Comments on: About That “French Surrender” Thing ..

By: Miquelon.org – The Fighting French » Monitoring Anti-French Activity » @FrenchHaters

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 04:46:15 +0000

[...] Our most tweeted article : About That “French Surrender” Thing .. [...]

By: Miquelon

Miquelon — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:08:08 +0000

Et tu Luke ?

Also in the midst of depressing #debt talks, go #USA women's soccer! I don't like losing to #France in anything. #FreedomFries

By: Barney

Barney — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 20:35:37 +0000

Fred’s racist/offensive comments against the British

You’ve never actually browsed this site have you ?
Because if you had you’d realize the difference between Fred correcting your francophobic vision of history and the countless actually racist anti-French comments this site have been documenting these past few years.
The problem is that you people have enjoyed rewriting history to make the French look bad for so long that you have a a very hard time seeing your delusions shattered.

Surely you stand for respect for all countries/allies?

I do. But I have yet to see this respect reciprocated by the likes of you and that’s an understatement.

You wrote that:

I would not say the French were not brave. Who can forget the brave stand of the French section of the SS, the Charlemagne Division, numbering 7,000 strong in 1944 who fought the Russians hard at Korlin. And what about the Vichy French forces who put up a brave fight against the US and British forces in North Africa?

See, you gave your game away there, pal.
No true friend of the French people would ever write that. And anyone who comes here of all places to write this kind of stuff knows exactly what they’re doing and has no right to complain about anti anything comments.

I don’t know where you come from: Bremner’s blog, ffrance, no psaran etc… but go back there. You’ll have more fun. You won’t be challenged.

Free French who were mostly colonial troops.

And honestly, “mate”. Grow a set and stop beating around the bush already. If you wanna call us cowards and surrender monkeys then do it once and for all.
Perfide Albion, indeed.

By: theBigM

theBigM — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:47:28 +0000

Not really Barney. But why on a site which fights against French bashing do you allow Fred’s racist/offensive comments against the British to pass without comment? Surely you stand for respect for all countries/allies? Or am I wrong? Who is the hypocrite here?
Surely the bravery of the Vichy French forces is just as important as that of the Free French who were mostly colonial troops.
Just as many French supported the Vichy French as the Free French, as did the French colonies.

By: Barney

Barney — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:32:43 +0000

Yeah, thebigm I can see how you care deeply about French-bashing…. lol
What an amazing hypocrite you are.

Anti-British comments, you say ?
Well sorry, pal but you seem to deserve every bit of it and then some.

By: Jocoul

Jocoul — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:11:05 +0000

poilu – thank you for making this clear. My grandpa certainly is grateful as well, wherever he is now. He was 20 when he went to war. He left us a diary which he wrote during war time, successively as a fighter, a prisoner, a fugitive, a prisoner again, a fugitive, a fighter again, then eventually the war was over and his life could start at last. He survived but many of his pals were killed, tortured, blown into pieces, or “just” maimed. Surrender monkeys? Yeah right…

Will these rants about how many battles did the French/English/Martians win/lose, how brave they were, how far can we pee, never end?

By: poilu

poilu — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 02:11:59 +0000

“Who can forget the brave stand of the French section of the SS, the Charlemagne Division”

“…Vichy French forces who put up a brave fight against the US and British forces in North Africa?”

I take it then, you’re some kind of admirer of the SS/Vichy forces ( alot of them in the US/UK), or did you conveniently forget the tens of thousands of French who fought and died under the colors of Free France and in the Underground? The so-called “bravery” of the SS/Vichy pales in comparison to the sacrifices made by Free French troops or the Resistance. Of course, French-bashers such as yourself tend to weasel their way out of having to give gratitude to them- better to deny they ever existed, right? Funny how selective memory works, wot?

By: TheBigM

TheBigM — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:22:21 +0000

I like to come back to this site every once in while to marvel at the anti-English ranting of Fred and he rarely disappoints in his ignorance.
Let me put you straight on a few of your most pointless and inane comments.
1 – “France was fighting France during the Hundred Years War !
Are you out of your cotton-picking mind?” – No, that’s not what I said, but the war was not just a case of “France v England” it was much more complex than that. At this point in time the kingdoms of France and England were very much intertwined and it was a battle between two ROYAL houses one based in England and another in France. How was it England V France if Burgundy, Aquitaine, Portugal and the Navarre were fighting on the English side? Despite this though the House of Plantagenet based in England won most of the major battles and considerably enriched England as a result, so the French were hardly the “unbeatable foe”
However, despite the many losses suffered by France against the English in history, I would not say the French were not brave. Who can forget the brave stand of the French section of the SS, the Charlemagne Division, numbering 7,000 strong in 1944 who fought the Russians hard at Korlin. And what about the Vichy French forces who put up a brave fight against the US and British forces in North Africa? Specifically in Oran and Morocco where the allies thought the French would surrender.
2- the British stand at Singapore during WW II. Yamashita, go get ‘em – Yep, we surrendered here, but kept on fighting (on the right side). At least we didn’t collaborate with the Japanese like the French did in Vietnam though.
3- ”What is it that you find favorable; inasmuch,
these people gave the “Anglo” a terrible beating anytime there was a clash”
Not really, some the Germanic tribes that entered England where from the area of present day Denmark, so that explains the Scandinavian influence in England. Have you never heard of the Battle of Stamford Bridge?
4- “As any Scotsman or Welshman will tell you there was no question of choice in the matter. They were effectively crushed and the ‘upper snuffs’ made the decision for them. England proper, being the size of a postage stamp, needed to grow to survive; moreover, these conquered people (Celts) made excellent cannon-fodder to have on hand for the future. Beware the Welsh bowman”
You assume that the average English was in favour of the act of Union when this was not the case. The Scots (and Welsh) did very well out of the British Empire, thank you very much, as Scotland’s attempt to found an empire had come to nothing.
By the way, just so you know, it was the Normans who initially conquered parts of Wales and Ireland and not the Angles or Saxons.
But you have a point about the “celts” (whatever celt means) being used as “cannon fodder”. But what else were they good for? The Scots, Irish and Welsh were, on the whole, a drunken, disorganised rabble, but one thing you can say about them is that they like a fight. Perfect cannon fodder, much like the Algerians to the French.
5- Concerning the Norman conquest you said “As I remarked earlier, the victory was to have lasting consequence for the better in so many ways”.
Well, if you think the colonisation of Ireland and the subjugation of Wales was a positive thing, then you are indeed right. The Norman invasion did nothing for England.

By: Douglas Stewart

Douglas Stewart — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 14:31:36 +0000

Thanks for sending me this on Twitter. I agree that the French surrender misnomer is greatly overused and not historically accurate. It is too inconvenient for the person(s) to look into history and understand how this got started. France lost 50% of its male population in WW1. Normally a loss on this scale means the start of an end to a nation. The attitude of appeasement was heavily endorsed by the French teachers union and was understandable because they were trying to preserve the youth in order to keep the nation alive. Everyone knew they could not remain sustainable if they (France) experienced a similar loss again. Unfortunately this is part of pre-WW2 history is really not taught in our public school system and rarely appears in the arena of higher education (unless your area of study happens to be 20th century European history). I myself didnt learn about this until I was living in France

By: Fred Orth

Fred Orth — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:22:28 +0000

Barney, you’re such a clever diplomat!

By: Barney

Barney — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:27:10 +0000

Grubby is demanding respect.

LMAO

Eat shit.

By: Grubby

Grubby — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:23:32 +0000

Excerpt: http://stadiumdrives.com/2010-articles/june/hot-or-not-the-beginnings-6-22-10.html Not only are your soccer side falling apart in South Africa, basically surrendering to itself (surprise), but you had such an opportunity to steer the spotlight away from your idiocy on Sunday night. Instead, French qualifier Gregory Havret, summed up what people the world over believe about you. You are a smug and entitled people with little respect for anyone else. And your food sucks. Havret, fresh off a lovely run at the US Open to finish second, spent his entire post match interview whining about missed putts and talking about how good he really was, not once congratulating first-time Major-winner Graeme McDowell.

By: Fred

Fred — Tue, 11 May 2010 23:07:36 +0000

To the BigM:
Gosh, just imagine. France was fighting France during the Hundred Years War !
Are you out of your cotton-picking mind ?
Again, during the above war the French proved to be “the unbeatable foe” (the English did hold onto Calais until being kicked out by the Revolutionary Armies at a later time). If you wish to discuss other events and times we can begin with
the British stand at Singapore during WW II. Yamashita, go get ‘em !
Napoleon’s failure in Russia: We do know that he was warned against invading
Russia by his senior commanders; but, being Napoleon, he did not listen to their
voice of reason (not the first genius to have erred in a terrible way). Typhus destroyed Napoleon’s Army —alas, coupled to the most severe winter seen in a century. One major battle was that of Borodino, terrible for both sides in losses;
however, the French held the field and were the victors.
You trumpet the Scandanavian element as affecting for the better their influence
upon “Anglo” early development. What is it that you find favorable; inasmuch,
these people gave the “Anglo” a terrible beating anytime there was a clash ? On one occasion, your resistance to the Dane was to launch a most treacherous reaction to their presence, slaughtering woman and children alike !
Regarding the Saxon —home-grown variety: History relates this tribe would not meet the Franks under Charlemagne in open battle; instead, choosing the “hit and run” tactic w/ retreat to the forest edge. Finally, the issue was settled, Charlemagne exacting a most telling measure in response; i.e., taking the youngest adult son from a family unit(s) and having him beheaded ! Five thousand Saxons being demanded and turned over to Charlemagne, thus lost their heads. There is a statue of Charlemagne mounted on a horse, in front of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Both French and German claim him. Question:
How does an Englishman view the Saxon admission to his bloodstream ?
Regarding the so-called Acts of Union:
As any Scotsman or Welshman will tell you there was no question of choice in the matter. They were effectively crushed and the ‘upper snuffs’ made the decision for them. England proper, being the size of a postage stamp, needed to grow to survive; moreover, these conquered people (Celts) made excellent cannon-fodder to have on hand for the future. Beware the Welsh bowman !
Regarding Hastings, 1066:
“May the best man win” and he did ! The trickery of Harold was typically Saxon,
learned in Albion’s hothouse of feud and counter-feud, a la Hatfield & McCoy. As I remarked earlier, the victory was to have lasting consequence for the better in so many ways.
One last question:
Scatalogical, four-letter words are Saxon in origin. Have you people advanced out of the trough to the point where you can cast these aside as being archaic ?
Let us hope so.

By: theBigM

theBigM — Tue, 11 May 2010 11:51:55 +0000

Barney- “But a plethora of surrender jokes is A OK, right? When I have made surrender jokes on here?
Sorry, when has “my country” (what does that mean?) made xenophobic attacks on France, as far as I am aware, much of the recent bile has come from the USA. The term “Cheese eating surrender monkeys” did not originate in the UK.
“Or are we racists because we don’t think the Brits or Americans are superior beings” - Of course not, but Fred is suggesting that the English
are inferior and that is racist.
I am not justifying French-bashing at all, I am interested in the historical relationship between France and English-speaking countries having spent time living in France. I personally think that the whole anti-French thing in the USA because of the Iraq war was ridiculous, but I am also interested in French people’s attitudes to English speaking peoples and as demonstrated by this site, you don’t have to scratch too far to find some fairly unpleasant views.

By: theBigM

theBigM — Tue, 11 May 2010 11:16:40 +0000

Fred – Oh dear, another breathtaking display of ignorance and bias from the resident anglophobe Fred.
Where to start with such nonsense?
1 – “The history of England can be said to have began in 1066″ No, not really, that’s a very skewed way of looking at it, there were kings of England before 1066 (in the eight century acually), and it was a thriving country under King Alfred in the tenth century, although by 1066 England was not as unified as it had been in earlier centuries and this is reason why the Normans were able to conquer it. The Normans, did have an impact, no doubt, but they were no more cultrally advanced than the anglo-saxons, just militarily so. For many left-wingers, the Norman invasion was regrettable as England lost contact with its Scandinavian roots and became more of centralised, class-ridden country. Many of today’s English aristocratic families are descended from the Normans.
2 “ During the Hundred Years War your nation was to cause a lot of trouble for France in ’ventures-to-type’;”
To see the hundred years war as battle between England and France is just utter nonsense. The hundred years war was a battle between two royal dynasties for control of the French and English crowns.
The conflict has its roots in the Norman conquest and was fought between the houses of Valois and Plantagent both of which had their roots in France.
So, let me spell that out for you Fred, both royal dynasties had their roots in FRANCE, but the Plantagent house (or house of ANJOU) ruled England at the time. If you acutally bothered to read about it (if you are able to read that is) you would also find out that the following regions faught on the house of Anjou’s side: Brittany, Burgundy, Aquitaine and Navarre.
Am I missing something or are these areas in modern day France?
3 “unlike the fate of the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, in forced union”
My god, this is just the most ignorant statement of the lot. No, the Scottish were not “forced” into a union as you put it, the ACTS OF UNION were signed in 1707 between the two countries which brought the two parliaments together. Have you never heard of this??
that ‘unbeatable foe’ across the channel, the Salian Frank, Gallo-Roman, Norman and Breton amalgam.
‘unbeatable foe ??? – The French have been far from unbeatable: Napolean was seen off by the Russians and an Anglo-Pussian Alliance. To this day, cold winters in Russia are called “un hiver pour les francais”
The Franco-Prussion war? The second world war? Hardly unbeatable.
Lastly, there is one huge flaw in your “argument” or more accurately rant that you put forward.
You claim that it is only because of the Normans (or French as some people on this site see it) that Britain was able to become a global power, but then berate the British for supposedly dominating other countries. So surely this tendancy is down to the Normans, not the English. You can’t have it both ways.
Fred, I would try reading some history books if I was you instead of unthinkingly regurgitating anti-English propoganda that you may have learned at school. Even on this riduculous site, you comments stand out from the crowd in terms of their crassness, ignorance and downright stupidity, although they do make me laugh.