|
|
Davejb:
You forgot a type:- 4. Those that have known many actual French persons some of whom are very nice people. Those that try very hard to always speak, in a limited fashion, French when in France while speaking to French people. Those that have been spat on by a 60-70 year old Frenchman while, at 16 years of age in a cafe in a village in the middle of nowhere, trying to politely order a coffee for himself and his similarly aged friend in French and _not_ making a mistake in translation. Those that have watched, for 30 years, their "superior" and arrogant national image parade itself across the worldwide political landscape as if they are truly relevant. Those that have watched them, as they are doing now, play international politics so that it gives them a benefit while turning their back when it is to their cost or when their profit would be removed or reduced by doing what is in the best interests of the majority. There are those of us who can actually see through the French national persona. As I said above, there are some very nice French people... But as a nation... Well... they continually, seemingly intentionally, come up short |
mick2088, that should get the Air Engineers drooling!
I prefer the young BB, personally...:E |
Mick,
the advantage of beng able to remember the lady in photo 1 is helped enormously by the ability of the aged to simply disbelieve stark reality as per photo 2.... AA - to be honest I think that describes every nation on Earth, including our own... pig ignorance is a human trait, not a national one. |
AA - to be honest I think that describes every nation on Earth, including our own... pig ignorance is a human trait, not a national one. |
Ok,ok, assuming that the Frogs are back on side, what do they bring to the party, in real terms? ie capability, unique assets, force multipliers etc etc that can change the way NATO does it's day to day buisness (lots of SH and AT in a sandy place would be a bloody good start, by the way!!). What does this do to the price of (NATO) fish? Genuine question:confused:
|
racedo
When I hear stuff thrashing France I always look up WW1 Casualty list and get reminded of the sheer level of casualties that France suffered. Casualties of World War 1 - World War 1 Killed and Casualties 75% casualty rate of those mobilised suffered by France. If UK had the same casualty rate would it have changed the way the Govt had done things later and the likelihood is that it would have. If UK had suffered same casualty rate it would have added another 41% (280,000) to those who had died and 81% (1.4 Million) more to those who were wounded. Travelling through rural areas in UK and France I have often stopped and looked at the War Memorials saying a silent prayer in recognition for their sacrifice and with guide books they give you an idea roughly of current population. Most particularly in France counting the names and getting to 125 and finding out current population in the surrounding area in only 175 gives you an idea of the sacrifice across France. I have yet to come across anything like that scale in the UK. I can understand why a World War 1 hero such as Petain made peace in 1940 having watched the wholescale slaughter in WW1 and the wiping of a generation and being unable to do it a second time. Now the inner cities, well, that's down to different factors.......... |
"Ok,ok, assuming that the Frogs are back on side, what do they bring to the party, in real terms? ie capability, unique assets, force multipliers etc etc that can change the way NATO does it's day to day buisness (lots of SH and AT in a sandy place would be a bloody good start, by the way!!). What does this do to the price of (NATO) fish? Genuine questionhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif"
Well you get to serve alongside the Foreign Legion for one... :E |
Hmmm that reminds me, I must buy a new hunting accordian before the new season starts.
|
Glad Rag, quite right. In about 1912/13 the birth rate was dropping to, IIRC, less than 2 per couple so the population was shrinking. This was in contrast to Germany with a higher birth rate and increasing population.
This caused the leadership to increase conscription from 2 years to 3. By 1917 the strength of the military would have increased by 50% and their trained potential by 30%. This was a threat to Germany whose war plan called for a lightning attack on the French before a second assault on their Russian allies. A stronger French army would put those plans in jeopardy. Law of unintended consequences perhaps? |
So lets get this right:
They let everybody do their fighting and dieing for them. They eat and drink well. They have a great climate. They think having a mistress is a birth right, and to do otherwhise might question their sexuality....... COOL |
And to the party? More AWACs, tankers, CV, wine, and quite a few FJ I imagine.
|
This caused the leadership to increase subscription If I was being really cynical, I could suggest that France is re-joining NATO/OTAN in order to put them in a stronger position to bid for work for their underemployed but very significant defence industry. |
Barry, ty, it was early.
|
Well you get to serve alongside the Foreign Legion for one... They eat and drink well. wine, |
Anyone who knows about the Old Guard at Waterloo, and the job they did shepherding Napoleon away from the battlefield - lockstep, in square the whole way, stopping everytime Allied Cav got close enough to let off a volley to drive them away, then continuing. Modern day they do a bloody good job in Africa
Still, it's far more fun to adhere to national sterotypes, isn't it... I had a mate who was at Saint-Cyr (he failed to get into Sandhurst) and was shocked that at nights they didn't bother sending out patrols... their view was, whats the point, they couldn't see, they'd deal with it in the morning! He was probably lying, but it made me chuckle at the time. |
A recent question on QI (A UK television programme) asked which was the most successful european nation in military terms since 1066. The answer was the French.
The numbers given were: Of 125 major European wars since 1495, the French have fought in 50, more than Austria (47) and England (43). Out of a total 168 battles since 387BC, they won 109, lost 49 and drew 10. The French made a major contribution to NATO operations in the Balkans in 1997. The US initially issued a directive that NATO forces in Bosnia were to be "dry". It was the French who said "non", it was a condition of their service that wine was to be available with meals. |
Of 125 major European wars since 1495, the French have fought in 50, more than Austria (47) and England (43). How many did they win? Out of a total 168 battles since 387BC, they won 109, lost 49 and drew 10. How many did they fight without international assistance? There's lied, damn lies and statistics... I'd love to see the basis for these claims. Furthermore, suspicion is immediately raised when the first statistic is limited to a period only after 1495 and the second statistic begins in 387BC, (before the country of France existed). Funnily enough, if one does the maths, this means that the French have fought 168 battles in 2396 years - or a battle every 14 years. Worse yet they have fought in wars who's average number of battles was 3.36... Sorry, the figures don't make sense... |
One source I found cited 28 war that France has been in since 1945. I believe this may be more than UK and having had time to think through a few I make UK just 22.
UK would include things like Mau Mau, EOKA, Radfan and so on. |
The stat was since 1495 not 1945... ;)
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:29. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.