This, class, is what we call a cyclical argument.

WW1: Germany marches through Belgium to try and invade France
WW2: Meh, Germany won't try that again... OH SHIT!

Mr. Attlee your ignorance is truly worrying me. If any of your posts are mere French bashing stereotyped comments, let me highlight the glorious English "fait d'armes".

WwI: France doing the main job alongside Russia in the allies side, whereas Britain timidly helping and contributing, in the western front, 3/4 of the armies fighting were French, 1/4 were British (before America started the war) French losses: 2 millions soldiers died and 5 millions soldiers wounded,plus half a million of civilian casualties. This bloodshed will greatly impact the French for the following war.

Ww2: The British cowardly stop fighting before France even surrendered, leaving their allies alone, and then flee the fight during Operation Dynamo.

Edited 4/17/2015 09:27:52

Britain declared on Germany in the Second World War for invading Poland, not Belgium.

The only two places Britain seem to care about are the British Isles, and the Falkland Isles.

And the Cayman Islands and Gibraltar ;)

Actually I was making a point that no one seemed to think that since Germany was at war with France again that someone would have thought to defend Belgium initially. Most of France's defences (i.e. the Maginot Line) were along the German boarder. Did any of the allies not think 'hey it might be a good idea to put more reinforces nearer Belgium?'

Mr. Attlee your ignorance is truly worrying me. If any of your posts are mere French bashing stereotyped comments, let me highlight the glorious English "fait d'armes".

What stenotypes was I highlighting? None. Stenotypes are for minor jokes, not for making serious points.

Britain declared on Germany in the Second World War for invading Poland, not Belgium.

I know, but Germany still marched through Belgium.

The only two places Britain seem to care about are the British Isles, and the Falkland Isles.

...

And the Cayman Islands and Gibraltar ;)

If you're going to start listing British overseas territories, then you might as well have the full list. That'll save people the effort of just going 'and Bermuda' or 'and Anguilla'.
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Antarctic Territory
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar
Montserrat
Pitcairn Islands
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Turks and Caicos Islands

Edited 4/17/2015 16:30:26

Let's not forget the Commonwealth...

Australia
Bangladesh
Botswana
Cameroon
Canada
Ghana
India
Kenya
Lesotho
Malaysia
Malawi
Mozambique
New Zealand
Namibia
Nigeria
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Rwanda
Sierra Leone
Singapore
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Tanzania
Uganda
United Kingdom
Zambia

And the Commonwealth realms:

Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
The Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Grenada
Jamaica
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Solomon Islands

^what about them? It's a union of sovereign states. What point are you trying to make?

He's probably just mentioning what the Queen represents.

What stenotypes was I highlighting? None. Stenotypes are for minor jokes, not for making serious points.

Stenotypes? mmmh



British humor is weird seriously

WwI: France doing the main job alongside Russia in the allies side, whereas Britain timidly helping and contributing, in the western front, 3/4 of the armies fighting were French, 1/4 were British (before America started the war) French losses: 2 millions soldiers died and 5 millions soldiers wounded,plus half a million of civilian casualties. This bloodshed will greatly impact the French for the following war.

Ww2: The British cowardly stop fighting before France even surrendered, leaving their allies alone, and then flee the fight during Operation Dynamo.

I think that's very unfair and this is not a topic to argue about.

WW1: Paris likely would have fallen without British intervention during the German invasion. The British only had a 100,000 professional expeditionary force at first. Without British help, you may not have been able to defend Paris and then the country would have fallen most likely, like WW2.

timidly helping and contributing

that is disgusting that you think that. Figures are estimated at 8,841,541 British and 8,660,000 French over the course of the war. 1.38 million French soldier deaths and around 400,000 civilian deaths, bearing in mind the war was in France. The French were fighting on home soil. British deaths a little less around 700,000 but Britain could easily have made a deal with Germany and escape the fight. Without British help, France would have fallen. That is pure ignorance.

WW2: Yet again...

Stenotypes? mmmh

Yes, you spotted a typo, you know I meant Stereotypes though.

Figures are estimated at 8,841,541 British and 8,660,000 French over the course of the war. 1.38 million French soldier deaths and around 400,000 civilian deaths, bearing in mind the war was in France. The French were fighting on home soil. British deaths a little less around 700,000 but Britain could easily have made a deal with Germany and escape the fight. Without British help, France would have fallen. That is pure ignorance.

Piechart showing percentage of military deaths during World War I for the Entente Powers:




1) Population (millions)
2 )Combat deaths
3) Civilian deaths
4) Total
5) Military wounded

France
1)39,6
2)1 397 800
3)300 000
4)1 697 800
5)4 266 000

UK
1)45,4
2)885 138
3)109 000
4)994 138
5)1 663 435


Sources: 1. Commonwealth War Graves Commission, 2. Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914-1920, War Office; 3. Official Medical History of the War; 4. Michel Huber, La Population de la France pendant la guerre, Paris, 1931; 4. Giorgo Mortara, La Salute pubblica in Italia durante e dopo la Guerra, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1925; 5. Boris Urlanis, Wars and Population, Moscow, 1971; 6. Heeres-Sanitätsinspektion im Reichskriegsministeriums, Sanitätsbericht über das deutsche Heer, (Deutsches Feld- und Besatzungsheer), im Weltkriege 1914-1918, Volume 3, Sec. 1, Berlin, 1934


Apollo, you will have to tell me where are your figures coming from?

Ok then, I did no research (off the top of my head)

I said 1.38 million French military deaths, actual figures = 1 397 800 (very close, in comparison to your figure of 2 million military deaths)

I said 400,000 for civilian deaths, actual figures = 300,000 (100,000 out compared to your half a million...)

I said 700,000 British deaths, actual figures = 800,000 (100,000 out, you with no figure, probably because you thought British effort was so insignificant)

3/4 of the armies fighting were French, 1/4 were British

Where did you get this from?

This post ^^ has just made you more hypocritical and ignorant than the first. Where did your first figures come from, you clearly had to re research.

sources? (you are not even able to show them)

No need to say I am an ignorant all the time, those first figures came from wikipedia.
Always a pleasure to debate with British jingoists.

You are digging yourself into a deeper hole Panda.

sources? (you are not even able to show them)

I said "I did no research (off the top of my head)"

No need to say I am an ignorant all the time, those first figures came from Wikipedia.

Hypocrite, you've called various people including me ignorant many times yourself...and also Wikipedia is actually correct if you look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties Not sure where you getting this from?

Always a pleasure to debate with British jingoists

I like a lot of places and people around the world actually. I would be too ignorant myself to hate people/places when I don't know a lot about them. I don't dislike you Panda, you just come up with very annoyingly arguable wrong comments sometimes.

you just come up with very annoyingly arguable wrong comments sometimes.

Mmmh when I am giving my view and opinion about Great Britain particularly when it is bad (cf cuisine thread) or answering Attlee and his various french bashing comments, yes I guess I am getting annoying, listen take your British pride aside, and let's discuss like gentlemen.

Fair enough, what we should gather from this topic. The world wars were horrific and no one deserved to endure such a crisis. The wars were both faults of governments and horrible leaders/dictators, as a consequence the whole the world suffered from it.