Read the subtitles and it seems they desire nothing more than ripping their enemies into a pile of hamburger meat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MQ-SC9bmp4

I've listened to Mireille Mathieu for a couple of years now. I have no idea what she is singing most of the time, but I just love a beautiful French voice.

They have a long and bloody history. Look at the "Terror" that resulted from the revolution that followed ours (from British rule). Relatively recent events such as their capitulation to Germany during WWII fail to consider the incredible losses suffered during the "Great War" and the mistaken belief that a Nazi occupation wouldn't be so terrible. They also bought into the idea that surrendering the nation's Jews to the occupiers "benevolence" and deportation (to death camps) was acceptable.

Since the Second World War there have been changes, but the French have used proxies (the Foreign Legion being the most well known) to viciously bloody opponents when it suits their national interest.

In any case, they do have a very catchy national anthem!!!

Dang, ferocious anthem! Seems to have inspired and served them well over the last hundred years.

Though I will say I saw some video from their actions in Mali from a few years back and that was no joke.

Great tune, something I have enjoyed by the passion of it.
Now to have the words to go along - indeed, a GREAT national anthem.
Inspiring too to hear the passion in the singer. Not just a self absorbed “look at me”, but a demand - “LISTEN to what I sing!, HEED these words! JOIN the Revolution!”

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:. . . In any case, they do have a very catchy national anthem!!!

We used to sing that in our French class in Jr High (~55 yrs ago).

Form up citizens and March to fight? Must have been written in a time that allowed citizens to own weapons? Seems like just bluster if they’re a disarmed populace. Regardless that is a cool “Don’t Fuck With Us” anthem.

The best scene from Casablanca:
La Marseillaise.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
Relatively recent events such as their capitulation to Germany during WWII fail to consider the incredible losses suffered during the "Great War" ....

And that fails to consider what losses they suffered at the hands of the Germans in WW II. French casualty figures are surprisingly difficult to find, but anywhere from 50,000 to 92,000 of their soldiers were killed in the space of six weeks, and their country was being overrun when they finally surrendered. Compare that to what the U.S. did in Vietnam after years and with no threat to the nation at all. “We” have nothing to crow about.

When looking at the morality of the thing, we should also never forget that Britain and France decided to turn Hitler’s aggressions into a general European war because of their guarantees to Poland—a despotic regime in itself at the time and hardly one deserving much sympathy and respect. The Soviet Union, which also invaded Poland and Finland, was so despised and mistrusted (both with good reason) that many senior British officials and others expected it would ultimately be necessary to fight it and the Germans. It was only because Germany invaded the USSR that it became an ally of convenience (almost) overnight and its murderous and aggressive past was promptly forgotten. (And yes, it was exceptionally fortunate that that was possible, but it didn’t change the nature of the regime the Western powers got into bed with.)

A fascinating book that I just finished that provides countless detailed observations about the lead up to WW II and its first years that are seldom, if ever, so much as mentioned by other historians is Britain at Bay “The epic story of the second world war 1938-1941,” by Alan Allport. One of the tidbits I was unfamiliar with despite all my reading about the war was the “Pearl Harbor like attack” on neutral Iran by the USSR and UK, and their subsequent division and occupation of the country.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:. . . A fascinating book that I just finished that provides countless detailed observations about the lead up to WW II and its first years . . .

Re the lead up to WWII, I believe French Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch, when he read the Treaty of Versailles, commented "this is not a peace, merely a 20 year cease fire". He missed the timing by about 9 months.

Except for WWII, when they were efficiently outmaneuvered, the French have been fighters for hundreds of years. They are like us, proud and nationalistic.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
French Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch, when he read the Treaty of Versailles, commented "this is not a peace, merely a 20 year cease fire". He missed the timing by about 9 months.

More historians in recent times are pushing back against the idea that the Versailles treaty was so exceptionally harsh. It’s said, for example, that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk imposed by Germany on Russia less than two years before was more severe than Versailles.

But although I agree that two wrongs don’t make a right, that also includes the fact that, as John Keegan observed, “The First World War was a tragic and unnecessary conflict,” and it wasn’t entirely Germany’s fault as Versailles assumed. I have been giving more thought to the question of whether Hitler could have succeeded without Versailles, and it’s interesting to ponder how much the Communists in Germany with the support and urging of the Russian Bolsheviks helped his rise to power. In light of what happened to the USSR later that’s an irony to contemplate.

Here are the officers of the 1er Régiment Etranger de Parachutistes (1er REP) singing Les Boudin, a song about blood sausage.



Les Boudin

Refrain
Tiens, voilà du boudin, voilà du boudin, voilà du boudin
Pour les Alsaciens, les Suisses et les Lorrains,
Pour les Belges, y en a plus, Pour les Belges, y en a plus,
Ce sont des tireurs au cul. (bis)

Nous sommes des dégourdis,
Nous sommes des lascars
Des types pas ordinaires.
Nous avons souvent notre cafard,
Nous sommes des légionnaires.
Au Tonkin, la Légion immortelle
A Tuyen-Quang illustra notre drapeau,
Héros de Camerone et frères modèles
Dormez en paix dans vos tombeaux.

Refrain

Nos anciens ont su mourir.
Pour la gloire de la Légion.
Nous saurons bien tous périr
Suivant la tradition.
Au cours de nos campagnes lointaines,
Affrontant la fièvre et le feu,
Oublions avec nos peines,
La mort qui nous oublie si peu.

This was recorded while the officers are being held in the military prison of Fort de Nogent-sur-Marne, outside Paris in May and June 1961, awaiting trial for their role in the Putsch of 26 April 1961 against President de Gaulle's decision to give Algeria its independence, having previously been assured by President de Gaulle and others in government that this would not happen.

There were only two casualties, a member of the French Army, Sgt. Pierre Brillant who was killed when he took aim at Captain Estoup of 1st REP 3rd Company, and the unit itself, as it was permanently disbanded. All of the participants received amnesty in 1968 and a complete amnesty by 1982.

Seems like I saw or heard somewhere.... 5000 French held of the German Army for two days while the English fled back across the channel at Dunkirk.

quote:

Originally posted by 10X-Shooter:
... in a time that allowed citizens to own weapons? Seems like just bluster if they’re a disarmed populace.

You mean "disarmed" like now?

Because under current French law a citizen who is older than 18, is affiliated with a shooting range, has attended at least 3 shooting sessions with an instructor, and has a medical certificate (e.g., checks eyesight, for illegal drug use, overt signs of mental illness) can own 12 Category B weapons, specifically:

Category B1: Handguns with a capacity of 20 rounds or fewer.

Category B2: Manually operated long guns with a capacity between 11 and 31 rounds, semi-automatic long guns with a capacity between 3 and 31 rounds and smooth bore pump-action shotguns.

Category B4: Any firearm chambered for the following calibers: 7.62×39mm; 5.56×45mm NATO; 5.45×39mm; .50 BMG; 14.5×114mm.

They can also store up to 1,000 rounds of ammunition for each of the 12 Category B guns they own.

Plus anyone with access to Category B firearms has access to category C firearms which include "Manual operation long guns with a capacity of 11 rounds or less, semi-automatic long guns with a capacity of 3 rounds or fewer" plus the 1,000 rounds for each of these.

You meant that "disarmed"?

The shooting sports are alive and well in France. I think the Massacre de Bataclan and the 2016 lorry attack in Nice changed a great deal of minds on why citizens need to own guns.

In 2007 I took this photo of a gun shop in downtown Paris.



Last time I looked, there were about two dozen gun shops in the greater Paris area. What caught my eye was a Thompson SMG in the window direclty down from the "RM" in "Armes". It turns out it was a DEWAT (as we call them here).

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
Seems like I saw or heard somewhere.... 5000 French held of the German Army for two days while the English fled back across the channel at Dunkirk.

Then you heard incorrectly, Sir.

The official figures are here -

The War Office made the decision to evacuate British forces on 25 May. In the nine days from 27 May to 4 June 338,226 men escaped, including 139,997 French, Polish, and Belgian troops, together with a small number of Dutch soldiers, aboard 861 vessels (of which 243 were sunk during the operation).

Also -

The BEF lost 68,000 soldiers (dead, wounded, missing, or captured) from 10 May until the armistice with France on 22 June. 3,500 British were killed and 13,053 wounded. All the heavy equipment had to be abandoned.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
French Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch, when he read the Treaty of Versailles, commented "this is not a peace, merely a 20 year cease fire". He missed the timing by about 9 months.

More historians in recent times are pushing back against the idea that the Versailles treaty was so exceptionally harsh. It’s said, for example, that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk imposed by Germany on Russia less than two years before was more severe than Versailles.

But although I agree that two wrongs don’t make a right, that also includes the fact that, as John Keegan observed, “The First World War was a tragic and unnecessary conflict,” and it wasn’t entirely Germany’s fault as Versailles assumed. I have been giving more thought to the question of whether Hitler could have succeeded without Versailles, and it’s interesting to ponder how much the Communists in Germany with the support and urging of the Russian Bolsheviks helped his rise to power. In light of what happened to the USSR later that’s an irony to contemplate.

Can't disagree. My point was that Ferdinand Foch was quite confident that Versailles didn't solve the underlying problems.

I also find it curious that Churchill became somewhat unpopular in the UK during the 1930's because he warned of the rising threat of Hitler's Germany.

Snipped.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:under current French law a citizen who is older than 18, is affiliated with a shooting range, has attended at least 3 shooting sessions with an instructor, and has a medical certificate (e.g., checks eyesight, for illegal drug use, overt signs of mental illness) can own 12 Category B weapons, specifically:

Category B1: Handguns with a capacity of 20 rounds or fewer.

Category B2: Manually operated long guns with a capacity between 11 and 31 rounds, semi-automatic long guns with a capacity between 3 and 31 rounds and smooth bore pump-action shotguns.

Category B4: Any firearm chambered for the following calibers: 7.62×39mm; 5.56×45mm NATO; 5.45×39mm; .50 BMG; 14.5×114mm.

They can also store up to 1,000 rounds of ammunition for each of the 12 Category B guns they own.

Plus anyone with access to Category B firearms has access to category C firearms which include "Manual operation long guns with a capacity of 11 rounds or less, semi-automatic long guns with a capacity of 3 rounds or fewer" plus the 1,000 rounds for each of these.

You meant that "disarmed"?

The shooting sports are alive and well in France.

Holy crap! I had no idea. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to prefer my life here...for now, but I could live with those parameters mighty well if I had to.

Sorry for the drift, but felt compelled to comment.

Yeah, well I used to sing in the weight room about sleeping with Farrah Fawcett and that never happened either.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
Can't disagree. My point was that Ferdinand Foch was quite confident that Versailles didn't solve the underlying problems.

Understand and sorry if my quoting you gave that impression.
I personally doubt that Foch believed that Versailles was too harsh, and therefore I agree with you.

Again, for anyone interested in the era I’ll recommend Britain at Bay. The author discusses the prewar era in Britain in depth and points out that Chamberlain wasn’t the ineffective dove nor was Churchill the prescient hawk that popular myth makes out either to be at the time. Both were also misled in the early postwar period regarding what rearmament efforts were appropriate. The most common belief was that a future war in western Europe in support of the French could be fought by the UK from afar through strategic bombing. The British Expeditionary Force did surprisingly well in France when Germany attacked, but only in spite of how well they were trained and equipped, not because.

The author Allport points out that a counterattack by British tanks so temporarily discombobulated Rommel that that was one of the reasons the drive toward Dunkirk was delayed, and not only Hitler’s order. He also points out, though, that the British promised to evacuate many more French troops from Dunkirk than they did, and that caused much resentment by the French.

The former captain Basil Liddell-Hart was an extremely influential historian and journalist who was firmly convinced of the strategic bombing theory (myth?) and had a significant impact on not only Chamberlain and Churchill, but also many of the top military leaders of the day. I have a collection of political/social cartoons from the period, and one depicted a single flight of bombing zeppelins passing over a city and leaving it in ruins.

Up until the war itself demonstrated otherwise, “the bomber will always get through” was an article of faith, and there was little appreciation for how ineffective high level bombing usually was going to be. As it turned out throughout the war (and pretty much since), of course, troops on the ground are necessary to destroy a nation’s will to resist. (And also of course I am aware of the example of Japan. They finally gave up before the invasion of the home islands, but that was due to far more than strategic bombing. Without the previous efforts of the Army, Marines, and Navy, strategic bombing of the home islands wouldn’t have even been possible to any significant degree.)