing or capturing about half (2,200) of their troops. The Earl of Shrewsbury (Talbot) and Hungerford are captured.

· 1450 Battle of Formigny A French force under the Comte de Clermont defeats an English force under Thomas Kyriell

· 1453 Battle of Castillon Jean Bureau defeats Talbot to end the Hundred Years' War. This was also the first battle in European history where the use of cannon was a major factor in determining the victor.

[tonker]

YouTube - Bagpipes in the Longest Day (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrUs5AfrNjc&feature=related)

[Wensleydale]

Baron Rouge,

Sadly the Lancastrian "King" Henry VI was on the English throne during the time of French ascendency. He was ineffectual and at times quite mad; the country was governed by his wife (Margaret of Anjou who happened to be French) and her lover, the Duke of Somerset. The complete mismanagement of England during this time led directly to the end of the Hundred Years War and the loss of the vast majority of French possessions, and eventually Civil War - the Wars of the Roses, although Calais stayed with us until the reign of Queen Mary.

As they say in Yorkshire:

"Two things come from the west; bad weather and Lancastrians".

[cazatou]

Baron rouge

Excuse me for being pedantic, but you are obviously referring to the SECOND Hundred Years War - the earlier conflict running from 1152-1259.

The English victories at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt were spectacular - but less decisive than the Naval victory at L'Ecluse (Sluys) where some 20,000 Frenchmen perished in 1340.

[TalkTorqueTorc]

Contrary to popular opinion the archers in this period were predominatley English, not Welsh.

[CirrusF]

So apologies to Cirrus if I go with my dad's opinion and not his.


Ah yes, the old adage that if you were there, and saw a tiny snapshot of an entire strategic battle, you know far more about what happened than any number of historians who have put together a picture through meticulous study of written records and interviewing many eye-witness accounts....


That reminds me. One of my father's favourite recollections concerned some Vichy French battlewagons lying in Oran harbour. When invited by the allies to come out of their hideyhole and help us defeat the axis lot, they showed their true colours and refused.
So the Royal Navy sank em!

There is actually a rather interesting story about how miscommunication lead to that disaster, which killed around 1000 French matelots and is still regarded in France as a gross betrayal by Britain. In fact the French had little choice but to keep their ships in Oran as they had no fuel and would have been sunk by the Germans immediately if they were to leave, and they also realised that they risked being sunk by the RN if they allowed their vessels to fall under control of the Germans. They therefore signed a compromise deal with the Germans - they would be allowed to keep their ships in Oran harbour, under French flag, they would not attempt to leave, and in return the Germans would not attack them. An agreement was signed to this effect with the Germans, and a copy was sent to London. Unfortunately, the Admiralty mis-translated the French verb "controller" to mean "control", and they thought the truce allowed the Germans to control the fleet. In fact, "controller" means to check, and it just meant that the Germans would check that the fleet did not leave Oran. The rest is history...

[Al R]

In fact the French had little choice but to keep their ships in Oran as they had no fuel and would have been sunk by the Germans immediately if they were to leave, and they also realised that they risked being sunk by the RN if they allowed their vessels to fall under control of the Germans. They therefore signed a compromise deal with the Germans - they would be allowed to keep their ships in Oran harbour, under French flag, they would not attempt to leave, and in return the Germans would not attack them.

Surely it would have been better to have been sunk by the occupying enemy trying to leave in order to deny access to the harbour, or to have scuttled to prevent access to the harbour? Talk of a compromise deal to keep their warships all shiny and tied up, instead of being used somehow in order to achieve some sort of strategic aim is completely bizarre. What are they for, if not to do their part in some way?

I'm quite laissez faire about the whole business of Frog bashing (although I do resent the way French seems to creep into our language) but with respect, what you have posted adds to any doubts I might have about French competence and motivation. The British were surely right not to have trusted the word of the Germans, and the decision to attack the ships was surely, the correct military one.

[Wensleydale]

So why did the RN sink the French ships in Oran, but accepted the neutrality of the French ships in Alexandria? Answer - the intransigence of the French Commander at Oran who followed the Vichy line.

For full versin read "Sailor's Oddysey", Adm Cunningham's autobiography. It contains details on all of the decisions at the time and a necessary read if you are to understand the Mediterranean War 1940-43.

[Warmtoast]

Baron Rouge

You are just convenientely forgetting the main thing : the result of that war because if the English won some battles , in the end they were booted out of France.

You're right of course, but on the way Edward III taught the French and much of the rest of Europe of a new way to fight a war. As Ian Mortimer writes in his very readable book "The Perfect King - The Life of Edward III" (pages 396 - 397).


Whether we like it or not, Edward III was to warfare what Mozart was to music. He found a new way of doing things, and it proved as good as or better than almost everything that had gone before. Until the battle of Crecy on 26 August 1346 international conflicts were not won or lost by firepower alone, they were won by feudal armies of expensively armoured knights. On that day all this changed. Groups of English peasants and yeomen’s sons came to be the breakers of the most heavily armoured noblemen. But more than that, Edward’s stroke of genius was to take the tactic of projectile warfare -which his commanders had discovered at Dupplin Moor and which he had used at Halidon Hill - and to combine it with the chevauchée: the twenty-mile-wide front destroying everything in its path as it progressed through enemy territory. Sufficient destruction forced the enemy to attack, and any enemy advancing on a well-ordered army capable of projectile warfare - whether equipped with longbows or guns - was almost certain to be torn to pieces in the crossfire. Such methods gave Edward the confidence to march across France and win his war of rivalry with Philip de Valois. It was the most effective military strategy of the middle ages, which proved just as decisive when employed by Henry V at Agincourt in 1415. When guns replaced longbows as the weapon of choice, it was not Edward’s strategy which was outdated, only the means of putting it into action.


Also in the book is a long and detailed eight-page account of Crecy, the origins of the battle, the battle itself and the aftermath which put my views of 14th Century warfare into a new and interesting context.

[Al R]

Wensleydale: So why did the RN sink the French ships in Oran, but accepted the neutrality of the French ships in Alexandria? Answer - the intransigence of the French Commander at Oran who followed the Vichy line.

Interesting.

That in itself would have been grounds for the British to attack. Why on earth would they have trusted any agreement brokered locally with the Germans, if the promise of neutrality was going to be ignored by the capitulating Vichy Forces later anyway?

[ProM]

Baron Rouge

yes, you did kick us out of France by various means. And you did win some battles against us. So why not concentrate on those victories than (have your historians) talk rubbish about crecy, agincourt etc?

I am not one that thinks that the French have had no military victories, but the French tend to re-inforce this myth by continuing to have a chip on their shoulder about battles where they lost to the English/British. Indeed the only reaosn the joke is perpetuated at all is because the French react so strongly to it.

I knew a senior French naval officer who believed very strongly that the French navy was hampered to this day by the legacy of Trafalgar. Stop looking for excuses for failures in the past for your own sakes.

[Nigd3]

What an entertaining thread.

Never before have I seen what I thought was a light hearted poke at the French, turn into such a "My dad's bigger than your dad"........"he started it" playground hissy fit.

Inhumane actions always have been and always will be a part of war.

You guys need to get out a bit more often.

[CirrusF]

Inhumane actions always have been and always will be a part of war.

Which is why we should never attempt to hide the inhumanity of war under the carpet.

If a democracy is made aware of all the facts and consequences of going to war, yet still chooses to go to war because it is the lesser of two evils, then so be it. But that can only be the case if the populace is fully aware of the true reasons of going to war, and is fully aware of the inhumanity of the consequences of wars.

One of the great advances of the internet is that it is very hard to censor the reality of war, and so diminishes the tendency to glorify war. But still our mainstream media shies away from showing what really happens in war.

If you can find it, try to watch the Al Jazeera film of the British bombardment of Basra in 2003. Shamefully, our own mainstream media did not broadcast it.

[Jackonicko]

Cirrus F

"In fact the French had little choice but to keep their ships in Oran as they had no fuel and would have been sunk by the Germans immediately if they were to leave...."

Not quite. When attacked by the RN, some of the French ships did leave, and none were engaged by the Germans.

In fact, Somerville bent over backwards to give the French fleet alternatives to being sunk by the RN. His communique read:

"It is impossible for us, your comrades up to now, to allow your fine ships to fall into the power of the German enemy. We are determined to fight on until the end, and if we win, as we think we shall, we shall never forget that France was our Ally, that our interests are the same as hers, and that our common enemy is Germany. Should we conquer we solemnly declare that we shall restore the greatness and territory of France. For this purpose we must make sure that the best ships of the French Navy are not used against us by the common foe. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government have instructed me to demand that the French Fleet now at Mers el Kebir and Oran shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives;
(a) Sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans.
(b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment.
If either of these courses is adopted by you we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they are damaged meanwhile.
(c) Alternatively if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans unless they break the Armistice, then sail them with us with reduced crews to some French port in the West Indies — Martinique for instance — where they can be demilitarised to our satisfaction, or perhaps be entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated.
If you refuse these fair offers, I must with profound regret, require you to sink your ships within 6 hours.
Finally, failing the above, I have the orders from His Majesty's Government to use whatever force may be necessary to prevent your ships from falling into German hands."

The French have only themselves to blame for the destruction of their fleet and the deaths of so many of their young men.

[SirPercyWare-Armitag]

"Why don't you bugger off to a nursery to suck a tit, rather than hang around on a war forum? War is hell. Dad didn't jack in his day trade as a travelling salesman to incinerate German babies. He joined the 8th Army to get the Fascists out of Europe. Perhaps he shouldn't have bothered, then you can be polite to your Jew-free, Gypsey-free masters."



I was trying to compose a reply based on historical facts, the rules of Total Warfare, the limitations of strategic bombing and the lack of precision weaponry and the requirement to attack Nazi Germany by any means necessary.

But by thunder, your answer tops anything what I could writ

Perfect

:D

[SirPercyWare-Armitag]

Alternatively, the presence of those ships was a direct threat to the RN and a threat to the continuation of the war against Nazi Germany, so we sank them.

Good decision, recognised as such.

[dakkg651]

All this reminds me of the Trafalgar celebrations when a French dignatory and his wife were been shown around HMS Victory by a young RN Lt.

Wife. Are these some of the cannonballs that were actually used during the battle?

Lt. No Maam. Your navy has still got those.

Priceless!

[Baron rouge]

dear Warmtoast,

reference your complaints of French atrocities what about the glorious British Empire ?

The lieutenant-governor of Bengal, Sir Richard Temple, was sent south as plenipotentiary Famine Delegate by Lytton to clamp down on the "out of control" expenditures that threatened the financing of the planned invasion of Afghanistan. ¡* In a lightning tour of the famished countryside of the eastern Deccan, Temple purged a half million people from relief work and forced Madras to follow Bombay's precedent of requiring starving applicants to travel to dormitory camps outside their locality for coolie labor on railroad and canal projects. ¡* In a self-proclaimed Benthamite "experiment" that eerily prefigured later Nazi research on minimal human subsistence diets in concentration camps, Temple cut rations for male coolies, whom he compared to "a school full of refractory children," down to one pound of rice per diem despite medical testimony that the ryots ¨ "once strapping fine fellows" ¨ were now "little more than animated skeletons ... utterly unfit for any work." ¡* The "Temple wage," as it became known, provided less sustenance for hard labor than the diet inside the infamous Buchenwald concentration camp and less than half of the modern caloric standard recommended for adult males by the Indian government.

[Wensleydale]

BR,

Indeed we did have a glorious empire - I believe that it was started by kicking a certain nation's butt out of India (Clive) and Canada (Wolfe).

Ah those green eyes of jealosy.

W

[hulahoop7]

On boasting rights, the French could point out that Agincourt - although a notable victory - was just one battle in a hundred years of war - which the French finally won. For two countries to go at it for 100 years, says a lot about the martial spirit of both.

On WW2, I don’t think the French can question British motives – I doubt most do. We may have left, but we paid heavily in blood and treasure to return and hand them their country back. Even the arch awkward squad De Gaulle recognised this. His radio broadcast to France on D Day is particularly poignant.

On Dresden – area bombing was a blunt tool – but it was all we had at the time. I think this quote sums it up perfectly:

“All sides bombed each other's cities during the war. Half a million Soviet citizens, for example, died from German bombing during the invasion and occupation of Russia. That's roughly equivalent to the number of German citizens who died from Allied raids. But the Allied bombing campaign was attached to military operations and ceased as soon as military operations ceased. But the Holocaust and the murder of all those millions would not have ceased if the Germans had won the war. Bombing is ruthless war making, but to use the word Holocaust to describe ruthless war making is to confuse two entirely different things.”

[Warmtoast]

Baron rouge

reference your complaints of French atrocities what about the glorious British Empire ?

I’ve not claimed that we (the English) are the only chivalrous nation and that we have not been guilty of atrocities of our own. In my post number 74 above I pointed out the use of the misericordias by the English to despatch the enemy wounded as they lay helpless on the battlefield at Crecy. I also mentioned the butchery by the redcoats of the wounded Jacobites at Culloden in 1746 — there are many other examples. The Mau Mau troubles in Kenya in the 1950’s comes to mind. We did terrible things there which is probably why the National Archives at Kew still keep closed (not for public viewing) many files concerned with the Mau Mau uprising, which under the thirty-year rule would have been released to public scrutiny way back in the 1980’s.

Warfare is a messy, horrible business and was especially so in medieval times. Wounded were left where they fell on the battlefield. The victors plundered the wounded, sparing only those that seemed worth a ransom, the remainder were despatched with a blow to the head, a bayonet through the guts, or a stiletto through the eye into the brain. Then there were no stretcher bearers to take you away to hospital to dress your wounds and make you better.

Atrocities by the victors against the losers have been part of warfare since time began regardless of nationality.

We can learn from history how past generations thought and acted and how they solved their problems, but at the end of the day and after all these years does it really matter who won and who lost and who did what to whom and why? - it's no more than historical water under the bridge.

[chiglet]

I've been to France many times, and like and admire the people. If anyone cares to go to St Maire Eglise, [shown in the film "The Longest Day"] they [the visitor] will find a fresh, clean parachute ...with paratrouper hanging from the church Steeple.
Having just watched the "Pipes" clip, two things stand out...
1, Is the drunken..[happy] Froggie, the same actor who plays the Marie of St Maire Eglise?
2, I see that the Horsa glider had "C2" roundels on the upper wing. I would have though that type "B" would have been correct...
watp,iktch
Still doesn't stop me takink ze Mick though :ok:

[Strangelove PhD]

On July 25, 1909 a pilot named Louis Bleriot flew across the English Channel from France.
The French aviation pioneer, in his modified type XI monoplane, took off from Les Baraques, near Calais, at 4.41 am and landed at 5.I7am in Northfall Meadow, near Dover.
On July 26, 1909 - Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim an engineer at Vickers began development on the anti-aircraft gun.

[GreenKnight121]

France-UK rivalry goes back centuries. But perhaps things are changing, witness President Sarkozy's comments during his visit earlier this year when he acknowledged that the UK had twice come to the aid of France, and the French would not forget that.

In the early 1930s, American humorist Will Rogers had a line he used frequently at public performances:
“The only way the French would hate us more than they do now, is if we help them out of another war”.

He was more prophet than jokester on this one.

To say ”the UK had twice come to the aid of France, and the French would not forget that” may not be a favorable thing.


So why did the RN sink the French ships in Oran, but accepted the neutrality of the French ships in Alexandria? Answer - the intransigence of the French Commander at Oran who followed the Vichy line.

Well, Oran was in Vichy (German-influenced France) control, while Alexandria was a British-controlled port, with RN ships as well. Thus, the French ships in Alexandria were following option B pretty closely (except for the crews being allowed to stay aboard their ships).
(b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment.

[goneeast]

Perhaps a glimpse into "total warfare" Medieval style can be understood by reading accounts of the Battle of Towton on Palm Sunday 1461, between Henry Beauforts Lancastrian army and a Yorkist Army commanded by Edward IV. Estimates of casualties range up to 35000 dead on the field (in one day) mostly killed after a rout.

To put it into context that was 1% of Englands population at the time. I did a dig of a burial pit when at University and most of the dead were killed by war hammer blows to the back of the head ( either ridden down by mounted knights or dispatched post battle). Contemporary accounts gave details that rivers ran red with blood 30 miles from the battlefield.

The reason that the death toll was so high was that both sides agreed that no quarter be given, a similar agreement was in place at Agincourt according to many writers..

Incidentally, most French dead at Agincourt were probably killed in a crush, caused by reargaurds pushing into a bottleneck under fire. Plus fallen men unable to get up from sodden ground in full armour.

[Wensleydale]

The parallels between Agincourt and Towton are interesting - however do not hold much water. Agincourt was essentially an archer's battle. If you place archers to fire in enfilade at an approaching enemy (as happened at Agincourt - each archer advancing then planting his stake) then it is natural for the attacking force to bunch together away from the arrow storm. This caused a press in the middle of the group, and the men at arms in the middle of the press died of suffocation (similar to Hillsborough football match). This led to heaps of bodies in channels along the axis of the battlefield - these could be up to the height of a man as victims struggled to escape the arrows. The English followed up by killing all in the press following the archers' initial volleys - the long thin "debollocker" dagger being a suitable method of dispatch. as the English infantry ran in barefoot to avoid slipping on the wet ground.

At Towton, both sides possessed archers who closed to start the battle. The Yorkist archers under Warwick's half borother, Lord Faulkenberg, had the advantage of the wind behind and sleet blowing into the Lancastrians' faces. This enabled them to use heavier close quarter arrows. The Lancastrians, blinded by the sleet misjudged the range and shot short. The Yorkists then advanced and returned the Lancastrians arrows for them.

This phase battle was unusual - mostly both sides appreciated the devastating effects of archers and closed rapidly to nullify the effect. Thereafter Towton was characterised by a slugging match that lasted for many hours following the initial short arrow exchange. This ended when the Duke of Norfolk reinforced the Yorkist right and the Lancastrian battle collapsed leading to panic and a mass route where many thousands were killed.

The excavation of the burial pits at Towton Hall reveal death caused by injuries most probably caused during this route. It is interesting that some victims show the possible signs of mutilation before death (ears cut off).

(PS. My Father still lives in the area local to Towton - I used to be in the same class at school with the son of the Landlord of the Pub in Towton so I have come to know the battle quite well). It is a shame that Sheakspeare was wriyting for the Granddaughter of a Lancastrian usurper to the throne (Henry VII) and that the superb generalship of Edward Earl of March (later Edward IV) has been underestimated by future generations. His military prowess was certainly eaqual to - if not better than - Henry V and Edward III.

Sorry - off thread!

[PPRuNeUser0139]

All of the above serves to emphasise one of the benefits of EU membership.. Namely, that present and future generations will no longer have to endure European warfare. Indeed, it could be argued that this is the main benefit.
To me this particular aspect makes the price we all pay to be part of the EU well worth the paying. <awaits incoming>
We can comb history from now until the beginning of time to find gory examples of man's inhumanity to man that either prove or disprove that nation x is more gallant than nation y - but to what end?
Personally, I like France and the French. It remains a civilised society whereas in England - well, you can fill in the rest for yourselves.
Back to the thread..

[ProM]

I hope you are right sidevalve. It seems logical, but i remember reading a very interesting analysis in the Times about how such confederations have previously led to acrimony, break-up and conflict and postulated a quite reasonable set of circumstances under which this could happen with EU.

I cannot possibly do justice to his argument but it has been at the back of my mind ever since.

I too like France btw

[Wensleydale]

I suppose that the European Union (of States) is akin to all the States in the Americas joining together in 1776 and declaring themselves the "United States of America" (or whenever it was). This obviously led to peace and harmony amongst themselves as demonstrated in 1861-1865.

Perhaps a good illustration was the song written in the 1960s about the "Multilateral Force". The Multilateral Force (MLF) was a plan to pool resources within NATO, so that the Good Guys (ourselves and USA) would have a joint nuclear deterent with our traditional friends France and Germany. The song was called "MLF Lullaby" and started along the lines...

"Sleep baby sleep, in peace you may slumber.
No danger lurks your dreams to encumber.
We've got the missiles, peace to determine.
And one of the fingers on the button will be German.

Once all the Germans were warlike and mean
But that couldn't happen again
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they've hardly bothered us since then".

The song ended.....

Sleep baby sleep, in peace you may linger
Just hope our buddies don't give us the finger.
MLF will scare Bresniev
I only hope he's half as scared as I.

Nuff Said.
Defence policy should encounter capabilities and not intentions. Intentions can change overnight.

[13thDuke]

In fact I'd say they do okay for themselves and perhaps we shouldn't be smirking so much

Mais monsieur, I have giving up smirking since more than 2 years. A feelthy habit, non?

[GreenKnight121]

Well, the US hardly jelled instantly. The first attempt at a national government was the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union", first circulated in 1777, and ratified in 1781.

They didn't work very well, and a whole new Constitution was written starting in 1786, and ratified by enough states to put into effect in 1788.



MLF Lullaby was written & recorded by Tom Lehrer, btb... just to give credit to the author.

[goneeast]

Also, the United States , although joined by a common language, did not really become "United" as such until some years after a particularly brutal and bloody civil war, where more Americans died than in any other conflict.

The artificial EU(SSR) is more likely to break apart than gel together. (opinion)

[Wensleydale]

Green Knight,

Thanks for Tom Lehrer. I am of the age where I can remember the lyrics from 30 years ago and that the composer was on the US version of TW3, but could I remember his name........

I can also recall his song in tribute to "those good old Americans who spent billions of dollars to put some clown on the Moon" (his words). It is his ballad to Werner Von Braun

"Gather round while I sing you of Werner Von Braun
A man whose allegience is ruled by expedience.
I just put rockets up
I don't care where they come down;
That's not my department
Says Werner Von Braun.

You too can be a great hero
All you do is count backwards to zero.
In German and English
I know how to count down
Und I'm learning Chinese
Says Verner Von Braun".

What a strange thread....

From Medieval European History to American satyrical song writers within a couple of posts. Sorry.

[cazatou]

Wensleydale

Don't be sorry - remember that in Medieval times it was the Minstrels whose songs related events to the populace who had no other means of learning about such things.

Baron rouge

It was here in this tiny hamlet (from which I take my user name) that the English Army had its foremost outpost in SW France in the 13th Century, during the Hundred Years War . That information comes from the Gentleman, a retired Presidential Chief of Staff, who owns the large fortified house on the entrance to the Hamlet. Were it not for the English this hamlet would be dead and derelict - the hamlet has been protected from further development.

It is not the French who have bought and renovated property in this area and kept alive many communes.