[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;32975465]No it's not, one man does not represent a country.[/QUOTE]
its rather funny because without France, the Great land of the free (america) would probably still be a British territory
[QUOTE=catbarf;32986354]As I recall the French beat the English bloody in the Hundred Years War,[/quote]
I think you mean dysentery and the Black Death bloodied the English (as did it 6.3 million French subjects). Because, as far as the English fighting record during the Hundred Years War is concerned, they pretty much beat the French bloody and then proceeded, frankly, to sodomize them. At Cadsan, Sluys, Auberoche, Caen, Blanchetaque, Crecy, Calais, Neville's Cross, Les Espagnols sur Mer, Poitiers, Brest, St. Pol de Leon, La Rochelle, Mauron, Auray, Najera, Limoges, Harfleur, Herrings, Rouen, Meaux, Cravant, Verneuil, and Agincourt.
[QUOTE=catbarf;32986354]conquered most of Europe in the Napoleonic Wars before being beaten by a massive coalition(and you don't see people making 'cowardly German' jokes just because they ended up losing WW2),[/quote]
What sets the Germans apart for their efforts in World War II, however, is the fact that, despite losing almost 4 million men and ultimately the war, they took over 12 million of their enemies with them and fought bitterly and fiercely to the end.
The French Empire during the Napoleonic Wars was not so fortunate fighting against the Coalition, however- losing half a million more men (for a total of 1.8 million lost) in the end of hostilities. And the French did not go down fighting as harshly like the Germans did. When the Austrians, Prussians, Russians, and Swedes crossed the Rhine in March 1814, the French made a series of run-and-gun moves for Paris. After a day's worth of fighting that ended on the 31st, they surrendered. Napoleon abdicated on the 6th of April. Then when he returned following his escape from Elba almost a year later, he reinstated himself as emperor. This was, of course, not well received by the British, Prussians, Austrians, and Russians, of course, and they immediately began making movements to take him down. Napoleon launched his Waterloo Campaign in response, lost horribly, and surrendered. And we know the rest of the story.
[QUOTE=catbarf;32986354]helped kicked Russia's ass in the Crimean war,[/quote]
By committing 400,000 men to the war, of which ~100,000 died- 60,000 from disease. The majority of fighting was done by the Ottomans. Which makes sense considering it began as a Russo-Ottoman conflict.
[QUOTE=catbarf;32986354]and almost single-handedly bore the brunt of WW1,[/quote]
Bore it along with their old Russian allies and the British. Actually, they lost far less than the latter two did, in terms of manpower anyway. And poor Russia was completely broken by their efforts to keep the Germans, Austro-Hungarians, and Bulgarians occupied on the Eastern Front. Many of what losses they did incur were mostly due to embarrassingly obtuse leadership. The had a quite impressive air corps, however.
[QUOTE=catbarf;32986354]and then, after having their entire country fucked over by that war (which took place mostly in France), got subdued by the overwhelmingly more powerful German war machine in the second world war- and still continued to fight via resistance movements until the very end.[/quote]
The French had more than adequate defenses to hold back the Germans, and direct military support from the British. The problem that ultimately cost them the Battle of France was that most of their troops were still using equipment and weapons from the Great War because the government and military both failed to recognize the importance of modernizing; they were relying too heavily on the expected success of the Maginot Line. So they fell in just a matter of weeks.
And then there was a tremendous lack of focus and sense of direction in the country about how to approach Germany once it made its way into the country: whether to surrender and collaborate (like Petain and Weygand and many others did), or resist outright.
The only real valuable military asset they had at the time was their navy, which, because of the stupidity of Admiral de Laborde, they eventually scuttled at Toulon.
[QUOTE=catbarf;32986354]And let's ignore that they still have the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures"]third highest military expenditure[/URL] of all the countries of the world, only behind the US and China.[/quote]
That's not something to be proud of, especially in the case of the United States with how ridiculously high our expenditures are.
[QUOTE=catbarf;32986354]I guess they really are just a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys.[/quote]
Well they are well-known for their various cheeses, and they've had to surrender a lot throughout history.
[b]But the reason why they've had so many military failures and pyrrhic outcomes within the past 200 years that's earned them this generalized reputation has been primarily because of failures in leadership.[/b]
Personally, I'm more of a Prussia/German Empire fan.
I'm interested why the doctor's daughter stood by him even after he was convicted of raping a child.
[QUOTE=catbarf;32986354]As I recall the French beat the English bloody in the Hundred Years War, conquered most of Europe in the Napoleonic Wars before being beaten by a massive coalition (and you don't see people making 'cowardly German' jokes just because they ended up losing WW2), helped kicked Russia's ass in the Crimean war, and almost single-handedly bore the brunt of WW1, and then, after having their entire country fucked over by that war (which took place mostly in France), got subdued by the overwhelmingly more powerful German war machine in the second world war- and still continued to fight via resistance movements until the very end.
And let's ignore that they still have the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures"]third highest military expenditure[/URL] of all the countries of the world, only behind the US and China. I guess they really are just a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
Edit: The fact that this old, tired, invalid trope came up in the thread at all is just stupid.[/QUOTE]
They've also kicked the shit out of their former colonies in Africa.
[editline]27th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32989033]
[b]But the reason why they've had so many military failures and pyrrhic outcomes within the past 200 years that's earned them this generalized reputation has been primarily because of failures in leadership.[/b][/QUOTE]
I find that odd, considering that this sentiment tends to restricted to Americans for the most part. I'd tend to believe that it's due to anti-french sentiment (after the revolutionary war, and recently with the middle east occupations), and that justification was devised ex post facto.
[quote]
There would have been no new trial however, if Bamberski had not taken the law into his own hands.
He hired a kidnap team and in October 2009 they snatched the doctor from his home in Scheidegg and brought him to France.
There, they abandoned him, trussed up, near the law courts in the border town of Mulhouse. Krombach was promptly arrested.[/quote]
Justice fucking served. Holy balls.
I couldn't help but think of batman when I finished reading the article. Props to this father, I hope he has finally found peace.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32976674]Well please, come over here in France, enter a random street and tell a few guys here and there they are just cowards while holding a knife. We'll see if they coward their way out of the situation or not.
You are guaranteed to get your ass widely kicked, preferably with the exact knife you brought in the fight in the first place, at least three quarters of the time.[/QUOTE]
Ok, so instead of being cowards they're morons who attack complete strangers over an overused stereotype?
Yeah that makes your countrymen look way cooler dude
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32989033]I think you mean dysentery and the Black Death bloodied the English (as did it 6.3 million French subjects). Because, as far as the English fighting record during the Hundred Years War is concerned, they pretty much beat the French bloody and then proceeded, frankly, to sodomize them. At Cadsan, Sluys, Auberoche, Caen, Blanchetaque, Crecy, Calais, Neville's Cross, Les Espagnols sur Mer, Poitiers, Brest, St. Pol de Leon, La Rochelle, Mauron, Auray, Najera, Limoges, Harfleur, Herrings, Rouen, Meaux, Cravant, Verneuil, and Agincourt.
What sets the Germans apart for their efforts in World War II, however, is the fact that, despite losing almost 4 million men and ultimately the war, they took over 12 million of their enemies with them and fought bitterly and fiercely to the end.
The French Empire during the Napoleonic Wars was not so fortunate fighting against the Coalition, however- losing half a million more men (for a total of 1.8 million lost) in the end of hostilities. And the French did not go down fighting as harshly like the Germans did. When the Austrians, Prussians, Russians, and Swedes crossed the Rhine in March 1814, the French made a series of run-and-gun moves for Paris. After a day's worth of fighting that ended on the 31st, they surrendered. Napoleon abdicated on the 6th of April. Then when he returned following his escape from Elba almost a year later, he reinstated himself as emperor. This was, of course, not well received by the British, Prussians, Austrians, and Russians, of course, and they immediately began making movements to take him down. Napoleon launched his Waterloo Campaign in response, lost horribly, and surrendered. And we know the rest of the story.
By committing 400,000 men to the war, of which ~100,000 died- 60,000 from disease. The majority of fighting was done by the Ottomans. Which makes sense considering it began as a Russo-Ottoman conflict.
Bore it along with their old Russian allies and the British. Actually, they lost far less than the latter two did, in terms of manpower anyway. And poor Russia was completely broken by their efforts to keep the Germans, Austro-Hungarians, and Bulgarians occupied on the Eastern Front. Many of what losses they did incur were mostly due to embarrassingly obtuse leadership. The had a quite impressive air corps, however.
The French had more than adequate defenses to hold back the Germans, and direct military support from the British. The problem that ultimately cost them the Battle of France was that most of their troops were still using equipment and weapons from the Great War because the government and military both failed to recognize the importance of modernizing; they were relying too heavily on the expected success of the Maginot Line. So they fell in just a matter of weeks.
And then there was a tremendous lack of focus and sense of direction in the country about how to approach Germany once it made its way into the country: whether to surrender and collaborate (like Petain and Weygand and many others did), or resist outright.
The only real valuable military asset they had at the time was their navy, which, because of the stupidity of Admiral de Laborde, they eventually scuttled at Toulon.
That's not something to be proud of, especially in the case of the United States with how ridiculously high our expenditures are.
Well they are well-known for their various cheeses, and they've had to surrender a lot throughout history.
[b]But the reason why they've had so many military failures and pyrrhic outcomes within the past 200 years that's earned them this generalized reputation has been primarily because of failures in leadership.[/b]
Personally, I'm more of a Prussia/German Empire fan.[/QUOTE]
Also for the American revolution, the french only gave us guns. It was the Prussians who sent officers to train us.
Holy shit, that father deserves a fucking [i]medal[/i]
[QUOTE=Parakon;32990484]Ok, so instead of being cowards they're morons who attack complete strangers over an overused stereotype?
Yeah that makes your countrymen look way cooler dude[/QUOTE]
Hum, yeah, because a "complete stranger" holding a knife and pointing it towards you while insulting you totally is safe and should be well accepted everywhere ?
Insulting people while basing yourself on a stereotype is worth a good beating, whatever the stereotype is.
[editline]27th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Swilly;32990780]Also for the American revolution, the french only gave us guns. It was the Prussians who sent officers to train us.[/QUOTE]
We also gave you the statue of liberty.
So a German man, who was in Germany at the time of the crime, and was dismissed by a German court, was kidnapped and dragged to Paris where he was convicted.
This is so fucking illegal that my head is going to explode.
Jurisdiction matters. Jurisdiction exists because, in a democracy, the people provide law enforcement the power to arrest others. When traveling abroad, you agree to be subjected the laws of other nations, but that wasn't the case here. He was IN GERMANY. At no point in time do the French have any rights over what happens to that man.
Furthermore, if the Germans weren't providing the French with the man himself, then you can be damn sure they never provided the evidence from the crime scene.
Plus, as the Germans pointed out, this is double jeopardy.
This isn't justice.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32991349]
This isn't justice.[/QUOTE]
He killed her and would have gotten away with it if this here french gentleman hadn't dragged his ass to Paris. Golly gee mister sounds like justice to me.
Of course jurisdiction matters, but it isn't perfect.
[editline]27th October 2011[/editline]
Vigilantism is moronic 99% of the time, but for once, we have an example of something good coming out of it
[QUOTE=GunFox;32991349]So a German man, who was in Germany at the time of the crime, and was dismissed by a German court, was kidnapped and dragged to Paris where he was convicted.
This is so fucking illegal that my head is going to explode.
Jurisdiction matters. Jurisdiction exists because, in a democracy, the people provide law enforcement the power to arrest others. When traveling abroad, you agree to be subjected the laws of other nations, but that wasn't the case here. He was IN GERMANY. At no point in time do the French have any rights over what happens to that man.
Furthermore, if the Germans weren't providing the French with the man himself, then you can be damn sure they never provided the evidence from the crime scene.
Plus, as the Germans pointed out, this is double jeopardy.
This isn't justice.[/QUOTE]
[quote]German judges had dismissed the case in 1987, and Germany refused to send Krombach to France in 2004 when Paris issued a European arrest warrant, on the grounds that no one should be tried twice on the same charge.[/quote]
"issued an European arrest warrant"
AKA the guy was found guilty and never went a second time to court because German judges decided to be dicks and ignore an European arrest warrant for reasons that are arguably linked to the judges' pure subjectivity (It's done very often to completely dismiss cases just to piss another country off).
Sure kidnapping the guy and drag him into a court isn't the most conventional way to proceed, but from a moral point of vue it's a billion time better than letting a rapist-killer-doctor roam around freely for the sake of pissing another country off. It would have been bad if the father paid hitmen to actually kill the doctor, but he just dragged him up to France, which brings us to another important point - they accepted the "gift", arrested the guy and the trial went on the way it was supposed to be. If this somewhat wasn't justice, the only thing that would have happened is that the guy would have been sent to Germany so he could live free with no consequence whatsoever. Keep in mind there was an European arrest warrant on the guy's head - as long as he is in the European Union (which Germany is part of), he can be arrested and brought back to the country he's wanted by. Judges dismissing the case and refusing to bring back the criminal is closer to illegality than dragging the criminal's ass back to the country he escaped from is.
Also, about the whole "hiring people to do the legal system's work" you're apparently blaming, I'm pretty sure you already know the US is has heavily armed civilians going after criminal that have bounties on their heads to do Cops' work.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32991701]"issued an European arrest warrant"
AKA the guy was found guilty and never went a second time to court because German judges decided to be dicks and ignore an European arrest warrant for reasons that are arguably linked to the judges' pure subjectivity (It's done very often to completely dismiss cases just to piss another country off).
[/QUOTE]
European arrest warrants aren't valid in double jeopardy cases. That is one of the specific restrictions placed on them.
The French are now illegally detaining a man.
Whether he did it or not is irrelevant. They can't prove he did it, and have violated numerous laws in convicting him.
Well too bad if legally they can't, the guy is now in jail and probably getting his ass raped at this exact moment.
Except if a german elite squad comes out of nowhere and helps the guy to escape he's now staying in Prison.
Also, fuck double jeopardy. It should only be valid in cases where nothing new was brought, here they actually got elements that completely changed the case and made the guy definitely guilty.
All right, I know this is kind of derailing it, but I had to counter that big post.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32989033]I think you mean dysentery and the Black Death bloodied the English (as did it 6.3 million French subjects). Because, as far as the English fighting record during the Hundred Years War is concerned, they pretty much beat the French bloody and then proceeded, frankly, to sodomize them. At Cadsan, Sluys, Auberoche, Caen, Blanchetaque, Crecy, Calais, Neville's Cross, Les Espagnols sur Mer, Poitiers, Brest, St. Pol de Leon, La Rochelle, Mauron, Auray, Najera, Limoges, Harfleur, Herrings, Rouen, Meaux, Cravant, Verneuil, and Agincourt.[/quote]
Cadsan was fought between Flemish and English forces. Neville's Cross was fought between the Scots and English. Les Espagnols sur Mer was fought between the Castillians and English. Battle of Brest was between the Genoese and English. And honestly the Battle of St Pol de Léon was a minor engagement, why do you portray it as though it was some big clash of armies? La Rochelle, fought between Castile and England. And what the Christ? There was no battle in Limoges. There was a massacre there. "The Massacre of Limoges was battle during the Hundred years war. The town of Limoges had been under English control until the Bishop gave the town over to the French. Due to Edward's closeness to the Bishop he was sent into a rage and attacked the town."
Sigh. The "Battle" of Mello (Meaux) was between French nobles and Peasant Jacques army. Ie French on French. Now you might mean the Siege of Meaux in 1422, but the French held out for eight months, and even when the town surrendered the garrison didn't until later.
Honestly did you even do your research on those specific battles or did you just plaster them all on your post from some list? You honestly give way too much credit to diseases. The fact that the French didn't just give up from the sheer amount of fighting and literally fought for a hundred years says something. No, it wasn't all constant warfare, and the Hundred Years War was actually a series of conflicts, but it's called the [I]Hundred Years War[/I] for a good reason. Also in quite a few of those battles you listed the English had the help of Breton/French allies.
[quote]What sets the Germans apart for their efforts in World War II, however, is the fact that, despite losing almost 4 million men and ultimately the war, they took over 12 million of their enemies with them and fought bitterly and fiercely to the end.
The French Empire during the Napoleonic Wars was not so fortunate fighting against the Coalition, however- losing half a million more men (for a total of 1.8 million lost) in the end of hostilities. And the French did not go down fighting as harshly like the Germans did. When the Austrians, Prussians, Russians, and Swedes crossed the Rhine in March 1814, the French made a series of run-and-gun moves for Paris. After a day's worth of fighting that ended on the 31st, they surrendered. Napoleon abdicated on the 6th of April. Then when he returned following his escape from Elba almost a year later, he reinstated himself as emperor. This was, of course, not well received by the British, Prussians, Austrians, and Russians, of course, and they immediately began making movements to take him down. Napoleon launched his Waterloo Campaign in response, lost horribly, and surrendered. And we know the rest of the story.[/quote]
Right, let's compare how many people were murdered in war, that's sure to tell who fought hardest or the best, right?
It doesn't matter how hard the French fell, the fact is they were the uncontested masters of Europe and had been defeating their enemies in situations that had them often outnumbered or in dangerous situations (Austerlitz, Jena-Austerdat, and particularly Marengo and Rivoli) from 1792-1815. Sheer numbers, diplomatic blunders on Napoleon's part, and Coalition, or should I say British refusal to see peace ultimately brought the French down. Are you just ignoring the years between 1792-1812? Napoleon's history did not begin in 1812 with the Russian invasion you know.
[quote]By committing 400,000 men to the war, of which ~100,000 died- 60,000 from disease. The majority of fighting was done by the Ottomans. Which makes sense considering it began as a Russo-Ottoman conflict.[/quote]
Not much to argue here, partly because I don't know a whole lot about the Crimean War, and partly because I agree, it was primarily a Russo-Ottoman conflict. But the French did fight here, and 400,000 was quite a number for that time.
[quote]Bore it along with their old Russian allies and the British.[/quote]
Are you serious? I'll give you that the Russians suffered more casualties than the French, and the British armies in France was of invaluable help, but the fact is the French people, the French countryside, and the French army bore a huge strain on the Western Front.
[quote]Actually, they lost far less than the latter two did, in terms of manpower anyway. [/quote]
Sigh...
[quote]The French had more than adequate defenses to hold back the Germans, and direct military support from the British.[/quote]
Do you mean the Maginot Line? Please don't tell me you mean the Maginot Line.
[quote] The problem that ultimately cost them the Battle of France was that most of their troops were still using equipment and weapons from the Great War because the government and military both failed to recognize the importance of modernizing; they were relying too heavily on the expected success of the Maginot Line. So they fell in just a matter of weeks. [/quote]
Kind of agree here. But they had some very impressive, modern equipment like the D.520, the B1 bis tank (which terrified German soldiers on the uncommon occasions they were seen, and which was also more powerful than any German tank in 1940), and some rather impressive artillery and bombers. Their navy was second only to the British in quality, though it's debatable to put the Japanese or Americans in second instead.
But as I said you are sort of right, the problem was they didn't have enough of this modern equipment. They sent the cream of the crop up into Belgium along with the BEF, and they fought well...against the German diversion. The real attack was at Sedan.
[quote]The only real valuable military asset they had at the time was their navy, which, because of the stupidity of Admiral de Laborde, they eventually scuttled at Toulon.[/quote]
And the ships the British attacked and sunk at Mers el Kabir. There's big debate on whether it was justified or not and I won't take sides here, but just putting that out too.
[quote]That's not something to be proud of, especially in the case of the United States with how ridiculously high our expenditures are.[/quote]
No, but you know what the French are proud of? That they lived through military occupation from an oppressive regime which only got worse in 1943-44 from both the ever resource-hungry Germans and Allied bombing. They're proud of the Resistance, which was not something the Germans looked at lightly by 1943. They're proud of the Free French, which fought with valor at Bir Hakeim and Monte Cassino and for liberating their own capital, with US/Free French forces not coming in until the last day.
Given their circumstances, I'd say the French have a lot to be proud of in WWII. Yes, a lot to be ashamed of (Vichy), but also a lot to look on.
[quote]Well they are well-known for their various cheeses, and they've had to surrender a lot throughout history. [/quote]
I'd say that while they've had to surrender a lot, someone would have to be a complete moron to not admit they have one of the most impressive military records in Europe, if not the best.
[quote]Personally, I'm more of a Prussia/German Empire fan.[/QUOTE]
Good, I've always wanted to talk to someone about Fredrick the Great.
[QUOTE=Swilly;32990780]Also for the American revolution, the french only gave us guns. It was the Prussians who sent officers to train us.[/QUOTE]
Are you serious? Come on, honestly now. Look up the Battle of Chesapeake Bay, and look at how many French fought with the Americans at Yorktown. And Lafayette. And French involvement in general. The Prussians didn't send anything at all, or at least anything of significance.
[QUOTE=Contag;32989036]They've also kicked the shit out of their former colonies in Africa.
[editline]27th October 2011[/editline]
I find that odd, considering that this sentiment tends to restricted to Americans for the most part. I'd tend to believe that it's due to anti-french sentiment (after the revolutionary war, and recently with the middle east occupations), and that justification was devised ex post facto.[/QUOTE]
I have never heard someone in the US discuss France out loud. France is not of our concern.
Him and Liam Neeson are badasses
[QUOTE=matrix_1995;32991607]He killed her and would have gotten away with it if this here french gentleman hadn't dragged his ass to Paris. Golly gee mister sounds like justice to me.[/QUOTE]
He's accused of a crime, and found innocent in a court. So logically, because you're [i]really really[/i] sure he must be guilty (on the basis of [i]suspicion[/i] as the OP states), it's reasonable to kidnap him and take him to another court. Illegally.
How do we know if he's innocent or not? We let the court decide. What did the court decide? Innocent. So how exactly is this justified?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32991809]Well too bad if legally they can't, the guy is now in jail and probably getting his ass raped at this exact moment.
Except if a german elite squad comes out of nowhere and helps the guy to escape he's now staying in Prison.
Also, fuck double jeopardy. It should only be valid in cases where nothing new was brought, here they actually got elements that completely changed the case and made the guy definitely guilty.[/QUOTE]
Fuck double jeopardy? Go ahead, abolish it or keep it gone wherever you are. I'd like that protection instead of being brought to court 50 times until they finally convict me.
[QUOTE]Also, about the whole "hiring people to do the legal system's work" you're apparently blaming, I'm pretty sure you already know the US is has heavily armed civilians going after criminal that have bounties on their heads to do Cops' work. [/QUOTE]
Do you even know what bounty hunting is? Bounty hunters are authorized to go after people that jump bail. They aren't police. There aren't armed civilians walking around who's sole duty is to arrest people for crimes. Usually, bounty hunters are hired by bail bondsman to take bail jumpers to court. Most of what they do isn't 'dog the bounty hunter'. And no, most states have restrictions on what bounty hunters can carry and most of the time, they can't even force themselves into a property. I'd rather someone else do this job then waste valuable police time.
Innocent is innocent to me. When you accept shit like this, even people like Casey Anthony go to without proof. There's a reason why double jeopardy is in place. Sorry, but the court fucked up bringing up charges they couldn't enforce.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
