Very OT post.
Good thing there are spoiler tags.
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...?
The Normans were in France since the early 900's. People who go and settle in another country and mingle with the rest of the population become part of that population. This is what has happened in virtually every country in the world, you know... Otherwise, I might argue that no one but Native Americans in good ol' USA are Americans, since everybody else came from other countries.
If you know your history, you'll know why England never became French. Not the whole population was French, just the King. Arguing the opposite would mean the various nations in Europe switched nationalities everytime a foreign sovereign came to power. You know, when all the sovereigns were marrying one another, during Napoleon's time.
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.
Not sure what you mean. The Franks started invading Roman Gaul during the 5th century, and took over in late 6th century. Those were the Merovingians, which was the dynasty
before the Carolingians. So, really... I have no idea what you mean by distinctions.
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...
I was merely saying that the French have had empires too, so you can't say they're just a bunch of surrenderers. The fact that they didn't know how to let go of their former colonies, however idiotic, is an entirely different story.
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)...
I guess that's why Lafayette is very popular on the other side of the Atlantic ocean... Right? Nah, I think people just plain don't care about history. I see that everyday with the students at school — they don't care about history, nor can they speak their native tongue that they supposedly care more about than French.
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?
You're right. I can't prove this. But you can't prove the opposite, can you?
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.
Now, you're arguing semantics.
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.
Hah. Strange that you don't mention Belgium when it comes to division now. Belgian political crisis anyone? Nah, it's probably just France being the only country in the world that's got problems — you keep wearing those blinkers.
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.
Yeah, man, judge a person's ability to govern a country by their height; it's the only parameter that counts, after all.
(Not saying he's a good president, just that the way you judge a sovereign isn't exactly the best.) Anyway, it's very simple to understand. The dude won 'cause the left-winged parties in France can't even agree on whether they need to take a piss or not first thing after getting up in the morning. Besides, I don't think you should trust the polls, as they're almost always way off. We all saw that in '02.
So yeah... Basically, the French suck and if they don't, they're not French. Nice try, but not nice enough.
I know this and English is my second language.
) a little before in the forum it can't be a news article?
I wonder if it's a timezone effect? Look, the article on Guru3D is dated the 14th and so is 