Is there too much contempt for the French from A&A players?

[Red Harvest]

Maybe it is time in the thread to take the heat off of France…and start picking on the other military that receives abundant scorn for its WWII performance:  Italy!

Sorry, Italy, chalk it up as collateral damage.  Now where did I put the popcorn salt?  :|

[Imperious Leader]

I think this is a high sign of a comming apocalypse in that both Gargantua and IL are on the same page in all this. Here are two twin antagonists in the A&A.org forums (whom I had just started to assume picked opposing sides in every argument based simply on being contradictory to whomever posted first) standing side by side, working together to make the same point, and if that dosnt scare you or give you serious reason to think that your entire universe is just the musing of an autistic child looking through snow globe, cancel your appointments because it appears you have died

By “apocalypse”, i assume obviously that this means:

Demonstrating by obvious facts and proving them as opposed to defending the French no matter what, making arguments that don’t in any way support a view that the French were the bravest people always fighting to the bitter end against evil and never supporting it, or by saying what the Free French and Resistance did as a means of white washing their OTHER actions of collaboration, or just a general " id rather go down defending what they did with flimsy arguments which are not concurrent with reality.

That must mean “apocalypse”. To me the word “Francophile” fits better.

[Imperious Leader]

Yea Italy is in a worse position than France, except they didn’t really help round up people and ship them to Germany.

In terms of military her record is probably worse, but better in terms of going along with the German racial policies.

But they did claim they were not ready for war till 1943, but for once honored her agreements with her ally ( unlike in the Great War).

When fighting under German control, they did perform better so perhaps they do have a better record in the war.

Italy surrendered with 1/2 of her country was occupied, which is alot more than France.

[UN Spacy]

@Imperious:

By “apocalypse”, i assume obviously that this means:

Demonstrating by obvious facts and proving them as opposed to defending the French no matter what, making arguments that don’t in any way support a view that the French were the bravest people always fighting to the bitter end against evil and never supporting it, or by saying what the Free French and Resistance did as a means of white washing their OTHER actions of collaboration, or just a general " id rather go down defending what they did with flimsy arguments which are not concurrent with reality.

That must mean “apocalypse”. To me the word “Francophile” fits better.

That was not a position I took. Not once did I say that that French “fought to the bitter end”, nor did I deny that collaboration existed in France in shameful levels. All I had ever argued was against lumping all or “most” of the French during WWII and holding them accountable for the acts of the so-called “legitimate” Vichy regime, and the notion that the Resistance and Free French were somehow minor sideshows that only did negligible actions. Especially after Vichy was occupied and the Occupation became progressively more harsh, it’s safe to say that the amount of collaboration dwindled. That’s not to say that lets the collaborators off the hook, nor does it excuse the fact that it happened. There were even instances where the Vichy Milice exceeded the Germans’ expectations.

But still, to say the French as a whole collaborated with the Germans is just as fallacious to say the French as a whole fought to the bitter end, because simplifying what a people as a whole did during the most destructive war of all time in a country divided in more ways than one is going to end up looking silly.

[Imperious Leader]

That was not a position I took.

That was not a response to you…

Not once did I say that that French “fought to the bitter end”, nor did I deny that collaboration existed in France in shameful levels. All I had ever argued was against lumping all or “most” of the French during WWII and holding them accountable for the acts of the so-called “legitimate” Vichy regime, and the notion that the Resistance and Free French were somehow minor sideshows that only did negligible actions. Especially after Vichy was occupied and the Occupation became progressively more harsh, it’s safe to say that the amount of collaboration dwindled. That’s not to say that lets the collaborators off the hook, nor does it excuse the fact that it happened. There were even instances where the Vichy Milice exceeded the Germans’ expectations.

Well that could suffice as an admission of the facts. For the most part collaboration of the French with the Germans existed and to a lesser extent did outright acts of defiance.

But still, to say the French as a whole collaborated with the Germans is just as fallacious to say the French as a whole fought to the bitter end, because simplifying what a people as a whole did during the most destructive war of all time in a country divided in more ways than one is going to end up looking silly.

By the “french” we mean total people who volunteered and acted in concert with the Germans, as opposed to those who acted alone against Germany in France. The argument that somehow you can separate the leadership from the 100,000 volunteers who took police jobs and helped Germany round up people or the 1/2 million who fought under Vichy is last seen at Nuremberg 46, when the German leadership too tried this " i was only following orders" mantra. The fact is many French helped the Germans and a greater number of them than say those resistance fighters.

[Clyde85]

@Red:

Maybe it is time in the thread to take the heat off of France…and start picking on the other military that receives abundant scorn for its WWII performance:  Italy!

Sorry, Italy, chalk it up as collateral damage.  Now where did I put the popcorn salt?  :|

Oh dont waste your time, at this point trying to change the topic into anything other then BOO FRENCH! is largely going to be ignored, or attacked as subversively pro-french for not fostering a stronger way in which to say BOO FRENCH! Atleast you and Gar appericated the humor in my attempt at making light of the increasingly obtuse positions being taken but oh well :|

To (yet again) answer the question at hand, No I dont think France is held in too much contempt by the A&A community in terms of the Global 1940. France is rendered nigh useless (unless you routinely scarfice chickens to the dice gods) by the first turn. This is a game mechanic which simplifys what was a very complex situation in France but is one that is absolutely necesarry for the game to progress. It is an example of a game mechanic coloring the opinions of people who arent well informed on the complexities of WW2 (of which there is a boat load of).

In my opinion the Soviet Union is the country which is held in the higest contempt by the A&A.org community.

[crusaderiv]

This is hilarious!  I guess that judgements of the same are impossible, thus it is impossible to get any understanding and possible to make statements like “the NAZI’s should be looked at with impartial view”.

• What a stupid example! but hey… I’ve you make laugh…sorry but you’re pathetic…

Again this is what 20 old men said at Nuremberg in 1946…
Hum…I think they were 22.

Nothing tricky about those facts. I never once ignored that collaboration was much greater than resistance in the case of France. Further, just because you love the French in spite of whatever they do they do have a period of being really ‘tricky’ during 1870-45.

I read a lot of book in french and in english about WWII and never read that French people think they are the braviest between 1870-1945.
In fact, most of French are not proud of what happens between 1939 and 1943.
But you probably red it in anti-francophile book…Oh…or in Wikipedia somwhere. I know you love it  :roll:

[Imperious Leader]

Then since you didn’t make any points in that last post, i guess you finally agree with me.

In fact, most of French are not proud of what happens between 1939 and 1943.

First time you made such a point.

I’ve you make laugh….sorry but you’re pathetic…

Or written sideways: Make laugh you I’ve…but sorry pathetic you’re?

Excellent point!

[Clyde85]

@Imperious:

Then since you didn’t make any points in that last post, i guess you finally agree with me.

A conclusion drawn by using the infuriating logic of a toss pot!

These threads can be alot of fun espically hotly contested ones. The amout of intellectual stimulation you can get from having to look up infromation to back up your position or to counter someone elses is done with the same amout of fun and enlivened jolyity one would get from wrestling an excitable dog in a kiddie pool full of disembodied brests (dont think to much on that simile, I certianly didnt). But when people start to “dig in” and bang on about the same points, dissecting opponents posts with the fine toothed comb of elemental pettiness, and obstruct those who are trying to move the conversation past whatever their point was, then the enjoyment level drops down to somewhere between fuzzy felt Colourforms and banging two bricks together. Seriously, by the time the real flame war kicks up, sifting through all the back and forth post dissecting name calling is like that special kind of tedium that feels like giant mosquitos are pumping cement into your brain but you cant be bothered to stop them. There really is soo much more to disucss here and I feel like we’ve triped right out of the gate and knocked out a tooth by landing on a hardened cow patty.

We get it IL, you really dont like the French for what they did in a conflict 75 years ago, can we move on now? please?

[Imperious Leader]

We get it IL, you really dont like the French for what they did in a conflict 75 years ago,

You missed my point again…

The French are the most brave and vital soldiers who ever lived and always fight to the bitter end, never surrender, never allow national complacency and mediocrity to prevail in preparation of outstanding offensive minded military plans in the event of war. France never once stood up for any motivation that was in her interests alone ( like in WW1), preferring to stand for good and freedom and the protection of all nations. During WW2 they exemplified nothing but the best of intentions and steered the Allies to final victory.  They also are the most fair people to deal with after the war, preferring to support the former enemies with aid packages and economic support and never once label an enemy for blame for causing the war.

All that and they make the most swell bread and coffee in the summer…

I am booking my flight the Paris right now. I will see the Parasites via a guided tour.

Viva La France!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePzwg0LyYL0

[crusaderiv]

Or written sideways: Make laugh you I’ve…but sorry pathetic you’re?
:-D….my pleasure

I am booking my flight the Paris right now. I will see the Parasites via a guided tour.
Paris…ites you probably mean… :evil:

Then since you didn’t make any points in that last post, i guess you finally agree with me.
Of course…

[Clyde85]

Ok, so you hate the French for everything she has ever done in her history, fine, good, glad you got that out, can we please move on to something actually intresting now? Or do you feel the need to write another post showing how clever you are and what jerks the rest of us are for not wanting to bang on about the horrible things France has done?

I for one would like someone to answer, or atleast tell me what they think, about my statment that the Soviet Union is a country that is treated with too much contempt by A&A players, which from a game stand point makes no sense to me

[Clyde85]

And I just wanted to add this, as it been kind f a running joke around the apartment, When someone uses the term “Francophile” it conjures up ideas in my head of meaning someone with a bizzare sexual fetish wherein one of the partners has to be dressed up like Francisco Franco and ocassionally stop mid act and shout at the other person in Spanish. Now my roommate added to this that it made him think of someone who had to be dressed up like a giant hot dog during sex, which ofcourse caused great bouts of laughter around the house  :-D :lol: :lol:

[Gargantua]

it made him think of someone who had to be dressed up like a giant hot dog during sex

I really didn’t want to know that…

[crusaderiv]

OK Clyde. Just start a new topic and I’m going to answer.

[Imperious Leader]

Ok, so you hate the French for everything she has ever done in her history,

No you are not reading it right. 1870-1945…

And probably how they showed their hand in Algeria.

and probably also that effort in Vietnam.

After that they fought brilliantly, except their are no examples of this.

[Gargantua]

In Afghanistan the French didn’t even leave the wire.  They just sat in the base doing F-all.

BTW, none of this is OFF TOPIC, because that’s what this thread is all about, why there is contempt for the french, and why it’s JUSTIFIED.

[gamerman01]

@Clyde85:

I for one would like someone to answer, or atleast tell me what they think, about my statment that the Soviet Union is a country that is treated with too much contempt by A&A players, which from a game stand point makes no sense to me

I have encountered little contempt for the Soviet Union from A&A players. Even though they are often squashed like a bug between Germany and Japan (which is not realistic at all), I have encountered very little negative talk or jokes about the Soviet Union on-line or face to face. Although I can envision this among A&A circles of players, because the Soviet Union is often just squashed between Germany and Japan, and in some iterations of the game, whether the Allies can win is largely a function of how long the SU survives.

[Imperious Leader]

Right the Soviets fought more bravely than any other allied nation, and was engaged with something like 80% of the total military machine of Germany.

No contempt for them whatsoever. The initial loses are based on a false strategy where Stalin was controlling the border deployments and ordering them to stand and defend the larger cities. Once he let his own generals take over they did fine.

The Soviets would not surrender unless most of their productive capabilities were destroyed. Losing Moscow would be bad, but not lead to surrender.

That is not the case with France however.

[Red Harvest]

Stalin was the primary problem for the Soviets early in the war.  His purges of officers as well as armament designers, and the completely centralized command were a disaster.  The forward deployments were idiotic considering the slow communication and authoritarian control.

The Soviets lacked strategic components of any consequence (strategic bombers, long range fighters, navy, etc), but they did have some very modern tactical equipment, perhaps the best in several areas.

There was one thing that Stalin brought to the table that made the Soviets extremely formidable:  there was no way he was going to surrender or allow any subordinates to consider it.  Every man, woman,  & child in the country, and all of his relatives could die before that man would yield.  The lives of his citizens and soldiers meant nothing to him.