quote:

---

Verdun. Just that name was enough to make Frenchmen and Germans, the few who survived it, wake up yelling for years afterward. The French lost 1.5 million men out of a total population of 40 million fighting the Germans from 1914-1918. A lot of those guys died charging German machine-gun nests with bayonets. I'd really like to see one of you office smartasses joke about "surrender monkeys" with a French soldier, 1914 vintage. You'd piss your dockers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
CAPS N CHANGIN' NAMES EVERY WEEK MKES YOU KOOL>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Not that I could possibly give a fuck about anyone's opinion that chooses to not only call himself "nerd" but to dress like an extra from an 1980's "Revenge of the nerds" movie.
No one should consider themselves an expert on warfare when their greatest battle is with an extra value meal at Mc Donalds.

---

quote:

---

Like, why not hate the Brits? They're the ones who killed thousands of Americans in the Revolution, and thirty years later they came back and attacked us again. That time around they managed to burn Washington DC to the ground while they were at it. How come you web jerks never mention that?

---

quote:

---

Hell, Stalin signed a sweetheart deal with Hitler out of sheer terror, and Stalin wasn't a man who scared easy.

---

quote:

---

The English survived because they had the English Channel between them and the Wehrmacht. When the English Army faced the Wermacht at Dunkirk, well, thanks to spin the tuck-tail-and-flee result got turned into some heroic tale of a brilliant British retreat. The fact is, even the Brits behaved like cowards in the face of the Wermacht, abandoning the French. It's that simple.

---

quote:

---

You eXile guys might want to remember that the French under Napoleon are still the only army ever to have taken all of continental Europe, from Moscow to Madrid

---

Actually they never took Portugal.

While I agree that French honour has been rather unfairly impugned by many in the US and over here, it is important to get your facts straight.
 

---

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
He's calling Operation Dynamo cowardly behavior?
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"Also he seems to imply the American War of Independance was the US and France vs the UK. Many Americans fought for the UK; it was not a straitforward conflict!"

Not to mention ze Germans.

Well, ze Hessians, anyway.
 

---

Posted by Nim the Plentiful (Member # 205) on :
 
Ah yes, and the reason they lost was because the Hessians took too many casualties engaging in russian roulette with the french.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
He also implies that Stalin made a deal with Hitler because he was afraid of Hitler: if anything it was was a partnership of the century's two biggest fuckers.
Stalin probably ordered more deaths than even Hitler- he was sociopathic.
 

---

Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
 
This guy seems to have little knowledge of military history for a 'war nerd'. Just skimming his article, he seems to overstate the importance of the French land contribution to the Yorktown victory (though the French sea contribution, of course, turned a victory into a decisive victory). He also claims twice that WWI lasted for five years .

quote:

---

I think he'll find the US started the War of 1812 (although slightly provoked by us). Also he seems to imply the American War of Independance was the US and France vs the UK. Many Americans fought for the UK; it was not a straitforward conflict!

---

quote:

---

I suspect that had rather more to do with Stalin wanting to get half of Poland without incurring massive casualties in a Red Army which had just had half it's oficers shot for being Trotskyists/wreackers/sabateurs/whatever the NKVD felt like charging them with.

---

quote:

---

1) He should learn the difference between the English and British.
2) The RAF also played some part in avoiding a Nazi invasion; it is possible to invade over the Channel after all.
3) I would like to know how exactly the (relatively) tiny BEF was supposed to hold out against the Wehrmacht after the collapse of the French army. In the First Would War it took nearly two years to build the BEF up to the level where it could mount a major offensive. And several thousand French troops were taken off Dunkirk as well; hardly an abandonment.

---

quote:

---

In wargames conducted at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst after the war, which assumed that the Germans had total air superiority, the Germans were able to establish a beachhead in England by using a minefield screen in the English Channel. However, after a few days, the Royal Navy was able to cut off supplies to German troops in England, and they were then isolated and forced to surrender.

---

quote:

---

Well, the war of 1812 might have started with an American declaration, but the reasons for it were certainly be a good cacus belli.

---

I don't know about that; given that we were in the 20th year of a global confict I think the US reacted unreasonabley. After all, Britannia ruled the waves...
 

---

Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
 
Due to a variety of factors (mostly the Royal Navy) the Germans would have lost even if they obtained air supremacy. The Germans did not have a very good airforce when it came to naval bombing (they would be forced to rely on Stukas), and concentrated naval power would be able to put up alot of AA.
Nevertheless, a victory in the air war would have led to an invasion of Britain, even if that invasion would have failed.

As for the U.S. acting unreasonably, it is debatable (though I wouldn't say the British had and special naval rights!). Didn't Madison say though, that the U.S. would join the side that stopped 'impressing' their sailors? (the French were 'impressing' too, and actually got half as many as the British).
 

---