|
freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II (5/11/2014 11:39:20 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
You are right about the French, their spine had been amputated at Verdun
in 1916.
Ignorant,childish, unsubstantiated opinion.
The french have never had any real spine - at least not those living in Europe.
The snail suckers" seemed to have acquired a sizeable empire while being spineless, and managed to fuck england out of most of her possessions in the western hemisphere(the u.s.)
Even when our 'enery was sitting on his throne, pretty much most alliances with france failed because they always switched sides when it was convenient to themselves.
Pretty common even in england too wasn't it?
Throughout medieval history the french were always known as and referred to as turncoats.
At least by the english.
In WWI and WWII, apart from the resistance, the french basically rolled over for the Germans because they didn't want to fight.
You might want to check the body bag count for those two wars before you let your aligator mouth overload your canary ass. france with a smaller population lost more people in both conflicts than did g.b.
Try reading some facts!
France was historically Europe's most populous nation. During the Middle Ages, more than one quarter of Europe's total population was French; by the 17th century, this had decreased slightly to one fifth. By the beginning of the 20th century, some of France's neighbors, such as Germany and Russia, had caught up with and overtaken it. However, the country's population sharply increased with the baby boom following World War II.
France had a much bigger population than just about anywhere else in Europe right up to the beginning of the 20th century. Even these days france has 3 million more people than we do.
Yeah, they lost more people than we did - but not by a huge margin.
And with a higher population, you'd expect a higher death rate wouldn't you?? Simple logic.
|
|
|
|
