Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Napoleon

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    We'd all be absolute tossers. Despised throughout the developed world.

    Although, if he didnt surrender there, knowing their penchant for cheese eating and surrendering, it would have come sooner rather than later.

    One way to know a total idiot is that phrase.

    Funny it comes, this idea that for French surrender, from WWII. Obviously France didn’t lose in WWI. However France did lose in WWII as the Nazis rolled in but there was another army there which high tailed it to Dunkirk, their flank defended by the French. Dunkirk, an inglorious rout was turned into a success story while the French were caricatured as the only ones that surrendered.


  • Options
    #63
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 27,880 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    One way to know a total idiot is that phrase.
    Funny it comes, this idea that for French surrender, from WWII. Obviously France didn’t lose in WWI. However France did lose in WWII as the Nazis rolled in but there was another army there which high tailed it to Dunkirk, their flank defended by the French. Dunkirk, an inglorious rout was turned into a success story while the French were caricatured as the only ones that surrendered.

    The British army had 13 divisions. The French had 93. They were the primary Western Allied land army, as the British were the primary air and sea power. Primary responsibility for the defeat in 1940 lies with the French. Even if there was no BEF, the French should not have collapsed as they did.

    I don't know what would have been accomplished by the surrender of the BEF, when it was clear the battle had been lost by the Allies.

    Countries need myths like Dunkirk in the middle of an existential war. Ask the French who liberated Paris or what the French resistance did and compare versus the reality.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #64
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,908 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    One way to know a total idiot is that phrase.

    Funny it comes, this idea that for French surrender, from WWII. Obviously France didn’t lose in WWI. However France did lose in WWII as the Nazis rolled in but there was another army there which high tailed it to Dunkirk, their flank defended by the French. Dunkirk, an inglorious rout was turned into a success story while the French were caricatured as the only ones that surrendered.

    ^
    Sometimes propaganda works.


  • Options
    #65
    topper75
    Registered Users Posts: 5,942 ✭✭✭topper75


    endacl wrote: »
    We would have Napoleon Boots though. That'd be cool.

    Putting on your nappies to go out? Nah.

    I'm part of the way through a big dirty fat book on the man. He had a bit of luck - but some man for one man. Nobody can deny that. That French army was going nowhere without him. With him, they went everywhere.

    He only had a few feckups:
    • Not knowing when to quit in Russia
    • Not trying to match the Brit navy
    • Changing what had always worked at Waterloo (separated for travel, join for fight)


  • Options
    #66
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    The British army had 13 divisions. The French had 93. They were the primary Western Allied land army, as the British were the primary air and sea power. Primary responsibility for the defeat in 1940 lies with the French. Even if there was no BEF, the French should not have collapsed as they did.

    I don't know what would have been accomplished by the surrender of the BEF, when it was clear the battle had been lost by the Allies.

    Countries need myths like Dunkirk in the middle of an existential war. Ask the French who liberated Paris or what the French resistance did and compare versus the reality.

    The fact remains that both armies lost, and one fled, and it is the country of the fleeing army that caricatures the other as cheese eating surrender monkeys. (I know this is from the Simpsons but the idea was there before)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    storker
    Registered Users Posts: 5,644 ✭✭✭storker


    blinding wrote: »
    The British must go their own way . Its the only thing that works for them .

    Except when they're the ones in control of the others.


  • Options
    #68
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 27,880 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    The fact remains that both armies lost, and one fled, and it is the country of the fleeing army that caricatures the other as cheese eating surrender monkeys. (I know this is from the Simpsons but the idea was there before)

    Fled? Fleeing army? There's a bit of cheese eating surrender monkey to that characterization.

    Not sure what you are seriously expecting the BEF to have done differently once it was clear the battle was lost, and how it would have helped eventual Allied victory.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #69
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,908 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    Fled? Fleeing army? There's a bit of cheese eating surrender monkey to that characterization.

    Not sure what you are seriously expecting the BEF to have done differently once it was clear the battle was lost, and how it would have helped eventual Allied victory.

    I don't think that that is Franz's point.

    Not trying to speak for him, but I think he means that while one nation gets tarred with being "surrender monkeys" for their defeat at the hands of an enemy, the other gets away with it, because they used propaganda to turn a crushing defeat into a bastardised "victory".


  • Options
    #70
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 27,880 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Tony EH wrote: »
    I don't think that that is Franz's point.
    Not trying to speak for him, but I think he means that while one nation gets tarred with being "surrender monkeys" for their defeat at the hands of an enemy, the other gets away with it, because they used propaganda to turn a crushing defeat into a bastardised "victory".

    Ok good point, although I don't think the other army would have gotten away in the long run with the propaganda stunt had they not returned to the scenes of their defeat and this time won (albeit as junior partner to the Americans for Round II).

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #71
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    storker wrote: »
    Except when they're the ones in control of the others.
    50% + 1 will get any country out of the Uk even England ;):eek:


  • Advertisement
Advertisement