You could have heard a pin drop

[St Anna]

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

Shaved off the beard, getting a new passport. I am safe, the other thing I found out about Aussies is that in spite of the gruffness on the surface, they have hearts of gold - just don't want to admit it (even to themselves).

AArgh, stop using those big words you old b@&#^#.

[see TDW's comment about old b$%^&&**'s]

[killarney_sailor]

Somewhere, someone is working on a dissertation to explain how a thread that started with stereotypical disparagement of the French became a discussion of the essential character of Aussies. Of course, I can't pin down which academic discipline this person might be working in - social psychology perhaps, network theory, ??

Where does the discussion go after we get tired of the Aussies - probably to Obama's shortcomings - just about every discussion here goes in that direction.

[WouldaShoulda]

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

Somewhere, someone is working on a dissertation to explain how a thread that started with stereotypical disparagement of the French became a discussion of the essential character of Aussies. Of course, I can't pin down which academic discipline this person might be working in - social psychology perhaps, network theory, ??

Where does the discussion go after we get tired of the Aussies - probably to Obama's shortcomings - just about every discussion here goes in that direction.

But we will never know because those friggin backward Republicans in the house are holding funding for the study hostage!!

That's just how those Gay hating middle class destroying bastards roll!!

Obama 2012;

Where my free **** at??

[BentSailor]

I'm guessing some of the yanks are feeling left out. Too much talk about other countries and their folk - not enough homage to Jesusland

To answer your question, SJB, Tasmania is the island off the bottom of the continent. So island, isolated, no-one to be with but your family... the jokes flow from that. We don't need a complicated foundation to start ripping on somewhere or someone. So long as they're in on the joke, it's generally all good. My sister lives in Tasmania and laughs along with the rest of us.

Personally, I didn't find the initial jokes in good taste. It seemed more an attack on the French because they didn't stand in the battlefields and die like others that stood up to the Nazi invasion, preferring asymmetric warfare. When 2% of the population outside the military organises an effective resistance and more frenchmen were deported than Jews & Gypsies due to their actions - I don't feel it fair to slam them for their cowardice. That's just me however.

On the Poms, never really thought much of them other than European immigrants with a pole up their... but I digress Could have something to do with the fact I couldn't care less who wins international (or local for that matter) cricket or rugby. By the time I actually cared about the matter, we had cut all ties but a common monarch from Britain and had grown up with British shows like Dr Who, the Goodies, Some Mothers Do'Ave'Em, etc. And we already had a target across the Pacific for our sheep-f@#%er jokes

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by BentSailor

Personally, I didn't find the initial jokes in good taste. It seemed more an attack on the French because they didn't stand in the battlefields and die like others that stood up to the Nazi invasion, preferring asymmetric warfare. When 2% of the population outside the military organises an effective resistance and more frenchmen were deported than Jews & Gypsies due to their actions - I don't feel it fair to slam them for their cowardice. That's just me however.

The joke about France's military "prowess" include a whole lot more than WWII but restricting it to your comments for a moment - they also were the only country that was split into occupied and collaborating regions. They were the only occupied country that didn't try to get some or all of their military assets to England - they even resented the British destroying their Med. fleet to prevent the Nazi's getting their hands on it. They were the only occupied country that fired on allied invasion forces (North Africa). They had the highest rate of individual collaboration of any occupied country. They had one of the worst records of turning in Jews (only Hungary was worse I believe). They have proven to be the least grateful of all occupied countries for their liberation.

And I still don't have an answer to my question about Napoleon.

I have and have had, numerous French friends & acquaintances but we are talking about the character of a NATION here, not the individual citizens of it.

[WouldaShoulda]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

And I still don't have an answer to my question about Napoleon.

An Emporor is far superior to a Monarch every day!!

[tdw]

Sloop,
Bent answered your query re Tassie ... we also refer to Queensland as the Deep North ... though that largely came about due to a dodgey government led by one Johannes Bjelke Peterson which ruled Qld for many a year largely by dint of a monumental gerrymander.

Ref the Froggies ... De Gaulle had much to answer for. Reality is he was a grasping me me me politican with bugger all redeeming features. Dumping on the "French" for the failings of some is somewhat unfair if only cos like so many European nations the disparate groups that make up the population often hate each other more than they hate outsiders. Witness Spain where if e.g. Barcelona are playing against a German club in the Champions League half of Spain will cheer the Germans simply out of loathing for the Catalans.

So some parts of France sympathised with the Nazis .... had England been conquered I reckon you would have seen the same thing there, as a considerable number of the English did in fact have great sympathy for Nazi ideals and yes sadly that does include pathological hatred of the Jews and Romanis. Interestingly enough of course had France not been so pig headed about making the Germans pay for WWI we might (emphasis on might) never have had a WWII, at least in Europe.

As for Napoleon ... welll you have a point though at least he didn't slaughter quite so many of the aforementioned Jews and Romanis. I suppose you could also throw Alexander the G and a few others into that mix.

[SlowButSteady]

Let's put things in a little perspective, shall we? In 1940, France had about 4 or 5 million men in its army. They were attacked by about 2 million German troops. That doesn't sound too good for the French. However, France is about 250,000 sq.miles, and Germany captured about half of that before the french government essentially fell. Operation Barbarossa (Hitler's 1941 attack on the USSR) involved about 3.5 million troops on either side, and Germany captured about 750,000 sq. miles (and Stalin had been building tanks, planes, and ammunition like crazy for about 2 years in preparation of Hitler's eventual attack). The German Army in 1940/41 was the most powerful fighting force on the planet. The only things that stopped them were the English Channel (they had little amphibious capability) and one of the most severe Russian winters on record.

The US has a little over 3 million sq. miles (excluding Alaska), and our military had about a half a million men in 1940, about a third of whom were Navy personnel. If Germany had been next door to the US, and decided to launch a Blitzkrieg against us in 1940 or 1941, just how long do you think we could have lasted? At the very least, they probably could have taken the entire East Coast and much of the Midwest (about the area taken on the Easter Front) without breaking much of a sweat. And after they had wiped out most of our army doing that, what would have stopped them from taking the rest of the US??

Yes, the French Army didn't exactly impress the rest of the world in 1940. With the exception of the British Air Force, nobody was very effective against the German military in 1940/41. Had our Armed Forces (circa 1940) been in the path of such an attack the result would have, if anything, been even more lop-sided. The only thing that allowed us to mount the offensives we were able to mount later in the war was geography (and the fact that about three-quarters of the German Army was on the Eastern Front).

[BentSailor]

Not trying to get into a tit-for-tat, SJB. I disagree with the characterisation of the French based on what I've learned and that makes the jokes about their military prowess &/or cowardice generally less humorous for me.

You disagree. I get it. I'm just not going to debate the concept beyond stating my position.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by tdw

As for Napoleon ... welll you have a point though at least he didn't slaughter quite so many of the aforementioned Jews and Romanis.

Yeah, war was different in his time. Instead of murdering huge numbers of civilians in massacres, the armies just took all their food and animals and left them to starve.

I doubt there are adequate records available from those days but it would be interesting to know what the population of Europe was before and after Napoleon had his day. In percentage terms I wouldn't be surprised if the decline was similar to WWII.