Why has France never recovered from the Franco-Prussian War?

demographics

/thread

Really, it's more of a chronic problem stemming from the French Revolution

>revolution fails
>tensions never dissipate from society
>republican vs monarchist
>Protestant vs Catholic
>urban vs. rural
>socialism vs. capitalism
>repeated wars, insurrections, and occupations only exacerbate the political and sectarian tensions
>by the time of the third republic, a lot of France sympathizes with the Nazis more than the government
>a lot of what remains is socialists, pacifists, communists, and other human beings unworthy of the gift of life

Even after WW2, they had a semi-coup to change to a presidential system, and then a bunch of disgruntled army officers tried to kill De Gaulle because he wasn't militant enough for them.

This is incidentally why they hideously botched WW2, and why the wars in Indochina and Algeria were such clusterfucks compared to the ones in Kenya and Malaysia

They haven't recovered since the 100 days.

France is still like the third most powerful country even today.

If you're talking about the end of French hegemony that happened with the fall of Napoleon.

>>1754023
>third most powerful
Not even close. Third most powerful in Europe, at best.

>>1754041
What country is more powerful than France, other than America and China? Are you one of those delusional germboos?

>>1754096
Russia? Britain? India?

Are you one of those delusional frogs that thinks France is still relevant after 1954?

>>1754107
>Britain?

Lmao
http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
And that's a British website

>>1754107
>India

Yeah, no. France is in the running for Fourth after the US, China, and Russia, but that's a struggle between it and Britain there.

>>1754107
Russia's economy is the size of Spain's and it has very limited power projection, all it has is a giant stockpile of rusting nukes. Britain is basically identical to France in stats, except it depends on the US for everything. And you best be joking about India.

>>1754120
>>1754124
India places above France on GFP.

>>1754107
>claims Britain is more powerful than France
>while bringing up 1954, the year Britain surrendered to fucking Egypt

>>1754096
Britain.

Easily Britain.

Even Russia most of the time.

>>1754127
What the fuck is GFP?

File: hrerd.jpg (969KB, 2256x1260px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 2256x1260px

>>1753772
France before the Napoleonic Wars was godlike
They'd take huge coalitions all alone.

After that they became average-tier (mostly fighting alliance wars in Europe or colonial wars against backward shithole).
It's the tier Britain always occupied, but because France was god-tier in the past, it looks like they fell harshly while Britain has remained constant in its mediocrity

File: le goth of disapproval.jpg (53KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 400x600px

>>1754128
>HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE FRENCH WERE INVOLVED IN THE SUEZ WAR

get out of here you normie scum

>>1754133
A British website about countries current military power
See >>1754119

>>1754135
Yes and? It was Britain that unilaterally surrendered out of nowhere because America ordered them to, not France.

>>1754128
The difference is that Britain didn't lose 10% of their fucking military capability abroad in a single battle in Bumfuck Nowhere in 1954. France did.

>>1754133
Global Firepower.

>>1754141
GFP isn't British.

>>1754141
/k/ here.

GFP is a joke.

So is the Indian military.

Their readiness rates are appalling, their Air Force and Navy are anemic, and they literally can't even make an AK right.

Even the Economist was ripping into them for this recently.

>>1754141
Who gives a shit about whatever meme website? India is an abysmally poor third world literal shithole with no economic or military clout whatsoever.

>>1754129
Nigel please.

>>1754149
Business Insider also has France ranked lower than India. They also ranked France lower than Japan.

>>1754148
>The difference is that Britain didn't lose 10% of their fucking military
That's right. That's because Britain just bent over for every shitskin country in the world without so much as a fight. Nice power there.

>>1754157
You really should have non-autistic people talking about military affairs, they get it all wrong.

France has much, much more force projection than India.

The only real advantage India has is numbers, but those numbers are composed of such utter mediocrity that it makes China look good.

You're talking about a country that has worse small arms than Pakistan, and probably worse planes too.

>>1754157
Gee Anon and could you also tell us what Buzzfeed and Gawker have to say about French military capability, I'm dying to know.

>>1754164
>French get BTFO in Indochina so badly that they lose a conventional, pitched battle to the Viet Minh
>Brits crush the communists in Malaya and leave in good order
>French get BTFO in Algeria so badly that a million pied noirs have to flee to France as refugees, and hundreds of thousands of their former collaborators are slaughtered
>Brits crush the resistance in Kenya and leave in good order

>>1754168
*shouldn't

File: 1365892822530.jpg (20KB, 360x201px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 360x201px

>>1754173
>comparing Vietnam to the Malaysia riots

>>1754173
The French won militarily in Algeria, they ended up having to withdraw for political reasons, so the same as the British in Kenya (or the Americans in Vietnam for that matter.

>>1753796
>>1753812

both these things

/thread

>>1754181
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

>inb4 I was only pretending

>>1754186
>British withdraw with a friendly, hand-picked government in power, a safe environment for investment, and minimal casualties
>French withdraw after killing around a million brown people, and accomplishing absolutely nothing but inspiring genocidal hatred in their former subjects
>British can still live in Kenya and do business there quite easily
>all of the French people have to GTFO Algeria because the alternative is being killed

And this isn't even getting to the humiliating part of the story

>France considered Algeria part of the home country
>a million French Europeans lived in Algeria, and had been born there
>all of them have to up and leave because the French were incapable of winning the war, or not committing so many war crimes that the new government wouldn't tolerate their continued existence

>>1754173
lol I never even heard of that shit. You mean that joke rebellion Obama's dad was in? Is "leave in good order" britbong for surrendering? That sure turned out great for white Rhodesians.

>>1754199
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

Few thousands of dead on each sides
Meanwhile, Indochina had hundreds thousands of viets killed

>>1754199
I like how you didn't address his point at all

>>1754201
>>1754203
No shit.

If you fuck up when you're fighting a small insurgency, it turns into a large insurgency.

The British didn't fuck up.

>well all you had to do was put up a trash can fire, my entire house was burning
>what's this about smoke detectors

Tell me more about how the FLN went from tiny gigantic, and the MCP remained tiny, and this had nothing to do with the quality of the administration in those countries.

>>1754207
>actually trying to compare the French defeat in Algeria to the British campaign in Kenya

Now that's just embarrassing.

>>1754209
The FLN remained tiny and was thoroughly trounced militarily, ending up isolated to a few worthless desert areas while the rest of the country was firmly under French control. Then, for political reasons the French withdrew.

>>1754199
The Algerian war was primarily between Muslims and Europeans living there, with the French military trying to keep the peace.

If Britain had been in charge of that, there would have been no war since you would have run away and abandoned the colony at the first sign of trouble, and then joined in international sanctions against the whites. Which is exactly what you did with Rhodesia and South Africa.

>>1754209
It had to do with only one thing: Britain gave up Malaysia right away while France tried to hold on to Algeria. Of course your enemies don't have any reason to fight you if you always just give in to them.

>>1754209
>If you fuck up when you're fighting a small insurgency, it turns into a large insurgency.

More like, if unlike in Malay, there were already hundreds thousands of rebels in the jungle before the Japs even left
The Malay revolt was a few dudes rioting in some cities
Don't try to compare what isnt comparable

>>1754217
I'm not British bruv.

I just got interested in this because of how badly things went in Vietnam.

What I got out of this is that the British were a lot smarter in terms of policy than the French, which makes sense being that one of them was conquered and occupied right before the colonial wars started, and the other wasn't.

Then again, the British and Americans didn't collaborate with the Japanese, and the French did, which is why the British were welcomed back by most of the population of the Philippines and Malaya, and the population of Indochina went to war with the French a matter of weeks after they dared to show their faces again.

>>1754216
At least the stab-in-the-back myth for Vietnam has a kernal of truth in it.

There are people on this site who honestly believe that De Gaulle signed the Evian Accords because the French administration Algeria was proving tenable, and the war was won.

>>1754217
They cut and run when faced with conflict in Israel-Palestine and India as well. The British were literally BTFO by kikes and by poo in loos picking up salt.

>>1754230
>the British were welcomed back by most of the population of the Philippine
>he thinks the Philippines were a British colony
wew lad, it all makes sense now

>>1754230
>the French collaborated with the Japanese
lol wtf

Japan conquered Indochina from France. Which is why the US supported the Viet Minh.

>>1754228
Frankly, I see this as another example of the French being dumbasses.

>okay, our countries have been fucked pretty thoroughly
>it looks like the US and USSR are a lot more powerful now, and both of those guys hate empires
>British decide that they should try to change from being a colonial empire to a social democracy and use their strategic position within NATO to give them the juice to make the transition
>French decide to keep trying to hold onto populations that despise them, and for good reason
>British held countries tend to decolonize with minimal damage to British interests, any insurgencies in them are forestalled by the promise of independence
>French held countries realize the only hope of being anything other than toilet paper is total war

File: sn.png (427KB, 646x1096px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 646x1096px

>>1754230
>Then again, the British and Americans didn't collaborate with the Japanese, and the French did

The French didnt "collaborate" with the Japs, they were kicked out.
Just like the Brits

The big difference is that Malay had no resistance against Japan, while Vietnam had a huge resistance movement in the jungle that almost kicked the Japs out by itself
That's why when the yuros came back after Japan's defeat, the Vietnamese were ready to kick them out as well while Malayans tried to mount a resistance movement out of scraps and failed

>>1754237
Nigga, you know what I meant.

When MacArthur returned to the Philippines, it made him a national hero in that country.

When the French returned to Indochina, it started a war.

This may have something to do with the Americans coming to liberate the Phillippines, and the French coming to subjugate an already free country.

>>1754238
>implying the average Vietnamese saw an appreciable difference between Japanese and Vichy French administration

>>1754231
Don't forget how they just handed Hong Kong to China.

And no, it wasn't on a lease like the Brits were told and taught. The lease was for the outskirts, not the actual island. Britain literally just gave away a fully British city to a foreign power.

>>1754246
>The big difference is that Malay had no resistance against Japan

Nigga, the MCP started as an anti-Japanese resistance movement.

>>1754242
And yet, post former French colonies are still extremely pro-French to the point of being basically puppet states, while all the former British colonies hate the UK and Britain has no influence over them. Even in areas like Vanatu where they shared control, the Francophone parties are pro-French, while the Anglophone parties are "anti-colonial". Really makes you think...

>>1754242
French have always been hotheads and Brits have always been cautious cowards
It allowed the French to reach some glory Britain never ever apprached, but it also gave them some defeats Britain never came close from suffering

>>1754248
>Nigga, you know what I meant
No, I don't. I think you fucked up and exposed your total ignorance, and are now doing damage control.

>>1754242
That only happened in Indochina which was a special case where the war was just a continuation of WW2, and Algeria because it was highly colonised by Europeans and considered a full part of France.

The rest of decolonization went great for France, which continues to have huge (in fact neo-colonial tier) influence in French Africa, unlike Britain.

>>1754255
Tee bee aytch, Britain has had a lot more glory than France.

>won the Napoleonic Wars
>won both world wars
>established a constitutional monarchy in 1689 while the French are on their fifth republic since 1789
>Isaac motherfucking Newton
>largest empire in human history
>greatest world power after them was one of their former colonies

>>1754261
So, all of the French colonies went great, except for the ones which didn't, which can be neatly cherry picked away.

And strangely, most of the resistance groups in Malaya and the Philippines were also in favor of their earlier masters, whereas the ones in Indochina hated the French just as much as the Japanese.

Could it be that the British administration in Malaya was more competent than the one in Indochina, and enjoyed wider support from the population?

>>1753772
What? They did most of the work in WWI for the Allies.

File: hrerd.jpg (969KB, 2276x1260px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 2276x1260px

>>1754272
Britain has literally never won a single european war by itself
Even in the wars they usually take a lot of pride in (Napoleon and WWs) they played a secondary role
Their only victories without allies are against shitskins

Meanwhile, France spent most of its history fighting alone against european coalitions and even conquered the entire continent during the Napoleonic Wars

>>1754277
Remember the true version of history while you still can, cause the Anglo media are dead set against France
In the next mass media bout WW1 (BF1) France has been totally removed and the focus is heavily put on Britain.

Totally disregarding the fact that France was the leader country of the allied side, that the supreme allied commander was French and that Germany gave its surrender to France (and not Britain), they'll try to make Britain pass as the main allied power of the war

>>1754261
>and Algeria because it was highly colonised by Europeans and considered a full part of France.
Sorry to butt into the discussion and sidetrack it a bit, but I would like to ask about this. You certainly can't be 100% literal when you say Algeria was considered a full part of France, right?

I mean, certainly everyone could've said it was at the time, but deep down they knew it wasn't TRULY France?

That sounds otherwordly, a country claiming an extracontinental territory as a full, indivisible part of itself

I just can't imagine people at the time thinking of North Africa as part of France.

>>1753772
as an american I kind of admire the french.
they're supposed to be irrelevant, yet somehow they persevere to have a stronger military than the british (both in army, and navy).

>>1754272
>won the Napoleonic Wars
>won both world wars
lol, if by winning you mean "sitting on their island while everyone else does the work"
>established a constitutional monarchy in 1689 while the French are on their fifth republic since 1789
I bet you think the UK has had the same form of government since 1689.
>Isaac motherfucking Newton
One guy.
>largest empire in human history
The British were very good at stealing colonies and defeating shitskins, and yet they never managed to defeat other Europeans one on one.
>greatest world power after them was one of their former colonies
You mean the one France forced them to give up?

>>1754294
It's basically born of insecurity: the Anglo knows he is inferior to the French, hence he lashes out repeatedly and without provocation, because he is trying to prove something to himself

>>1754096
A number of then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Russia, and UK have been stronger then France for a long time. Russia has issues but their generation of fighter, tanks, IFV, SAM systems, and small arms that is currently entering service is just better then what the French have. Or have on the drawing board either for that matter. The UK armed force are marked better funded then their French counter parts. Look at military aircraft currently in service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Air_Force#Equipment

The French air force is larger, but older. The only things that can effectively do modern air to is 106 Rafale B/C and 26 ( that are in service ) Mirage 2000-5. Their other fighters should stick to ground attack missions. The Royal Air Force has 138 Eurofighter Typhoons ( which are marginally more capable then the Rafale B/C) and 4 F‑35B Lightning II ( far more capable then any other fighter listed here). That 4 is planned to turn into 138, with talk of adding 120 more on top of that.


Saudi Arabia at current rate of spending, if Iran goes Nuclear and they follow, may over take France in military power by the mid 2020s.


Not trying to rub it in, but with a statement like that you are not keeping up with current events.

>>1754342
a lot of french airforce equipement seems to be made in france.

you can't say that about the UK (de-industrialization and/or gutting its' manufacturing base in the 1970's and 1980's, consolidating it out of mass-production-scale existance along with it's boat-manufacturing indsustry).

File: Saudi Arabia fucks up in Yemen.png (53KB, 322x582px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 322x582px

>>1754342
Saudi Arabia could spend ten times what France does, and they'd still be less militarily powerful than France, since France isn't a barbarian tribalist """nation""" that is only relevant because it has oil money.

I mean, pic-related, the Saudi Arabian intervention in Yemen.
>hundreds of thousands of soldiers
>complete air superiority
>complete naval superiority
>huge material advantage
>Saudi Arabia still loses hilarious numbers of soldiers, kills thousands of Yemeni civilians, and suffers hundreds of their own civilians dead

Iran though, maybe, they're not Arab and are much more competent.

>>1754168
It doesn't really though, they couldn't even bomb Libya without American logistical help

>>1754398
You're aware your comment applies to Britain too

>>1754258
In his post he said British and Americans, then referenced their respective colonies. You're the one exposing your inability to read

>>1754423
Yeah, I'm not getting involved in your >muh team is better than yours squabbling, just noting that saying that countries other than the US have legitimate force projection is bollocks

>>1754392
This same argument could be made against the US which has lost every war it's been in against tribals despite tactical superiority in every facet

>>1754308
The average French person living in metropolitan France didn't, but the Europeans living in Algeria did. The latter explains why France tried to hold on to it, and the former why it couldn't.

>>1754133
Good Boy Points

France aint getting no tendies

>>1754461
Most unconventional wars, like US interventions in banana republics or the Philippines war, were victories by US forces.
Vietnam was not against tribalists, the Vietnamese were a highly capable and professional enemy who beat South Vietnam conventionally.
In Iraq and Afghanistan the US certainly didn't lose several times as many soldiers as the insurgents.

>>1754436
>the British were welcomed back by most of the population of the Philippines and Malaya
is what he said. There is literally no other way to interpret this sentence.

>>1754538
As a typo?

Because if you want to ask about the Huk rebellion or Ramon Magsaysay, or MacArthur screwing up the defense of the bataan peninsula, I know these things.

>>1753772
Have you ever heard of ww1?

>>1754548
That's not a typo. You made a fool of yourself, and then made some pathetic attempts at damage control including an obvious samefag. We're done here, I'm moving on, if you want to maintain any semblance of dignity you should do the same.

>>1754358
A higher amount of French equipment is made in France then what can be said about the UK counter parts, sure. However there is a not small issue with looking at that angle on the subject of the UK. One various American defense companies have major financial interest in them from British investment banks. Two a lot of equipment that has the US as country of Origin is made in factories in the US owned by British companies. Kentucky is a favorite state for that do to a much lower cost of skilled labor then what it would be in the UK. The UK has a lot more say in its arms manufacture then it would appear at a glance. Three modern equipment takes so long to make there is no hope to try to have rate of replacement match rate of loss in a real war against a strong enemy.


Also that does not touch on that fact that French equipment has not really been keeping up with the times. Not all of the Rafale have been upgraded from have the RBE2 PESA radar to the RBE2-AA AESA. The fact that they have a AESA radar in service put them a bit head of were the Eurofighter Typhoons are right now. However the RBE2-AA is not very as far as AESA radars go. The AN/APG-77 ( f--22), AN/APG-79 ( F/A-18E/F and EA-18G ), AN/APG-81 ( F-35 ), N036 Byelka ( Sukhoi PAK FA, questionable ) are all just better radars. The CAPTOR-E in development for the Eurofighter Typhoons in theory should be better also because of a higher weight limit and more room also.

>>1754561
>sweet, I don't have to address the substance of his argument

But yeah, I think any French person will admit that the 30s through the 60s were a terrible time for their country.

Once the Fifth Republic kicked in, and they started to get a more stable political and economic system, things started to normalize.

>>1754569
>sweet, I don't have to address the substance of his argument
this is what you are doing tho. rather than address the substantive criticism people have made ITT, you decided to go off on this guy for criticizing your typo/mistake

>>1754596
Tee bee aytch it's more like I left to go do other things.

But yeah, I feel like the combination of unresolved political tensions, unstable governments, and the inherent sloth of papists would more or less cover the OP question.

>>1754308
I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but yes, Algeria was considered an integral part of France, just like New Caledonia, Guyane, or Martinique, or any part of European France. It doesn't matter if they are on the on the other side of the globe, it's France.

I know it can be pretty difficult for foreigners to understand, but France being "one and indivisible" is a pretty big deal. And it's really how the average Frenchman, and of course especially those living in Algeria felt.

>>1754649
The average Frenchman living in the Hexagon really didn't see it that way (unlike those in Algeria) and therein lay the problem.

>>1754671
>yeah, I'll just write off a million citizens, get shot at by my own military, and make several million mortal enemies for the fun of it

t. De Gaulle

>>1754096
>What country is more powerful than France, other than America and China? Are you one of those delusional germboos?

t. Francois

You don't really think france is more powerful than germany ? Germany has a higher population, a stronger economy, a more stable society and a better scientific foundation. I mean militarily france is stronger no doubt but apart from that ?

>>1753772
if you look at their position on a map they are completely surrounded by equal or superior powers its a wonder france is a thing at all

>>1753772
DONE BY VERDUN

>>1754023
Haha wtf Francois

>>1754128
The EPL is a much stronger league than Ligue 1.

>>1753772
So it's the classic french bashing thread
>surrender froggies XDDD

The sole reason those thread exist is the decision to not participate in the 2003 Iraqi war.

Sorry burgers we're not your personal lapdog even so Sarkozy made us join the inner circle of NATO again in 2009.

As a French, I consider that France maintained itself as a very potent power in the XXth century and remains one of the most powerful in the XXIth

>France is the 3rd nuclear power in the world
>France is maybe with the UK the only country in Europe capable of deployment in every continent (Germany itself is totally incapable of doing so as of today and I don't see any Greman bashing thread)
>Mali, Cote d'Ivoire, Centreafrique ; recent operations proves France continues to have a huge control on former African colonies.
>Possibly the best Spec Ops in the world (RAID GIGN GIPN 2e REC, Commando Marine ....)
>Every relevant army use French Guinea to train their SpecOps in Foreign Legion encampment
>Libya was a mistake.

>>1755394
>The sole reason those thread exist is the decision to not participate in the 2003 Iraqi war.
The sole reason these threads exist is the ignominous French surrender in 1940. I'm not going to mention the crushing defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 or the failure to turn military victory into political victory in Algeria in 1960, because the British Empire was also fading during those time periods. Even then, France managed to get fucking annihilated in six weeks despite having equal manpower as Germany WHILE FIGHTING ON THEIR OWN PREPARED GROUND. It was an absolute cockup.

>>1754272
>won the Napoleonic Wars
>won both world wars
Surely you mean "sided with the winners of both wars"?

>>1755426
>implying that sitting back and letting other countries bleed out to achieve your goals is a bad thing
Enjoy your French """""glory""""" Pierre, it sure was nice have the Pax Frenchannica.

>>1754134
Western Europe would probably have been better off if it had been united, even incompletely, by France sometime after the war of Spanish succession (assuming they had won that).

>>1755428
>>implying that sitting back and letting other countries bleed out to achieve your goals is a bad thing
Were you not supposed to be giving examples of British """glory"""?

>>1755425
>An historical event that occured 70 years ago means constant bashing as of today.

Wew lad you would make a tremendous historian. While I agree that French generals like Gamelin were complete idiots, you must acknowledge this has little influence over the current zeitgeist. You have to dig for more recent event. If not, there are many countries that would deserve bashing as well for military catastrophies (Vietnam for US, Afghanistan for USSR, Stalingrad for Germany and so on)

French bashing is a trend.

>>1754246
>Those numbers
France really shines when outnumbered, even if they lose.

>>1755458
>the entire planet falls to British hegemony thanks to brilliant naval battles and political scheming
Pretty fucking glorious to rule the world for a century.
>>1755468
The French national character invites bashing by being both arrogant and ungrateful.

>>1755428
Not even French, I just wanted to make sure you were just shitposting.

>The eternal Anglo is proud of its own cowardice
Shouldn't have expected any less.

>>1754294
>France has been removed from BF1
You can't be serious. I know it's >EA but nobody would so something this retarded.

>>1755484
>Not even French
You should be thankful of that much.
>The eternal frog is proud of running head first towards entrenched machine guns in bright red pants
kek

>>1755482
>The French national character invites bashing by being both arrogant and ungrateful.

Arrogant I maybe give you that, the best food, culture, and litterature in the world must have side effects. But ungrateful ? Said fucking who ? 30% to 50% of english is just french words. Your kings are French, your mottos and your national anthem are french.

ITT: /int/-tier posting.

>>1753772
The answer is WW1, it made france went from warmongering tough guy to full pacifist asshole.
They still didn't recover from the psychological choc of the trench.

>>1755500
>But ungrateful ? Said fucking who
>what is NATO in 1966
>"b-but muh national sovereignty"
Bitch please, you couldn't handle the fact that France got its ass kicked and had to get liberated by us and the Yanks.

>>1755507
NATO was to France what the UE is to the UK now. An hindrance.

Result:
>France is part of the security counsil of the UN
>France is the 3rd nuclear power
>France can deploy wherever it wants to maintain peace.

see >>1755394

>>1755514
>UE
Confirmed for fucking Frenchman. And no, an economic union is not the same as a common defense pact. You couldn't fucking handle the fact that you weren't being treated on the same level as the United fucking States in NATO and quit in a huff.
>France is part of the security counsil of the UN
Solely by virtue of being a """"""winning""""" power in World War II.
>France is the 3rd nuclear power
Hahaha, the UK beat you to nukes first.
>France can deploy wherever it wants to maintain peace.
You can't even attack Libya without running to Papa America for logistics kek

>>1755493
If they did that, they wouldn't consistently put up good fights against larger armies.

>>1755524
>Uk nuke: American technologie.
>french nuke, french technologie.
At least they're consistent in their indepant policy.

>>1755524
>Confirmed for fucking Frenchman.
He said as much in his first post, m8.

>You couldn't fucking handle the fact that you weren't being treated on the same level as the United fucking States
So you're angry they didn't serve your master with the dignity your master deserves? Do Brits even have some dignity left?

File: cheese eating surrender monkeys.png (7KB, 277x91px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 277x91px

>>1755527
>larger armies
AND you were on the defensive. Even we couldn't save you.
>>1755531
We made our own nukes m8.
>>1755532
>So you're angry they didn't serve your master with the dignity your master deserves
No, I'm angry that French arrogance helped the Soviet cause by destabilizing the NATO position. Never before has geopolitics been so impacted by a nation's insecurity and ingratitude.

>>1755524
>You couldn't fucking handle the fact that you weren't being treated on the same level as the United fucking States in NATO and quit in a huff.
yes that's exactly my point. In politics you don't seek to be liked, you seek power. If you want to keep sucking US balls big deal.

and remind me, when was the last anglo operation without anyone to help ? Falkland yes? Just 30 years ago ? France is much more potent to deploy itself abroad

File: (you).png (178KB, 1190x906px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1190x906px

>>1755538
>yes that's exactly my point. In politics you don't seek to be liked, you seek power. If you want to keep sucking US balls big deal.
>we can get stronger by being assholes to everyone
Unironic French mindset here.
>France is much more potent to deploy itself abroad
pic related

>>1755536
Not him, but if you read the image that you posted, then you would realize that Germany had both more men and aircraft

>>1755543
>50000 more troops
More than balanced out by the fact that they were the attackers and not the defenders.
>aircraft
French aircraft were and are even shittier than their cars.

>>1755542
>by being assholes to everyone
anything related to recent european events are complete coincidence.

>>1755550
what a colourful comeback.

>>1755548
>More than balanced out by the fact that they were the attackers and not the defenders.
It would be balanced out if the French were using modern tactics, and if their British allies fought, rather than continuously retreating.

>French aircraft were and are even shittier than their cars.
How is that supposed to make their defeat seem more humiliating?

>>1755536
It's literally the same argument as the Brexit one.

In fact, it's even better, since instead of a reactionary movement it was a (I daresay) courageous move on their part to decide and face the outcome of the Cold War independently, a war that could very well have ended the world as we know it.

Not to mention that being an ally of the US puts a bigger target on your head. Not to mention that as black as the USSR got, the US and the Brits went pretty gray themselves. The Cold War was a shitfest, opting out of it is a sensible decision.

File: 745.png (188KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 327x316px

>>1755556
>rather than continuously retreating
The famous surrender monkey in its native habitat.
>>1755558
>It's literally the same argument as the Brexit one.
Eurocrats meddling in your economy and being asked to help out the people who helped you out are not at all equitable.
>In fact, it's even better, since instead of a reactionary movement it was a (I daresay) courageous move on their part to decide and face the outcome of the Cold War independently,
PFFFHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
>Not to mention that being an ally of the US puts a bigger target on your head. Not to mention that as black as the USSR got, the US and the Brits went pretty gray themselves. The Cold War was a shitfest, opting out of it is a sensible decision.
I didn't think I would ever find Cowardice: the Post.

File: 6aaf723f8a1b13bb573ab3e76a606a4e.jpg (17KB, 320x466px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 320x466px

>>1755500
>the best food
Not to be a dick but in my travels I rarely come across French restaurants. Italian, Japanese, and very bad versions of American food can be found all over the place.

>literature
If you are talking about 19th century classics, then I would agree with you. How ever now days not so much.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/

Please show me anything from that made by a French national or is a translation of a French language book.

>30% to 50% of English is just french words.
Try 29.8 percent. Of which those are parts of our less used vocabulary. See pic for details.

>>1755561
>The famous surrender monkey in its native habitat.
The BEFs terrible performance was true, it was also important in showing the world what cowards the Brits really are, especially knowing that they had to be saved by the French.

>>1755565
>they had to be saved by the French
Being unable to surrender before the Germans could shoot you must have really hit home. I wonder how the Royal Navy honored your "heroic" "sacrifice." Oh right, Mers-el-Kebir.

>>1755567
>Being unable to surrender before the Germans could shoot you must have really hit home.
At least the French put up a fight, unlike the Brits who ran away all the way to Dunkirk with their tail between their legs, knowing that French were there to cover their retreat, but then again being a coward and getting others to fight for you is nothing new for the British.

>I wonder how the Royal Navy honored your "heroic" "sacrifice." Oh right, Mers-el-Kebir.
Nice one, but I'm not even French, and I'm sure Mers-el-Kebir makes Anglos such as yourself proud, knowing that it was the most notable thing you did in the entire war.

>>1755581
>At least the French put up a fight
Fuck mate, my lungs can't take too much more of this.
>I'm sure Mers-el-Kebir makes Anglos such as yourself proud, knowing that it was the most notable thing you did in the entire war
Unlike liberating France.

>>1755561
I don't think you're considering the political situation at the time.

>Soviets are obviously bad, but Amerca and her friends are up to sketchy shit too (sketchy shit that basically fucked up Latin America and the Middle East up to this day).
>France, and any NATO nation for that matter, is in more danger of nuclear strikes if they stay part of NATO. France has its own nukes, so it can fend for itself. If anything, the USSR wouldn't have to MAD France if it's neutral, so there's basically no cons to the decision.
>No country in NATO has any sort of say compared to the US, which in a military union in the middle of what is basically a world war is a larger breach of sovereignty than refugee quotas.

And do remember the US liberation of France in WWII never put any part of the US up to stake, while staying part of NATO was basically becoming a buffer state that a land war could be fought in (again).

File: 1458841011176.png (6KB, 364x313px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 364x313px

>>1755590
Holy shit, there are actually people who manage to delude themselves into believing this.

>>1755589
>Fuck mate, my lungs can't take too much more of this.
I would call the battles of Hannut, Alps, Lille, Dunkirk and Bir Hakeim significant

>Unlike liberating France.
A great American victory

>>1755562
the best food

You really have to travel by the country side of France. No region in France has the same cuisine. There is such an overwhelming diversity and that's why that we sound so obnoxious about it. Britanny to Lorraine, Biarritz to Calais, every city have its own culture, own traditions, own specialities. That's the real reasons we have the best food.

literature
I'm mainly talking about the Renaissance to XIXth century really. The impact French culture and language had is really important to understand European culture as a whole.

If almost all music was Italian, all writers wrote in french, especially Russians. All Europeans countries glorify those who wrote in their own languages (Cervantes, Shakespeare, Dante, Goethe...) because they choose theirs over french.

>>1755594
That is not a response.

>>1755595
>look at all these battles we won
>what do you mean we lost?
>history is a German creation
>>1755598
Neither is leaving NATO in reaction to being upstaged.

>>1755601
Ok, you're just shitposting. I'm going to sleep.

>>1754120
India actually won the last war it fought in.

>>1755605
Goodnight Jean-Akbar.

>>1755601
>>look at all these battles we won
Lmao, you were the one saying they didn't put up a fight

>>what do you mean we lost?
France won WW2, whether you like it or not

You really aren't even trying to argue anymore are you?

>>1755607
It's 2:47 AM over here, but good try Muhammed.

>>1754096
>Britain
>Russia
>Germany
number 6 isnt bad Pierre, just accept it

>>1754096
>>1755611
Oh sorry forgot Japan youre 7 then

>>1754168
I didn't know this was 1965.

Someone should totally warn the fed that vietnam is a deathtrap.
Also
>small arms determine who wins wars.

>>1755608
>France won WW2, whether you like it or not
The US and the UK won World War II, with Soviet help.
>Lmao, you were the one saying they didn't put up a fight
Winning a few scattered skirmishes is worth jack shit when you lose all the others. The French didn't put up a fight at all strategically.
>You really aren't even trying to argue anymore are you?
Penetrating French delusion is much harder than penetrating French women.
>>1755609
>over here
It's 10am here. I find it fucking disgusting that a Yank of all people commiserates with the country that kicked them out.

>>1755614
Don't worry, I'm not American either.

>>1754124
>power projection

just fucking kill yourself you memeing cancerous twat

>>1755616
I don't really care either.

>>1755612
It's funny that you forgot it, because that's probably #3. In all honesty though, it's mostly like this:

US>China>Russia~=Japan>=UK=France>=Germany>India

>>1755620
armies being present for self defense doesn't count, don't ya know? Its all about how many aircraft carriers you have and how many planes that they can launch.

>>1755614
>The US and the UK won World War II, with Soviet help.
I think you mean
>The USSR won in WWII, with American help.

>>1755625
>germany > india
I am sorry, what?
the krauts don't even have a logistical tail that is independent of nato. Same with the french.

>>1755627
>muh normandy and soft underbelly.

>>1755614
>The US and the UK won World War II, with Soviet help.
The UK, didn't do anything. It was the US and the Soviets, also France is among the winners of WW2, despite not doing as much as the two biggest players. That's like saying Australia didn't win because they weren't the most notable fighting force.

>Winning a few scattered skirmishes is worth jack shit when you lose all the others. The French didn't put up a fight at all strategically.

>Hannut
First Allied victory against the Germans
>Alps
Beat the Italians while already being attacked from the East by the Germans
>Lille
Prevented 4 infantry and 3 armored division from reaching the BEF with only a fraction of that number
>Dunkirk
Covered the retreat of the British forces, so that they could survive and go on to fight the war
>Bir Hakeim
An essential delaying operation by 4,000 French against 37,000 Axis soldiers

These are just from the top of my mind

>>1755629
India is barely relevant enough to include, though.

>>1755627
The commies took ridiculous losses because
>they tried to get in on the Polish action with Germany, and then the two thieves had a falling out
>their leader was insane
>their military was absolutely retarded
The only reason so many Germans participated was because of how large Russia is. Really, the reason Germany was stopped at all was because we won the Battle of Britain.
>>1755632
>we lost on a scale that is unprecedented in the history of modern warfare
>but look at all these milestones

>>1755635
Seeing as it has fought conventional wars until very recently without depending on military allies, it is certainly more relevant than germany.

>>1755625
>China>Russia
Wut
You just went full retard. While China has more manpower, the technological level and amounts of modern equipment are ridiculously low.

France is a fucking pussy country now. They're not even in the top 10 of Europe militaries, Germany, UK, and Poland fucking outshine them fucking completely. France is a bluepilled joke.

>>1755637
>>we lost on a scale that is unprecedented in the history of modern warfare
>>but look at all these milestones

You were the one saying that they didn't fight at all. I showed examples of them fighting. Fuck off.

>>1755641
sorry bub, china is the big red menace now.

>>1755642
>bluepilled joke
well the french are more militarily capable than their western neighbors.

>>1755642
t. polack

>>1755643
Winning a few tactical victories does not translate to winning on a strategic level. France made the same mistake in Indochina. I'm guessing it is an issue with the French mindset, given that you still don't understand that.

>>1755644
>huge manpower
>relevant in modern warfare
How does it feel to live in 1910s?

>>1755642
and Poland fucking outshine them fucking completely
HAHAHHAHHA

Go back being internationnaly irrelevant polack

>>1755641
>>1755629
>what is money?

Both Germany, China and France are rich enough to get around any of the obstacles you're thinking off if they prioritize their armed forces in the event of war.

>>1755655
apparently the chinese are miles ahead of india even though there isn't that much of a qualitive difference between the two.
One is >>1754153 while the other is >>1755644

>>1755660
>all you need for warfare is shekels.
yeah, you just throw money and watch the supply lines materialize.

>>1755651
You're just moving the goalposts.

>>1755625
In case you havent realized it yet, military power doesnt matter for NATO members. Geopolitical conflicts occur only on non-NATO states. So the only factor left that matters for a power ranking of France-UK-Germany is economic strenght. I give you an example: Greece wants debt relief - most other EU countries like France agree - Germany doesnt agree - no debt relief for Greece.
Id say its more like this:
USA>>>China>>Russia>Japan>Germany>France=UK

>>1755663
No, you fail to see the point. France didn't put up a fight, because they lost, badly. A few battles does not change the overall outcome, no matter how much it flies in the face of the French ego.

>>1755662
We are not in the 19. century. Youre delusional if you believe that relevant countries declare war on other relevant countries. Russia has the 2. best military but its economy is, well irrelevant.

>>1755668
Not putting up a fight and losing aren't synonyms. Are you really a Brit?

What I learned from this thread: French are chauvinists still.

>>1755596
>You really have to travel by the country side of France.

One could take the same position about American food. Take barbecue as a example. There is about seven different style, each with a number of variations. The Texas style is marked by the choice of spices that are of a Hispanic bent used in is seasonings. In the eastern parts it is commonly put into a sweet sauce, and the meat is braised or more rarely roasted. In the hill country of central Texas it is lightly dry rubbed and smoked. A great example of this is Blacks Barbecue. In the western parts of Texas they commonly do a heavy dry rub roast.

http://www.blacksbbq.com/

>>1755675
>Not putting up a fight and losing aren't synonyms
99 percent of France didn't put up a fight, then.
>Are you really a Brit?
I doubt any Yanks could even place you on a map.
>>1755678
As well as delusional.

>>1755651
France did achieve decisive victories in WW2, they were involved in the Bulge, Siegfriend Line Campaign and the Liberation of Paris

File: so you be sayin'.jpg (12KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 184x184px

>>1755683
>Liberation of Paris
So you be sayin that France liberated itself?

>>1755674
yeah, so all warfare is all about how shiny your gear is and how many sandniggers you can club. So how does china come into the picture then?

>>1755686
Not the whole of France, but they essentially did with the city itself, in exchange that they didn't bring any non-white soldiers with them.

>>1755679
dothead here. Can confirm.

Sweetsauce is terrible though.

>>1755691
weren't they spanish?

The only people who consider France relevant today are the French and Korean girls who romanticise it.

>>1755694
The 2nd Armoured division had about 300 Spaniards

>>1755700
And the only people who consider Britain relevant today are the English and the Welsh

File: _77721623_img_1483ss.jpg (61KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 450x450px

>>1755614
>The US and the UK won World War II, with Soviet help.
>The US and the UK won World War II
>and the UK
>the UK

>>1755562
>http://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/
What do you mean by that? I don't recognise a single name here.
I'm pretty sure those lists would be fairly different in a non-english newspaper.

File: 1417989385869.png (48KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x500px

>>1753772
France today has
>The second most extensive diplomatic network after America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_of_France)
>The second largest EEZ in the world, once again after America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone#Exclusive_economic_zone_by_country)
>A permanent seat in the UN Security Council
>One of only three militaries on the entire planet that can be deployed anywhere at any time independently (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy#Examples_of_blue-water_navies)
>The 5th largest global economy (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/france-britain-uk-world-s-fifth-largest-economy-brexit-eu-referendum-a7123761.html)
>Either the 3rd or the 4th largest nuclear stockpile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons)

And this is France at the weakest it has ever been. France at its nadir has power, influence, economical power and power projection far outshining that of most countries even at their apex. France is a second tier power, a distinction it shared with Britain and debatably with China and Russia. China will overshadow France and Britain some day, that much is sure, but that day is not today.

lmao, is this the daily bong delusion and buttmad at France thread?

>>1755853
This is the daily /int/butthurt thread of /his/, sometime it's about USA, sometime about Uk, today it's about france.

File: 5e2[2].jpg (106KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 554x439px

>>1755858
Success breeds jealousy. You never see anyone flipping out about the Czech Republic, right?

>>1755858
This, /int/ is fucking cancer.

>>1755491
Protags in the solo campaign are

-A British pilot
-A British tank crew
-An Australian messenger
-A Bedouin woman
-An African-American

>>1755904
>A Bedouin woman
>One of the most shit tier culture for woman
They aren't trying anymore.

>>1755904
>Could have had a German, a French, a Brit and a Russian
>Decides to pick 3 brits and 2 forced diversities instead

The Eternal Anglo strikes again

>>1755904
>An African-American
But not just any African-American, but a Harlem Hellfighter. You know, the ones that fought for France, because America didn't want to have an all-black group fighting for them? Yet SOMEHOW France isn't included until the DLC (which you most likely have to pay for).

>>1754041

it's the second major power in Europe, first is still UK because if it's (small) carriers and nuke subs, France could destroy Germany in a week, the Bundeswehr is a fucking joke

>>1755925
Perhaps in military (and I don't know all the details about that so I'll concede) but in terms of politics the UK has for a long time been playing second fiddle to France and Germany, and it's only a question what politicial consequences Brexit will have.

Overall France and Britain are very well matched, being pretty good all-rounders that are overall second only to America.

>>1753772
Because when they got their revenge in WW1 they got absolutely ravaged by the war anyway even though they won.

Wait, so are the French cheese-eating surrender monkeys, or reckless fools who always charge into battle rather than cutting their losses when it's wise? We've heard both of these things ITT, but it literally cannot be both.

>>1755925
France has a nuclear aircraft carrier (currently the British only have helicopter carriers, although admittedly that will change soon, France has its own helicopter carriers like the Mistral-class), and its own nuclear missile submarine fleet.

>>1756003
It literally is both

>we're the greatest thing ever
>fold like wet cardboard at the any sign of resistance

>>1756003
They're reckless fools and take huge casualties, then they surrender
Reminder that France had as much casualties in 1940 only as Britain during the entirety of WW2

>>1756016
So only the former then, not the latter? Because that doesn't support them being reckless at all, just arrogant.
>>1756018
So not the former, only the latter? Because that doesn't make them surrender monkeys. Everyone surrenders when they lose.

>>1756038
They're what you'd call vain-glorious.

>we can hold onto Indo-China forever
>get asses kicked
>Algeria is France
>get asses kicked

>>1755632
>UK didn't do anything

Britain cleaned up in Africa, Italy, Burma and the middle-east. Most soldiers at D-day were part of the empire, British invaded Germany taking cities such as Hamburg etc

>>1756009

they are the power in Europe

>germeme military

>>1756066
>brits
that was the commonwealth Nigel.

File: map1.jpg (80KB, 450x422px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 450x422px

they are part of the atlantic axis of na-uk-france

>>1754277
No they didn't, France's only successfully defended, when they advanced with their generals look at the Nivelle offensive which resulted in a large mutiny in the French army. It was the British empire that broke through the German defences at amines (which was ordered by Haig) and spearheaded the 100 days offensive, British empire broke through the hinderburg line, British empire dominated the seas and blockaded Germany, British empire that dismantled the Ottoman empire.

File: 8Ahatd2.png (401KB, 807x593px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 807x593px

>>1756082
>Clutching at straws

>>1756056
That doesn't support the surrender monkey thing then. Like I said, these two accusations are mutually exclusive

>>1753772
The basic problem was complacency. The French were simply too conservative after 1815. During the age of French greatness (17th century to 1815) you can see how they were always the leading innovators in Europe, with the rest of continent playing catch-up, always trying to imitate the French and their reforms. After 1815, however, the French preferred to dwell on past glories and failed to keep pace with the rapidly changing modern world. So through all the political instability of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the basic administrative structure always remained the same. And the socio-economic structure changed slowly in comparison to France's main rivals: for instance, the UK became majority urban in like 1840 or 1850, Germany around 1890 or 1900, but France not until 1930. International relations operates according to the law of change or die.

>>1756092
>colonial soldiers do badly
>"they were not british"
>colonial soldiers bail the empire out.
>"C-commonwealth stronk"

File: Western_Front_1917[1].jpg (228KB, 1242x961px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1242x961px

>>1756089
>France's only successfully defended
Of course, they "only" succesfully defended. Even though the entire German military aim was to take Paris before Christmas and Von Moltke declared the war lost after the Marne, they "only" defended.

>when they advanced with their generals look at the Nivelle offensive which resulted in a large mutiny in the French army.
Conveniently leaving out British involvement in that?

>t was the British empire that broke through the German defences at amines (which was ordered by Haig) and spearheaded the 100 days offensive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive
Literally twice as many Frenchmen involved as Brits.

>British empire broke through the hinderburg line
Alright, I'd give you that, though it'd be a mistake to assume that's the end-all-be-all of the war.

>British empire dominated the seas and blockaded Germany
True, though highly debatable in effectiveness considering the Germans found more than enough alternatives to supply themselves (leading to starvation no higher than that of France and other involved countries that maintained naval access)

>British empire that dismantled the Ottoman empire.
What is the French Armenia legion?
>Inb4 'hurr durr they're unimportant'
About as important as the British on the Western front.

Pic related. Notice the almost omnipresence of French forces, who according to you pretty much sat on their hands and did nothing.

>>1756089
Good joke bro
France stopped the German advance at the First Marne, then held almost alone for 2 years until Britain could finally bring its forces en mass by 1916
France made up half the allied forces at the Somme and the totality of them at Verdun
France (and the allied supreme commander Foch) lead the 100 days offensive that decisively defeated the German Empire
There's a reason why Germany gave its surrender to France and not to Britain

The only thing that's true is that Britain was relevant at sea and that the blockade was decisive
But once again, there was like one big naval battle in the entire war
While Britain managed to be relevant passively thank to the shittyness of German navy, it's still France that did most of the fighting

>>1756106
Who are you quoting?

>>1756111
>implying I am quoting someone.

>>1756108
Yeah the British had the only successful advance during that """offensive"""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arras_(1917)

Quality over quantity, most Germany casualties were caused by the British empire, most of the offensive were conduced by the British empire which is why they broke the hinderburg line. Also those numbers were before the British that had just btfo the Ottomans reinforced them.

French Armenian legion? Irrelevant and got btfo by the turks after the war

I agree British and French did the same on the western front but the British also largely fought in the middle-east and the seas as well.

>>1756128
>I agree British and French did the same on the western front but the British also largely fought in the middle-east and the seas as well.

France was decisive on the Balkans theater and basically won the Italian theater for the Italians in the last battle

>>1756133
>>1756109
>>1756108
>>1756128

/int/posting please go.

File: 1423625890171.jpg (105KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 900x900px

>>1756133
>won the Italian theater for the Italians in the last battle

There was only 2 french and 3 British divisions while Italy had 57. Also the was a large amount of British soldiers in the Balkans but that was our worse theatre when it came to performance

>>1756152
>There was only 2 french and 3 British divisions while Italy had 57.
>Italy won the Italian Front

>There were 13 British divisions and 11 French ones at the Somme
>Decisive 100% British victory

Pick one.

>>1756161
The Somme was barely a victory but I'll bite the bait. During the Somme the British commander Haig advanced the most (during the whole of ww1 for that matter, 100 days offensive started because of Haig) which is why the British took most ground and suffered far more casualties.

>>1756176
But the French actually took more ground and inflicted more casualties on the Germans at the Somme, despite taking less casualties of their own

>>1756089
>France's only successfully defended, when they advanced with their generals look at the Nivelle offensive which resulted in a large mutiny in the French army.
The French took up the vast majority of the burden for the first three years of the war. If the Nivelle offensive was a failure - and the French got a better casualty ratio and gains, than say, the British at the Somme - the same Somme also saw the French conduct offensive operations with much greater effectiveness than their British counterparts.
>It was the British empire that broke through the German defences at amines (which was ordered by Haig) and spearheaded the 100 days offensive
Under the command of Generalissimo Foch, and the French were the ones responsible for the Lorraine operations anyway, making formidable gains. Besides, you're making an irrelevant point; WW1 was an attritional battle, the Germans didn't collapse because the Allies took Belgium from them, they collapsed because their army broke. The French were the ones who inflicted the major part of the casualties over 4 years that led to that collapse.

>British empire broke through the hinder burg line
France was involved in the battles too, and played a vital role in the center.

>British empire dominated the seas and blockaded Germany
France was in charge of the Mediterranean; it was the French navy's presence there that freed up enough ships for the British to conduct their blockade of Germany effectively.

>British empire that dismantled the Ottoman empire
An irrelevant side-show once the Russians collapsed, if the British had broken through in 1914-1917 then they might have deserved some credit. As it stood they just wasted vast numbers of soldiers taking out an empire without any power projection for no gain whatsoever except taking colonies in the region. Or what, was there going to be an Ottoman expeditionary force on the Western Front, to make the black soldiers of Battlefield 1 a reality?

>>1754023
>French hegemony
>the end of French hegemony
Bitch French hegemony never existed. Even in the heyday of Napoleon Britain was a much larger global power, Louis XIV's Glorious Century also consisted mainly of just fending off other people so the French could be shit in peace.

/pol/ can't have a serious discussion about anything involving Germany but France? Wew. Really triggers my neurons.

File: 1474922997453.jpg (132KB, 1209x756px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1209x756px

Allo /int/ ? Yes i'd like you to take back your autistic anglos

File: lesentiment.jpg (308KB, 788x756px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 788x756px

>>1754096
Anyone else get getting when geopolitics flare up into conflict? Today, India bombed Pakistan which was a pretty agressive maneuver. All I could think of was the clash of civilizations. The ancient Indian nation, the nation of the Mauryans comes face to face once again with its arch-rival that as been takeover my Muslims. If anything, representative of India's Mughal past.

I also got hard at the though of China and India duking it out, two ancient nations fulfilling a historic dialogue between two civilizations.

I wish France was stronger than it is today, or at least more relevant. Anything to grant release from the tepid norm of American hegemony. Let's see the rise of the nation that conquered half of Europe! Such a great military record, I want to see France's belligerent side, not this cucked Freemason side!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OCkgqVA3VU

File: crusader.jpg (4KB, 116x125px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 116x125px

>>1754120
I'd rank military power as:
1. USA
2. Russia
3. China
4. France honestly. Pakistan, India may be contenders but they probably don't have [spoiler]ELAN[/spoiler]

>>1756349
Buongiorno, this is /int/! Hahahaha vaffanculo Francesco, you are the worst spergo!

>>1756335
>Even in the heyday of Napoleon Britain was a much larger global power

What was the point of being a "global power" when Europe was the only civilized place?
Btw, we all saw how shitty your might overseas really was when you lost to the US in the War of 1812

>>1753772
They never proclaimed another monarch.

>>1756376
>Btw, we all saw how shitty your might overseas really was when you lost to the US in the War of 1812
>Busy BTFOing Napoleon and stealing all his ships as they come out of the yards
>then the Puritans decide to start some shit because the blockade on France means they can't sell their garbage and buy hair shirts for their ugly wives
>open minor Western front in war
>but the retarded Puritans think this is its own war
>have no real objectives except continuing to press Bombapart
>burn the faggot capital anyway
>continue fight until it's no longer expedient because actual enemy BTFO
>then quit fighting with no concessions
>later, the retard descendants of the original retards claim you """"lost""""

File: 1295709934251.jpg (13KB, 251x241px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 251x241px

>>1756376
>What was the point of being a "global power" when Europe was the only civilized place?
I just groaned and said "Oh, God" in a really long and drawn-out way because this is so stup
>Btw, we all saw how shitty your might overseas really was when you lost to the US in the War of 1812
OH GGGGGGGOOOOOODDDDDDD
I'll explain
Britain's sophisticated and increasingly industrialized economy required a constantly growing workforce. British industrialists had to acquire resources from overseas; coal was nice, but a growing experimental industrial power cannot live on fuel alone. It must also build machines to consume fuel, goods to ship with these machines, and acquire the technology and resources necessary to bring far-flung resources to the metropole as safely and securely as possible.
Much of the British Empire was largely administered and developed by joint stock companies, even as the land was owned by the nobility, for the most part. Britain itself needed resources to exploit and it needed people to dig them out of the ground. In England, Englishmen did it, because the were there. In India, Indians did it for Englishmen, because they were there.
Economic expansion requires exploitation. Economic growth requires economic expansion. Ergo, economic expansion requires exploitation.
I'm not even a leftist.
As for the Navy, it was part of keeping the shipping lanes safe and under British control. The British Navy was the most powerful in the world for a long time, one battle is practically irrelevant.

>>1755681
I doubt most Amricans are able to place anyone on any map.

>>1755904
This is ridiculous. I thought I couldn't hate EA anymore, but they always prove me wrong.

>Three fucking white males plus the two diversity tokens
Did the Brits outjew the Jews again?

>>1757261
There's a reason 1984 was set in Britain, and I don't think it's just the British author.