Please, can I change my nationality?

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Please, can I change my nationality?
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

Posted by ShadoWolf on Jun-02-2005 17:34:

I'm not saying French civilians didn't die or suffer - they did.

But De Gaulle spurned the Allies when it came time to actually rid France of the Germans.

British, Canadian, American, even Polish and others fought and died... not French.

"France has no friends, only interests."

Then how did De Gaulle repay Britain for her sacrifices? Denied EEC membership!

Then he took France out of NATO while we were facing a threat from the USSR!!

Then there was the infamous 1967 Quebec speech in which he stabbed Canada in the back!!!

Posted by Dervish on Jun-02-2005 17:46:

Where is your source for that large quote there (in full context too)?

Also you said French behaviour (de Gaulle is one man not a nation), but to be honest it wasn't 100% aimed at you just pisses me off when I see people genralising and the stupid french hating "we saved you" attitude of some people.

Posted by Dervish on Jun-02-2005 18:16:

quote:
De Gaulle also visited London but when he returned to France on 16th June he discovered the Henri-Philippe Petain had ousted Paul Reynaud as premier and was forming a government that would seek an armistice with Germany. In danger of being arrested by the new French government, de Gaulle returned to England. The following day he made a radio broadcast calling for French people to continue fighting against the German Army.

Whereas as President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the USA recognized Vichy France Winston Churchill refused and backed de Gaulle as leader of the "Free French". Henri-Philippe Petain responded by denouncing de Gaulle. On 4th July, 1940, a court-martial in Toulouse sentenced him in absentia to four years in prison. At a second court-martial on 2nd August, 1940, sentenced him to death.

De Gaulle made attempts to unify the resistance movements in France. In March 1943 Jean Moulin, Charles Delestraint and Andre Dewavrin managed to unite eight major resistance movements under de Gaulle's leadership. However, this good work was undermined when in June, 1943, both Delestraint and Moulin were both arrested by the Gestapo.

>LINK<

So your saying the man who united the resistance is to blame for the lack of French soliders during D-Day?

I don't have any proof yet, but I suspect that quote was from when he was sentenced to death in referance to the government at the time. Possible?

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Jun-02-2005 21:52:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Please, can I change my nationality?

quote:
Originally posted by ShadoWolf
French behaviour during D-Day was shameful.

177 French troops participated.

Just 177.

250,000 soldiers died.

And how many Italian troops participated in the war? Umm, wait, they did participate it's just that they were fighting on the wrong side!

Posted by smokeape on Jun-03-2005 00:34:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
If all you Americans are going to be like that you can just go ahead and give them back the Statue of Liberty.

We would prefer to give them the U.N. instead. I've always professed since the day I joined this thread that the U.N. needs to be based in Paris, France. A fitting place for a worthless organization in the home of a worthless political society.

[[[smoke]]]

Posted by Dervish on Jun-03-2005 00:42:

Come on look for common ground be a lover not a hater....... I bet you like french fries

Don't get me wrong right now I'm not their biggest fan, i.e. fucking up the EU constitution for gay reasons (gotta realise it was close though only 55% of them were diddys and a percentage of that would have done it for real reasons).

But denegrating a nation so often and taking the piss out of its military when so many people died is not fun. And it seems like people have started beliving their own bullshit (not just hear but all the anti-French stuff).

Is anyone here seriously going to tell me, having seen thouse figures, that the french didn't bear a hell of a burden in WW2?

Posted by Dervish on Jun-03-2005 00:48:

Also the perception that there were far more American deaths (similar military) than British is another rumour, us getting "bailed out" too apparently (UK pop. 50-60mil, USA what 250mil more?).

quote:
United Kingdom

* Military:
o Keegan: 244,000
o Britannica: 264,443 (incl. missing)
o Davies: 264,443
o Small & Singer: 270,000
o HarperCollins: 271,311
o Urlanis: 290,000
o Ellis: 305,800
o Eckhardt: 350,000
o Compton's: 353,652 (British Empire)
o Info. Please: 357,116 (all causes)
* Civilian:
o Keegan: 60,000 (bombing)
o Urlanis: 60,000
o HarperCollins: 60,595
o Ellis: 60,600
o Britannica: 92,673 (incl. 30,248 merchant mariners and 60,595 killed by bombing)
o Davies: 92,673
o Eckhardt: 100,000
* All (undifferentiated):
o Messenger: 400,000
o Wallechinsky: 495,000

quote:

# United States of America

* Military:
o Keegan: 292,000
o HarperCollins: 292,100
o Britannica: 292,131 (not incl. 115,187 non-battle)
o Compton's: 293,986
o Urlanis: 300,000
o Info. Please: 291,557 KIA + 113,842 other causes = 405,399
o DoD: 291,557 KIA + 113,842 other = 405,399
o Ellis: 405,400
o Encarta: 292,131 KIA + 115,187 other causes = 407,318
o Wallechinsky: 292,131 KIA + 115,187 other = 407,318
o Eckhardt: 408,000
o Small & Singer: 408,300
* Civilian:
o Britannica: 6,000
o U.S. Merchant Marine: 8,300 mariners killed at sea, at least 1,100 died from wounds. Total killed estimated 9,300. [http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html]
* All (undifferentiated):
o Messenger: 300,000

I think some people need a reality check on this kinda stuff every so often and any Brits with chips on your sholders should realise that France had more casulties than us before we go speaking shit.....

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Jun-03-2005 23:42:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
Also the perception that there were far more American deaths (similar military) than British is another rumour, us getting "bailed out" too apparently (UK pop. 50-60mil, USA what 250mil more?).

Well, it's not like they bailed you out meaning that their war efforts were more succesful and greater than yours, but they did bail you out meaning that if they didn't take your side, there would be a big chance you'd loose the war.

Posted by Dervish on Jun-04-2005 16:19:

Well if they were bailing us out then they wouldn't have waited till they were attacked and forced to join us rather than for altruistic reasons?

Posted by xxxtasy on Jun-04-2005 16:43:

Ok, now we are talking about WWII?

I wouldn't use the word 'bail out', it is not diplomatic.

If GB goes to Hitler, it means fall of the British Empire, it means Japanese going all over to India from Burma, and in all possibility, US is in danger too.

So it ain't a bail out, because US national security was endangered too.

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Jun-04-2005 16:58:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
Well if they were bailing us out then they wouldn't have waited till they were attacked and forced to join us rather than for altruistic reasons?

But they didn't really wait. They were neutral on paper, and they didn't send any actual troops in, but they did a hell of a job supplying you with all sorts of cargo you despreately needed. They didn't do that for Germany back in 1940. Even if Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor, they would have still probably come to your aid. Besides, Japan didn't attack the US for no reason. You don't attack strong neutral countries for no reason when you're already busy fighting several other major players.

Posted by Dervish on Jun-04-2005 17:23:

quote:
Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
But they didn't really wait. They were neutral on paper, and they didn't send any actual troops in, but they did a hell of a job supplying you with all sorts of cargo you despreately needed.

Yeah they did supply stuff.... at a price we got nothing free.

quote:
You don't attack strong neutral countries for no reason when you're already busy fighting several other major players.

Emmm ok.... you do realise that Japan wasn't in the war until it attacked the US?

Also realise that at that time Britian wasn't just the little island it is now it had an empire including India a country of 1 Billion at the time.

(sorry this has turned into a total hi-jack)

EDIT: >other thread on this-a good one<

And remeber with us being an island and the RAF being better than the Luftwaffe (as proved by the Battle of Britian) the presumtion that we would have lost without US (Japan wouldn't have been involved) is incorect. As air cover would be an absolute necessity for an invasion.

Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]