Of course they are. That explains why England had a whole dynasty of French kings after being invaded by the Normans,
What? The Duke of Normandy had more in common with the King of Denmark than the King of France in 1066, considering they're both Vikings.
By your reasoning then, considering the Normans also captured Sicily and southern Italy during the Middle Ages...they are now Italians? Simply because Vikings went to Normandy, which just so happens to be in northern France, they are now French...and because they are now French, and they captured England, England is now under the French...?
and also Charlemagne's empire,
It's still kind of hazy there though, considering the "Franks" are still not that "distinct" so to speak, to the other Germanic tribes around that time. It's only when his sons "went their own ways" when "distinctions" started to arise.
and that's without even mentioning the French colonial empire either.
Well, the UK "lost" their colonies in the 20th Century relatively peacefully at least, likewise for the Netherlands. France lost Indochina in dramatic fashion however, wasting the only consistently excellent armed force they ever had (FFL) with useless commanders on the upper echelons of command. Then there's Algeria...
Oh, and as pointed out by the link towards tvtropes, they also helped a certain former British colony gain independence. I guess it's too hard remembering who helped your country become one.
It's more out of "the enemy of my enemy is my (temporary) friend" rather than any benevolent actions by France though. Considering the monarchy's approaching its death throes then. Afterwards there was the "Quasi War" between the two (although admittedly it's the French republic already)...
Since it would've been very demoralizing for the American troops to hear that such a powerful country got defeated that easily, the higher-ups told the grunts that the French had just surrendered like that.
That didn't happen. You're saying the likes of Eisenhower and Montgomery would lie to their own men when LeClerc and the 2nd Armored Division are with them? You're criticizing "oversimplification" by oversimplifying?
Although admittedly, the French are still stupid and did surrender, especially with the establishment of Vichy France. The Netherlands and Belgium and Poland and Denmark and Norway didn't surrender, they got occupied. They still had their government-in-exile (and monarchy-in-exile when applicable). But in the case of the French, they surrendered.
Of course, as people don't like thinking — it hurts their poor lil' brain too much —, that oversimplification about the French surrendering as if it were the latest trend stuck. No word on French resistance, no word on the non-Jews hiding Jewish kids in the countryside, and pretending that they're their own kids to the Nazis.
The French Resistance doesn't get really talked much, admittedly. Because France were sharply divided then, the Free French on one side and Vichy France in the other. So much for their "brotherhood" eh? The French can't even decide as one whole nation which side they are on.
Last but not least, a decision taken unilaterally by a president (and a general) doesn't mean the whole population agrees with it. Otherwise, I could say that the French are happy with President Sarkozy's first, which was to raise his salary (along with those of the other politicians') a lot.
So why the f**k was that midget elected then? By "divine right of kings" and not by elections?
Well, I guess he won't be re-elected then though. But then again if the ultranationalists win...woe betide to France, and the EU too.
)