Sarkozy and the Holocaust

The Frenchies are not happy with his newest educational proposal to teach 10 year olds stories of 10 year old jewish kids who were killed in the holocaust. Now, yes, I can see how many people could find this distasteful on the ground of the children's age, but one has to wonder if the age argument applies anymore. I mean, no one would've said anything if this was taught to 12 year olds, and since 10 is the new 12 (goddamn you growth hormones and mentally stimulating technology),I am not sure that it's problematic on the grounds of age. It is, however, problematic from the view of indoctrination. Sure, Anti-semitism is on the rise in France, but is this really the best way to combat it?

Comments

  1. I think that if this teaching is done in an historically accurate manner, people will be surprised to find out that — the Nazis did not confine their activities to killing Jewish kids. They talked a lot about Jews, but they killed all kinds of people.

  2. The idea of teaching kids about WW2 using testimonies of people their own age is not a bad idea. But the idea that France is anti-Semitic is demonstrably bullshit: http://mondediplo.com/2002/12/14antisemitism

    France has had a long and recurring problem of racism, including anti-Jewish sentiment, but generally speaking Jews are among the least discriminated minority in the country, both in terms of the number of violent incidents and in terms of French Jews’ integration and socioeconomic success. One wishes that Sarko, who tends to be dismissive of France’s colonial history, would also encourage kids to read about what it was like to be, say, an Algerian, Vietnamese or a sub-Saharan African when French troops went about “pacifying” those parts of the world. Or indeed dwell on Vichy France’s role during WW2, including in the deportation of Jews to concentration camps, rather than the dominent glorification of the exiled Gaullist government.

  3. brooklynjon says:

    arabist,

    The numbers in the article you cite tell the tale.

    “Of 67 violent racist attacks reported by the National Advisory Committee on Human Rights (CNCDH) for 2001, 38 were directed against Arabs and 29 against Jews.”

    France has a total population of 64,000,000 (source – Wikipedia).

    “According to the census returns, there are only 3.7 million people of “possible Muslim faith” in France (6.3% of the total population of Metropolitan France in 1999)” – Wikipedia

    According to jewishvirtuallibrary.org, the total number of Jews in France is 491,500.

    So, in other words, Jews – with less than 1% of the population – were the victim of 43% of the violent racist attacks. Seems like an antisemitism problem to me.

    The Maghrebi (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia) population in France is around 3,000,000, or 5%. They committed 67% (45/67) of the most serious attacks against Jews. And 61% of the “less serious attacks”. Not so bad for 5% of the population.

    It’s not clear what the article means by “Arabs”, but if it uses that as a synonym for “Muslims”, then the resulting rate of “violent racist attacks”, 38/3,700,000, or 1.02 per million people, compares favorably to the rate of “violent racist attacks” against Jews, which was 29/491,500, or 59 per million people, 58 times greater than the rate against Muslims.

    Finally, I agree that a direct comparison to Krystallnacht is ridiculous. But that, of course, is not what’s being claimed. What is being claimed is that the growing climate of fear and intimidation resembles the period leading up to Krystallnacht. If we have learned anything from the Holocaust – and it’s not clear that we all have – its that you need to nip this in the bud, because once it becomes a mass movement, it becomes hard to stop.

  4. I think they selected the young age in hopes that children that age are not yet racist. Because, teaching a racist about hate crimes is not going to have the desired effect, at all. I think 10 years old may be too old to try to reach kids that grow up in families where extreme racism is common. It may be effective with kids from relatively “sane” households though.

  5. Why would Jews in France be nervous?

  6. christina/ohio says:

    I don’t think this is a bad age to begin to teach the children about the history of Europe. True the Nazi’s didn’t confine their hate just to the Jews many other non blonde, blue eyed people suffered their rath too.

  7. Gary Gluon says:

    arabist: “But the idea that France is anti-Semitic is demonstrably bullshit” – oh, and we can all be confident because the jew-haters at Le Monde said so, eh? That’s like taking the word of a german newspaper in nazi germany that they weren’t discriminating against Jews in their time.

    The French are, were, and will always be anti-semitic. Even french people will confide that it’s true. They just feel that they can’t be overtly anti-semitic, because they know they behaved abominably when the nazis were in power and they cooperated in the rounding up and deportation of their Jews to death camps. Are they ashamed? No, just embarrassed.

    It’s a blemish on their belief that they’re the best and most superior people in the world. And that makes them hate the Jews even more.

    Any Jews living in France, or anywhere in Europe ought to have their heads
    examined. Their days are numbered and they should get out as soon as possible before it’s too late.

  8. Sarko isn’t wise on that one ; there are many holocaust survivings that go into schools to talk to the children ; and the CRIF, the jewish organisation, is also condamning this “hussard” introduction of a dead child in a kid’mind ; it reminds much more of the legionnaire rules when a newbe is incorporated : he is adopted by a legionnaire ; this legionnaire is responsible of his good integration in the corps ; they are like twin brothers ; if the newbe fails then his “brother” is responsable…

    I recall that Sarkosy’s father became french through his incorporation into the legion…

    about the Religions, he is also turning bigot ; a kind of Louis the XIV at the end of his life, when he had so much taken profit of all the pleasures, time to pray for his soul’s salute ; I am afraid that will not give him credit here ; that doesn’t proceed from a reflexion, but more of a self sectarism inclination or, who knows, politic discredit on one’s religion : he, which one ?

    well, carry on Sarko, soon you’ll be less than 20 % in the stats rates

    hey, I am not commenting on the “supposed anti-semitism” of the Frenchs, I have been already doing it on many places

    just a remarck though, from all the countries that were occupied by the Nazys, we are the country (with Bulgaria I guess) that saved the most big numerous of Jewishs ; does anyone know what “juste” mean ? every years there are frenchs that are rewarded with this medal from Israel herself ; though the “justes” don’t shout in the medias what they thought was the right thing to do ; it’s only an investigation that is made from the survivings that allows to know finally their names.

    I recall that we have the biggest jewish community and that they are quite happy to live here, even if from time to time happens racist attacks ; can any country in the western world swear that there are no racist attack against their jewish population ?

    when I was young, living in Brittany was also ment to live in Uranus for the frenchitude elite, and the people there were considerated as unter menschen, some meat for the canons…

  9. hey, I am not commenting on the “supposed anti-semitism” of the Frenchs, I have been already doing it on many places

    Yes, you are almost pathological about it. To the point where you have claimed repeatedly that the most notorious case of racially motivated violence in the history of France was not anti-semitism, but just routine “gang crime”.

    I’d actually prefer that you don’t discuss it any more, also.

    I recall that we have the biggest jewish community

    Then, you recall wrong. Which isn’t unusual for you at all.

    http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/world-jewish-population.htm

    46% of the total Jewish population of the world lives here in North America.

    In 2001, 8.3 million Jews lived in the Diaspora and 4.9 million lived in Israel. Just about half of the world’s Jews reside in the Americas, with about 46 percent in North America.

    Approximately 37% of worldwide Jewry lives in Israel. Israel’s Jewish population rose by 1.6% the past year, while the Diaspora population dropped by 0.5%.

    Europe, including the Asian territories of the Russian Republic and Turkey, accounts for about 12 percent of the total. Fewer than 2 percent of the world’s Jews live in Africa and Oceania.

    The top twelve Jewish populations in the world are:

    I know your math sucks, Nomad, but those numbers mean the US has more than 10 times the number of Jews living here than France does.


  10. USA 6,500,000
    Israel 4,950,000
    France 600,000

    sorry for the buggy comment, I guess this blog software doesn’t like tabulated data.

  11. brooklynjon says:

    To be sure, there were righteous gentiles in every nation who placed themselves at great peril to hide Jews from certain death, many of them hiding Jews they didn’t themselves know. It’s certainly true in France. Actually, Spain and Italy stand out (IIRC) partiularly in that regard, and Bulgaria as well.

    Nomad, I think it’s pretty clear that the garden variety Frenchie on the street in Paris or Lyon, though he may harbor antisemitic thoughts (or may not), he is not likely to attack a French Jew. Clearly, those attacks are coming from a community with a different religious and ethnic background. One that likes to torch cars and burn stuff, for instance.

  12. Mr Craig,

    I correct, I ment In Europe, but your prompt to search the beast

  13. BJ, your too politically correct :lol:

    Spain wasn’t at war, Italy became occupied lately, till there the Jews were protected, but the Pope PIe XII is well known for his collaboration with the Nazys though, and there was a jew deportation in Italy, but less than the other occupied countries, I guess they didn’t had the time till the Alliees came in.

  14. many of them hiding Jews they didn’t themselves know.

    they did know !

    my mother, herself living in a farm, had the opportunity to give food to some jews in Brittany ; she perfectly knew they were jew

  15. brooklynjon says:

    No Nomad – I mean they hid people that they hadn’t been previously acquainted with. They were strangers. And they put their own lives on the
    line for them. It’s incredibly heroic.

    As for Spain, one of my cousins (non-Jewish) was a pilot for Spain who spent the war flying random Jews to safety wherever he could, with the full backing of the government of Spain. Evidently it was a pretty big effort, and an untold story of WWII.

    But, so long as we’re on the topic, let me take the opportunity once again to remind Nomad that the starving Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto held out longer against the Nazis than did France, ;-)

  16. All I can say is that on my one trip to France four years ago, I did not see a single Kipa in the streets anywhere. I wore a baseball cap the whole time – except once. Going out to a nice dinner with my wife, I figured it wasn’t nice to wear a baseball cap, so I walked to dinner with my Kipa under my Jets hat and took the hat off after we sat down in the kosher restaurant.

    Exactly two minutes after I took my hat off the owner of the restaurant raced over to me to make sure I wasn’t foolish enough to be wearing a Kipa in the streets. I still remember the fear on his face, how emphatic he was in his broken english. “No wear that! Very dangerous! Go out with that, and BOOM” (he smacked his fist into his palm).

  17. starving Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto held out longer against the Nazis than did France

    may-be cause they were starving and had no other choice left

    anyway it’s complicated to rewrite the history

    I for myself think that the Frenchs had previouly suffered from a terrible war that ended about 20 years before,
    1 500 000 men lost their live (France was 40 millions persons), that means that each familiy had one or two deads and or woundeds ; that this generation was still active in 1939 and ddidn’t want to replay the WWI.
    Adding to that, there had been some misunderstandings of the adequat arms : a few tanks and horses vs the panzer divisions ; I can see there the military heads were of the old generation, they didn’t forecast the moderns arms ; De Gaulle wanted to lecture his fellows generals, he wasn’t taken seriouly ; and some other errors in managing the after WWI, so things have to be put in times perspectives ; anyhow, I understand that it is difficult for you to escuse that

  18. “112 Gripes about the French
    Published in Paris in 1945 by the ‘Information & Education Division’ of the US Occupation Forces.”

    that’s a booklet that was given to the GI in 1945, because the prejuges and clichés were creating problems with the population and the army ;

    check you box, I’ll post the klink

  19. brooklynjon says:

    It’s not difficult. It’s just fun poking you, mon cherie!

  20. not quite funny jonny

  21. Sandy

    I don’t think it matters if this is the best way to teach 10-year-old French kids about the Holocaust in France.

    It is _a_ way.

    Getting them the education — any education — now is better than waiting for the best way later.

  22. It will be even a better idea if he teaches the kids about Egyptian kids, Palestinian kids,serbian kids, Sudanese kids, kids all over the world and their suffering.

    seriously people the world is going to throw up the holocaust story every morning after breakfast as if no one suffers but the holocaust people and the Jews.

    At least they are no longer suffering and they learned so much from their suffering that they are making Palestinians suffer the same way.

  23. Oh Mon Dieu! I just said something tres greve!

  24. “At least they are no longer suffering and they learned so much from their suffering that they are making Palestinians suffer the same way.”

    vile and stupid.

  25. Olive Picker says:

    I think they should elaborate, as in talk about everyone who ended up in the concentration camps; Jews, Gypsies, communists and homosexuals alike. Make this a real lesson about intolerance.

    Not that I’m very optimistic on the results. A few months ago there was this news article about the arrest in Israel of a group of Russian-Jew youths who had started a neo-nazi organisation. What I have learned in my life is that you can always count on human to act at least bat-shit crazy

  26. “At least they are no longer suffering and they learned so much from their suffering that they are making Palestinians suffer the same way.”

    Nice ‘suffering’ comparison twosret, you want to back it up with anything factual as to why you equate the two?

  27. There’s widespread minimizing and some outright denial of the Holocaust in the Muslim world. Most of the anti-Semitic attacks in France are being perpetrated by Muslims, even though they make up a fraction of the population.
    Maybe Sarky can push for the content to be presented factually in the mosque and the madrasa.

  28. “At least they are no longer suffering and they learned so much from their suffering that they are making Palestinians suffer the same way.”

    A bit of clarification appears to be required. If the Palestineans were, indeed, suffering the same way, by this point there would *be* no Palestinians. All of them, men, women and children, would have rounded up into camps, starved, gassed and then shoveled into mass graves or incinerated. The Nazis manage to knock off 2/3 of European Jewry in about six years; we Israelis have had forty. And there were far fewer Palestinians in 1967 than there were Jews in Europe in 1939.

    In my family, for instance, there are two types of people: the ones who made it out of Europe before the war, and the ones who were murdered. So far as I know, there are no Holocaust survivors in my family. Just victims.

    With all due respect, there are quite a few people here in Israel who are trying to improve the situation. These sort of heinous and patently untrue accusations just make it harder, insofar as it gives people an excuse to ignore all news from Gaza or the West Bank as more liberal media slander and yet another Pallywood production.

    What do you want? Do you want things to get better, or do you want to have someone to spew venom about. Please decide.

  29. Nomad;

    but the Pope PIe XII is well known for his collaboration with the Nazys

    In what universe, Nomad?

    http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/OldWorldBasic/PiusXII.htm

  30. Xylo, unless you don’t rely on the same universe :

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html

    precautionnous, wasn’t he ?

  31. So remaining silent on some occasions made him the hand that pushed people into ovens. Come back to reality and put the blame on the people who actually did the pushing.

  32. Sarkozy lost his mind…. The guy is crazy..

  33. Xylo,

    he, your conservative blog , is it a source ?

    anyway, if your Serge, I don’t see why your taking so much attention in defending this pope who was more a political opportunist than a Church leader. If he had any moral ground, he would have tried to arise his fidels against a vicious ideology that wanted eliminated humans from another religion (don’t forget the homos, the tzigans, the handicaped…)
    uh, I can see there by “let them do” that’s made also his agenda, he, alike Pilat, he washed his hands ; funny, I was told that this bad habit was real though.

    anyway, nice blog, I don’t agree with all it is said there, but the tone is humoristic

  34. Nomad

    Pius made several complaints about Nazi misbehaviour. That he could have done more does not make him a card carrying Nazi, I’m sorry. There are countless people who could have done more.

    And the Christian powers did indeed rise up and destroy that wicked idealogy.

  35. “And the Christian powers did indeed rise up and destroy that wicked idealogy.”

    That’s a misrepresentation if I’ve ever heard one. If by Christian powers you mean the US and the UK, they did fight Hitler. While the Soviet Union did fight with the western allies, they bore the lions share of the fight against the NAZI war machine and can hardly be called a Christian state. The soviets lost more men and materials fighting Germany in WWII than all the US and UK losses combined times TEN! It was the Soviets who unequivocally broke the back of the NAZI war machine. The question still remains open today on if the Soviets could have defeated Hitler without help from the west, some say yes but only after years more of fighting, others say no. Pius did little to nothing to help the Jews during WWII, he did much to help their NAZI oppressors to escape justice after the war was over. Don’t get your history from Hollywood.

  36. christina/ohio says:

    “Pope PIe XII”
    I assume you mean Pope Pius XII? Did you know that many Jewish Children were hidden in the Monasteries of Europe and that many Priests and Nuns were also Nazi victims? Pope Pious gets a bad rap for what he as really doing, he wasn’t a sympathizer he was trying to keep the church in place where it could help rather than be completely destroyed by them.

  37. he did much to help their NAZI oppressors to escape justice after the war was over.

    Some evidence for that, please. Don’t make up history as you go along.

  38. “Some evidence for that, please.”

    Please, yourself.
    There’s plenty of documentation concerning Catholic officials helping war criminals escape after the war, it’s no secret. The US, UK and Soviet governments did the same as well. Germany was and is Catholic nation why would this be so unbelievable to you? Why would you say it’s made up?

    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewReligion.asp?Page=%5CReligion%5Carchive%5CREL19991123a.html

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20041229/ai_n12827096

    http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/the_vatican.htm

    http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-3071184_ITM

    http://discardedlies.com/entry/?4044

  39. Did you know that many Jewish Children were hidden in the Monasteries of Europe and that many Priests and Nuns were also Nazi victims?

    yeah, did you know that the said monasteries, priests and nuns did that without the benediction of the pope, that he wouldn’t have given them anyway, given his precautionnus way of not getting wet into the shit ?

    he was trying to keep the church in place where it could help rather than be completely destroyed by them.

    Bavaria is’nt catholic ? Austria isn’t catholic ? there are other lands in Germany that have also catholics, the church wasn’t in danger there, Hitler was born catholic and wasn’t in Munich that he made his first bravades in 1933 ? the pope had plenty of time to observe what was going on there, he was in Germany.

  40. In respect to the Soviet Union, they actually started out signing a non-agression pact with Germany. They got into the war because they were attacked, not because they had any particular issue with the Nazis.

  41. Tedders,

    Germany was and is Catholic nation why would this be so unbelievable to you? Why would you say it’s made up?

    That’s untrue.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Germany

    Before World War II, about two-thirds of the German population was Protestant and one-third was Roman Catholic. In the north and northeast of Germany especially, Protestants dominated.

    Germany was a solidly Protestant country before and during World War II, and the Pope would have had little (if any) influence over the Nazis, or over Germans in general for that matter. Maybe the Pope did the best he could do under those circumstances, and maybe he didn’t. I haven’t done any research on it, but I’ve always heard the Catholic Church was not exactly “anti-Nazi” during the war.

  42. Gila,

    I am afraid to disappoint you, the volonty of expensionism was already in Lenine designs ; his fellows communists were already in Germany in the 1920 years ; the after war misery and disorganisation was a permissived soil to extend his ideas ; this ideology would have first gain ed Germany, then France and the rest of Europe, which it did though, but at a lesser point, and completely annihiled with the rising of nazysm in Germany ; Stalin ‘s designs were also to make an european communist empire ; but may-be not so early ; that is why the US finally decided to interven, they saw that Stalin was gaining towards west, they didn’t want a communist western Europe, with nuclear submarines in our coasts, atom bombs… they would have kept the german discoverings and scientists, which would have given to Stalin a “millenarium” in advance of power ; and yes, it wasn’t for our only sake that they helped us to get rid of a vicious malediction, till 1942 they had relations with the nazys and our Vichy puppets government.

  43. uh, Pius XII did prefer a nazy Europe instead of a communist Europe without church

  44. Lenin–

    Not quite sure that I follow your ramblings. However, all I said is that the Soviets and the Nazis were effectively allies and that the Soviet Union went to war against the Nazis is because Germany attacked them first.

    What part of that statement do you consider to be incorrect?

  45. She’s trying to say that the Nazis came to power as a result of the rise of communism in Germany, which is true. She’s also saying that the US only sided against the Nazis because we feared Communism more than Fascism, which is untrue. I got kinda lost after that :)

  46. Gila, you are totally right about the Nazis and the Soviets being on the same side in the early years. In fact, they had an agreement to divide conquered land between the two of them. But the Soviets and the Germans both knew from the beginning that agreement wouldn’t hold. It was the Nazis who broke it first, but the Soviets would have done it eventually, when they were ready – and they certainly weren’t ready when Hitler began “Barbarossa”.

  47. so what ? it is saying the same thing in another version

  48. “you are totally right about the Nazis and the Soviets being on the same side”

    You’ve heard of the beer hall putsch in 1923? When it looked as if Germany was headed for a communist rule and Hitler tried to take over the Bavarian government with a failed putsch to prevent that. Afterwards he spent time in Landsberg prison. Hitler was vehemently anti communist and always intended to conquer Russia for lebensraum (living space) read “Mein Kampf” for his ramblings. He had Joachim Von Ribbentrop, his foreign minister, sign a non aggression pact with Stalin in August of 1939. That was just a smoke screen by Hitler to buy time, remember he invaded Poland two weeks later. Hitler promised Stalin half of Poland if Russia would sign the non aggression document. There is much that confirms the continuity of Hitler’s thinking: the primacy of force in world politics, conquest for living space in the east, anti-Bolshevism, hostility to France.
    There are also arguments today that Stalin was massing his forces near the German border for an attack on Germany first but that Hitler beat him to the punch. Counter to that I’ve also read that Stalin didn’t believe the reports of Germany’s invasion of Russia on June 22, 1941 and didn’t take action right away. Any way you look at it, I don’t think you can say that Germany and Russia were on the same side, they were antagonists eyeing each other for any sign of weakness. Russia then, just like Putin’ Russia today, will play both sides to whatever degree for he thinks will benefit him and usurp the opposition.

    Oh, also Craig, you’re right about the mix of Christian denominations, I didn’t mean to imply there were more Catholics or Protestants one way or the other (even though as I re read what I wrote it does say that!), after all the reformation started in the early 1500′s! But the history of the people and religion came from a Catholic history prior to that. To say that the Christian faith aided Hitler I think is a wrong assumption, only with hindsight can we truly see what evil the core NAZI beliefs were. The Pope certainly did not have any sway over the Nazi’s, in fact Hitler wanted to replace the church with a kind of NAZI green mother earth paganism sort of belief (see: http://www.nazi.org/) that still exists today! Hard to believe isn’t it! Hey Craig, you’re last name isn’t Smith is it! Just kidding! LOL

  49. Tedders, Russia and Germany were on the “same side” in that they both wanted the same thing. They were competitors, like two predators in pursuit of the same prey. I think the Soviets believed that Europe would be much more difficult for Hitler to conquer than it was. I think they (Soviets) intended to capitalize on Germany being kept busy in Western Europe, while they headed towards Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. But it didn’t play out that way. And the Soviets grossly under-estimated German military power (as did everyone else) and nearly lost it all in the first months of Operation Barbarossa. If Hitler hadn’t also underestimated the ability of the Soviets to build up a credible military of their own (with massive US assistance) things might have gone very differently.

    The points you make about the Soviets being the ones who broke the back of the German military are good. But it was the US and Britain that destroyed Germany’s manufacturing sector, and crippled German air force. Not to mention the fact that the US basically kept the Soviets alive and in the game for the first 2 years while they got themselves “geared up”. The Soviet Union without a doubt had the world’s most powerful ground military at the end of World War II. By a large margin. It’s possible that if the Soviet Union and the West had gone to war in 1945 that they wouldn’t have won. The US did have overwhelming air superiority, and we had just started making a credible tank for the first time ever:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing

    Which didn’t come online until the final months of the war. Before that, US Armor was best described as “garbage”.

    It’s good we never had to find out :)

    But the history of the people and religion came from a Catholic history prior to that.

    Well, yeah… but Protestantism started in Germany. Luther was German, after all.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

    Germany is the Protestant heartland. Or, was, until World War II. I guess the US is now :)

    To say that the Christian faith aided Hitler I think is a wrong assumption, only with hindsight can we truly see what evil the core NAZI beliefs were.

    I didn’t say that. Protestants don’t have a centralized religious hierarchy, anyway. Catholics do (very much so) but Germany was not a Catholic country, so the Pope wouldn’t have had much sway in Germany.

    The Pope certainly did not have any sway over the Nazi’s

    That’s what I just said!

    But that isn’t really the point. He may not have been able to influence the Nazis, but he did have a tremendous amount of clout in many of the country’s Germany invaded. And also in Italy, obviously. If he decided that Catholics should help Jews and others evade Nazi persecution, they would have done so. As far as I can tell, that never happened.

    in fact Hitler wanted to replace the church with a kind of NAZI green mother earth paganism sort of belief (see: http://www.nazi.org/) that still exists today! Hard to believe isn’t it!

    Well, yeah… Hitler was a Pagan. His ancestor worship (among other things) makes that clear. Dunno about this “green mother earth” thing… neo-nazis make a lot of shit up. If he’d been a big believer in the natural order, he wouldn’t have instituted selective breeding programs to create his “master race”, would he?

    Hey Craig, you’re last name isn’t Smith is it! Just kidding! LOL

    Are you? :O

  50. Craig and Tedders–thanks for the history refresher. :) Seriously–I enjoy this stuff.

    Am something of a nerd…..

  51. Craig and Tedders–thanks for the history refresher. :) Seriously–I enjoy this stuff.

    Now you did it! :P

    That M-26 Pershing was the first tank in the Pershing/Patton series, that the IUS and Israel both used up until the 1990s.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M46_Patton

    The M46 was an improved M26 Pershing tank and one of the U.S army’s principal main battle tanks of the Cold War, with models in service from 1949 to the mid 1950s.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M48_Patton

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_Patton

    The Pershing/Patton tank line wasn’t replace until the M1 Abrams was adopted. The M26 and it’s offspring were America’s main battle tank for the entire Cold War. Only nerds know this, everyone else thinks the US had some really great high tech tanks all those years :D

  52. M48s were also used with mixed results during the 1967 Six-Day War. On the Sinai front, Israeli M48s were used with stunning success against Egyptian T-54s and T-34s supplied by the Soviet Union. However, on the West Bank front, Jordanian M48s were regularly defeated by Israeli WWII-era M4 Shermans (upgunned with 105mm guns), the result of superior Israeli tactics and crews. In pure technical terms the Jordanian Pattons were far superior to the Israeli Shermans, with Israeli shots at more than 1,000 meters simply glancing off the M48s’ armor. Other reasons for the Jordanian Pattons’ failure on the West Bank were Israeli air superiority and a distinct lack of aggressive handling by the Jordanian crews. The Israeli Army captured about 100 Jordanian M48 and M48A1 tanks and pressed them into service in their own units after the war.

    :O

    M48s were used by the Lebanese Army and the Christian Lebanese Forces militia in the Lebanese Civil War. The Lebanese Army still operates about 100 M48s. In 2007, during the 2007 North Lebanon conflict Lebanese Army M48s shelled militant outposts in a refugee camp.

  53. “Hey Craig, you’re last name isn’t Smith is it! Just kidding! LOL”

    That crazy nazi site had a Craig Smith as a moderator I think, I was just ribbing you!

    “Dunno about this “green mother earth” thing”

    Well the original NAZI regime was very green. Hitler said he cried when any animal was hurt (yeah, I know, but that’s what he said! guess he forgot that people are animals too!). Goring as the Jägermeister (no not the booze) instigated some revolutionary forestry and game laws that are still enforced today. Europe has been and will always be more sensitive to environmentalism than the US if only for the fact that North America has only 32 people per square mile on average and Europe has 134 people per square mile! If they start trashing the place out it won’t be but a week or two before the whole place stinks! You were in the Marines, did you ever make it to Europe? Both Germany and Austria from what I saw are very pristine, not a gum wrapper or a cigarette butt on the side of highway. The mountains are out of this world.

    “Only nerds know this,”
    Now I’m laughing at myself, I’m a bit of an armor aficionado myself. I’ve been to many armor museums in both America and Europe. I’ve made more than one trip to Fort Hood to see their extensive captured armor collection, they also have the best M20′s 40′s and 60″s collection I’ve ever seen, every variant you can imagine. More than you can see in a day! My favorite WWII engagement is the battle of Kursk. I’ve got my panzer V and VI models guarding my study as I write, so you’re in good nerd company! : )

  54. “But it was the US and Britain that destroyed Germany’s manufacturing sector, and crippled German air force. Not to mention the fact that the US basically kept the Soviets alive and in the game for the first 2 years while they got themselves “geared up”.”

    Absolutely, I didn’t mean to minimize the Western Allies contribution to the war. Still, some Americans think we came over and single handedly saved Europe from Nazism (to many Hollywood movies viewed). That’s really not the case, we did a big part, but like I said the Soviets bore the lions share of the pointed end of German militarism.

    “If he decided that Catholics should help Jews and others evade Nazi persecution, they would have done so. As far as I can tell, that never happened.”

    Thanks for your comment Gila, I think you’ve hit on a common interest Craig and I share.
    I think that’s why he gets such negative press today, With hindsight it’s all 20-20. But one has to wonder if he had asked Catholics to help the persecuted what difference it would have made in the final death toll.

  55. Whoops, I meant to put the Gila comment on the bottom!

  56. brooklynjon says:

    BJ sums it up:

    Nazi Germany: Sucked.
    Stalin’s USSR: Sucked at first, was useful later, then sucked after that.
    Poland: Sucked pathetically.
    France: Made a little effort not to suck, but could have tried harder. Ended up sucking.
    UK: Fought bravely, but still managed to suck, like they usually do.
    USA: Saved the day, perhaps. Sucked a surprisingly large amount, though.
    Switzerland: Somehow managed to profit from everyone else’s sucking.
    Japan: Sucked in that strange and scary, uniquely Japanese fashion. Then they got theirs.

  57. BJ sums it up much more eloquently and with fewer words. That sucks!

  58. Bj, I appreciate the “effort” :lol:

    I still suck, that’s quite titilling sometimes :lol:

  59. “sided against the Nazis because we feared Communism more than Fascism, which is untrue”

    by extrapolation it might be the option though

    http://www.112gripes.com/1.html

    1. “We came to Europe twice in twenty-five years to save the French.”

    We didn’t come to Europe to save the the French, either in 1917 or in 1944. We didn’t come to to Europe to do anyone any favors. We came to Europe because we in America were threatened by a hostile, aggressive and very dangerous power.

    In this war, France fell in June of 1940. We didn’t invade Europe until June of 1944. We didn’t even think of “saving the French” through military action until after Pearl Harbor – after the Germans declared war on us. We came to Europe, in two wars, because it was better to fight our enemy in Europe than in America. Would it have been smarter to fight the Battle of the Bulge in Ohio? Would it have been smarter if D-Day had meant a hop across the Atlantic Ocean, instead of the English Channel, in order to get at an enemy sending rocket bombs into our homes? Would it have been smart to wait in America until V bombs, buzz bombs, rocket bombs, and – perhaps – atomic bombs had made shambles of our cities? Even the kids in Germany sang this song: “Today Germany, tomorrow the world.” We were a part of that world. We were marked for conquest.

    When France fell, our last defense on the Continent was gone. France was the “keystone of freedom” on land from the Mediterranean to the North Sea; it was a bulwark against German aggression. France guarded the Atlantic, and the bases the Germans needed on the Atlantic for submarine and air warfare.

    American security and American foreign policy have always rested on this hard fact: we cannot permit a hostile power on the Atlantic Ocean. We can not be secure if we are threatened on the Atlantic. That’s why we went to war in 1917; that’s why we had to fight in 1944. And that’s why, as a matter of common sense and the national interest, President Roosevelt declared (November 11, 1941): “The defense of any territory under the control of the French Volunteer Forces (the Free French) is vital to the defense of the United States.”

  60. The US relied on twin strategies: ignoring De Gaulle, and dealing with Pétain’s regime with a combin ation of accommodation and toughness. It realised that Vichy, like the Latin American regimes dear to its heart, was more malleable than a government with broad popular support.”

    http://mondediplo.com/2003/05/05lacroix

  61. 1. “We came to Europe twice in twenty-five years to save the French.”

    I’ve never seen anyone say that, Nomad. That’s called a “straw man”. You create a false argument, and then defeat it.

    France has never been important to the US. However, there was never any doubt that the US would side with Britain, in both World Wars.

  62. this booklet was given to the US army in 1945 though,

    Published in Paris in 1945 by the ‘Information & Education Division’ of the US Occupation Forces.

  63. Tedders,

    Now I’m laughing at myself, I’m a bit of an armor aficionado myself. I’ve been to many armor museums in both America and Europe. I’ve made more than one trip to Fort Hood to see their extensive captured armor collection, they also have the best M20’s 40’s and 60″s collection I’ve ever seen, every variant you can imagine. More than you can see in a day! My favorite WWII engagement is the battle of Kursk. I’ve got my panzer V and VI models guarding my study as I write, so you’re in good nerd company! : )

    I’m not a big fan of Armor, having spent 6 years in the infantry. But WWII was the golden age of the tank, so it’s impossible to ignore :)

    You were in the Marines, did you ever make it to Europe?

    Not while I was in the Marines, no. The USMC does not participate in NATO – or at least, it didn’t during the Cold War. Don’t know about now. The only Marines stationed in Europe during the Cold War were Embassy guards. I suppose if I’d been in the second Marine Division longer I might have made it to Italy or Spain, as the 2nd MARDIV is responsible for the Mediterranean and Africa.

    I did live in Germany for about 6 months as a civilian though.

    Both Germany and Austria from what I saw are very pristine, not a gum wrapper or a cigarette butt on the side of highway. The mountains are out of this world.

    I agree. I was very surprised by how much I liked Germany, both the country and the people. I expected dreary landscapes and angry people with an odd sense of humor. Wasn’t like that at all. Well, except for the odd sense of humor part.

  64. brooklynjon says:

    “In this war, France fell in June of 1940. We didn’t invade Europe until June of 1944. We didn’t even think of “saving the French” through military action until after Pearl Harbor – after the Germans declared war on us.”

    So true and, as an American, so embarrassing.

    In retrospect, WWII was such a no-brainer. Yet at the time, the peaceniks were in full force, delaying our entry until the cards were stacked very much against us.

    This, incidentally, is what motivates my opinions about Iraq and the global war on terror, so to speak.

  65. this booklet was given to the US army in 1945 though

    OK, then that booklet created a false argument in order to make points. So what? It’s still a false argument. The booklet was published to educate American GIs so that they didn’t treat Frenchies like crap. Looks to be pretty credible to me. Hopefully similar education is being done with US GIs in Iraq right now.

    Your other link is anti-American propaganda.

  66. that’s speaks for yourself

  67. Nomad, that “Le Monde” link is blatant anti-American propaganda. If you don’t see that, it speaks about your personality, not mine. I mean, that garbage isn’t even subtle, or the least bit clever. I’m not going to argue with you about it… if you like to read such junk, go for it, but don’t expect a debate with Americans about a bunch of anti-US French rantings…

  68. brooklynjon says:

    Craig,

    My dad (of blessed memory) was part of the US occupation of France in 1953. He would vouch that the GIs treated the Frenchies like crap anyway.

  69. “le monde diplomatique” isn’t “le monde” at all

  70. I’m not sure what the tone of the article is Nomad. Are they implying the US wanted to occupy and exploit France, if so, it’s nonsense. Are they saying that the US and Allies wanted to police France during a vulnerable time after the war, I see that as a possibility. Was De Gualle trusted by any of the victorious allies? Absolutely not. I won’t insult French patriots, they were short in numbers at the critical times but De Gualle did more harm than good for the over all war effort. If he had been in charge of the allied operations we would all be speaking German right now! You know how I love France, just not De Gualle! LOL

  71. tedders,

    I am afraid, yes, it looked like we would have been ruled under “AMGOT”, that means we could not choose our political leaders, our administration, etc…

    De Gaulle was a “patriot” who liked deeply France,
    Roosvelt wanted to win the war, no matter with whom, could have been former Vichy generals or administration lonely the results counted.

    In de Gaulle’s eyes it was a sacrilege , the vichyssians were traitors to the patry and should be punished.

    and, yes de Gaulle’s personality irritated some other resistance leaders, as the late resistant Mitterand, the communists… but the only person who could centralise all the efforts ought to be a strong personality that had a military experience (WW1, WW2) and the knowledge of a military academic (he gave courses in St Cyr, which is the upper military level by us)

    he was detested by Roosvelt, who can’t understand his way of thinking.

    But I tell you if there wasn’t a Degaulle in 1940 that called for the Resistance, we would still be either under german protectorat, or a republic of URSS, and, or lately an american protectorat, if de Gaulle didn’t had the hurry to nominate the right administrators before your administration could have done for its compleasant servitors.

    here is a link, I am afraid in french, that isn’t from a paper but from historians

    http://anacr33.org/documentation/amgot/amgot.pdf

  72. “but the only person who could centralise all the efforts ought to be a strong personality that had a military experience ”

    I completely agree, but I would use the term, “military experience” in the loosest sense with Charles.

    “But I tell you if there wasn’t a Degaulle in 1940 that called for the Resistance, we would still be either under german protectorat, or a republic of URSS, and, or lately an american protectorat, if de Gaulle didn’t had the hurry to nominate the right administrators before your administration could have done for its compleasant servitors.”

    I’ve never considered that but now that you’ve brought it to my attention, I believe you do have a valid point.

    On our trip to Paris last year one of the highlights was the visit to the Musee de l’Armee. I was quite enlightened after viewing the WWII exhibit that De Gualle was so vital for the defeat of Germany (I think the Allied Supreme Command would say differently, but it’s not their museum, is it!) We in the US don’t see the Vichy administration so much as traitors but as pragmatic.

  73. I am afraid, yes, it looked like we would have been ruled under “AMGOT”, that means we could not choose our political leaders, our administration, etc…

    You act as if France was the only nation that the US occupied after WWII, Nomad. In case you didn’t notice, all of Europe with the exception of the UK freed from German occupation (including Germany? And Italy?) and they didn’t have your great DeGaulle looking out for their best interests, did they? How did they possibly manage to survive!?

    And how did France get to be a Charter Member of the United Nations, and one of the 5 permanent veto wielding members of the Security Council – in 1946 while France was still occupied by the US? Did DeGaulle do that for you too? We Americans hated you so much. Poor you.

    Tedders, how can you possibly go along with this? Are you just humoring her, or what?

  74. Hey, I made fun of De Gualle! Don’t I get credit for that?

    Americans will never see WWII in the same light as Europeans, never. I can understand that to. Can you imagine if that devastation had happened here and not there and then they tried to lecture us on how it was? I found it interesting to learn that the UK was on war time rations for food as late as 1952. The Axis countries got direct aid from the US but the UK didn’t. I know there are still some hard feelings from the old timers in England about that. I assume that France got more aid than the UK but I’m not sure of that.

  75. Hey, I made fun of De Gualle! Don’t I get credit for that?

    A little bit, bet then you messed it up :P

  76. Tedders, yes we got some help to rebuilt cities, as Le Havre, Caen, St Malo, Royan….. but for certain of them, it wasn’t necessaery to have destroyed them, the Germans had already abandonned the places ; seems that was the mess in the “high” anglo-saxon commendement ; or, for an UK mind, a jouissif pleasure to erase some french places, for the rest we had our ration tickets too, (oil), I still remember that my father had to get them by the mayor’s

    “We in the US don’t see the Vichy administration so much as traitors but as pragmatic.”

    may-be because you don’t have nobles’ traditions :
    “code of honnor”, that is teached in our military academies : it is also in that profession that you still find “nobles” ; de Gaulle was one of them ;

    I completely agree, but I would use the term, “military experience” in the loosest sense with Charles.

    he had a bigger “experience” in the domain of wars than your stiff contempted dollars “falsher”, who was making war alike a wall street operation ; still by now though ;

    de Gaulle was also a writer and a theorician as far as how a country army should be ;

    the Germans have read all his writings, that’s why they made their “panzers” armada” ; unfortunately he wasn’t heard in France, (anyway that’s almost the case for any innovative writer, generally they are recognised abroad before in their own country)

    so, in your country what you know about our history, is what your opinion leaders spread in the MSM for a specific agenda, and that works, all the shit bags that were invented about our supposed surrending, and the traffics with saddam ; only honnest researchers can discern the truth from the error ; and I am afraid that to acknoledge that the “mind lazyness” is the best well shared thing in the world.

    You act as if France was the only nation that the US occupied after WWII, Nomad

    France was the “keystone of freedom” on land from the Mediterranean to the North Sea;

    you people, you have a “love/hate” relation with us ; our enlighten century inspired the foundings fathers, a french ancestry is still in your DNA, first by the Normans, then by the settlers in the ligne of Mississipi : from Chicago till New Orleans.

    You would like that we tell you how great your achievements are ; hey, it’s not knowing our psychology, the only person we admire it’s ourselves ; Narcissus sydrome is a french creation :lol:

  77. you people, you have a “love/hate” relation with us ; our enlighten century inspired the foundings fathers, a french ancestry is still in your DNA, first by the Normans, then by the settlers in the ligne of Mississipi : from Chicago till New Orleans.

    The Normans not “French”. They were Vikings from Scandinavia. And you think we all have Cajun blood in us, do you? :P

    the Germans have read all his writings, that’s why they made their “panzers” armada” ;

    That’s the VERY FIRST time that I’ve ever heard that the Germans based their World War II military doctrine on Charles DeGaulle. Congratulations, you’ve ht a new low.

    Despite these nationalistic and factually inaccurate ramblings, you didn’t answer the question – how did the rest of Europe manage to survive without DeGaulle, if he was so important?

  78. Craig, read at least de Gaulle bio, not in wikipedia I am afraid

  79. the normans were vikings 2 centuries before they got into england as normans ; in 2 centuries they got mixed with the “frenchs”, Guillaume’s wife was french,
    and they spoke french

  80. “En 1932, Le Fil de l’épée rappelle l’importance de la formation des chefs et le poids des circonstances. Il aborde la théorie de la nécessité d’un corps de blindés, alliant le feu et le mouvement, capable d’initiatives et d’offensives hardies. Dans son ouvrage, Vers l’Armée de métier, publié en 1934, il développe cette question de fond, qui nécessite la création d’une armée professionnelle aux côtés de la conscription. Cependant, cette idée rencontre peu d’échos favorables”

  81. OMG, while researching Heinz Guderian, author of “Achtung – Panzer!” and generally accepted as the father of modern tank warfare. I ran across this! First time I’ve been aware of it too!

    Fluent in both English and French, he gathered ideas by the British maneuver warfare theorists J.F.C. Fuller and, debatably, B.H. Liddell Hart, as well as the writings, interestingly enough, of the then-unknown Charles de Gaulle. Their works were translated into German by Guderian. In 1931 he was promoted to lieutenant-colonel and became chief of staff to the Inspectorate of Motorised Troops and in 1933 to full colonel. In this time he had written many papers on motorised warfare which were seen as authoritative and moving the development of this area significantly. These papers were based on extensive wargaming without troops, with paper tanks and finally with armoured vehicles. In October 1935 he was posted to the newly created 2nd Panzer Division (one of three) as commander. On 1 August 1936 he was promoted to major-general, and on 4 February 1938 he was promoted to lieutenant-general and given command of the XVI Army Corps.
    Achtung – Panzer! was written in 1936-37 as an explanation of Guderian’s theories on the role of tanks and aircraft in modern warfare. It was actually a compilation of not only of Guderian’s own theories but also the ideas of other proponents of armored and combined-arms warfare within the general staff, though the bulk of the credit rightly is Guderian’s. The panzer force he created would become the core of the German Army’s power during the Second World War and would deliver the core of the fighting style known as blitzkrieg. To this day, his contributions to combined arms tactics are studied throughout military schools.

  82. Chucky de Gaulle, the Frank we all love to hate actually had a German panzermeister admirer!!!! I think hell must be freezing over! I can’t wipe the smile from shock off my face!

  83. Touche Nomad!

  84. After the war he remained with the new force reorganized hundred miles officers set up by the Treaty of Versailles where he specialized in the war motorized. Speaking fluent English and french he studied and was influenced by JFC Fuller and to a lesser extent by B.H. Liddell Hart, which he translated. He was also concerned by the doctrine developed by the young officer french Charles de Gaulle.
    google translate

  85. “He was also concerned by the doctrine developed by the young officer french Charles de Gaulle.”

    touché Tedders

  86. “Treaty of Versailles”

    Yeah, we all know what that great document got us!

  87. yeah, Allemagne humiliée !

    but we recovered Alsace-Lorraine that she took from us in 1870

    for Craig : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Guderian

  88. yeah, Allemagne humiliée != WWII !

  89. one of the reasons, OK,

    but there were also a predilection for nationalism, antisemitism, esoterical affiliations (Rotenkreuz) allready in the ground there at the end of 19th century

  90. Agreed!

  91. the normans were vikings 2 centuries before they got into england as normans ; in 2 centuries they got mixed with the “frenchs”, Guillaume’s wife was french,and they spoke french

    None of that is true.

    The fiefdom of Normandy was created for the Viking leader Rollo (also known as Robert of Normandy). Rollo had besieged Paris but in 911 entered vassalage to the king of the West Franks Charles the Simple through the Treaty of Saint Clair-sur-Epte. In exchange for his homage and fealty, Rollo legally gained the territory he and his Viking allies had previously conquered. The name “Normandy” reflects Rollo’s Viking (i.e. “Northman”) origins.

    The descendants of Rollo and his followers adopted the local Gallo-Romantic language and intermarried with the area’s previous inhabitants and became the Normans – a Norman French-speaking mixture of Scandinavians, Hiberno-Norse, Orcadians, Anglo-Danish, and indigenous Franks and Gauls.

    They didn’t speak “French”. They didn’t intermarry with “French” – they intermarried with the local inhabitants, some of whom were FRANKS (Germans) and some of whom weer Gauls(indigenous people).

    That’s a far cry from claiming the Normans were French, which is patently absurd, Nomad. The Normans were raiders who got as far as Sicily, Byzantium and even the heart of Russia and they had no historical (ethnic) relationship with the French. The French coast was just the first stop (of many) for that particular band of Vikings.

  92. Tedders,

    as well as the writings, interestingly enough, of the then-unknown Charles de Gaulle.

    Do you see how she turns this minor “as well as” into “Guderian stole German military doctrine from DeGaulle”? Why do you keep encouraging her? She doesn’t need any encouragement. She always leaps upon this semantic and incredibly flimsy arguments to prove her supposed French superiority.

    By the way, you guys forgot to mention this guy:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz

  93. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Conquest

    Normandy is a region in northern France which in the years prior to 1066 experienced extensive Viking settlement. In 911, French Carolingian ruler Charles the Simple had allowed a group of Vikings, under their leader Rollo, to settle in northern France with the idea that they would provide protection along the coast against future Viking invaders. This proved successful, and the Vikings in the region became known as the Northmen from which Normandy is derived. The Normans quickly adapted to the indigenous culture, renouncing paganism and converting to Christianity. They adopted the langue d’oïl of their new home and added features from their own Norse language, transforming it into the Norman language. They further blended into the culture by intermarrying with the local population. They also used the territory granted them as a base to extend the frontiers of the Duchy to the west, annexing territory including the Bessin, the Cotentin Peninsula and the Channel Islands.

    Meanwhile in England, Viking attacks resumed in the late 10th century, and in 991 the King of England Aethelred II agreed to marry Emma, the daughter of the Duke of Normandy, to cement a blood-tie alliance for help against the raiders. When King Edward the Confessor died in 1066 with no child, and thus no direct heir to the throne, a power vacuum arose in which several competing interests laid claim to the throne of England.

    One was Harald III of Norway, commonly known as Harald Hardraada, whose claim was based on a supposed agreement between the previous King of Norway, Magnus I of Norway, and Harthacanute, whereby if either died without heir, the other would inherit both England and Norway. Another claimant to the English throne was William, Duke of Normandy because of his blood ties to Aethelrad through Aethelred’s wife Emma. A third was the Earl of Wessex Harold Godwinson who had been elected king by the Witenagemot of England. The stage was set for a battle among the three.

    ————–

    Meanwhile William had assembled an invasion fleet of approximately 600 ships and an army of 7,000 men.

    William only had 7000 men, Nomad. And no women. So regardless of the ancestry of the Normans, how much impact do you think that had on the exiting population?

    And I’m seriously curious about how many Americans you think are Cajuns? They aren’t even a majority in the deep south.

  94. Normans – a Norman French-speaking mixture of Scandinavians, Hiberno-Norse, Orcadians, Anglo-Danish, and indigenous Franks and Gauls.

    PS-That’s an interesting term, “Anglo-Danish”. What do you think it means, Nomad? :P

  95. “She always leaps upon this semantic and incredibly flimsy arguments to prove her supposed French superiority.”

    Well hell, she’s French. What do you expect? The French have plenty to be proud of. They have more interesting history than some entire continents, some of the most beautiful cities in the world, hands down the best fromage (cheese) anywhere. John Cleese can mock them in the most delightful way. Napoleon kicked ass in a serious manner for nearly 15 years (longer than the third reich). But their cars suck big time, try being proud of a Citroen or a Peugeot!

    “And I’m seriously curious about how many Americans you think are Cajuns?”

    From a Texas perspective (we call them coon ass), there aren’t that many (thank goodness). They originate from Louisiana, and when you meet one you’ll never forget it! From my experience with them, my advice is don’t leave anything valuable out while they’re around!

  96. brooklynjon says:

    Craig,

    True about the Normans, but they did speak French, which has had a tremendous linguistic influence on English to this day. And has a lot to do with why Anglos consider French culture to be high culture.

  97. Another good thing about the French, they sold us the Louisiana purchase for about 2 cents an acre. Check out this map of the purchase, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National-atlas-1970-1810-loupurchase-1.png ) some pretty good real estate if you ask me! It looks like it even includes a little bit of Canada, hey, how’d those Canucks get stuff we paid for!!!

  98. Craig, I guess the normans were aliens :mrgreen:

    Tedders,

    “Louisiane (Louisiana). Originally, the French claimed all of the Mississippi valley from the Rocky Mountains to the top of the Appalachians as part of their Louisiana possession. In 1763, they lose the oriental half (east of the Mississippi, except for New Orleans). The rest was bought from France by the USA in 1803 after being under Spanish control for several decades. In this vast territory however, the French only colonized two areas: what is today southern Louisiana and an area known as Le pays des Illinois, centered around the current city of St. Louis, Missouri, which the French founded, and other nearby villages such as Sainte Geneviève, Missouri; Kaskaskia, Illinois; Cap Girardeau, Missouri; Cahokia, Illinois, Prairie du Rocher, Illinois. At the periphery, there were also settlements in Vincennes, Indiana; Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin and in Minnesota.”

  99. globally, oil languages are considerated of frank influence
    oc languages of roman influence

    http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/monde/langues_romanes.htm

    each province had its own dialect :

    http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/monde/langues_de_France.htm

    it’s only at the beginning of the 20 th century that the french, as it is known today, started to be spoken everywhere, cause of the obligation to attend schools.

    Though, since the Franks had created their kingdom an elite of clerics, administrators, intellectuals wanted to express themselves with an “upper language”, concentrated around the power, which was Paris and island of Francia (its province)

  100. From a Texas perspective (we call them coon ass), there aren’t that many (thank goodness). They originate from Louisiana, and when you meet one you’ll never forget it! From my experience with them, my advice is don’t leave anything valuable out while they’re around!

    OK, you got some points for that Tedders :D

  101. True about the Normans, but they did speak French, which has had a tremendous linguistic influence on English to this day.

    There wasn’t really even a “France” in the 11th century, jon. Let alone a “French” language. They had a lot of bastardized languages going on. The Norman language was one of those. Nomad can tell you all about it, she loves to talk about that stuff :)

    And has a lot to do with why Anglos consider French culture to be high culture.

    We do? Not on this side of the Atlantic, I guess. I never realized Anglos in England had such a high opinion of the French, but it may be so I suppose.

  102. “I never realized Anglos in England had such a high opinion of the French”

    That’s not the story I get from the handful of Brits I know, but I just always figured it was like the university of Texas vs Texas A&M rivalry. They’re the worst enemies until someone from Oklahoma university shows up! Same thing with the Brits and Franks, worst enemies until a Spaniard shows up!!! LOL

  103. Good cheese and wine in the city of lights. L’amour :)

  104. Well, I can’t believe I didn’t mention L’amour! And they do wondrous things with meats we don’t even consider food! On the down side it’s too expensive, very cold and the transportation system sucks terribly when there’s one of the frequent strikes!! I’ll take it anytime I can get it though! Paris is wonderful.

  105. We’ve got a lunar eclipse going on here in north Texas. My kids are checking it out!!

  106. brooklynjon says:

    Watching the lunar eclipse up here in NYC. It’s awesome!

    “hands down the best fromage (cheese) anywhere”
    Bought some more Danish “Freedom” cheese yesterday. Beats the pants off any French stuff.

    “Let alone a “French” language. They had a lot of bastardized languages going on. The Norman language was one of those. Nomad can tell you all about it, she loves to talk about that stuff ”

    There may not have been a unified French language then, as there isn’t one now. But the language of the Normans was a Romance language that was a helluva lot like French, which is how all that French vocabulary ended up in English.’

    “We do? Not on this side of the Atlantic, I guess. I never realized Anglos in England had such a high opinion of the French, but it may be so I suppose.”

    Of course you do. It’s built into Anglo culture. It’s why you think ballet is fancier than dancing. Why you think cuisine is fancier than cooking. Why you have cultural elites with savoir faire. Why you drink Champaign for celebrations, rather than just sparking wine. Why a bar has a bartender, but a fancy restaurant has a sommelier. For that matter, why a restaurant is spiffier than a diner, and a cafe nicer than a snack bar. French cultural supremacy, like it or not, is built into our vocabulary, and we have the Normans to blame for it.

    Ooooh… I can see a sliver of moon again!

  107. There may not have been a unified French language then, as there isn’t one now. But the language of the Normans was a Romance language that was a helluva lot like French

    I think you are playing mix and match between the romanticized version of European history, and the real one, Jon. Nomad did the same thing when she tried to claim the Normans were “French”. This is what the continent of Europe looked like when the Vikings (who became Normans) began raiding the western coast:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Western_empire_verdun_843.png

    Do you see a “France” on it?

    That was the Carolingian Empire that the Normans invaded, not “France”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_Empire

    Charles the Bald died in 877 crossing the Pass of Mont Cenis, and was succeeded by his son, Louis the Stammerer as King of the Western Franks, but the title of Holy Roman Emperor lapsed. Louis the Stammerer was physically weak and died two years later, his realm being divided between his eldest two sons: Louis III gaining Neustria and Francia, and Carloman gaining Aquitaine and Burgundy. The Kingdom of Italy was finally granted to King Carloman of Bavaria, but a stroke forced him to abdicate Italy to his brother Charles the Fat and Bavaria to Louis of Saxony. Also in 879, Boso, Count of Arles founded the Kingdom of Lower Burgundy in Provence.

    In 881, Charles the Fat was crowned the Holy Roman Emperor while Louis II of Saxony and Louis III of Francia died the following year. Saxony and Bavaria were united with Charles the Fat’s Kingdom, and Francia and Neustria were granted to Carloman of Aquitaine who also conquered Lower Burgundy. Carloman died in a hunting accident in 884 after a tumultuous and ineffective reign, and his lands were inherited by Charles the Fat, effectively recreating the Empire of Charlemagne.

    Charles, suffering what is believed to be epilepsy, could not secure the kingdom against Viking raiders, and after buying their withdrawal from Paris in 886 was perceived by the court as being cowardly and incompetent.

    (The Vikings in the above paragraph are the Normans)

    The following year his nephew Arnulf of Carinthia, the illegitimate son of King Carloman of Bavaria, raised the standard of rebellion. Instead of fighting the insurrection, Charles fled to Neidingen and died the following year. The Empire of the Carolingians was divided: Arnulf maintained Carinthia, Bavaria, Lorraine and modern Germany; Count Odo of Paris was elected King of Western Francia (France), Ranulf II became King of Aquitaine, Italy went to Count Berengar of Friuli, Upper Burgundy to Rudolph I, and Lower Burgundy to Louis the Blind, the son of Boso of Arles, King of Lower Burgundy.

  108. But the language of the Normans was a Romance language that was a helluva lot like French, which is how all that French vocabulary ended up in English.’

    The “all that French vocabulary” is from the romanticized version of European history as well. The college profs keep making the claim, and the linguists keep saying “Hey, hold on a second!” :D

    Of course you do. It’s built into Anglo culture.

    Must be the other Anglo culture. Actually I have it on good authority that Anglo-Saxons don’t even exist. It seems “Anglo” are just Irishmen with delusions of grandeur :)

  109. Count Odo of Paris was elected King of Western Francia (France)

    Odo = Otto. Nice French name, isn’t it? :D

    And the ever popular “Louis”

    Categories:

    Belgian, Germanic, English, French

    Used in:

    English and French speaking countries

    Additional info:

    Louis is a traditional and still very popular French name related to Clovis and Ludovic.

    The Germanic Chlodowig, derived from ‘hold’ (“glory, fame”) and ‘wig’ (“warrior), was simplified to Clovis. The Latin form of Clovis became Clodovico, which gave Ludovicus. The French forms of Ludovicus are Ludovic and later Louis.

    There were 18 kings of France named Louis, in particular, Louis XIV – ‘The Sun King’ and Louis XVI who was executed during the French revolution.

    Such a round about method of getting from German to Latin and then to French! Bizarre, isn’t it? I think somebody should be trying to find out how much German is in the French language, instead of trying to find out how much French is in English and other Germanic languages. If I was like Nomad, I’d be making a claim right now that French is based on German, and not on latin, with such solid proof as I just provided! :P

  110. Craig, your are ready to take a chair es Frenchitude at the University of the coon asses ; if you need a PHD, here you can get one :

    “Obtain a University Degree based on your professional experience.

    A Genuine University Degree in 4-6 weeks!
    Have you ever thought that the only thing stopping you from a great job
    and better pay was a few letters behind your name?
    Well now you can get them!
    BA BSc MA MSc MBA PhD
    Within 4-6 weeks!
    No Study Required!
    100% Verifiable!
    These are real, genuine degrees that include Bachelors,
    Masters, MBA and Doctorate Degrees.
    They are fully verifiable and certified transcripts are available.

    Just call the number below.
    You’ll thank me later

    1-323-908-4084
    Leave a message 24 hours a day,
    7 days a week including Sundays and Holidays”

    All it perspires from your discourse is frustration of being only a villan.

    I recall to the audience that the normans that went into england were “educated” in french language, for they attended the king of france cour as vassals, that the norman nobles interbreed with french nobles , thus not with the norman villans, and that you can still see french surnames among english nobleness (but not among the villans) ;
    bizarre that the americans are fond for their ancestry researches ; hehe, the “foot”, as we say here, if they can digg up to an atom of french ancestry (noble of course) that went with the normans into england.

    now I won’t read your salamaleks anymore, I did till now on that topic cause there are persons who entered into the conversation that I appreciate and respect, BJ, Tedders, (euh, be careful though , otherwise I’ll get my riffle)

    and BJ has it (I wonder why though :lol : )

  111. Nomad, there weren’t even any French “nobles” in the Carolingian Empire. For one thing, the kings and dukes were all Germans. For another, the feudal system didn’t even exist until AFTER 1066 so there was obviously no such thing as a “noble” class.

    Methinks perhaps it is you who should go for that coon ass degree. You’re French, after all :)

    Sorry it offends you so much that the actual history of Europe doesn’t match your French version of it, but facts is facts my dear.

  112. The French didn’t learn to make Champagne until 500 years after William landed at Hastings, so I think it’s safe to say the Normans didn’t know jack shit about it. They probably didn’t know much about ballet, either… just a guess :)

  113. Vraisemblablement, la noblesse franque a adopté les moeurs et coutumes sénatoriaux romains

  114. They probably didn’t know much about ballet, either… just a guess

    yeah, for sure you don’t, but the kingdom of england does : “Dieu et mon Royaume” on the crown etendard ;

    still nowadays they stand as a duty to speek perfectly french, ever heard an Elisabeth’s discourse ? or a Charles’s ?

    the funny thing is that they defend our natural products (to preserve the taste of them, such as cheeze, wines… above the pro-pasteurisation international decrets

  115. Probably, the franque nobility adopted manners and habits senatorial Romans

    Well, that’s what some people say, but feudalism was a social structure of the middle ages, not of the dark ages.

    Charlemagne was illiterate, you know. Do you really think he was a “noble” with elegant manners and all the Frenchified stuff like that? :P

  116. “Les carolingiens sont une famille de grands propriétaires.
    C’était en même temps la famille la plus riche. Le premier Carlomun était un grand propriétaire du pays de Liège 68; son fils, Pépin de Landen, déjà riche, épousa en Aquitaine une riche héritière qui lui apporta un grand nombre de domaines 69. D’autre part, les auteurs des Généalogies nous disent qu’Ansbert était très riche 70. C’est un trait qu’ils ne négligent pas. Le biographe de saint Arnulf commence aussi par nous dire qu’il était «très opulent en biens du siècle 71». Un mariage unit les deux familles de Pépin et d’Arnulf et confondit les deux fortunes sur une seule tête, Pépin d’Héristal.”

    Charlemagne origins

  117. This is why the Pharoah’s rule :) People only wish :)

  118. brooklynjon says:

    Craig,

    This is a little tiresome.
    Here’s a list of English words of French origin:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_French_origin

    Maybe you’re right, and this had nothing to do with the Norman invasion of 1066. Sneaky French liguistic spies introduced the words in the late 1950s when no one was watching because they were all too busy looking for Soyuz up in the sky.

    I have no doubt that you do not feel that “ballet” connotes something fancier than “dance” or that “Champaign” suggests fanciness while “sparkling wine” is a little more pedestrian. But I do believe that you are not representative. So here’s a challenge. Make a list of 10 of the sneakily inserted French-origin words, and their accompanying English origin synonyms. Then make, say, 20 copies. Give it out to people who don’t know what you’re doing. Ask them to select the “fancier” or more cultured word. See what happens.

    I’ll propose a list below:

    Antique – Old
    Avenue – Street
    Brandish – Wield
    Brioche – Roll
    hors d’oeuvres – Appetizers
    Chauffeur – Driver
    Ensemble – Outfit
    Etiquette – Manners
    Beau – Boyfriend
    Lance – Spear
    Quintessence – Paradigm
    Raconteur – Storyteller
    Epicurean – Hedonist

    Feel free to select from this list, or add your own. My point is not that there is anything inherently more cultured about an ensemble than an outfit. My point is that they are, actually, the same thing, but that your average non-Craig person on the street will think that an ensemble is fancier but not know why.

  119. This is a little tiresome.

    OK, lets leave it be then :)

    I don’t really know what point you are trying to make, but it’s not important enough to me to argue with you about it.

  120. Beau – Boyfriend

    uh,

    beau= handsome
    fiancé or copain = boy-friend

    hehe try another list :lol:

  121. Jon, one thing though… that link is no good. From your link:

    Great number of words of French origin have entered the English language to the extent that around 40% of its vocabulary is of French origin. Many of those words in turn originate from Latin, and sometimes from Greek. It is via French that many Latin words have come to the English language. Most of the French vocabulary now appearing in English was imported over the centuries following the Norman Conquest of 1066, when England came under the administration of Norman-speaking peoples. According to different sources, between one third and two thirds of all English words have a French origin. This fact suggests that at least 30,000 words should appear in this list

    From the wiki entry on the English language:

    The Norman Conquest of England in 1066 greatly influenced the evolution of the language. For about 300 years after this, the Normans used Anglo-Norman, which was close to Old French, as the language of the court, law and administration. By the latter part of the fourteenth century, when English had replaced French as the language of law and government, Anglo-Norman borrowings had contributed roughly 10,000 words to English, of which 75% remain in use. These include many words pertaining to the legal and administrative fields, but also include common words for food, such as mutton and beef.[13][14] The Norman influence heavily influenced what is now referred to as Middle English. Later, during the English Renaissance, many words were borrowed directly from Latin (giving rise to a number of doublets) and Greek, leaving a parallel vocabulary that persists into modern times. By the seventeenth century there was a reaction in some circles against so-called inkhorn terms.As such, writers of English have the good fortune of having hundreds of thousands of words from which to choose. When you think of it, the English language writer always has at least three words for any idea, each rooted in the Latin, the Germanic or Saxon tongues, and the Greek. Think of a word for human habitation: city, town, metropolis, and so on. And that’s just the start. In the English-speaking world we also owe a heavy debt to Algonquin, and Hebrew, and Malay (ketchup anyone?) and Maori, and Zulu and Hmong among a multitude of others. I think you can spot the beginnings of a trend here.

    And then there is the entire realm of ”jargon,” scientific and otherwise, those specialized patois or vocabularies known only to those in specific fields. Computer-related jargon is multiplying at an extraordinary rate. And since English has become the lingua Franca of the Internet, English words are being created and non-English words co-opted at an ever-quickening pace.

    And at the end of the day, it’s not the vocabulary that makes a language, anyway.

    PS-many of the words in your example are not even English words at all, they are French words that pretentious people use to try to show off their sophistication :P

  122. The links and formatting got all screwed up. Sorry about taht. here is the missing link:

    http://www.languagemonitor.com/wst_page7.html

    And if you want to leave this alone, I’ll be happy to. Frenchmen (and Francophiles in the academic community) who exaggerate the amount of French in the English language make my blood boil anyway, and despite what some people say I don’t like that feeling.

    …40% of the English language is French? Whoever wrote that wiki article should be shot. Why hasn’t that been challenged yet? That’s not only an exaggeration, it’s an outright lie.

  123. Damn, I hate word press or whatever this blog software is. My whole comment got chopped.

    I was pointing out that there are about a million words in the English language, so regardless of which of those wiki links is correct, neither 7,500 French words nor 30,000 French words amounts to a significant percentage of the total.

  124. Beau – Boyfriend
    uh,
    beau= handsome
    fiancé or copain = boy-friend

    Well we Ami’s have a different meaning for nearly everything. Although I don’t doubt the French meaning you point out, here in The god ol’ US of A the meaning has morphed to mean, “your date-boyfriend-the guy who’s taking you out that night”.

    From Websters dictionary, they site your definition first but nobody here would understand that. Our men aren’t beautiful, they are, or aren’t “handsome” depending on the individual. Unless the are flagrantly gay, then they can be beautiful, pretty, fabulous……. or whatever they want to be!

    Main Entry:
    beau
    Pronunciation:
    \ˈbō\
    Function:
    noun
    Inflected Form(s):
    plural beaux \ˈbōz\ or beaus
    Etymology:
    French, from beau beautiful, from Latin bellus pretty
    Date:
    1683
    1 : dandy 1
    2 : boyfriend 2

    Language is and will always be the art of communication. It will never be bounded by arcane and unbreakable rules. There are only two kinds of rules, those that have been broken and those that are about to be. History proves rules are meant to be broken.

  125. it’s funny, a few new american words entered in my current vocabular, see, the exanges are inversed nowadays :

    fuck-you
    dipshit
    asshole
    assclown
    douchebag
    self-absorbed prick
    fuckin scumbag
    dumbass
    dumbfuck
    asslicker

    well, I got more in store for next list :mrgreen:

  126. brooklynjon says:

    Uh, I never said that 40% of the vocabulary in English is derived from French. I only said that the ones that are are typically percieved as being fancier than their non-French origin synonyms.

    And yes, plenty of words of Latin origin did work their way into English, but an outsized number came by way of French.

    And yes, the “300 years after the Norman invasion” is what its all about. The conquering Normans (yes, ethnically mostly Scandinavian, but speaking a language most people would identify as French) did not initially mix with the average Brit. They ruled them, forming a French-speaking aristocracy. Their language gradually filtered down into English slowly, and it particualrly insinuated itself into the English vocabulary that involved government, culture, and things that the aristocracy was involved in.

    As far as the words I suggested – you’re right. They’re French words. And they’re English, too. Sometimes, they retained the same meaning in English (Lance). Sometimes, Nomad, their meaning changed (Beau may mean something else in French, but in English – when used as an ENGLISH word – it usually means boyfriend; “Fiance” has also been appropriated by English, but it specifically means a man who is engaged to be married, and not merely a “boyfriend”).

    “PS-many of the words in your example are not even English words at all, they are French words that pretentious people use to try to show off their sophistication ”

    Craig, you may not regard them as English words, but if you look at a decent English dictionary, you’ll find them there. Similarly, if you ask educated (but not French-speaking) English speakers, they’ll recognize them.

    As for the contention that the vocabulary makes the language, I must heartily disagree. The alphabet used, the sentence structure, the verb forms, the pronunciation rules are all critical. English is a Germanic language. Not a Romance language. The Romance languages’ sentence structures are all wrong. English is pretty easily pronounceable to a German speaker, and generally bewildering to everyone else.

    Sidebar that I find fascinating:
    English and Yiddish both diverged from Old German at approximately the same time, and are consequently considered by some to be therefore more related to one another than either is to Modern German. As I understand it, to a Modern German-speaker’s ears, listening to Yiddish is like a Modern English speaker reading Beowulf. Yet, to an English speaker, so much Yiddish is surprisingly easy to understand. (E.g. the song “Ich bin ein border by mein veib” = “I am a border with my wife”)
    Sidebar over.
    BJ out

  127. brooklynjon says:

    A MILLION word vocabulary? I scoff!
    http://www.fltr.ucl.ac.be/fltr/germ/etan/bibs/vocab/cup.html

    Yes, English has a very large vocabulary, widely considered to be larger than any other language’s. But that million word estimate is probably too large by a factor of 10 to 20. At least in any meaningful sense.

    And Nomad, “douchebag” may have come from the English, but “douche” entered English by way of the Normans. Touche!
    Dang! I did it again!

    And I believe “assclown” is derivitave from Icelandic.

  128. am I looking pretentious if I use them ?

    though, I can stand some intellectual conversations with them :cool:

  129. Uh, I never said that 40% of the vocabulary in English is derived from French. I only said that the ones that are are typically percieved as being fancier than their non-French origin synonyms.

    No, but the link you provided made that claim :)

    From your other link:

    There are three ways of answering this question. One way is to ask “How many words are there in the target language?” Another way is to ask “How many words do native speakers know?” A third way is to ask “How many words are needed to do the things that a language user needs to do?” We will look at answers to each of these questions.

    You need to start supplying better links, Jon. From your other link (and your example):

    Raconteur – Storyteller
    Epicurean – Hedonist

    How many native English speakers has even a vague idea what either of those two words mean? I’ve never in my life heard anybody use either of those words in conversational English.

    It’s inappropriate for you to be using the grand total of French words in the English language, regardless of how obscure they might be, and then compare them to an abbreviated list of words in the English language. Your conclusion is invalid because your comparison is invalid.

    It’s not hard to find out how many words there are in the English language, jon.

    http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JohnnyLing.shtml

    Minimum estimates are 450,000 and maximum estimates are 1 million.

  130. brooklynjon says:

    You will look very pretentious if you say “asslicker” or “dipshit”. I would avoid these in all but the most esoteric conversations.

  131. BJ,

    English and Yiddish both diverged from Old German at approximately the same time, and are consequently considered by some to be therefore more related to one another than either is to Modern German.

    Hmmm… well, the Anglo-Saxon dialect of German was closer to Old Norse than to High German:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_German_languages

    But you may have a point, regardless. German sounds to me like a very foreign language, despite the fact that I can understand much of it when I try to break it down. The vowels and consonants are very different.

  132. brooklynjon says:

    Craig,

    The overwhelming majority of those 450,000 words are a lot more obscure than “raconteur” and “epicurean”, and would be completely gibberish to virtually everyone coming across them, whether in print or in conversation. And scientific terms? Come on! You’re counting “Para-Amino-Benzoic Acid” as a unique English word? Then there are a zillion English words, and a zillion words in every language, because there’s a word for it in any language that is spoken by at least one chemist.

    “A university graduate will have a vocabulary of around 20,000 word families (Goulden, Nation and Read, 1990). These figures are very rough and there is likely to be very large variation between individuals. These figures exclude proper names, compound words, abbreviations, and foreign words. A word family is taken to include a base word, its inflected forms, and a small number of reasonably regular derived forms (Bauer and Nation, 1993). Some researchers suggest vocabulary sizes larger than these (see Nagy, this volume), but in the well conducted studies (for example, D’Anna, Zechmeister nad Hall, 1991) the differences are mainly the result of differences in what items are included in the count and how a word family is defined.”

    And if you’ve never heard anyone described as a raconteur or an epicurean, I would say you need to diversify the people you hang out with. Sandmonkey.org is a good start. I come from the concrete jungle, and I know both of these.

    But I encourage you to try the experiment, and if you don’t think epicurean is a good example, replace it with another. Crepes or pancakes. Salon or room. Saute or fry. Rouge or blush. Mousse or pudding. Menagerie or zoo. Ménage à trois or threesome. Bureau or chest of drawers.

    There are many options. Try it!

  133. Jon, I come from a pretty good Anglo family and I don’t know anyone who uses most of the words you are claiming are in common use.

    Bureau or chest of drawers.

    Try “dresser”? :O

    Menagerie? I’d laugh at somebody who asked me if I wanted to go to the “menagerie”, man. Same with somebody who called a “room” a “salon”. Who talks like that? Maybe the Anglo-Saxons in Nomad’s imagination, she’s certainly accused me of being a pretentious SOB enough times… but in real life?

    I don’t like your methodology, BJ. On the one hand, you reduce English vocabulary down to a number of “word families” (whatever that is supposed to mean) that an educated person would know and use, and on the other hand you are including French words that I’ve never heard anyone actually say. You don’t have any problems with that?

  134. Bureau or chest of drawers.

    Bureaucrat is an indispensable French word, though :)

    As is “beautiful”, though the root word “beau” is not used much.

  135. “The Romance languages’ sentence structures are all wrong”

    Boy, you can say that again!

    All the words BJ has mentioned I’ve heard all my life, mostly from my mother. She went to college, never graduated, was raised in the sticks (in west Texas) and is an unusually intelligent person, point being, you don’t have to live in a high falootin’ (sp?) big city like New York to here that kind of lexicon. I work in the construction industry where word smiths are far and few between, evidently (not that I consider myself one by any means) and have many times been questioned on what I consider normal everyday expressions.

  136. “Bureaucrat is an indispensable French word, though”

    Hehehe, touche’!

    Point goes to Craig!

  137. I’ve learned more about those damn Norman’s than I ever thought I would! Thanks to SM, Craig, BJ and Nomad !!! : )

  138. Bisou is my Fav. of all :)

  139. brooklynjon says:

    “Word families” means that fight, fighting, fighter, fighters are all the same word, in essence.

    I’ll grant you that “dresser” would be a bit better than “chest of drawers”, although that’s what my Philadelphian wife calls it – perhaps that’s a more British English thing.

    I agree with you that no one would say “I’m taking the kids to the menagerie”. It means the same thing as zoo, yet people would use it to describe something fancier than a pedestrian zoo. That’s why the play is “The Glass Menagerie” and not “the Glass Zoo”. One conjures up a sophisticated image. The other sounds ridiculous.

    And you have certainly heard of people calling a room a salon. Ever heard of a Hair Salon? Sounds better than a barber shop, no?

    But the bigger issue is that the very fact that you associate these words with “high falutin’” people, with people who are “pretentious” (Pretending what, exactly? Why, pretending to be aristocratic, silly.) exactly proves my point. Almost always, when words are synonyms, the french-derived one will be perceived as the fancier, higher-falutin’, pretentionest one. Can’t you see it? A person who calls their living room their “parlor” is pretending to be fancy-shmancy. That’s exactly it! In the eyes of the anglophone world, French = fancy, English = down home.

  140. Can’t you see it? A person who calls their living room their “parlor” is pretending to be fancy-shmancy. That’s exactly it! In the eyes of the anglophone world, French = fancy, English = down home.

    I do see it, Jon, but it’s the “pretending” part that I don’t think you are seeing. I start seeing red flags when born and raised Americans start using French (or other foreign words) when there are commonly used English words that mean the same thing. There’s a big difference between *being* cultured and being a poseur, isn’t there?

    Yes, I know poseur is a French word. I just screwed up my own argument. Shit.

    Tedders,

    All the words BJ has mentioned I’ve heard all my life, mostly from my mother. She went to college, never graduated, was raised in the sticks (in west Texas) and is an unusually intelligent person, point being, you don’t have to live in a high falootin’ (sp?) big city like New York to here that kind of lexicon.

    Maybe it’s different in Texas. When I was in the Marines I noticed a lot of the guys from the South had a very different vocabulary than what I was used to. I grew up in New Jersey and New York, though, and I don’t actually think the words Jon is talking about are in such common use, there.

  141. brooklynjon says:

    In Brooklyn, the bottom floor of a brownstone, which usually gets rented out, is the garden floor. Low Ceilings. Minimal embellishments. Partially below grade.

    The second floor, with the ornate moldings, marble mantles, and high ceilings, is called the parlor floor.

    Assuming you didn’t know that, if I asked you which floor was the nicer floor, you would know just by the way the names sounded. Now that hint of fanciness may have a negative connotation for you. It has a positive connotation for the poseurs of Brownstone Brooklyn, that’s for sure.

  142. BJ,

    Bonsoir :)

  143. Parlors are nicer than gardens, Jon? I’d know that just from the sound? :P

    I lived in a Brownstone in the upper west side for a couple years. I don’t recall the floors having any particular names. And the one we lived in had 4 or 5 floors I think. And a basement too.

  144. Jon, by the way… you know what I think of when I hear the word “parlor”? I think of an old run down dusty sitting room with ramshackle furniture. I think it’s because some of the Italian families I knew in New Jersey when I was a kid had “parlors” like that. I’ve never heard anyone else use the word, myself. But you probably won’t believe me when I say that :)

  145. Who talks like that? Maybe the Anglo-Saxons in Nomad’s imagination

    not in my imagination, in litterature, in movies, in sources for education… I can’t say that in every-day life people use the kind of words, I rather see WTF in each sentence ; there are also many sophisticated french words that we don’t use in every-day life, depends also on the persons with whom we are talking to : we just adapt the quality of language to the the persons we want to be understood. There are people who don’t, may-be cause it’s not a need for them to exchange views with average persons ; it’s not my case, I am a kind of cameleon, I am talkative with each strate of a population ; even when I meet a muslim, I try to understand how he/her fonctions ; anyway, in my profession I meet all the level sort of persons.

  146. brooklynjon says:

    Craig,

    As an anesthesiologist, I see a cross-section of Brooklyn society every day, and there are certainly people who have a more sophisticated mode of speech, and others whose speech is less so. Most of them would certainly understad most of the words mentioned above (except raconteur and possibly epicure). I suppose it’s possible people put on their best language to speak to me, somehow I doubt it. I think they all really understand them, and more specifically, impart onto them an air of sophistication that I would argue is undeserved (sorry, Nomad, I heard all the post-war France stories from Mom, and I know better) but is derivative from the high station in society held by the French-speaking Normans in the years after the 1066 invasion, and maintained in some linguistico-cultural memory ever since.

    And, having spent seven years looking for a house in Brooklyn, and having looked at at least 100 brownstones, I can assure you that the first fully above-grade floor is the parlor floor.
    http://corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1101959&ohDat=

    And Nomad is not just imagining the Angles and the Saxons.

    Two, very funny! Bonjour to you!

  147. BJ, You don’t find people who live in NYC to be pretentious(particularly people with money)? Maybe that’s the misunderstanding we are having :)

    And Nomad is not just imagining the Angles and the Saxons.

    She might be. A friend of hers provided some DNA analysis that Anglo-Saxons are just a bunch of Celts and Gauls. But that isn’t what I meant… I was talking about her perception of Anglos, who she doesn’t like very much.

  148. “Anglos, who she doesn’t like very much.”

    It’s probably because we don’t like De Gaulle! LOL

  149. Interesting article about a lion and a Frog!

    http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/article.php3?id_article=186

  150. A friend of hers provided some DNA analysis that Anglo-Saxons are just a bunch of Celts and Gauls.

    I would like to know him

    But that isn’t what I meant… I was talking about her perception of Anglos, who she doesn’t like very much

    that’s your perception, I might sometime get upset against some of them, it is more because they are talking on us as you do

    “The funny thing is to try to understand why the French are so specifically targeted. What have they done to Americans? One could expect the Germans not to be their favorite friends. Weren’t both twice at war within 25 years? And not precisely skirmishes. But no, nothing against the Germans. Or the Japanese (Pearl Harbour anyone?). What about the Vietnamese? Or the Russians after 40 years of cold war? Nichts, nada, zil, zero, rien. Well, I thought the Iranians were now America’s bêtes noires. But nothing against the people of Iran, just the leaders of the regime. And what about the English? Didn’t they burn down the White House in 1812? And they weren’t exactly helpful in Vietnam, were they?”

    “I agree with those who cite the residual anti-French sentiment we retain from our British roots. It must have begun there. Oldfrog makes some very good points.

    I’ve also always thought there was a rivalry between France and the US because France dominated the Western world in many ways for a long time, and has made a greater contribution to Western civilization than any other civilization since the ancient Greeks (if you ask me). But in the last century or so, it’s been America that is dominant on the world scene, and I think, on some level, America resents that the French ever held the position of dominance. America is jealous. It burns America’s ass that France continues to assert itself. America thinks France’s time has passed and that it should sit back and shut up.

    The fact that the French frequently “dare” to stand up to the US annoys Americans, certainly (and thank god France does stand up to the US). The American ego is monstrous, as Flocon’s post says. The only thing that allows Americans to maintain the illusion that they are superior to every other people is their own ignorance. They know nothing about the French mentality or history and, thus, cannot analyze the behavior of the French. They have no grasp of the principles that French opposition and advice are based on (humanism, socialism, the républicain ideal). They simply see it as arbitrary opposition and they don’t bother to look any further. That’s the problem with Americans. The endemic laziness and lack of intellectual curiosity in that culture that will be its undoing.

    I’m convinced that the entire surrender monkey thing is based on that Life magazine photo of the Frenchman crying as the Nazis entered Paris (http://bp0.blogger.com/_eR4-1Xi0_3Y/RfS1xU_lvkI/AAAAAAAAATM/iewY1abCdyY/s1600-h/1817609.jpg). That’s about all Americans know of recent French history, and they are not in the least bit motivated to learn more. They are, as a culture, disinclined to question their own assumptions or to question what they are told. It is sad and scary; an ignorant superpower is a terrifying thing.

    When France tries to reason with the US, when France tries to advise the US based on its significant wisdom and experience, America acts like a recalcitrant teenager who knows it all and refuses to listen. I had a teenager, I know what I’m talking about.”

    http://superfrenchie.com/?p=1460#comments

  151. brooklynjon says:

    Well, one certainly doesn’t need money to be pretentious.

    I think the pretentiousness/boorishness divide pretty much depends on who you are, and where on that spectrum you find yourself. When I left college to go to medical school, I found that no one understood what I was talking about 99% of the time. I had to consciously simplify my sentence structure and remove all words with more than three syllables from my vocabulary. Then people understood me. I complained about it to a good friend who was at Yale Med School. He said that he had the same problem there, and solved it the same way. Were we pretentious? Were our classmates boors (and bores)? A little of both? I suppose it would entirely depend on who you asked. But man, was it frustrating saying “great” when I meant “phenomenal”.

    As far as Nomad is concerned, she’s good people, but she suffers from having been born French. Had she been lucky enough to be born American, she’d realize just how great America is. I mean, “just how phenomenal”

  152. brooklynjon says:

    Nomad,

    America is rubber and France is glue! There!

  153. Bj, then I would be a pretentious New-Yorker :lol:

    Well I never fell the envy to live in the US, just may-be visit some good friends I have there and New-York of course
    I rather envy to live in Spain

  154. What do you mean ?

  155. English? Didn’t they burn down the White House in 1812?

    Hey, they did! Damn Limeys!!

    There’s not as much French/US animosity as you think Nomad. And if here is any it comes from the Roosevelt, Churchill and De Gualle differences during and after WWII.

    From a PBS history site:
    “With the fall of France in 1940, the Nazis would occupy two-thirds of the country and the remaining one-third would be governed by the collaborating new state based at the Spa town of Vichy. Two Frances would emerge, the Vichy France and the Free France of De Gaulle. Vichy France broke off relations with Britain in July 1940 when the British navy attacked a portion of the French fleet at Oran in Algeria to end the possibility of it falling into German hands. Not yet in the war, the break with England made it more important for the United States to maintain relations with Vichy France. This was an effort to reduce Germany’s influence to a minimum, prevent the surrender to the Axis of the French Fleet or French bases in Africa, and serve as a channel of intelligence to Axis plans and activities. De Gaulle, starting from nothing in England, gradually built up the forces of the Free French, but could not convince his allies that France could be restored to the status of a major power.

    Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt so doubted the loyalty of General De Gaulle that they kept the Anglo-American invasion of North Africa a secret from him, as well as the Normandy landings, and excluded him from the Yalta Conference. Nevertheless, De Gaulle had 1,300,000 men under him at the end of the war. This earned him a place in the peace settlement, with a little help from Churchill. Britain knew that France would be a power to reckon with during the post-war period. Prophetically, Charles De Gaulle would become President of France. He lost no opportunity to chastise the United States and even blocked Britain’s early attempts to join the European Common Market. This legacy, that affected both Britain and the United States at crucial points of their post-war development, is rooted in the extraordinary relationships between three titanic figures that became allies at war.

    This clearly written and solidly researched work would have been enhanced by footnotes or more extensive endnotes. It would also eliminate confusion for the reader if foreign phrases were translated. Nevertheless, this book has much to offer for those interested in international relations.”

  156. Spain? Tell me it ain’t so!!!

    You live in Poitiers, France fer gosh sakes!!

  157. BJ is quoting a common child’s retort, “I’m made of rubber, you’re made of glue. Everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!”

    He was just being cheeky and unpretentious!

  158. yeah, Tedders, but I put my business for sale so that I get

    years vacations, only enjoying sun-shine, fiestas, calamars a la plancha… and net wanderings

    even blocked Britain’s early attempts to join the European Common Market

    euh, Are the Brits great contribuators to EU now ?

    I don’t think one serious EU state thinks so

    prevent the surrender to the Axis of the French Fleet or French bases in Africa

    that’s what they say, I know personnally the navy people, I can assure you that they wouldn’t have surrended, but rather take the large to safer places

  159. I’ve always wondered how the British bombardment of the (Vichy) French fleet must have been taken by the French in general. A bitter pill no doubt. War is a horrible thing and sometimes choices have to be made. One wonders what the alternatives could have been. I know how Americans felt after Pearl Harbor, the French must have felt similar.

  160. I don’t really know about it, my family lived in the countryside of Brittany, they didn’t suffer much of the war, except for the lack of goods that they didn’t product, such oil, soaps… ;

    I have read that many bombings could have been avoid, if there were a better coodination and communication between the decisions makers.

    Though I suspect that destroying our navy fleet was for them the most grateful pleasure ; cause we were/are still challengers on seas ; though the adventage is for us at the moment.

    I remember the ancients saying “yes, the liberateurs, yeah, the liberatueurs” (liberakillers)

  161. tedders,

    She says she didn’t concede what do you think?

    bj,

    let it snow let it snow let it snow……ahhhh I miss the snow ;)

  162. brooklynjon says:

    Two,

    I can send you some of my snow, perhaps… Spent an hour and a half yesterday shovelling. Today I’m working to cover for my buddy who’s snowed out in L.A. Bummin’.

  163. “She says she didn’t concede what do you think?”

    I’m not sure I know what you mean Twos!

    She didn’t concede what?

  164. sorry tedders I wasn’t clear, I was talking about Clinton and the debate.

    bj,

    My children and I would love to play in the snow, whenever I had to shovel it meant less time in the gym :) sorry to hear you have to cover for someone I know how bad that is when you plan your day off and then duty calls :(

    Oh well! less Havarti consumption not bad at all :)

  165. tedders,

    I met this group of people yesterday in a party and we talked about politics and maybe I will introduce you to them what a fun crowd!

  166. “I met this group of people yesterday in a party and we talked about politics and maybe I will introduce you to them what a fun crowd!”

    That would be great!!

    Will Hillary concede? That’s a tough one, I’d think she’d have Obama whacked before she gave up!! LOL

  167. brooklynjon says:

    She’ll certainly stay in it until the Texas and Ohio primaries.
    I have to say, I don’t generally agree with her, but unlike Obama, she doesn’t give me the willies. I won’t be happy to see her leave the race.

  168. teddy and Bj,

    Some people were wondering if her tone in the last question she answered in the debate meant that. She tried to whack him but failed misreably his Charisma won :)

    I love how Mccain and Barbie doll attacked Obama once he won Wisconsin. We have to wait and see what the superdelgates will decide it is such a democratic voting system, that after all the voting the superdelgates paid by the nominees will dictate on Ameirca who is the one.

    I can’t wait to see a youtube video with the names and addresses of the superdelgates. Does anyone knows who they are? and how much they get money from the Clintons?

  169. Oh and BJ…..I saw your picture on the Zod web site didn’t know you are such a cute Zod but I won’t vote for you :)

  170. Zod in 2008!!!

  171. brooklynjon says:

    Two,

    The Superdelegates are mostly Democratic politicians who hold statewide office or who are in Congress. There are a few, like Donna Brazille, who are just big machers in the Democratic Party. It’s generally not a secret who they are.

    And I agree that they are a blot on the whole democratic system. One man, one vote, unless you are Donna Brazille? What’s up with that?

    “Zod in 2008!!!”
    I agree with that!

  172. brooklynjon says:

    Ralph Nader has just announced that he is running for president.

  173. the link, I want to see the photo :sad:

  174. Nomad,

    Here is the link BJ posted before. Isn’t he a darling? :)

    http://www.zod2008.com/

  175. BJ,

    I was being sarcastic abut about Superdelegates. I would like to see them on you tube saying my name is so and so and I’m a Superdelegate and Clinton gave me this much $$$$$

    how democratic indeed!

  176. teddy,

    I’m hoping we can have a get together in NY city with Zod on his first Zod Campaign. I bet we will end up high as he will practice his Zodism by making us very happy campers poking our backs :)

  177. uh, he is terrible, much like a Tarik Ramadan, I am afraid :lol:

  178. I have a feeling Nomad and Twos won’t be afraid if this really happens! I think it’s all part of the softening up of Zod’s image for the 2008 run!! LOL

    http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2006/08/08/jude_law_could_play_general_zod_in_super

  179. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKDFop0aqYQ

    LOL

    Jude Law as Zod hmmm that will be interesting, it will confirm to what guys always think that women love bad guys :)

  180. And the Oscar winners are EUROPEANS!

    winks at

    Nomad

  181. hey, you mean for the bad guys preference ?

  182. yup

  183. “yup”

    Oh, that explains the Palestinian thing!! LOL

  184. not me you little stinker heheheeee :)

  185. Helen Bart says:

    When you accuse pope John XXIII, as being an accomplice with the natzis
    you know you are speculating, Give just one single proof of what you state on your coment