so, out of all the peoples of the world, you pick the ones that roll over and die in every war to admire?

lol


in addition, every point you just made, italy is stronger than france

just a fyi

OMFG, you've got to be kidding!

One question... Have you ever been to France?

If you haven't, perhaps you should visit because it is VASTLY different than you are imagining.

It is the filthiest of the European Nations, nasty people live there who throw their trash out of the window of the second floor flat that they live in, then take themselves for a walk so they can relieve themselves like a dog. They don't even have the courtesy to bring a plastic baggie to properly dispose of their waste. The smell around Paris is just awful. For a similar smell you have to go deep underground in the US Subway systems in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, or Washington, DC.

It's amazing, I tell you.

And the arrogance of the general population is completely breathtaking. They just think that being French entitles them to every privilege and honor.

Oh, and to go along with mrford's statement, the thinnest book in the world is "French Military Victories".

Unless they count the victories of the Corsican Napoleon, they've never won any encounters.

In fact, they've made it illegal for EuroDisney to display fireworks because the local garrison's of the French Army continue to try to surrender to TinkerBell.

French Are Surrender Monkey's.

What about the black French people? Creoles? There's certainly plenty of them, and have been for 100's of years.

And btw, you're SEVERELY over-romanticizing (if not just blatantly making fluff up) the French and their social hierarchy.

Oh, and in regards to the title of your thread...

You haven't been actually looking have you? LOL

italy was more damaged in WWII than france? are you going to go there?

Another thought occurred to me...

How exactly do you define "a French", for lack of a more eloquent term than you have come up with (lol)? French genetics are kinda like the New York of Europe.

I suggest all of you study history a bit more carefully.

1) The french did have a mass immigration wave to Canada (new France)

2) you realize that without France (and Sweden) all of Europe would probably be catholic. Read up on the 30 years war.

3) without France the United states would not exist

4)The french eastern boundary expanded constantly from the end of the 100 years war until the french revolution. This is not the sign of a weak military power.

5) The french were horrible colonial masters (see Vietnam and Africa). Over the long run they lost out Navally to Britain (although arguably the British were simply smarter about it) and army wise to a united Germany (conscription and combined arms)



Frances advantage in Europe tended to be that it was a united nation state vs city states.

As for social continuity, not really. Read up about the Huganots for example.

france helped the americans in the revolution, however stating that the americans wouldnt of succeeded without the french is a little presumptuous. yes their blockades and weapons were helpful, but the british had a severe logistical problem fighting the war in the americas and had a bigger problem with the french in their home area.

they hastened the victory, but to state they were the sole reason the americans won is a bit extreme. also, france didnt do it for america, they did it to fluff britian.

So, in short what you're saying is that the French really aren't any better or worse than their neighbors throughout history, martian? That's my general analysis, but I'm no history major so I doubt my opinion's worth much there.

Also, isn't it Huguenots? Or is there another group I'm not aware of?

That's just fantastic.

your forgetting the southern United states, i.e. New Orleans etc.

NO is the example he'd like to conveniently forget, I suspect.

Let's not look at sheer numbers, let's look at percentages or per capita - those are the only fair representations of scale when you're considering trends across multiple nations or cultures.