US Troops Shot French Civilians On & After D-Day

I imagine that the other allied forces shot their fair share of civilians, even the British. I would assume, however, that Canadian soldiers would at least apologize beforehand.

Eh?

The bombing was military necessary and if I remember correctly also approved by the French government in exile.

Hardly a hate crime!

What to bet that the free France forces with a lot of scores to settle did the most killings of the type we are talking about?

The allies armies for the most part was a little busy to be shooting friendly populations for target practice.

The internet is a wonderful tool but it does allow nuts cases to public nonsense.

I see that you are intimately familiar with the Canadian character.

Miss Wabbit, courtesy, literally to a fault, is so engrained in the Canadian character that they even lampoon it themselves. In the motion picture Canadian Bacon the Canadian comedian and actor John Candy plays an American sheriff. At one point, he is rushing through a crowd around the "space needle" in Montreal, pushing aside the Canadians, and knocking them down--with all of them apologizing to him.

Oh, I got it.

"Eh" is also supposed to be part of the national character, is it not?

We send Benjamin Franklin to Canada to try to talk sense to them and have them join us but not even he could drive commonsense into their hard heads.

Now when they wish to cross the border to shop at BJ they will have to carry a passport with them.

Serve them right.

So, you're promotin' stereotypes, eh?

However, how true is it that an entire generation of French males were lost in WWI, and the only way to repopulate the country was to have "love children" sans marriage? France's insistence on harsh reparations for WWI had to have some reason? I question whether it was just antipathy for Germany.

People have often pointed to the 700,000,000 gold francs the Germans insisted France pay as reparations for the 1870-71 war--which the French didn't even start. They did, however, pay off the reparations, and did so in a matter of a few years.

The Allies came to a reparations figure, and it was negotiated between them before the Germans were ever informed. A great deal of it had to do with what the Germans stole from Belgium and France, as well as the wanton and deliberate destruction they carried out as they retreated in the final months of the war--they just blew **** up purely out of spite. The greatest part of it was based on the huge loss of life, and was intended as compensation for the insurance and survivors' benefits the Allied governments would have to pay. By the way, in the end it didn't really matter--Germany didn't pay off her reparations, and most of what was paid was paid "in kind" when the English, Belgians and French simply seized German physical assets after the war. Austria and Hungary were forgiven their reparations bill, because otherwise they'd have both starved and been obliged to sell off their great works of art to pay. Turkey was invaded after the war was over by a French-sponsored Greco-Italian army, which the Turks eventually defeated; and Mustafa Kemal erected his republic which, none too politely, told the Allies to go piss up a rope and see how fast they collected their reparations. Only Bulgaria paid their war reparations, which of course, beggared them for generations.

You are a prime example of the force of the expression that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I suggest that you find and read (no doubt the New York Public Library system has dozens of copies) Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World, Margaret MacMillan, New York, Random House, 2002.

Yes, reading history is very worthwhile; however, with only 24 hours in a day, and I sleep during a little less than a third of that time, I read other subjects -politics, popular psychology, travel guides, assorted new books from the library's new book section. I have been told I am mortal, so I have to optimize my time.

But, thank you for the information; it answered my question.

Wars in general, and World War I in particular, are not usually demographic disasters. That's because wars typically only kill men, and men, from a demographic perspective, aren't really that important. Famines and epidemics have much more profound demographic consequences, because they kill women and children. The Spanish Influenza outbreak and the famines experienced in Russia during its civil war, therefore, were much more important in terms of effects on population growth. Only very unusual wars, such as the War of the Triple Alliance, have disastrous demographic effects.

As for the French in WWI, they were well aware that they were losing the demographic battle with Germany, and had been for many years. The French army, consequently, had a liberal leave policy for soldiers, who were strongly encouraged to go back home and get reacquainted with their wives and/or girlfriends. The French term for "leave" is "permission," and soldiers soon started calling it "spermission" (yes, the pun works the same in English).

The French demographic growth rate was already quite low before the outbreak of the First World War -- close to ZPG. There was a population dip after the war, but by 1931 France was back above pre-war population levels. So there was no need for the French to repopulate the country with "love children."

While you're "optimizing" your time, try not to waste it with stupid remarks which prove how little you know about history, rather than how well-informed you seem to think you are.

A gratuitous compliment, just for me; how nice!

Pathfinder waffles.

The Great Cataloger strikes again.