Well i suppose we could carry on with this forever with points and counterpoints til the thread is 100 pages long.

So i defer the last word to you. The sun is out, i'm gonna go chase some skirts.

charlie boy,

go back to pulling your pud.

One should always play to their strengths.

Leave the history to the literate.

poodleboy esq. your KUNG FU IS MORE POWERFUL THAN ANYONES KUNG FU!

your KUNG FU LITERACY IS MORE POWERFUL THAN ANYONES KUNG FU!

YOU have proven your franco-phile poodle boy love traits for all to see here.

YOU have PROVEN YOUR CLOSET LOVE AFFAIR WITH MONTE and THE TRAITORS VICHY!

you have proven the fact, that you probably should be on meds and not allowed to play with sharp objects and permanently confined to your quarters, until meds either improve behavior, or added doses of meds, until behavior is improved.


note to STAFF: this patient poodleboyESQ. should not be allowed ANY HISTORY BOOKS until blood pressure comes down, tendencies to stab objects is reduced, rapid eye movement ceases, clinching fists, pounding keyboards, mighty KUNG FU tendencies, are over for at least 6months to a year.

pepe le pew cartoons are entirely out of the question anymore!

hogans heros reruns portraying LE-BEAU are entirely out of the question also.

after a year is up and no improvement of condition: a frontal lobotomy is highly recommended.

"a frontal lobotomy is highly recommended", I see you have followed your own advice. My congraduations for a job well done.

Ha. ha. Good one. It was probably the Apaches.

Ian

actually upon further examination/diagnosis of this "anal-cranial intrusive kung fu" behavior..................





IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BETTER IF A FRONTAL LOBOTOMY WAS SELF-INFLICTED BY DRIVING A CROISSANT THRU URINE SKULL!


"R"- VOIR poodleboyESQ!

It doesn't matter how you did the lobotomy, charlie boy. It is obvious to everyone that you were 100% successful.

well poodleboyESQ, it has been more than fun lowering myself to urine standards here. i dont really mind nor care what anyone thinks. something you should really ponder as you continue to rewrite history. its the ones who dont care that ya really need to watch! and the ones who dont care.............WIN!

i do know that history is the past and ya cant rewrite the past. even YOU POODLEBOYESQ., CANNOT REWRITE THE PAST! no matter how hard ya try, no matter how many pins ya stick in a voodoo doll likeness of me, no matter how hard ya bang urine keyboard, no matter how STRONG URINE KUNG FU IS, IT JUST AINT HAPPENING!

i dont care if yer god buddah yaweh mohommad christ einstein..................


ZE FRENCHIES HAVE A PISSPOOR HISTORICAL(hysterical) RECORD OF WARFARE!

AND MONTE DID CAUSE THE WAR TO LAST LONGER!(op market garden didnt happen?)


YOU have a PISSPOOR RECORD OF PLAYING WELL WITH OTHERS(historical as well as hysterical) here. whenever anyone disagrees with YOUR TWISTED take on history, you throw internet poo poo on them, thinking that they will be swayed by some french loving internet troll.

this is kind of like kinder-garten and yer in the sandbox and you throw sand at others because they dont listen to your diatribe of b.s. and then all of a sudden one of the kids or all of them gang up and beat the living tar snot out of you and you go crying to yer poodle. then when others correct you on your train of thought, you throw more sand at them(havent learned yer lesson), and finally the next thing ya know, sand is coming out of every orfice of yer body as yer buried in the sandbox and yer poodle takes a giant poo on yer head cuz yer such an ignoramus.


i love internet gunfights. while pulling my pud!

you on the other hand should probably give up your u.s. citizenship and move there permanently. your self inflicted frontal lobotomy will go well with the french miltary. its a perfect fit.

you never answered my question as to why the french fleet lies at the bottom of guaymas harbor, san carlos mexico??????????

how did a bunch of taco vendors/fisherman/kawboys sink an entire french fleet??????? can you say "CINCO DE MAYO?" in your case "cinco de drink-o?"

so we have (2) entire wartime french fleets at the bottom of the ocean because the french are such brilliant warriors. hmmmmmm?



you my lil escargot only have "poodle kung-fu"!


it must REALLY SUCK TO BE YOU, BURIED IN HISTORIES SANDBOX !


if i were you i would readjust my MEDS and read those history books slower.

better yet you should become the head chair history professor at annapolis or west point!

as sir winstonian churchill historically stated................"WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER!"

charlie boy, still proving to all your ignorance and expert pud pulling. Don't worry about facts, you have your impressive posts to boost your image.

Talk about re-writing history, just re-read this thread. You have had your ass handed to you so many times by others (not just me), that you had to put a return label on it.

Here is another striling example of your continual ignorance of history.

There is not a French fleet on the bottom of this harbor, or in any other Mexican harbor.

What, did you get this "information" in a bar when you were drunk? Or is your brain so full of "facts" that you get them confused? Or is it just your lack of intellect that confuses you so.

Go find your ass again, charlie boy.

hey professor poodle wanker...............

let me get this straight again..............


1) the french are warriors par excellance

2) a french fleet of over 30 ships did not sink in the med. by their own hands.

3) the french dont have any ships laying on the bottom of guaymas harbor, mexico and CINCO DE MAYO isnt celebrated by the country of mexico and the mexicans while outnumbered by the french never kicked france's ass at the battle of puebla.



4) monte was an ICON and the only reason the war lasted longer was because the rest of the allies wanted more of their men killed. because war is fun!

5) the french never left vietnam battered torn and tattered/shattered sha noo-bee sha noo-bee.



6) the french didnt turn on their OWN countrymen and never consorted with the nazis.


congrats please up yer meds as yer getting a lil testy again and yer blood pressure is going up. bosses dont like worker bees pounding on keypads and sticking pins in dolls at their desks.

maybe its time you seek more help and give yerself a prozac enema while giving yerself a frontal lobotomy to sooth the demons in yer head.

resorting to name calling as you have here numerous times since i dont concur with your views, only cements the facts of my "sandbox" analogy.

gawd it must HURT inside there.

are people like moving away from yer desk today? what about last week? has HR called you in yet and asked "is there something wrong?"


maybe you should relax with a 'OUI" magazine and pull yer pud. it may help those evil thoughts of aggression in that pinhead of yours.

better yet i hear theres a new "FEE FEE DOES PARIS" flick starring all 12 months of the FABULOUS POODLE PARADE POODLE-ETTES. this should calm you down some so you may think in a positive nurturing understanding manner and not pick fights with those that have wayyy more kung fu than you, let alone brain cells.


i really think you should give yourself a rest as your mental health is declining rapidly. and i for one being the caring soul i am(YEAH RIGHT!), really dont want to see you pop a blood vessel in yer brain thinking I or ANYONE are going to accept your view of history....................EVER!

charlie boy,

Everyone can see your historical errors. When called on the facts, all you can do is run, hide and ignore. What a wanker you really are.

Do you have any accurate history knowledge whatsoever?

Maybe you should have paid attention in school instead of pulling your pud. But as they say, "water finds it's own level".

Your level is just so darn low!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6-IIXAF5HO...0614parisB.jpg
Nazis on Parade in Paris.

As this topic has sidetracked widely into the topic of French military prowess, I will re-subscribe for 2 seconds, before the moderator pulls the plug on the juvenile name calling.

While the French did lose at Puebla, they ended up taking Mexico City the next year. I don't really call that a good example.

Also, I note there is a vast avoidance of Napoleon, arguably the greatest strategist ever, with the finest troops ever. (He was also the most over reaching general since Alcibaedes, hence his downfall.)

Finally, few can question the courage French Arms during WW1. Verdun is all the evidence one needs on that account.

In short, France has had great military moments and bad ones. Much like any other nation that has been around for a while.

Back to lurking.

Bad things happen to good people....

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1253699233.jpg

All i see there is a rallying cry for some boys from Kentucky. :)

If Americans were French we would have surrendered after the British burnt the capital down. Fortunately for Americans, we are not French.

Again, one sad chapter from part of a nation, applies to the entire nation?

Apply that to America and see where you end up in conclusion.

BTW, Nazis marched in at least 10 European contries capitals which surrendered during the first half of WWII. France held out longer than any of the others (except Britian), why don't you brand the others cowards? The double standard is clear.

If the French were Americans (and had the Atlantic, or at least the Channel between them and a vastly superior force) .....
If in 1812 the British were not more concerned about the French we might have been English once again.
If the French didn't finance and supply (and to an extent) fight our Revolution for us we would [still be] British.

I wonder who the bigger Dummy is..the Dummy or the guy arguing with the Dummy?

I gave up on theis Thread long ago.

Apparently not, since you just posted.:D

By not confronting ignorance, you condone it. And then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I am disappointed that adults can not play nice, but I never let stupidity or ignorance go unanswered.

At the risk of getting in between Richard, who speaks French as a second language and Charles who speaks English as a second language, I will answer the question that was posted long ago.

The question of why V-E Day wasn't in 1944 instead of 1945 can be answered in about five parts. I'm just going off the top of my head, so if I'm wrong on some detail, I am sure someone will correct me.

First: the fog of war. All battles in all wars are completely F-ed up fiascos. SNAFU and FUBAR are GI slang for a reason. All battles are FUBAR. One side makes fewer mistakes, or their mistakes balance each other out and that side comes up the decisive winner. In retrospect it's easy to see how a move here or there would have made a decisive difference and saved or cost millions of lives. But battles can't be judged that way. They have to be evaluated in context. That includes having the bombs burst around your ears and having incomplete or faulty information.

Second, the Allies had material superiority and knew it would win a set piece war that ground down the enemy as long as the Axis didn't pull off the one-in-a-million long shot to cut off the western front (much like the Inchon landing or Yorktown). To avoid that one-in-a-million defeat, calls for such a war to be fought conservatively. That is, you plan your action based on the worst your enemy can do to you, not what you actually think he will do. This makes you much more conservative but ensures victory.

Third, as a subset of two, the Allies knew they had more men than the Axis had bullets. Perhaps not literally, but you get the point. The Allies could afford to lose a tank more than the Axis could afford to lose the anti-tank shell that it cost to kill the Allied tank. The Allies could take their time, lose men and battles, but once they were established on the mainland, they would prevail as long as they weren't overrun, simply because the German would run out of gas, bullets, spare parts and food before the Allies would run out of ground, men and material.

Fourth, concentration of force was the watchword of the Allies. This is one of the prime rules of warfare. The Allies always made sure they concentrated their forces before attacking. Again, this made the Allies extremely conservative and by failing to rush into battle immediately, time and time again they forfeited the initiative and gave the Axis time to get over their shock, regroup and dig in. A prime example in Anzio. For all who are Pink Floyd fans, the way The High Command took Daddy from me is pretty accurate. If the Allies had attacked immediately, they would have hit panicked and demoralized troops. Instead, they massed their forces over three or four days, iirc, and drove straight into regrouped and reinforced troops that were now well dug in and supplied. Sure, the Allies won and the cost to the Axis was far worse than the casualties to the Allies, but a less conservative immediate attack would probably have saved lives and scored great territorial gains at minimal cost.

Likewise, if Market-Garden had been pushed harder, faster and jumped off a week earlier, Ike probably would have been drinking Hitler's beer in the Eagle's nest by Christmas 1944. But that wasn't the Allied way; conservative tactics with zero long term risk, trading men for the certainty of eventual victory was the way the war was won.

Even at the Battle of the Bulge, if the Allies had been on the offensive a day before the Axis attack, the breakout probably would have been averted and the war would have been shortened considerably.

And finally, the failure to defeat the Axis decisively in 1944 is attributable to Field marshal Model's efforts and decision to fight the best, most professional defensive war possible, and make the Allies pay for every step with blood, even though he knew the Axis could not win as soon as it was clear that the Normandy landing was successful. In the weeks and first month or so after Normandy, the Germans were completely demoralized, confused and running. Hitler sacked three (iirc) field marshals in quick order, before returning to Model. Model reorganized the entire defense, put iron in the spine of the Army, and turned what was at that time a rout into a bloody set-piece battle.

I'm sure there are a few things I'm overlooking, but that's pretty much the overview. Of course, all of this assumes a Normandy invasion of 1944 instead of 1943, but the decision to go into North Africa instead of opening the second front on the continent is a subject best left to another post. The short answer was that the Allies didn't have the landing craft available to ensure the landing would be successful. The long story involves Stalin, the Eastern front, so forth and so on and back to the Treaty of Versailles. And that goes back to . . . well Adam and Eve. But that's a different topic all together :)