It comes out often on Veeky Forums, some people are really convinced France was always a jerk.
As a French, I obviously see Germany and England as regular assholes as they kept wrecking France. So give me the other side of the story, tell me about what did Frenchs bad in history
Other urls found in this thread:
factmyth.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>France was always a jerk.
>Starts one gorrilion Italian wars
>Ally with the T*urks
>Ally with the protestants
>Twice
>Destroys continental Europe in the name of a manlet
>Created socialism
>Created post-modernism
The eternal frog has to be erradicated from the face of the earth
I see the French in a similar vein to Russians. They're not evil in themselves, but they're weak enough to allow evil people who are not of their own ethnic stock to take them over from within.
Thankfully France never got hurt as badly as the Russians did, but it might just be the case that it hasn't had time to really get started yet. Russia fell in 1917, but the mass carnage only really began in the late 20s to early 30s. France fell in 1968 and only now is the slaughter beginning.
France is based.
England and Germany are also based. There are no bad guys in history.
What about the Turks ?
I can't believe how much animosity there is between protestants and catholics. I mean all I know about the protestants is that they were created to essentially be the counter-force to vatican popery. I guess the power hungry Catholic Church did everything to label protestants as evil.
I don't see how many people today can be anti-protestant or anti-catholic. Everyone should just be shutting the fuck up and letting others practice their own religious beliefs in peace.
Because protestants are puritan fascists, just look at what they did and still do in Northern Ireland, and what they did to the natives americans and the slaves in North America. Catholics stopped persecuting protestants since the French Revolution.
Religion was the center of most people's life at the time, every little thing revolving around it. No wonder they would fight each other over what seems to be theological details today.
Protestants weren't really created as a counter force, though surely were politically used by powerful people who knew better than common folks.
Protestants came along with the spreading of knowledge pushed by the press printer invention and the increasing literacy. A lot of conversions were done by fliers actually.
they're like that asshole uncle that loves you, but can't show it properly
French Revolution was the beginning of the end of western civ.
French are evil to the English and Germans, so they're all right by me.
>>Created socialism
GERMANS KARL MARX
>>Created post-modernism
FRANKFURT SCHOOL
BTFO
T
F
O
>They're not evil in themselves, but they're weak enough to allow evil people who are not of their own ethnic stock to take them over from within.
This is an eternal excuse everyone uses. No group has complete agency from outside groups. The good things the French did are theirs, as are the bad things.
>KARL MARX created socialism
>& humanities
>this is your brain on 12 years of age and 24/7 of /pol/
Out of the great European powers, I'd say they are the most moral and virtuous.
Ah yes, but according to which moral frame?
don't get all spooky
>I'd say they are the most moral and virtuous
>Starts one gorrilion Italian wars
>Ally with the T*urks
>Ally with the protestants
>Twice
>Destroys continental Europe in the name of a manlet
>Created socialism
>Created post-modernism
>so did everyone
>so did everyone
>worse than BEING protestant
>literally 20 years of a defensive conflict, england's fault
>bad
>postmodernism being attributable
fuck off Wellington.and take your shitty pasta with you
>>so did everyone
Nope.From all the 9 Italian wars France started 8 times the comflict.The other one was started by the Pope
>>so did everyone
The only western country to ally the Turks was France
>>worse than BEING protestant
Nope but protestantism exists because the French king were massive betas and couldn't stand others being more powerful than them and supported the protestants when they were about to lose.Twice.
>>literally 20 years of a defensive conflict, england's fault
>Defence
>Invasion of Spain
>Invasion of Portugal
>INvasion of Italy
>Invasion of Egypt
>INvasion of Russia
>>bad
Pretty bad
>>postmodernism being attributable
Yep.All the postmodernist philosophers were frogs
>napoleon
>manlet
When will this meme end?
I meant, wars in generals. Everyone was belligerent. Should I count the times germans attacked Poland?
Off the top of my head, England allied with their vassals, Germany, Greece and Yugoslavia allied with Turkey.
Yeah, and then massacred them. You're also forgetting protestantism in the first place is german.
>invasion of Spain
Response to imminent threat from... the english, through the weakness of Spain, which itself was threatening France with war.
>invasion of Portugal
pls, Portugal was literally an english port.
>invasion of Italy
...and its following unification?
>invasion of Egypt
literally who cares? They were also helping the anglos, like Portugal.
>invasion of Russia
After it broke a treaty and directly threatened France?
>Socialism is bad
Only if you're american. It did a lot of good. It's not the best system, but it's been relatively good for France, besides the immigration problems. We don't have dozens of millions of poor people, like the US.
When he stops being a manlet.
I don't see France as evil per se, but I believe that French ideas are harmful to other peoples (but not the French).
Think of it as a pest. Local plants are immune to it, so they end up being exported to substitute plants in areas where the pest was more destructive. That's how French ideas spread. They cause harm in other countries, but not in France.
Think any of the destructive ideas of the last two centuries and you will find their origins in France. Anticlericalism set Latin America ablaze for decades in virulent civil wars, it originated in France with the Freemasonry, but the French, though they did had heated political fights over it, never went to war like Latin Americans. Leninism and fascism was directly influenced by the theories of French intellectuals like Louis Auguste Blanqui and Georges Sorel, and everyone knows how the National Socialist views on race was influenced by the count Arthur de Gobineau.
Nationalism, liberalism, socialism, all were created in France, and with the exception of the first, none were adopted by it.
The rot goes even in other areas, architectural modernism was created in France, Le Corbusier wanted to destroy Paris! But he didn't managed to do it, on the other hands, architects influenced by Corbusier destroyed historical cities everywhere in the world. Foucault dreamed of a judiciary that would not punish criminals, he didn't got his way in France, but Brazilian judges are extremely influenced by him and let criminals go free because they are "victims of society", contributing to the high murder rates in the country.
Is France evil because of it? I don't know, can you blame China for the Dutch elm disease or Australia for the eucalyptus?
>tfw to intelligent for europe
Stop.
>Response to imminent threat from... the english, through the weakness of Spain, which itself was threatening France with war.
Invading your main ally is a response from imaginary threats?
>pls, Portugal was literally an english port.
And none belligerant.
>...and its following unification?
Not an argument.What was the point of the invasion of Italy?
>literally who cares? They were also helping the anglos, like Portugal.
>WE DINDU NUFFIN
>LOL invasions are justified when we do it
Ok Pierre
>They were also helping the anglos,
>IF YOU TRADE YOU ARE COMMITING WAR CRIMES
Do you realize how retarded you sound?
>After it broke a treaty and directly threatened France?
You mean by just trading and being sovereign again?
>Invading your main ally is a response from imaginary threats?
did you not read? It wasn't going to remain an ally. And it was weak even when it was. The spanish would have profited immensely from an enlightened despot.
>And none belligerant.
Sure, if you don't consider allowing english forces to land and attack France from there...
>Not an argument.
Fuck off Molyneux
>What was the point of the invasion of Italy?
Literally to free the italians as allies instead of letting them under the Autrichian boot.
>WE DINDU NUFFIN
>LOL invasions are justified when we do it
Do you not understand the principle of a defensive war or are you only pretending to be retarded?
If someone attacks you, you kick their shit in, you don't stop at the frontier.
>literally the pillar of english trade, which is their principal means of war
>w-why you attacking?
>You mean by just trading and being sovereign again?
Yes? Do you not know what Tilsit is? Do you not understand why, after attacking France and being beaten, Russia attacking again was seen as *gasp* an aggression?
>Is France evil?
Yes, it does happen that they are on the winning side more often than not, unlike Germany.
>It wasn't going to remain an ally. And it was weak even when it was. The spanish would have profited immensely from an enlightened despot.
Any real source for this? Because there are none.In fact Charles the IV was happy serving Napoleon and ask him for help when his son tried to claim the throne which lead to their imprisionment
>And it was weak even when it was
It wasn't.The FRench jst chose to destroy their fleet at Trafalgar with retarded tactics and then forced Charles to destitute most of the experience generals and send all their regiments to Denmark of Prussia which would allow Napoleon later on to invade the country with no opposition I bet that Napoleon didn't do that on purpose
>allowing english forces to land and attack France from there...
They never did until France invaded Portugal
>Literally to free the italians
Oh yeah I am sure that was the logic behind the Italian campaigns
>Do you not understand the principle of a defensive war
>Defensive war
>Invading Egypt
>Russia attacking again
They never attacked the just did what a sovereign country does.Take their diplomatic and economic choices.Napoleon just chimped out
en.wikipedia.org
> with retarded tactics
Literally the same tactics everyone used, including Nelson. There was nothing else to do with such heavy, slow and useless ships as the spanishs.
> I bet that Napoleon didn't do that on purpose
Yeah he did that because the spanish king was about to betray him.
>They never did until France invaded Portugal
The entire reason of the invasion was the english threat. Portugal was allied with England.
Considering they had riled up all of europe against the french, there was no reason to believe they wouldn't do exactly the same with Portugal.
No, the goal of the italian campaign was to attack Vienna and ignore literally everything before it, before retreating back to Marseilles and leaving them the control of Italy. You fucking buffoon.
>declare war on France
>get an important trade hub attacked
>OY VEYYY
>the just did what a sovereign country does
It wasn't a sovereign country anymore. It was the loser of a coalition. It had to obey to terms. It didn't. It got attacked. This is literally the simplest thing in the world to understand. Why are you posting on Veeky Forums at all if you can't even understand that?
>en.wikipedia.org
Napoleon's justification or delusion is not a source.I mean a direct one in which Charles IV is negotiating with Britain.There are none.Napoleon was planning on invading Spain from the start
>Literally the same tactics everyone used, including Nelson. There was nothing else to do with such heavy, slow and useless ships as the spanishs.
No.Villeneau departed from the port with unfavourable wind which allowed the brittish ships to move faster.The Spanish fleet had done alright against the Brittish fleet
>the spanish king was about to betray him
There is no source on this.In fact the king of Spain was in Bayonna with Napoleon when he was imprisioned.
>Portugal was allied with England
But wasn't in war with France
> It was the loser of a coalition. It had to obey to terms
The treaty of Tlist didn't make Russia a satellite state.Russia kept is sovereignty you spastic moron.France was the agressor it is retarded to disccuss this at all
this
>Napoleon's justification or delusion is not a source.I mean a direct one in which Charles IV is negotiating with Britain.There are none.Napoleon was planning on invading Spain from the start
Can you not read? The spanish were about to leave the french Alliance. Both the population and the king did not like Napoleon anymore and sought to get out of it.
It's not an opinion. Unlike your opinion that Napoleon was planning on invading spain from the start, which is just as baseless as it is stupid.
It's Villeneuve, and the spanish fleet got absolutely destroyed agasint the anglos both before and during the napoleonic wars. They had piss poor ships and crews.
>But wasn't in war with France
Great, I'm sure that'll help when (and not if) they let english troops through to attack the peninsula.
>The treaty of Tlist didn't make Russia a satellite state
No, but it did imply it had to follow the continental system. Which it didn't, therefore the dispute. Refusing to do it was explicitely a declaration of war.
>virtuous
Hmmm perhaps other countries don't have the pluralism, level of national debate and cultural heritage to deal with those ideals, so they end up being a destructive force, while France has the capacities to deal with them in a more abstract way.