Slashdot Mirror


Giant Predatory Worms Are Invading France (qz.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Quartz: In a Peer J study published on May 22, "Giant worms chez moi!" zoologist Jean-Lou Justine of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris, entomologist colleagues, and Pierre Gros, outline a discovery that "highlights an unexpected blind spot of scientists and authorities facing an invasion by conspicuous large invasive animals." About 100 citizen scientists ultimately contributed to the assessment of this alien invasion, identifying five giant predatory worm species in France that grow up to 10 inches long. The study relied on contributors' worm sightings, reported "mainly by email, sometimes by telephone." Researchers requested photographs and details about locality. In 2013, the Washington Post reports, "a group of terrorized kindergartners claimed they saw a mass of writhing snakes in their play field." These were giant flatworms! The study concludes that the alien creatures appear to reproduce asexually. They prey on other, smaller earthworms, stunning them with toxins. "The planarian also produces secretions from its headplate and body that adhere it to the prey, despite often sudden violent movements of the latter during this stage of capture," researcher note. In other words, the hammerheads produce a substance that allows them to stick to victims while killing them. The study points out that invasive alien flatworms have been spotted in New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Brazil, and Australia. But the five species of hammerhead flatworms invading France are giants, growing up to 27 centimeters.

250 comments

  1. There are predatory things invading France by AbRASiON · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Worms however, I'm not certain.

    That place has changed a LOT in the last decade. Very, very glad to not be a Frenchman about now.

    1. Re: There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes they rent vans.

    2. Re:There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like nazis haven't invaded France before.

    3. Re:There are predatory things invading France by Z80a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really.
      They can come in all colors, as long they follow the same book that tell em to remove all the rest.

    4. Re:There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's NICE you understood what he was going for.

      Maybe you should google for violence in that country and look just how bad it's become.

    5. Re:There are predatory things invading France by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hey! Look! Another liberal that's too dumb to understand that skin color and culture aren't the same thing. Poor, dumb liberals. Worst racists there are.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:There are predatory things invading France by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, and we should be tolerant of their intolerance, because otherwise we would be intolerant and that would be bad since we're white.

      I, for one, welcome our new intolerant overlords.

    7. Re: There are predatory things invading France by michelcolman · · Score: 0

      Well, at least it's better than stealing...

    8. Re:There are predatory things invading France by butzwonker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Alas, the people who complain the most about other cultures tend to have the least of it on their own. Many of them don't even read novels. It's a sad truth that you can see that everywhere.

      In contrast to that, the people who actually produce and advance culture, who write books and poems, who compose music, create fine arts, and make movies have almost without exception always been international cosmopolitans. Many of them have lived in different countries during their life, and the vast majority are very tolerant. Goethe's travel diaries are a good example of that attitude, for instance, and since we're talking about France it is also worth mentioning that Alexandre Dumas was the son of a French nobleman and a black slave from Haiti.

      The moral of the story is that before even starting to think about complaining about other people's cultures, you should make damn sure that you have some of your own first.

    9. Re: There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever had a real job or are you still posting from the University wifi?

    10. Re: There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, some people are being paid for doing research at universities, and it perfectly fine for me if that disturbs people like you.

    11. Re: There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you spit or swallow?

    12. Re: There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gargle

    13. Re:There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cultures are like accents, everyone else has one.

      I can exapand, but if you can't understand from the above sentence, you would probably take the detailed form as a personal insult.

    14. Re:There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good metaphor, because it illustrates very well how irrelevant cultural differences are.

    15. Re: There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    16. Re: There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing is culture is inherently centered in the nation but globalist work against this. When you mix all your drinks together they lose what makes them special.

    17. Re:There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're not complaining about the mere existence of another culture, they're complaining about how intolerant one other culture is of other cultures, and the huge negative effect that other culture has on theirs. To be clear, because I think I have to here, they don't complain about every other culture, just the one that is trying to destroy them. I enjoy other cultures, and have traveled, and much of their complaint seems justified.

    18. Re:There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those worms could've made a better business decision than to invade a country that eats frogs and snails too...

    19. Re:There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      NICE

      I see what you did there.

    20. Re: There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not. You have no clue what culture is.

    21. Re:There are predatory things invading France by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Frenchman here.
      Yes, it has changed a lot. For example, mobile internet is much cheaper. If you are talking about national security, then yeah, we now that security theater thing in many public events and in airports. Generally, the way France has changed in the last decade isn't much different from the rest of the western world.

      As for "predatory things", the wolf preservation program is relatively successful, and while some farmers are complaining, we can't really call that an invasion if that's what you meant...

    22. Re:There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alas, the people who complain the most about other cultures tend to have the least of it on their own. Many of them don't even read novels. It's a sad truth that you can see that everywhere.

      When was the last time you ever heard the word 'alas?' When was the last time you spoke it? Is this the kind of filthy vocabulary you've learned from reading novels? Thanks, but no thanks, you damn literate! I'm not even going to tell you why!

    23. Re:There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of coarse that all goes out the window as soon as a noble cosmopolitan crosses the Mason-Dixon line. You can always make fun of Southerners.

    24. Re:There are predatory things invading France by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      it illustrates very well how irrelevant cultural differences are

      Right. Because our culture now generally tolerates things like, say, being gay. Whereas other cultures cheer when gay people are thrown from rooftops. I'm sure, as you headed through the air to your death, you'd probably have some different thoughts about how irrelevant it is that a particular culture holds that you should die because of your sexual preferences.

      Gotta love progressive moral relativism. More than happy to let other people die as long as they can use "not being judgey" as a crutch for their own hypocritical politics.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    25. Re:There are predatory things invading France by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Same here in Germany, we have about 60 packs. Some estimate it is about 600 animals in total.
      Sad is, one pack killed a whole herd of sheep a few weeks ago. Of course the farmers get refunded, but it is ofc annoying and not good for the project.

      Luckily the lynx are more quiet :D We have about 100 in Germany, but some idiots try to poisson them or even hunt them.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    26. Re:There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is, do these make great escargot?!

    27. Re:There are predatory things invading France by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      "Alas, the people who complain the most about other cultures tend to have the least of it on their own. Many of them don't even read novels. "

      Really...care to back that up with some evidence. Oh, you can't, can you, because you completely pulled it out of your anus.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    28. Re:There are predatory things invading France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly because it's easy. The South is many things, but cosmopolitan is not one of them. The word that comes to mind....well, words, plural....are backwards and reactionary. But hey, it's their culture!

    29. Re:There are predatory things invading France by outlander · · Score: 1

      Love lynxes. They're amazing.

      And I know you're typing in another language - kudos to you for your mastery, wish I could say I had the same - but your misspelling of 'poison' as 'poisson' (fish, in French) is extra funny - I had images of idiots chasing lynx with fish. ;)

      mh

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
    30. Re:There are predatory things invading France by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Haha, yeah I learned a bit french by listening, so I understand a lot but can not really craft sentences. If poisson would not be so "strangely" pronounced, I would probably mix it up with poison :D

      Thanx for the compliment, however I see nothing wrong with your english :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  2. Sauteed in butter? by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 4, Funny

    A few herbs and spices, feature as a delicacy problem solved.

    1. Re:Sauteed in butter? by mejustme · · Score: 4, Funny

      A few herbs and spices [...]

      Once upon a time there may have been a series of SF books about giant worms and spices...!

    2. Re:Sauteed in butter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the WP article:

      What they lack in physical defenses, they make up in a cocktail of disgusting bodily juices. A colleague once tried to put a flatworm in his mouth, Justine recounted. The man still describes it as “one of the worst experiences of his life.”

    3. Re:Sauteed in butter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waiting to see if the rural French population develop a blue tinge to the sclera of their eyeballs.

    4. Re:Sauteed in butter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Flashbacks to Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

    5. Re:Sauteed in butter? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Hmm. That probably rules out the usual solution of bringing in gorillas, then.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Sauteed in butter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nothing that you have quoted rules it out from being included in French cuisine.

    7. Re: Sauteed in butter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On the contrary. They seem to have the charcteristics of french food even before being cooked the French way.

    8. Re:Sauteed in butter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The PC term is 'Germans'.

    9. Re:Sauteed in butter? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      A few herbs and spices, feature as a delicacy problem solved.

      There is another, more tasty solution: The government of France declares a special national holiday, and orders everyone on that day to . . . go fishing!

      With folks collecting the giant worms, and using them for bait. Everyone should be catching some very big fish that can swallow giant worms.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    10. Re:Sauteed in butter? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2
      Nope :-(

      Giant predatory worms invaded France, but scientists just noticed them:

      What they lack in physical defenses, they make up in a cocktail of disgusting bodily juices. A colleague once tried to put a flatworm in his mouth, Justine recounted. The man still describes it as “one of the worst experiences of his life.”

    11. Re:Sauteed in butter? by ffkom · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Chinese for the rescue! No matter how awkward that stuff tastes, just tell them it's an expensive aphrodisiac, and see those worms being decimated within months!

    12. Re:Sauteed in butter? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      A colleague once tried to put a flatworm in his mouth, Justine recounted. The man still describes it as “one of the worst experiences of his life.”

      Was the colleague a three year old?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    13. Re:Sauteed in butter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few herbs and spices [...]

      Once upon a time there may have been a series of SF books about giant worms and spices...!

      A few Herberts and Spice then

    14. Re:Sauteed in butter? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      How do you figure out that exhaling tobacco smoke into water doesn't create gold? By trying it! You're not a scientist if you don't try stuff! Or a Frenchman if you don't try to eat it. Well, human, actually.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:Sauteed in butter? by zifn4b · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or we could just start mass producing Slurm

      --
      We'll make great pets
    16. Re:Sauteed in butter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waiting to see if the rural French population develop a blue tinge to the sclera of their eyeballs.

      Never happen.

      The Fremen weren't surrender monkeys ceding their country and their culture to religious fanatics intent on wiping them out.

    17. Re:Sauteed in butter? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Nothing that you have quoted rules it out from being included in French cuisine.

      Something that seems too gross to put in your mouth: Check.
      Probably gives you "worms": Check.

      I'm surprised the French aren't already eating them and claiming they're superior in a snooty tone to the rest of the world for doing so.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    18. Re:Sauteed in butter? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope :-(

      Giant predatory worms invaded France, but scientists just noticed them:

      What they lack in physical defenses, they make up in a cocktail of disgusting bodily juices. A colleague once tried to put a flatworm in his mouth, Justine recounted. The man still describes it as “one of the worst experiences of his life.”

      Sounds like French food to me!

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    19. Re:Sauteed in butter? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      The Spice must flow...

    20. Re: Sauteed in butter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come out of your room bro, it's not as bad as you pretend.

    21. Re: Sauteed in butter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes it is.
      Kaffarophobes have declared war on the French people with the stated goal of wiping them out so they can take their land.

    22. Re:Sauteed in butter? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Especially since these things are quite phallic! They'll probably be endangered species by the weekend.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    23. Re: Sauteed in butter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fils de pute. Si tu crois que ce que tu manges dans ton pays de merde est meilleur alors tu es vraiment le pire des abrutis. Va te faire enculer.

    24. Re:Sauteed in butter? by imrahilj · · Score: 1

      Congrats on the relevant sig

    25. Re:Sauteed in butter? by laurencetux · · Score: 1

      i think you were either going for "decimated" in minutes or "devastated in months"

      in Proper or Classic English decimated is killing 1 in 10 devasted is leave 1 in 10 living.

      but yeah just tell folks these are "certified organic" and or "Cruelty Free" and the problem is solved

    26. Re:Sauteed in butter? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No he was going for exactly what he said. We here speak English, not some historical form of it, and dictionaries are happy to point out the current accepted definition of decimate is to "kill large portions of a population" with your "proper" definition relegated to the historical footnotes at the bottom.

      Now tell us what you think about this in ancient greek and other languages no one communicates in?

    27. Re:Sauteed in butter? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      A few herbs and spices [...]

      Once upon a time there may have been a series of SF books about giant worms and spices...!

      If only the Spacing Guild -- I mean, the French -- had a bunch of giant tequila bottles ...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    28. Re: Sauteed in butter? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Bravo!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    29. Re:Sauteed in butter? by antdude · · Score: 1

      "The spice must flow!"

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  3. On news of the invasion, by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Funny

    White flags broke out across the country.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      White flags broke out across the country.

      France has fought a hell of a lot more wars than America and they didn't hang back in either WW1 or WW2.

    2. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      White flags broke out across the country.

      While much cheese was consumed.

    3. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe read some history about WW1. France was bled dry, and simply couldn't defend itself in WW2. No other allied power has suffered the sort of losses France did. The US, for example, has nothing in it's history that comes remotely close to French casualties either in absolute or relative terms. This has always been a shitty slur on the French.

    4. Re:On news of the invasion, by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      So you're saying the US should have colonized the Gaulic region of Europe.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the french didn't just sit on the sidelines making money off the bad guys the first few years.

    6. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Stop talking crap and trying to rewrite history.

      America was actively working WITH the Germans until it got forced in to the war (thanks mostly to the Japanese).
      US companies were supplying Germany with war materials, helping run factories, and supplying critical fuel additives.

      Once the tables were turning (mostly thanks to the Russians, and the russian weather..) the Americans certainly
      got involved..

      No one says American help was not needed, but it is VERY interesting just how long it took to arrive...
      And no, America didnt 'Invade Europe' either, they were involved, but most certainly not single handed.

      So why dont you just Fuck Off already.
      I wonder just how well The NAZIs would have done without US fuel (specifically TEL addititives) and US trucks for their troop movements..

    7. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the french didn't just sit on the sidelines making money off the bad guys the first few years.

      No, they sat on the sidelines while Germany invaded them. If you read about the 1940 invasion, France was pretty much all thumbs.

    8. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The U.S. wouldn't exist if the French didn't provide materiel support during the American war for independence.

    9. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stop talking crap and trying to rewrite history.

      America was actively working WITH the Germans until it got forced in to the war (thanks mostly to the Japanese).
      US companies were supplying Germany with war materials, helping run factories, and supplying critical fuel additives.

      Once the tables were turning (mostly thanks to the Russians, and the russian weather..) the Americans certainly
      got involved..

      No one says American help was not needed, but it is VERY interesting just how long it took to arrive...
      And no, America didnt 'Invade Europe' either, they were involved, but most certainly not single handed.

      So why dont you just Fuck Off already.
      I wonder just how well The NAZIs would have done without US fuel (specifically TEL addititives) and US trucks for their troop movements..

      The US was reluctantly working with England with the lend/lease program. Not Germany. And to be fair, Russia needs due credit for the lives lost to defeat Germany. They suffered more than almost any other country.

    10. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe read some history about WW1. France was bled dry, and simply couldn't defend itself in WW2. No other allied power has suffered the sort of losses France did. The US, for example, has nothing in it's history that comes remotely close to French casualties either in absolute or relative terms. This has always been a shitty slur on the French.

      So was Germany. In fact they suffered much more economically. They felt they got the raw end of the deal with the armistice which was a lot of the reason Hitler came to power. The difference is they re-armed while England and France hoped the problem would go away.

    11. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Without even a token resistance"

      https://www.quora.com/Were-the-French-involved-at-Dunkirk

      "The French army (and navy, which sent nearly as many ships as Great Britain), were the Allied resistance at Dunkirk, with some minor assistance from the British and Belgian forces. The French fought bravely - and well - to secure the safe evacuation of so many Allied troops"

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32956736

      "The fall of France 75 years ago is conventionally seen as a moment of abject national disgrace. But today some insist the French military has been wronged - and that the hundreds of thousands of French troops who fought in the Battle of France deserve to be honoured, rather than forgotten."

      "About 360,000 French casualties, including between 55,000 to 85,000 dead and 12,000 missing."

      https://www.quora.com/How-many-French-soldiers-died-during-the-battle-of-France-in-1940

      In 1940, France was attacked by Germany and Italy at the same time (Total population twice bigger or more). UK had a natural shelter and could evacuate somewhere. Not the French who were attacked by Italy in the South. USA, due to its size and Atlantic Ocean natural barrier, never had to face this situation.

      And also, German industry got a little help:
      https://www.adl.org/news/op-ed/ford-and-the-third-reich
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm
      https://libcom.org/library/allied-multinationals-supply-nazi-germany-world-war-2
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Germany#Use_of_forced_labor_during_World_War_II
      http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-american-companies-that-aided-the-nazis.php
      http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/general-motors-and-the-third-reich

    12. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They tried; after having massively bombed the country.

      "Between the time of the German victory in the Battle of France and the liberation of the country, the Western Allies bombed many locations in France. In all 1,570 French cities and towns were bombed by Anglo-American forces between June 1940 and May 1945. The total number of civilians killed was 68,778 men, women and children (including the 2,700 civilians killed in Royan)."

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

      "Historians believe Allied bombardments killed almost as many French people as German bombs killed Britons during the Blitz. ... "It is also true that France took seven times the tonnage of [Allied] bombs that the UK took [from Nazi Germany]," says Knapp. "Roughly 75,000 tonnes of bombs were dropped on the UK [including Hitler's V missiles]. In France, it's in the order of 518,000 tonnes," he says."

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27703724

      And this, on top of destruction done by the Germans, of course.

      Despite this, France is still the top touristic destination (Before US):
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings#Most_visited_destinations_by_international_tourist_arrivals

    13. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US was trying to profit off both sides, all while hiding away on the other side of the world. Cowards.

    14. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their leadership were incompetent, still better than American cowards profiting from both sides of a war they were hiding from.

    15. Re:On news of the invasion, by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      France has fought a hell of a lot more wars than America and they didn't hang back in either WW1 or WW2.

      Apparently you've never heard of the Phoney War, so I'll tell you how it all went down:

      Germany invades Poland and conquers it in 5 weeks. France and England largely stood by and did nothing, except for a small operation called the Saar Offensive, which officially began the Phoney War. This offensive was so light that it didn't even tickle Germany. The USSR (on friendly terms with Germany at this point) invaded Finland, and then Germany invaded Denmark and Norway. This caused France to get cold feet, so they picked up what meager forces they sent and ran home.

      That is a very brief summary of what happened, and you'll find it to be accurate if you research it. Granted, I've omitted many details, obviously, because of how short I wrote it, but it's hard to overstate how little of an effort that France and England made to stop Germany for TEN MONTHS after the invasion of Poland began. Anyways, immediately after France withdrew, they assumed their WWI playbook and hunkered down in the trenches in the Maginot line. It didn't work though: France didn't bother to fortify the region near Belgium's border thinking Germany wouldn't go there, but neutral Belgium and Holland seemed ok with allowing Germany's forces to quickly shift to the west and bypass the Maginot line entirely. In spite of France having a large and well armed and prepared Army (which they never tried to use to break Polish invasion,) they surrendered in 6 weeks.

      So in other words, Europe as a whole sat on its ass (except for Germany, Austria, and their allies) for TEN FREAKING MONTHS! It's one thing for a country separated by an entire ocean, but good fuckin lord, practically the only reason a European country would take action during this period was after they were already invaded.

      It was only after the fall of France that a serious allied war effort actually began. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor about 14 months after that. The US was isolationist at the time because we wanted nothing to do with your kings, queens, kaisers, and fuhrers because they looked all the same to us, and still do: But the lesson we took from Pearl Harbor is that even if you don't want a war, you're going to get one anyways. This meant we had to, among other things, assist the fucking USSR that we had to go to proxy wars with while we funded Europe's reconstruction with the Marshall plan, even though it wasn't our fault that they decided to blow themselves up. Here we are, 80 years later, and one third of Europe wants to be fascist again. And that is NOT an exaggeration:

      https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

      Now that Europeans aren't allowed to see what today's fascists actually say because it's censored, then all they see is the mild stuff that they sympathize with, and then they start liking them. What the fuck did you think was going to happen when you banned hate speech? Just because you don't see or hear the fascists doesn't mean they aren't there (for the most part, the only fascists you actually see in Europe call themselves antifa.) Some things never change...

      I don't hate Europe or Europeans by the way, just the stupid ones who think tossing dog feces under the rug makes it go away, and then proceed to tell you that their house doesn't actually smell like shit.

    16. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting idea, claiming that the people who came and saved your asses were "hiding" cowards.

      If not for those "cowards" you'd probably be speaking German right now, and in constant fear of being sent to a labor camp until your eventual gassing for not saying the proper number of Sieg Heils every day.

      The United States kept Britain free through lend / lease, and then without having a single shot fired at them by Germany put hundreds of thousands of troops into North Africa and France. The way you act, they should have just left well enough alone - maybe your ancestors would have been jailed and we wouldn't have you to deal with.

      Fucking ungrateful ignorant moron.

    17. Re:On news of the invasion, by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      And France would be part of the Greater German Reich if we hadn't said thank you and sent a few million guys to help out in 1918 and 1943.

      Call it even, then?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    18. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a joke. You can take it as an insult that its people are cowards, or you could take it as a complement that its people have excellent washing skills. Your choice. I know none of my white cloths are fully white, so I'll view the joke as a complement.

    19. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The French put up a LOT of resistance in WW2. The problem was that its intelligence indicated no invasion until 1942 (German generals felt the same). It's rearmament wasn't due to be finished until the end of 1940. Given war was underway, France and UK panned an offensive in 1941.

    20. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The US government was seeking to aid the UK. Some individual US companies aided Germany (but very few). After WW2 a US company successfully sued the US government for bombing its fighter plane factories in Germany, and was awarded compensation.

    21. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In terms of the USA keeping the UK free, Germany had failed in the Battle of Britain before Lend Lease started. Before then the UK bought arms for gold. The USN and USAAF did start protecting convoys before December 1941, and that and Lend Lease kept the UK effective at countering Germany in the Middle East , and tgen later Italy and Western Europe. Germany had lost WW2 by the middle of 1942 if not earlier.

      US trucks pretty much kept the Soviet logistical train working in 1943, which locked in Germany's defeat.

    22. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "saved your asses"
      No. They tried to invade it as it was a perfect opportunity to take control military allied but economic rival, hence the massive destruction of French industrial potential.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Normandy
      https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/allies-invade-france
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Military_Government_for_Occupied_Territories

      Being "saved" by the Americans is usually a disaster: Vietnam, Iraq, Korea etc... because their only true allied are UK, Australia, NZ and Canada. Everywhere else, they just bomb everything. You were even ready to destroy Rome:
      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/7813894/Wartime-Pope-begged-allies-not-to-bomb-Rome.html
      https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/america-bombs-rome

      "you'd probably be speaking German"
      Not worse than speaking English. Actually, we sometimes speak German in the past:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_Empire

      " they should have just left well enough alone"
      Can you ?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angevin_Empire

      "Fucking ungrateful ignorant moron"
      Free sample of US culture I guess ?

    23. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no big attack on Germany as neither France nor the UK had finished rearming, and believed attacking in 1939 would be suicide, and that Germany would not be ready until 1942. Thus a plan was made to attack Germany in 1941, along with a rationalisation of war production first proposed in 1918.

      Wargaming and simulation of a 1939 offensive mostly result in a draw. Such stalemate would have been difficult for the democracies to sustain, and would likely have resulted in reduced arms sales by the USA.

    24. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "https://www.nytimes.com/intera... [nytimes.com]

      Now that Europeans aren't allowed to see what today's fascists actually say because it's censored"

      You have obviously no idea at all of what you are talking about. Can I suggest to learn a couple of European languages and read newspapers which know what they are talking about ?

    25. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wanted nothing to do with it, but sell to both sides and profit off the war.
      Same strategy you have now. Except now you also want to start wars all over the place in order to sell even more weapons.

    26. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the UK and France were rearming, both starting in 1934, and at a faster rate from 1936. French and UK rearmament was intended to be largely compete by the end of 1940, actually AHEAD of Germany.

    27. Re:On news of the invasion, by ch0knuti · · Score: 1

      replying to undo moderating mistake

    28. Re:On news of the invasion, by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but their tanks go twice as fast in reverse.

    29. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call it whatever. A few short years after the American revolution, France got into a war with England. What did America do?

      They declared themselves neutral. Like Switzerland. Because that's how American gratitude works. Self-serving to the core. Fast forward to now, where it's cute to smirk at the weak and spineless French - who fought and died beside us - and mock them for surrendering to an ambitious, overwhelming psychopath right on their doorstep.

      Of course France should be grateful. Lucky the Americans didn't squeeze back into their pastel leotard of neutrality - like they did in 1793.

    30. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Their leadership were incompetent". Yes. Read this:

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

      "Strange Defeat (French: L'Étrange Défaite) is a book written in the summer of 1940 by French historian Marc Bloch. The book was published in 1946; in the meanwhile, Bloch had been tortured and shot by the Gestapo in June 1944 for his participation in the French resistance. An English translation was published by W. W. Norton in 1968"

      Marc Bloch also fought during WW1. You can find the book in PDF in French.

    31. Re:On news of the invasion, by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1, Funny

      I for one am very grateful for the US intervention in WW2.

      Could you send your best worm-eating rodents to Europe, save us one more time, plz?

    32. Re:On news of the invasion, by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      So you're saying the US should have colonized the Gaulic region of Europe.

      Seeing as there hasn't been a Gaulic region for about 1500 hundred years and the the US has existed for less than 300, probably not.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    33. Re:On news of the invasion, by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Considering that it apparently preys on gastropods, there could be some underground culinary resistance determined to save the snails...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    34. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather than try to rebut any of the craziness some of my fellow (self proclaimeD) countrymen posted, I will say this.

      Watch "Our Darkest Hour", stop 1 minute from the end. Then watch "Dunkirk", then finish Darkest Hour. Even on a plane it was a good double feature, much less on a big screen with some subwoofer action.

    35. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Polish. While it's put to our heads that we ware abandoned by France and UK, from my understanding they couldn't do much. UK had virtually no ground forces on their island, France had a weak air force and overall they were unprepared for war. Europe tried not to provoke Hitler and didn't prepare for war beforehand. Starting a war takes time, it's not like you can order troops to just march towards the enemy. You need supplies, supply lines, strategy, combine forces and work with your allies, coordinate your military on various levels. You can't do that in a week (at least if you're really not forced to do it). Plus take into account that it was already September and it's generally not advised to start offense before or during winter. While it was really bad for Poland UK and FR holding off war efforts made sense.
       

    36. Re: On news of the invasion, by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      To be really fair, Russia itself deserves some of the blame for those high losses considering the tactical decisions they made contributed to it. For example using infantry wave attacks on while on the offensive-and, especially early in the war, it was the default decision for commanders to order massive and useless counterattack while on the defensive too-or, in the example of Stalingrad, pulling thousands of factory workers off the lines, handing them rifles and submachine guns, and telling them to go hold off an attacking mechanized army.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    37. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me? USA gets the flak for supposedly TRADING with Nazi Germany , yet Russia, who FOUGHT in the war as Hitler's ALLY until mid-1941 (when Hitler invaded them) gets a free pass?!

    38. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And also, German industry got a little help: https://www.adl.org/news/op-ed... https://www.washingtonpost.com... https://libcom.org/library/all... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-... http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar...

      Just goes to show: a Jew will sell to both sides as long as there's money to be made.

    39. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Polish. While it's put to our heads that we ware abandoned by France and UK, from my understanding they couldn't do much.

      Almost as sad a story is the way the Western Allies abandoned Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe, under Soviet rule at the end of the war. Under Churchill's instructions, Britain developed a plan

      "to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire. Even though 'the will' of these two countries may be defined as no more than a square deal for Poland, that does not necessarily limit the military commitment"

      so they definitely cared about what happened to Poland - but, facing a Soviet army that substantially outnumbered them, and having suffered through five years of war already, they decided against it. Under the circumstances, I don't think one can really blame them.

    40. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one third of Europe wants to be fascist again. And that is NOT an exaggeration:

      Your own link shows how much of an exaggeration that is. Even if you pretend to yourself that the "right wing and far right" voters of Europe are all facist Nazis (completely unlike right wing and far right Republican voters of course) - it is absolutely an exaggeration to claim that a result of ~27% in Austria and a couple of smaller nations in any way represents "one third of Europe" when results from all the large nations like Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy, France, Greece etc all clearly show they want nothing to do with that lot.

    41. Re:On news of the invasion, by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I for one am very grateful for the US intervention in WW2.

      Are you glad that we sold fuel to the Nazis so they could drive tanks into other countries, or that we sold aluminum to the Japanese so that they could build Zeroes and attack ships with them?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    42. Re:On news of the invasion, by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      White flags broke out across the country.

      France has fought a hell of a lot more wars than America and they didn't hang back in either WW1 or WW2.

      Yes... and fine allies they are too. Thanks for helping us in WW2 Britain! Oh, what's that, you're fighting a war with Argentina over the Falkland isles... sounds like a perfect time to sell missiles and arms to Argentina.

      Bastards!

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    43. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just not true, they have just won a couple of colonial wars agains people armed with sticks and stones, but barely any against any western country:

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

      vs.

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

      And France has traditionally an extremely high rate of desertion in most wars. e.g. 30% during Franco-Prussian War

    44. Re:On news of the invasion, by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

      The best American WER came from Norway. Europe has good rats. Norway has the best.

      --
      - Tjp

      I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

    45. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany and Merkel invaded France long time ago....

    46. Re:On news of the invasion, by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

      Least folks forget, the Soviets provided a huge amount of raw materials including coal and petroleum products, metals and materials for explosives to Germany. Had they not done so, Germany’s war would have been regional and short lived. Trains were headed to Germany from Russia even as Germany began the invasion of Russia. And as to the Russian aggression later, against Germany, the front line troops were most often Ukrainian Red Army and Belarussian Red Army units, with Russian Red Army trailing or defending Russian homeland. And the Soviet military heavily depended on the American lend lease program.

      And the lend lease program didn’t really cause huge profits, American companies diverted capacity from consumer goods, and at the wars end, thousands of airplanes and vehicles were destroyed as they then didn’t need to be paid for by the receiving country. Brand new aircraft were pushed overboard to prevent payment becoming due...

      --
      - Tjp

      I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

    47. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The French bashing has more to do with the Maginot Line than anything. It's one of the best examples of horrendous military planning in history, and shows an abject lack of foresight on the part of the French military.

    48. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called a joke, quit being so thin skinned. I'm Polish, I always say we were the sighting range for the Nazis before they took on the French in WWII. If you can't laugh at yourself, you're always going to be offended.

    49. Re:On news of the invasion, by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

      In the immediate post revolutionary war, America was fairly resource starved militarily. Britain and France were two of the superpowers then. Asking America to step in, where only about 10% of the mostly British a few years before still with friends and family as well in Britain, to aid the French, would be like asking Iceland to side with America if a US v Russia war broke out. Which if Russia was the initial aggressor their participation in NATO might require...

      --
      - Tjp

      I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

    50. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany had failed in the Battle of Britain before Lend Lease started.

      This is strictly true, but potentially misleading. Some dates:

      2 Sep 1940: The Destroyers for Bases agreement is made, in which the US supplies Britain with warships in exchange for land rights.

      31 Oct 1940: End of the Battle of Britain, by most historians' definitions: major daytime air raids had ceased, and Germany had abandoned its goal of establishing air superiority over Britain.

      11 Mar 1941: The Lend-Lease act is passed.

      22 Jun 1941: Hitler launches Operation Barbarossa, invading Russia; at this point Germany has clearly abandoned any prospect of invading Britain in the foreseeable future.

      So I'd say that, although Lend Lease came later, the US had already provided military aid while the Battle of Britain was undecided. But this is just a quibble: I don't believe this made a substantive difference to the Battle's outcome. Certainly not compared to the support that Russia received from the US (and, to a lesser extent, from Britain) on the Eastern Front.

    51. Re:On news of the invasion, by strikethree · · Score: 1

      White flags broke out across the country.

      France has fought a hell of a lot more wars than America and they didn't hang back in either WW1 or WW2.

      It's a fucking joke. Let it go. Why do people feel the need to be offended about every-fucking-thing?

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    52. Re:On news of the invasion, by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      What the fuck did you think was going to happen when you banned hate speech?

      I think you've landed on the best argument I've ever heard for allowing free speech. There is no organization better equipped to turn people off to xenophobic fascists than letting them get a good whiff of what those fascists are cooking.

      Sometimes you get someone so unhinged all you can do is sit back and say; "You were saying,..."

      The only problem is when there are radical youth out there who suddenly think because old keyboard warrior is talking nasty and tough, it's OK to say it out loud. So you have to balance the "free expression of creeps" with the impressionability of people who aren't getting the medical treatment that perhaps they should have.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    53. Re: On news of the invasion, by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, we know; everything the US does is always wrong. Give it a fucking rest already.

    54. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, enough, that was the demarcation of France's war history; they never won a war on their own after that... Strategically though it was brilliant for them to help the new US, since we later bailed them out of at least 3 major conflicts (WWI, WWII, and Vietnam).

    55. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you're not Belgium: the German Gateway to France!

    56. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop talking crap and trying to rewrite history.

      America was actively working WITH the Germans until it got forced in to the war (thanks mostly to the Japanese).
      US companies were supplying Germany with war materials, helping run factories, and supplying critical fuel additives.

      Once the tables were turning (mostly thanks to the Russians, and the russian weather..) the Americans certainly
      got involved..

      No one says American help was not needed, but it is VERY interesting just how long it took to arrive...
      And no, America didnt 'Invade Europe' either, they were involved, but most certainly not single handed.

      So why dont you just Fuck Off already.
      I wonder just how well The NAZIs would have done without US fuel (specifically TEL addititives) and US trucks for their troop movements..

      Nope. We put sanctions on materials sent to Germany pretty early on (around the time France and England declared war over Poland). We then sent massive amounts of equipment and materials to the allies. This is why Hitler's uboats proved so effective at intercepting convoys. It was no secret that FDR wanted to get into the fight but couldn't because he ran on a platform of peace because the US public hated WW1. He supplied Tue allies with materials precisely because his hands were tied in actively getting involved in the war. You are the one rewriting history.

    57. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that Europeans aren't allowed to see what today's fascists actually say because it's censored

      When there's censorship happening, it's not the people being censored that I'm concerned might be fascists.

    58. Re:On news of the invasion, by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Could you send your best worm-eating rodents to Europe

      Our very best is occupied at the moment... hopefully available in 2020

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    59. Re:On news of the invasion, by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      So in other words, Europe as a whole sat on its ass (except for Germany, Austria, and their allies) for TEN FREAKING MONTHS! It's one thing for a country separated by an entire ocean, but good fuckin lord, practically the only reason a European country would take action during this period was after they were already invaded.

      I'm sorry, you must turn in your hipster card immediately.

      The US cannot be allowed to be heroic, now or ever, not even in WWII. And Europe, all of it, must always be superior.

      Kids these days ...

    60. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they fucking surrendered to the Germans and became their bitch.

    61. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      incel much?

    62. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one am very grateful for the US intervention in WW2.

      Are you glad that we sold fuel to the Nazis so they could drive tanks into other countries, or that we sold aluminum to the Japanese so that they could build Zeroes and attack ships with them?

      "We" is a strange choice of word. You seem to think that the US was a centrally planned economy, in which the federal government chose to sell things to other countries. This is obviously not how all but the most despotic countries work. In the real world, a company (run by people) chooses to sell things. They don't go to the government to get permission.

    63. Re:On news of the invasion, by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Europe as a whole sat on its ass (except for Germany, Austria, and their allies) for TEN FREAKING MONTHS! It's one thing for a country separated by an entire ocean, but good fuckin lord, practically the only reason a European country would take action during this period was after they were already invaded.

      Although I agree more effort should have been made sooner, this is an oversimplification.
      Europe 'as a whole' did not exist. There was no EU or anything like that. After the (the quite recent) horrors of WW1, the British and French populace weren't exactly jumping to get into another war and subsequently, neither were their representatives. Everybody was in "[Our country] first" and "Don't send our boys to die" mode, so Poland's invasion was troublesome, but not [Our country]'s problem (tm). A very slightly similar example would be the sentiment in the US to pull troops out of Iraq.

      The US was isolationist at the time because we wanted nothing to do with your kings, queens, kaisers, and fuhrers because they looked all the same to us

      This is trivially false as France was not a monarchy at the time. It was a republic. Like you know, the US. The real reason is below.

      But the lesson we took from Pearl Harbor is that even if you don't want a war, you're going to get one anyways.

      So.. Let me slightly twist your words into this: "practically the only reason a [...] country would take action during this period was after they were already [attacked]"
      It's okay, we all did that.

      This meant we had to, among other things, assist the fucking USSR that we had to go to proxy wars with while we funded Europe's reconstruction with the Marshall plan, even though it wasn't our fault that they decided to blow themselves up.

      Yes, let's describe WW2 as "Europe deciding to blow themselves up". On point, my friend.

      Note by the way that, although slightly morbid, WW2 left the US in an exceptional state: It had no destruction on its home soil or significant internal political turmoil as well as an extremely ramped up industrial and commercial sector. Mostly all other world powers had very very significant material, infrastructural and/or political issues to deal with. Speaking strictly in terms of geopolitical power, WW2 was a big win for the US.

    64. Re:On news of the invasion, by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      but neutral Belgium and Holland seemed ok with allowing Germany's forces to quickly shift to the west
      Why do you think such nonsense? They got conquered, like the rest of Europe, and then we attacked France.

      and bypass the Maginot line entirely.
      We did not, we destroyed it with para troopers (Cargo Sailing planes landing on top them dropping about 20 troopers per plane, at night.) The line was designed to withstand field battles, not a night attack by special forces.

      When the german troops entered France, it was simply utter stupidity by the French Generality not to listen to news and other reports about where the German troops where. The did not believe that Germany is actually attacking and already 100 miles inside of France.

      *ALL* German troops where clocked up in traffic jams 50 miles or longer. They would have been easy target practicing if the Generals had been so prudent to sent at least one single scout plane too confirm the "news".

      France fell so quickly because Panzereneral Heinz Guderian ignored several orders to stop proceeding. He basically only obeyed the order not to massacre the british troops in Duenkirch.

      In a matter of about a week he hacked the whole French army into small patches of troops that could no longer defend their positions. Leaving a small crops of French soldiers here and another one there.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The Wiki articles is a bit uninformative, I guess you find more and better results if you like to search.

      Regarding "Fascists": there is no real big fascist movement. We have the Le Pen movement in France, the AFD in Germany, and the UK majourity voting for the BREXIT most certainly are not all fascists.

      The people are mostly against immigration, not for a secret police Fuehrer state (regardless of country).

      The "antiFa" is not a fascist group, they are left wing militant trouble makers, thats all.

      And again: you are mixing up hate speech with hate speech. I can place every hate speech I want, unless it covers the 4 or 5 topics that are explicitly forbidden, e.g. public denying the Holocaust, or directly instigate to violent action. E.g. no one cares (including a state attorney) if I say "The Jews are cause for all important problems on the world". Especially if I follow up with: "If they had not gotten Israel back, we had no problems with Palestinians, Iran would not support Hamas, the Arabs would not hate the west so much ... The Americans had not supported the Shah, then Sadam in Iraq, the 1st Golf War (between Iran and Iraq) had not happened. America had not bombed Iraq into the stone age, ISIS would not have conquered north Iraq and Syria .... etc. p.p."

      You see: it might be a pretty simplistic view of the current world situation: but it is not hate speech.

      Your whole premise in your talk is that there was a "united Europe" that did not get its ass up to fight against Hitler in time. Unfortunately that was not the case. They simply were single states that were happy that they survived WW1 more intact than Germany did. They surely had contracts to aid each other, but never set up an joined command (before WW2 I mean). Or any infrastructure to be able to shift troops around Europe to stop Hitlers troops.

      Keep in mind, no one believed that Hitler or Mussolini or Franco would pull most of Europe into a war, most of north Africa, most of the middle east, and to that extend also far Asia which was conquered by Japan that was supported by e.g. Germany. Just like Germany fought basically every country in Europe, with a few allies like Rumania and Italy, Japan fought in nearly every Asian country.

      There was basically no single place on the world where not either: German/Italian, British (later also Americans), Japanese, Russian and later Chinese troops where in action.

      A friend of mine spent his childhood as a prisoner of war in an Australian camp. He got capt

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    65. Re:On news of the invasion, by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      France did not sell any war material during the Falkland war to Argentinia, you are an idiot.
      They did the opposite, disabling the Exocet missiles partly, like they did in the second Gulf war.

      The british had bad luck that the Exocet still could hit, but no war head exploded, only the remaining fuel.

      During the Falkland war, the british refused all help from its allies ... only Nepalese Gurka troops where following the Queens call to arms. But I guess they were de facto british soldiers, and not Nepalese support, as Nepal is not member of the Commonwealth of Nations.

      My point is: if the brits had handled their pride better, they had asked Newzealand, Australia and Canada for support.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    66. Re:On news of the invasion, by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The US was reluctantly working with England with the lend/lease program. Not Germany.
      Rofl.
      You know not much. You know what a Hollerith machine is? You know who sold the most to whom, when and why? You know who the biggest customer of Ford truck engines was? And trucks build under license?
      Should I go on?

      And to be fair, Russia needs due credit for the lives lost to defeat Germany.
      Sure they do, like any other army that has inferiour material, inferiour tactics, and an incompetent leadership. Like north Korea, and Vietnam ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    67. Re:On news of the invasion, by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      In the immediate post revolutionary war, America was fairly resource starved militarily. Britain and France were two of the superpowers then. Asking America to step in, where only about 10% of the mostly British a few years before still with friends and family as well in Britain, to aid the French, would be like asking Iceland to side with America if a US v Russia war broke out. Which if Russia was the initial aggressor their participation in NATO might require...

      Before the 1800s, the US didn't have any type of army or military. It was believed that the US should have no standing army. Oh, how times have changed.. They had no resources with which to invade other countries; theirs was an entirely defensive force made up by the militia. There's this belief that the USA should have invaded Prussia to help the French out, just like the French attacked the British to help the US out, but that assumes that the US and France were on even footing at that point in history. The best they did for quite some time was attack the Barbary Pirates, but there's no comparison between that and attacking a nation-state with a real army.

    68. Re: On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame you can't backup your smug American Pride with anything your country has done since WW2.

    69. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true. It's unfortunate that so many Americans think that being overrun by on overwhelming force is the same as being cowardly.

    70. Re:On news of the invasion, by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Interesting idea, claiming that the people who came and saved your asses were "hiding" cowards.

      If not for those "cowards" you'd probably be speaking German right now, and in constant fear of being sent to a labor camp until your eventual gassing for not saying the proper number of Sieg Heils every day.

      The United States kept Britain free through lend / lease, and then without having a single shot fired at them by Germany put hundreds of thousands of troops into North Africa and France. The way you act, they should have just left well enough alone - maybe your ancestors would have been jailed and we wouldn't have you to deal with.

      Fucking ungrateful ignorant moron.

      Well, the USN had a number of minor engagements with the Kriegsmarine in 1941, and Germany declared war on the USA. Plenty more shooting before Operation Torch was launched, which was against the French.

    71. Re:On news of the invasion, by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Paying for destroyers doesnt seem to be the same as lend lease.

    72. Re:On news of the invasion, by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      What kind of nonsense is that?

    73. Re:On news of the invasion, by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I welcome your intelligent and studied response. Thank you for enlightening me. I shall endeavor to become worthy of your esteem in the future.

      Semper Fi.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    74. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So export restrictions are a new thing are they?

    75. Re:On news of the invasion, by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Aside from the fact that your link is useless, (and I find it hilarious that somebody upmodded you in spite of having no idea what the fuck you're talking about since you really haven't made any kind of a point) the hard (voting) numbers speak for themselves. Really, if you make somebody have a very good reason to not be open about their beliefs, then guess what? You really have no idea just how many there actually are. Penalty of going to jail is a good enough reason to not be open about it. I really think that going by vote counts is as good as you're going to get, even though it's a poor measurement (as in, the numbers are probably somewhere above that.)

      Saying otherwise would be the same as saying that the actual percentage of homosexuals well reflects the current numbers that are already known. It's totally absurd to make that assumption. Over the past 5 (or so) decades that number has been increasing relative to the general population. I strongly doubt that the actual percentage of homosexuals has changed very much throughout human existence, especially if it is in any way genetic rather than being purely environmental.

      Besides, I do know a couple of European languages: English and Spanish. Yes, two makes a couple. But honestly, that's not even important: Knowing the languages just means you're better able to gather anecdotal evidence, which is entirely useless. This is especially true because the people you are going to hear from the most (even without removing free speech, as Europe has done) are the people who always look for something to be outraged about. The EU isn't alone there though, because the US also has a very strong culture of outrage.

    76. Re:On news of the invasion, by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Europe 'as a whole' did not exist.

      I should have used the term "at large".

      This is trivially false as France was not a monarchy at the time. It was a republic. Like you know, the US. The real reason is below.

      Yes, and at large would have been a better term. But France still actually fits here, namely because even though they've technically been a Republic almost as long as the US has been, even during the first republic they never really cared much for individual rights, and they pretty much still don't. France always has had this populist feel to it, IMO, including having leaders that were basically dictators from the very start and reoccurring throughout the history of their republic. During France's revolution:

      You weren't totally enthusiastic about the revolution one particular day? That's a gillotine'in
      Somebody suspected you were rich? That's a gillotine'in (never mind that most of the leaders were actually quite well off)
      A "hero of the people" didn't like you? That's a gillotine'in
      You thought too many innocent people were going to the guillotine? Ohh you better believe that's a guillotine'in.

      This was mostly overseen by Robespierre, who even sent his own Lieutenants to the gillotine simply because they disagreed with him on some topic. Basically North Korea type stuff. Even postwar, France was the sole cause of the mess that was Vietnam; the Hanoi Hilton was originally built by France as a place to torture Vietnamese who woulnd't submit to what was basically slavery, prior to that Vietnam actually admired the west, including Ho Chi Minh himself. As for today, France actively works to eradicate French co-cultures from existence if they aren't French enough, including making huge efforts to prevent the French language from changing at all by making it illegal to use certain words, among other things (by the way, banning everyday words that aren't part of the official language is something that happens in many European countries; are you Europeans ABSOLUTELY SURE that you have freedom of speech? Because if so, I have some connections to a certain Nigerian Prince that will prove quite lucrative for you.)

      So.. Let me slightly twist your words into this: "practically the only reason a [...] country would take action during this period was after they were already [attacked]"
      It's okay, we all did that.

      I did intend to use the word "invaded", and while that can be argued as semantics in a way, it wasn't the point. The point is, the stupid of the Europeans always name and shame the US for not taking action, but they never bothered to look in the mirror first. (One of the reasons behind my "dog feces under the rug" analogy.) It also occurs to me in all of this (and I was first told this by a Polish guy after I asked him if he thought we were a racist country) that Europe is more racist than the US, just the US looks particularly bad at it because we're the only ones who try to do something about it, so we keep detailed records of who did what to whom, and who said what to whom. Compare that to Germany for example, who doesn't record anything at all about race in their crime statistics, so it really is impossible to know in their case. That, and while I don't remember which countries all did this, but some scandinavian regions have this annual parade where they have caricatures of black people depicted as looking kind of dumb and/or silly while they're wearing something akin to a maid's clothing while they're cleaning something. If somebody did something even close to this in the US, even if it was supposed to be chimney sweepers that got black from the soot, (which is what some people claim that is what is going on in this parade) the mass media would be pointing out racial overtones, and it would make international headlines, meanwhile it's relatively unheard of while it happens openly in Europe.

      Yes, let's describe WW2 as "Europe deciding to blow themsel

    77. Re: On news of the invasion, by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Besides inventing and/or making practical nearly all of the technology that allows the world's economies to prosper and scale to heights that otherwise wouldn't be obtainable? Besides giving the world the internet, which the rest of world then began censoring to keep their population controlled (Europe inclusive,) and then recently began weaponizing? Besides being the primary source of the green revolution, which effectively ended world hunger as much as it can be without deposing all of the world's dictators and local warlords who use food as a bargaining chip to remain in power? Besides being the only bulwark that prevented the USSR from conquering the rest of Europe until the late 70's? Besides inventing 90% of the worlds drugs that treat and/or cure more diseases than any medicine that comes from the rest of the world combined, and to top it off, we end up subsidizing the cost of the R&D for these drugs so that the rest of the world gets them far cheaper after the fact? (Pro tip: If you use insulin for diabetes, in addition to other drugs for many other chronic diseases, then your very survival absolutely depends on American invented drugs, and possibly even surgical procedures invented here. The e.coli genetically modified to shit perfect human insulin, which doesn't cause allergic reactions like previously used insulin, is still the gold standard for insulin production after 46 years.) Besides being the TIP TOP destination for the best possible health care in the world in all health care specialties? (In fact, it's not unheard of for European countries to pay for their citizens to travel to the US when that is their best and/or only hope for survival; the fact that it is expensive is another debate though.) Besides being the greatest contributor to space technology period, and landing the first person on the moon, and currently in progress, fully recyclable rockets that are already dramatically lowering the cost of spaceflight?

      Eh...well...nothing, I guess.

      Meanwhile, what has YOUR country done since WWII? If you can't think of anything, then I'd start with this question: When does your country expect to invent the wheel? Given you finally connected to the internet, has your country already begun censoring it? If so, perhaps America should adopt a policy similar to the Federation in Star Trek: Do not share advanced technology with primitive civilizations as they frequently misuse it and harm themselves.

      On the topic of the green revolution: The US is still improving food production yet more so that it can be more efficient, thus reducing cost, while also being more sustainable, which means it can scale to fit the needs of the growing population without consuming all of our natural resources fast enough that they can't replenish. All the while, Europe is making an active effort to go the opposite direction, vis-a-vis their ban on GMO production, even though they're ok with importing GMO crop from the US and in fact consume a great deal of it, probably because the reduced efficiency of European farming means our crop is less expensive while also being both superior quality and being more profitable. They just aren't interested in improving their own crop yields, meaning they use far more natural resources (including destruction of natural habitat to make room for more farmland) just to get the same yield as we otherwise can in the US.

    78. Re:On news of the invasion, by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      and then we attacked France.

      Oh boy...the way you've just set yourself up is just too hard to resist...I apologize in advance for what I feel I am now lulzbound to do next.

      Why do you think such nonsense? They got conquered, like the rest of Europe,

      First of all, your silly little third empire did not conquer the "rest" of Europe, much of it simply joined you (or rather, your Fuhrer (not Merkel, your other Fuhrer) idolized Mussolini and his creation of fascism, who in turn didn't care about your Fuhrer until after he rose to prominence, and a number of other countries that liked Mussolini's creation also joined in. It was around this time that your grandfather joined the Schutzstaffel and enrolled your father into Hitler Youth. During the Phoney War, Belgium WAS NEUTRAL with your fatherland! In fact, they were still neutral until the day the invasion of France began, where your reich pushed England and France into the sea and maneuvered their tanks west of the Maginot line via Belgium while simultaneously attacking Belgium's military. Belgium didn't surrender until 27 days after this, so no, you didn't conquer them before the French invasion began.

      France fell so quickly because

      ...of a lot of reasons.

      The "antiFa" is not a fascist group, they are left wing militant trouble makers, thats all.

      This is one of those things where if it waddles like a fascist, quacks like a fascist, and wears brown shirts and carries assault rifles during a show of intimidation towards the general public like an outright Nazi, then what the fuck is the difference? Really, I can't think of any tactic in the fascist playbook that Antifa hasn't used yet. Especially the ones who live in your fatherland.

      Your whole premise in your talk is that there was a "united Europe" that did not get its ass up to fight against Hitler in time.

      No it wasn't, you obviously didn't read my whole post, nor the post I replied to. Or you did and just have comprehension issues. I was replying to an ass who was shaming the US for waiting so long before going to Europe and tearing down your silly little reich, while not at all acknowledging that neither did most of Europe, even when it was obvious that your Fuhrer would come for them quite soon. We had a good excuse: Your Fuhrer had no ambitions about invading the USA, even though he would have liked to burn New York basically because he hated capitalism and democracy, but still he knew that was unlikely to ever happen (Many of his military advisers knew that they wouldn't stand a chance if the US entered the war, not sure if he knew it as well.) Even Japan knew this, they were just counting on us never being able to invade or otherwise counterattack any of their territories because they assumed that we didn't have either the technology or the will to ever bring warplanes across the Pacific, especially with much of our fleet destroyed. The battle of midway taught them a hard lesson, which was further driven home when Douglas MacArthur was Japan's de-facto governor for a while (though they did give him the endearing title Gaijin Shogun after he died, which was a nice gesture.)

      There was basically no single place on the world where not either: German/Italian, British (later also Americans), Japanese, Russian and later Chinese troops where in action.

      Yes there was, nearly all of the Americas, except Argentina when your government wanted to run and hide. We had our forts and naval bases that had already been there before the war that were basically put on higher alert, in addition to some prisons near my home town (Phoenix) where we kept a supply of used Germans, three of whom escaped and thought they could blend in when they walked to Phoenix, even though they had obviously thick German accents and could barely speak English. They didn't get punished though, rather they were just added back

    79. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      France, UK, and Poland had mutual defence treaty at the time, "all for one, one for all". So invasion of one of those three was actually others' problem.

    80. Re:On news of the invasion, by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      This load of nonsense has been modded up?

      England and France didn't go to war against Germany in 1939 because that would have been suicide: both were desperately behind on the acquisition of military equipment, and were at that moment still looking at diplomatic solutions. With hindsight it's easy to see those didn't work, but that's hindsight for you. France was well-prepared to fight a repeat of WW1 but not to fight a highly mobile war.

      Holland and Belgium were categorically NOT okay with the Germans invading them, but had the same problems as the UK and France (crap materiel, unprepared for Blitzkrieg). In 5 days, Dutch forces downed 300 German aircraft despite being outnumbered 10:1. Then the Germans carpetbombed Rotterdam and the Dutch government chose occupation over annihilation. Can't blame them for that.

      Fascists in Europe aren't being censored. Their drivel is openly available. Neo-nazis in Germany are being censored, maybe.

    81. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our very best is occupied at the moment, crying over the 2016 election... hopefully available in 2020

      FTFY

    82. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " they never really cared much for individual rights, and they pretty much still don't. France always has had this populist feel to it, IMO, including having leaders that were basically dictators ... Even postwar, France was the sole cause of the mess that was Vietnam; the Hanoi Hilton was originally built by France as a place to torture Vietnamese who wouldn't submit to what was basically slavery, prior to that Vietnam actually admired the west, including Ho Chi Minh himself. As for today, France actively works to eradicate French co-cultures from existence if they aren't French enough, including making huge efforts to prevent the French language from changing at all by making it illegal to use certain words, among other things (by the way, banning everyday words that aren't part of the official language is something that happens in many European countries; are you Europeans ABSOLUTELY SURE that you have freedom of speech?"

      Seriously, I am not entirely sure you know what you are talking about, because this is full of over-over-simplifications. Consider reading non-English and non-American books, or just live there a couple of months.

    83. Re:On news of the invasion, by RevDisk · · Score: 1

      They should get less credit, if you consider the entire "starting WW2 by signing a treaty with the Nazis to invade and partition Poland" thing. I have no idea why people always seem to forget that when crediting Russia's heavy casualties. They wanted to be a Nazi ally, and got stabbed in the back. They only did the right thing in self-defense. They did do the heavy lifting, with American supplies. But they should not get a huge amount of moral credit for it.

    84. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "near my home town (Phoenix) "

      Seriously, you certainly have a good historical culture, but you are missing many details (Not living there ? Language ?)

      " the fascist playbook that Antifa"
      => They are extreme leftist for example used for provocation. Everyone knows that, sees that and hears that in Western Europe. Absolutely nothing to do with Fascism and Mussolini.

      "your silly little third empire did not conquer the "rest" of Europe, much of it simply joined you"
      => Again you do not get the historical context, and do not take into account the massacre of WW1, growth of USSR and Communism, 1930's economical crisis etc... and other major factors. You have to be fully aware of the problems of European population at this time, things that are told by your parents or grand-parents.

    85. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I do know a couple of European languages: English and Spanish ... But honestly, that's not even important: Knowing the languages just means you're better able to gather anecdotal evidence, which is entirely useless. ... removing free speech, as Europe has done"

      Spain was neutral at this time and could certainly not publish anything worrying Germany AND the Allies. Also, English is not a continental/European language, which means that it does not help to understand what was really going on. As an example: The propaganda films about Allied bombings in France during WW2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kury-CByq4w "1943 10 15 France Actualités Sabotage, Résistants" This gives a completely different vision of this period.

      English

        This is especially true because the people you are going to hear from the most (even without removing free speech, as Europe has done) are the people who always look for something to be outraged about. The EU isn't alone there though, because the US also has a very strong culture of outrage.

    86. Re: On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " everything the US does is always wrong."

      No, at all. This is not the point. Simply, French are fed up to be constantly treated as cowards contrary to historical evidence and direct witnesses.

    87. Re: On news of the invasion, by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Americans get stereotyped as stupid and fat, the French as rude and cowardly. You can't fight jokes with facts.

    88. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just have to point out that private companies are not the government. There is nothing wrong with a private company trying to make a buck selling to both sides of a conflict. All of that changes when the country the company is in goes to war, of course.

      You can make a legitimate moral argument, but a corporation is amoral by definition.

    89. Re:On news of the invasion, by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "We" is a strange choice of word.

      Well, granted, I wasn't alive. However, both these things were done with the knowledge of the government. They may not have known that IBM was servicing concentration camp management systems, though. (The payments for the service contract went straight to Armonk, NY.)

      They knew fuel was being sold to the SS all along, they waited until after the war to step in and seize the profits. Therefore, the government effectively sold the fuel itself — it could have stopped it but didn't, and it profited.

      If you consider this your government, then yeah. You're on the hook for enabling the holocaust.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    90. Re: On news of the invasion, by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Americans get stereotyped as stupid and fat, the French as rude and cowardly. You can't fight jokes with facts.

      You can if you're funny. Not funny like you are, funny like ha-ha.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    91. Re:On news of the invasion, by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Seriously, you certainly have a good historical culture, but you are missing many details (Not living there ? Language ?)

      It's foolish to think that you fully understand the culture of a long past era, even though your culture descended from that. The fact is, you also don't have any idea. Professional historians even bungle this. Even if there are people still alive who can tell you, keep in mind that they too were separated from the generation of adults of that era. For a well pronounced example of this, Russian youth seem to have growing numbers of those who would like to see the return of communism, while their grandparents tell them how shitty it was, and they never end up understanding one another's motives.

      They are extreme leftist for example used for provocation. Everyone knows that, sees that and hears that in Western Europe. Absolutely nothing to do with Fascism and Mussolini.

      You really have no idea what I'm saying. My argument here is that even though their motivations are different, they do the same things as one another, so for all practical purposes, there is no difference.

      Again you do not get the historical context, and do not take into account the massacre of WW1, growth of USSR and Communism, 1930's economical crisis etc... and other major factors. You have to be fully aware of the problems of European population at this time, things that are told by your parents or grand-parents.

      Actually the primary cause of death among WWI belligerents was the Spanish flu, and it had actually spread throughout the whole world causing even more death far beyond Europe, including the USA. WWI also wasn't as destructive on infrastructure as WWII. Furthermore, Italy, the birthplace of fascism, was one of the allied powers back then, so they didn't pay reparations; they received them instead, and fascism didn't start because people were poor, rather it started because Italy, like the rest of Europe, can't tell the difference between a healthy amount of nationalism, and nationalism of the type that leads to death and destruction. Come to think of it, it seems that both of the world's two deadliest ideologies were born in Europe, so that's probably why Europe can't tell the difference.

      Besides, the USA had the same economic crisis, and we weren't anywhere close to turning to fascism or communism.

    92. Re:On news of the invasion, by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      You wanted nothing to do with it, but sell to both sides and profit off the war.

      The US was a disinterested third party, so why fret over it? That would have been the thinking at the time. In fact, the US overall distrusted Europeans, who were at the time (and continued to be for another 40 years) expansionists who were colonizing other countries and turning their locals into effective slaves (hence the need for the "good neighbor policy").

    93. Re:On news of the invasion, by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I am not entirely sure you know what you are talking about, because this is full of over-over-simplifications. Consider reading non-English and non-American books, or just live there a couple of months.

      Actually some of that I found out about from Fry's Planet Word. In one segment, he interviewed some people in a region called Basque, whose cultural identity and language France is actively trying to snuff out. Same for other border regions, like Catalan.

    94. Re:On news of the invasion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On orders from Moscow, the French communists aided the Nazis. Germany and Russia were allies, remember? There were strikes in the munitions factories and sabotage of military products. Internationalists don't believe in countries. It is our destiny to all merge together into one world government, and anyone who resists (patriots) are the enemy.

      Even after the war the communists were quite active in trying to join France to their buddies in Moscow. Only de Gaulle's heavy-handed repression stopped it. In Greece and Italy, it almost succeeded. In Yugoslavia, it did succeed. I believe this is what is called "an inconvenient truth".

    95. Re:On news of the invasion, by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Belgium didn't surrender until 27 days after this, so no, you didn't conquer them before the French invasion began.

      And? Who said that? I did not. I only pointed out that Belgium did not "allow us" to move troops through it, as the parent claimed. Same for Netherlands.

      The rest of your post is not very interesting so I stopped more or less at the quote.

      Hint: I'm 50. My father is 71. He was born AFTER WW2 ... that should be a no brainer. So: he was not in the Hitler Jugend nor was my Grand Pa in the SS or SA, moron!

      After all, how many world wars has Germany started?
      Actually: none Perhaps you should read a history book instead of propaganda?
      WWI was started by Austria and Serbia.
      WWII was started in Asia, mostly by Japan I think.
      The war in Europe was started by Russia and Germany simultaneously. Germany only started with the first "actions"

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    96. Re:On news of the invasion, by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, Italy, the birthplace of fascism, The birthplace, as far as we know, is Sparta, that is in Greece. The name sake is latin, coming from the early emperor times. ... and fascism didn't start because people were poor, rather it started because Italy, like the rest of Europe, can't tell the difference between a healthy amount of nationalism, and nationalism of the type that leads to death and destruction.
      Fascism in Italy had nothing to do with nationalism. They feared a communist revolution, because 80% of the population still where "bond slaves" of the rich land owners.
      So yes, they where poor. They had no money, but lived from the share of the harvest the landowner would give them, kids did not go to school, they had no healthcare no perspective to be once "free people".
      When the riots started and the people tried to overthrow the landowners Mussolini channeled that into his vision of a modern state.

      Besides, the USA had the same economic crisis, and we weren't anywhere close to turning to fascism or communism.
      If you believe that, you are an idiot.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    97. Re:On news of the invasion, by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      You speak like a true American: Excessively 'patriotic', needlessly polarizing, ridiculously generalizing, deeply shallow, and utterly misinformed.

      1. The behavior of Robespierre does not extrapolate to France throughout history. Ridiculously obviously.
      2. More importantly, it had fuck all to do with your proven to be false statement: "The US was isolationist at the time because we wanted nothing to do with your kings, queens, kaisers, and fuhrers because they looked all the same to us"
      3. The US only really got into the war after they were attacked and your criticism towards the inaction of France and Great Britain thus still points right back at the US. Note that I agree with said criticism towards all three countries.
      4. Repeating your false statement is not an argument. You've provided no proof whatsoever that 'Europeans decided to blow themselves up'.
      5. I will ignore the rest of your irrelevant babbling filled with inaccuracies.

  4. How do they taste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It might be the solution to their problem...

  5. trivial to solve by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Informative

    Get a french chief, give him Armagnac, and then tell him that the worm tastes just like ortolan bunting.
    Issue solved.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  6. Observation vs Concept by js290 · · Score: 0

    "Invasive species: Name one organism on the face of the planet that has an intellectual concept called invasion." @RestorationAgD http://bit.ly/1lM3PFS

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    1. Re:Observation vs Concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do Animals Go To War?

      In the brutal animal kingdom, chimpanzees gang up to expand territory and ants raid other colonies to take slaves.

  7. Thats not a worm, THIS is a worm by azcrill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Here in Victoria they can grow up to 3 metres in length. 27cm worms are runts.

    1. Re:Thats not a worm, THIS is a worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in the arctic, when we were having a bloody cold day from hell, this fucking worm stuck it's ugly, stinking head out of the ground and tired to eat us: worm

      If you've got similar problems in France, well, I can't wait for the 6th movie.

    2. Re:Thats not a worm, THIS is a worm by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      You think the Giant Gippsland Earthworm is bad you should check out the Sandworms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    3. Re:Thats not a worm, THIS is a worm by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      3m is a good size. The title of the topic was promising but the actual size of the things was a disappointment.

    4. Re: Thats not a worm, THIS is a worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen a 3m tall abo

    5. Re:Thats not a worm, THIS is a worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Victoria they can grow up to 3 metres in length.

      Everyone knows Australia is on a different scale when it comes to crazy fauna.

  8. Everyone complains about giant worms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but apparently no one wants to fix it since they're not sacrificing virgins.

  9. Documentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recently saw a fascinating series of documentaries on this subject.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremors_(franchise)

    I think the best thing to do is to call in experts like Earl Bassett to clean up the mess before things get too out of hand.

  10. I didn't see a worm by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

    But I did see Worm Sign.

  11. Shai Hulud by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 3, Funny

    The worm is the spice the spice is the worm!

    Let me know when these little guys get big enough to ride.

    1. Re: Shai Hulud by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Let me know when these little guys get big enough to ride.

      Thatâ(TM)s what she said.

  12. The scientist who was alerted didn't believe it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Justine [the zoologist] dismissed the image as a prank.

    lol? Is this a normal French thing to do? like a typical prank in French zoology?

    Never saw anything like this before. Huh. Must be a fake

  13. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The list of countries at the end should read as where the European invasion came FROM, not as locations of further outbreaks of the invasion.

    "Reports of invasive alien flatworms in Europe in recent years (Sluys, 2016) include Arthurdendyus triangulatus from New Zealand, Platydemus manokwari originally from Papua New Guinea, Obama nungara from Brazil, and Parakontikia ventrolineata, Caenoplana coerulea, and Caenoplana bicolor from Australia (see Table 1 for authors of taxa and key references)."

  14. Reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    slither.io

  15. And where is the earthworm porn? by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    Tentacle porn? Bah! I give you giant predatory hammerhead earthworm porn. Of course, the "big one" they found is the runt of the family.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    1. Re:And where is the earthworm porn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kurt Eichenwald, is that you?

  16. Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran away by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    The French were weakened by WWI, but had rebuilt quite a bit. The German army had taken heavy damage from the invasion of Poland and other battles. Hitler's top military commanders told him they couldn't invade Belgium and France until they had about two years to rebuild their strength. By the numbers, the two sides were roughly matched in the Battle of France:

    Germany: 141 divisions
    7,378 guns
    2,445 tanks
    5,638 aircraft
    3,350,000 troops

    Allies: 144 divisions
    13,974 guns
    3,383â"4,071 French tanks
    2,935 aircraft
    3,300,000 troops

    The French expected a German assault would be much slower, with Belgian resistance giving the French time to prepare before the German army could advance through Belgium to France. In fact, the Luftwaffe were able to defeat Belgium very quickly, so things were not going the way French leaders expected when Germany was suddenly near their border. Since things weren't going according to plan, there was confusion and disorder in the French military in the first few days. Some French commanders and soldiers fought the best they could, without much national leadership.

    Rather than taking charge and getting a new plan organized and in action, two days after the Germans attacked French prime minister Paul Reynaud called Winston Churchill and said "we have been defeated". The Germans had barely entered France when Reynaud gave up. Shortly afterward, the French leadership fled the country. After the leadership fled, the individual military units didn't (couldn't?) mount an effective defense acting separately.

    The French people as a culture may not necessarily be cowards, but certainly Prime Minister Reynaud and other leaders behaved very cowardly and ineffectively.

    In contrast, even after France was in fact occupied by the Nazis, Charles De Gaul refused to give up, urging resistance by individual French people within the occupied territory and organizing units of French people from outside France to join the allies in a campaign to liberate France from the Germans. Had de Gaulle been Prime Minister rather than Reynaud, the history of WW2 might have been very different, and the French might have a very different reputation today.

  17. The origins of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case you were wondering. Someone in Hollywood has just started writing the storyline to Tremors 3.

    1. Re:The origins of by vux984 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uh... no...that came out 17 years ago:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Tremors 6 came out a few few weeks ago.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      So the next movie will be Tremors 7.

    2. Re:The origins of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel like, having been living under a rock, with worms.

    3. Re:The origins of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy crap! I remember thinking that 5 had to be the last one ever...

      I guess you can't keep a B movie series down!

  18. chez moi? 27 centipedes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I forget. Is a millipede worse than a centipede?

    1. Re:chez moi? 27 centipedes? by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      Centipede was a far superior game, but that's just my opinion.

  19. Let them eat worms... by The+Fat+Bastard · · Score: 1

    Oak tree caterpillars are a big nuisance this year in the Palo Alto foothills above Silicon Valley. The fuzzy buggers fall out of the oak trees and try to hitch a ride on anyone standing nearby. Found one crawling up the wall in my office one morning.

    1. Re:Let them eat worms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out here in Philly we have a problem with Chinese Lantern Flies. Lots of different rumors about how they got brought over, but the little mugs are everywhere.

  20. knew it by matushorvath · · Score: 1

    First global warming and now this.
    I knew it! Arrakis IS Earth after all!

  21. Dune Reference. by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

    Wheres the Spice ?

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  22. I second this. by Qbertino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The French did a fair job in preventing Paris not getting bombed to chunky kibbles.

    Pre-war Nazi Germany was basically Isis + perfect organization + highest standard high tech military and organizational skills + 80 million people. Losing out in a blitzkrieg to an opponent of that magnitude isn't all that shameful.

    To emphasize: In Operation Paukenschlag the US captured a German Sub. They couldn't copy it because it was too high tech. That's how advanced German military was back then. It's only thanks to the all-out stupidity and lunacy of Hitler and his goons that Germany lost despite having the most effective military force at the time. Luckily. If Hitler had had his 7 senses about him, Europe would be Nazi territory today. What happened though was that the Germans willingly went to serve as a tool for the globally extended suicide of a madman.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:I second this. by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's only thanks to the all-out stupidity and lunacy of Hitler and his goons that Germany lost despite having the most effective military force at the time.

      The West doesn't like to admit it, but the Soviet Union played a huge role in stopping Hitler. After he steamrolled Europe, he got cocky and invaded Asia. The Soviets threw bodies at him (soldiers were frequently sent in unarmed and told to pick up a rifle from a comrade who'd been killed) and eventually managed to stop his army and starve it during a brutal winter. Look at the Allied military casualty figures from WWII.

      U.S.: 407,300 killed, 671,800 wounded
      UK: 383,700 killed, 376,239 wounded
      France: 210,000, 390,000 wounded
      Soviet Union: estimated 8.6 to 11.4 million killed, 14.7 million wounded

      And no it wasn't because the Soviets were incompetent. Other Eastern European countries which were overrun (Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Hungary) also suffered casualties on par with the U.S., UK, and France. And the Latvian countries lost over 10% of their total populations. If you look at German casualties, the Germans lost more than 8x as many soldiers on the Eastern front than it did on the Western front. The vast majority of the fighting happened to the east of Germany.

      Yes D-Day gave the Allies a crucial Western foothold turning Europe into a two-front war (technically three-front since Italy had been invaded the previous year). But if the Soviets hadn't been keeping Hitler busy on the Eastern front, most of his armies would've been on the western beaches, and D-Day would've been a massacre.

    2. Re:I second this. by Zorpheus · · Score: 4, Informative

      As Solandri already stated Germany was beaten by sheer manpower, but also a lack of resources.
      Germany was always low on fuel. They produced fuel and plastics out of coal in more expensive processes. The Ardennes ambush was only possible because they conquered fuel depots of the Americans to supply their tanks.
      The Me262 engine had to be replaced every week because Germany did not have access to the metals needed for heat-resistant alloys.
      The Russians just built much more tanks and planes (the planes were powered by American enignes). And the Americans were just producing more ships than the Germans could sink with their subs. Oh, the Russian T34 tank was also superior to anything else when it arrived, the Germans had to construct stronger tanks to keep up with that.

    3. Re:I second this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pre-war Nazi Germany was basically Isis + perfect organization + highest standard high tech military and organizational skills + 80 million people. Losing out in a blitzkrieg to an opponent of that magnitude isn't all that shameful.

      The German Army, when it invaded France, was far from the "highest standard high tech military". It had fewer soldiers than the French, worse logistics - depending primarily on horse-drawn carts - and fewer and less formidable tanks. Where it shone was in coordination, particularly between ground forces and air support. Still, losing to a blitzkrieg from a nominally inferior force absolutely was a poor showing on the part of the French, and the British Expeditionary Force.

      To emphasize: In Operation Paukenschlag the US captured a German Sub. They couldn't copy it because it was too high tech.

      That's not much of an indication. Reverse-engineering technology is difficult - sometimes, even if it's less capable than your own. And it's quite possible for a nation to be more advanced in some areas, and less so in others. In WWII, the Allies had better-developed encryption/codebreaking, radar, and - of course - nuclear weapons. Germany had jets and rockets, and slightly more advanced submarines. And these points could change over the course of the war: as I mentioned above, Germany started the war with inferior tanks, but by 1944 the new Tiger could outfight several US Shermans.

    4. Re:I second this. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      They couldn't copy it because it was too high tech.

      They wouldn't copy it because it couldn't do the things a US submarine needed to do. Y'know, little things like cross the Pacific without running out of fuel....and then come back across the Pacific on the way home...on the same tank of gas....

      ---an ex-submariner

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:I second this. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The French did a fair job in preventing Paris not getting bombed to chunky kibbles.

      Not to be unfair to our friends across the channel, but it was Hitler who steadfastly refused to harm Paris, the rest of France was open slather but Hitler decreed that Paris was to be taken intact.

      France's problem was that it was prepared to fight the last war (as was the UK and US, but we had the advantage of entire oceans between us) so all of their defences were centred around the Maginot line, which the Germans completely bypassed and surrounded a large part of the French army. Add to that that their armour was in no way comparable to the Panzer III and IV's crossing into France at the time, France either had light tanks designed for scouting or heavy infantry tanks. Nor did they have any new planes in their air force (the UK had the Spitfire and Hurricane at the outset of the war).

      Hitler also spared several places in the UK, Reading, an important rail and manufacturing hub 40 miles from London was spared because of one building Hitler thought too beautiful to be destroyed (now called Greenlands Lodge). Hitler was quite daft like that and ultimately it was interference like this that helped the allies win the war more than 100,000 extra Spitfires could have.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:I second this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another mistake was that Germany didn't go on a full "war footing" in production until 1942 in their factories. They weren't running factories around the clock and running them only for the war effort, like Britain and Russia were, until it was too late. Germany wasn't utilizing the female workers like they could have until it was too late. They were using their factories like a normal consumer based economic model until it was too late.

    7. Re:I second this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Winning the war is always solving puzzles presented by the other side. That's why surprises, in tactics, manoeuvring, weapons' capabilities, alliances, diplomacy, espionage ... are essential. Attackers are always in better position, because they silently scan the defences, analyse and understand them, and then solve the puzzles. The last war was positional war, not manoeuvre war. French strategists anticipated German tactics and prepared accordingly (Fortifications were supposed to prevent the strike of panzer columns and were made able to survive shelling and bombings), but Germans found their weak spot, well, their blind spot, in overall plan and even gambled to win.

    8. Re:I second this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The French did a fair job in preventing Paris not getting bombed to chunky kibbles.

      The primary reason Paris was not destroyed was because General Dietrich Hugo Hermann von Choltitz disobeyed Hitler's order to level the city.

    9. Re:I second this. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      There are many reasons why stuff went like this and not like that.

      E.g. Turing cracked the Enigma. German subs positions where mostly known. The british radar was superior and could detect shallow diving subs and of course surfaced subs. So the brits used sailing cargo planes (without engine or engine off) to find subs with radar and bombed them. Many subs that did not see/hear them coming got lost that way.
      I believe the ME262 engine was removed and overhauled after each flight or every second flight.
      While the Americans build so many ships, they also had good ideas to make the so called escort carriers.
      Many ships on the route from America to UK were bombed by planes coming from Norway. That stopped after the Germans lost a few bombers to fighters launched from escort carriers. They could not even land again, they had to give up the fighter and jump with the para chute.
      Then again the Germans did not want to use their battleships, in the eye of Hitler they were to "precious". So he decided late to use them, when the Brits were relatively well prepared. After the Bismarck got lost, he decided to let the Tirpitz sit in its Fjord ...
      The battlecruisers did useless missions until the captains basically all decided, to save the crew, scuttle the ships and take refuge in neutral countries. And all of them, while experienced captains, did not grasp the difference between a destroyer and a battlecruiser. At least that is what the brits who hunted them told about them.
      But that is war ... if you knew what to do, you could often end it quickly, but all sides caught in fog of war and dumb decisions only draws out the killing.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:I second this. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Paris was also spared as there was a lot if useful industry in it. 75% of French production went to Germany.

  23. Hunting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you hunt them?

    Captcha: trapped. No... HUNT

  24. OMG by maroberts · · Score: 1

    It's Tremors. Where is Kevin Bacon when you need him?

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  25. Local worms have unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Local worms have unions and are better organized. Perhaps they will do some protest actions, like burning some tires and blocking some roads.

  26. Re:Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran awa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the issues with communication was the lack of radios in general in the French army, and in particular longer range ones. Again, something that was supposed to be fixed during 1940. On a fluid battlefield defence became difficult to organise, plus multiple nations different frequencies, etc.

  27. Serious question by Big+Nemo+'60 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If I understand correctly, these invasive species feed on native earthworms.

    If I remember correctly, earthworms have a relevant role in the conservation of top soil.

    Will these invasive species have an impact on the conservation of top soil?

    --
    In the long run we are all dead. - John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946)
    1. Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is some info about the effects of earthworms _appearing_, indeed quite significant.
      Of course, earthworms _disappearing_ might have effects of similar significance.

  28. A headline that can only lead to disappointment by Daralantan · · Score: 1

    They either need to be 100 feet long.... or Earthworm Jim.

  29. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It begins...

  30. Hey you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the worms ate into his brain.

  31. #SlashdotNews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #~TabloidNews Alien Worms ? Really?

  32. LET THEM ALL IN by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    YOU RACISTS!

  33. Species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are called "Muslims"

  34. Re:Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran awa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the French might have a very different reputation today.

    The French have no such reputation here in Europe.

    The reputation you refer to appears to be restricted to US soil, and I have no clue of its origins.

  35. Re:Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran awa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans feel the need to be superior to someone, and since they wouldn't have a country with French help, they picked France to be the butt of their jokes.

  36. Re:Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran awa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's worth noting that Charles de Gaulle was one of those French commanders who fought effectively - but not effectively enough - against the German invaders, despite the lack of leadership from high command.

    Had de Gaulle been Prime Minister rather than Reynaud, the history of WW2 might have been very different, and the French might have a very different reputation today.

    This is an interesting thought. With better leadership, might France have held out long enough for the British Expeditionary Force, evacuated from Dunkirk, to be usefully reinserted elsewhere? How long might the Germans have been stalled? If the Battle of France had stymied Hitler as the Battle of Britain did in our timeline, he probably would not have chosen to invade Russia, as his land forces would still have been required on the Western Front. But if the French and British had held out until Pearl Harbour and the entry of the US into the war...

    A similar thought experiment is to consider if Lord Halifax, rather than Winston Churchill, had been the Prime Minister of Britain. Germany still could not have invaded Britain, but Hitler might have offered generous terms of peace, which Halifax might have accepted. The invasion of Russia would then occur early - without any of the aid Russia received from the UK, and later the US. Without this support, Moscow would have fallen - and the latter half of the 20th century would feature a Cold War between the United States and Nazi Europe.

  37. Worms eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I saw this movie...

  38. What France needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coneheads to the rescue!

  39. Re:Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran awa by mjwx · · Score: 1

    The French were weakened by WWI, but had rebuilt quite a bit. The German army had taken heavy damage from the invasion of Poland and other battles. Hitler's top military commanders told him they couldn't invade Belgium and France until they had about two years to rebuild their strength. By the numbers, the two sides were roughly matched in the Battle of France:

    Germany: 141 divisions
    7,378 guns
    2,445 tanks
    5,638 aircraft
    3,350,000 troops

    Allies: 144 divisions
    13,974 guns
    3,383â"4,071 French tanks
    2,935 aircraft
    3,300,000 troops

    The French expected a German assault would be much slower, with Belgian resistance giving the French time to prepare before the German army could advance through Belgium to France. In fact, the Luftwaffe were able to defeat Belgium very quickly, so things were not going the way French leaders expected when Germany was suddenly near their border. Since things weren't going according to plan, there was confusion and disorder in the French military in the first few days. Some French commanders and soldiers fought the best they could, without much national leadership.

    France's problem is that most of that equipment was horribly outdated. The Germans had built their tanks and aircraft from completely new designs, France and the UK followed WWI tank doctrines of scout tanks and heavy infantry tanks designed to support an infantry advance. So their heavy tanks often didn't have guns capable of dealing with armour and were definitely not fast enough to go toe to toe with German Panzers. It was the same with naval forces, much of the Royal Navy dated from WWI.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  40. France? Sacre Bleu, Eetz a terrorwist invasion by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

    It's them Musworms :-D

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  41. Finally! by mjperson · · Score: 1

    It is time for all biologists to pay for a century of torturing planaria! Go forth legions of wormy vengeance!

  42. Re:Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran awa by PPH · · Score: 2

    The French refused to kowtow to the USA after WWII. While the British agreed to major concessions, including freeing it's colonies, the French did not. In fact, the USA got dragged into VietNam by de Gaulle's threat to ally with the Soviet Union if we didn't back them up in their attempt to re-acquire French Indochina.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  43. Re:Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran awa by fred6666 · · Score: 2

    and the French might have a very different reputation today.

    That reputation only exists in the USA. And it was popularized after the French refused to invade Iraq. Something the USA now acknowledges as a big mistake (waste of money, no WMD found).

  44. Re:Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran awa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans feel the need to be superior to someone, and since they wouldn't have a country with French help, they picked France to be the butt of their jokes.

    Classic. People in general are resentful of their helpers, because of shame and other issues. Help someone today, they will surely turn away from you sometime in the future.

  45. Re:Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran awa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That reputation only exists in the USA. And it was popularized after the French refused to invade Iraq. Something the USA now acknowledges as a big mistake (waste of money, no WMD found).

    Some citizens of the USA acknowledge that, but certainly not the political leadership.

  46. So where are these from? by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    Where are these not invasive?

  47. Chinese Economic Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like the Mountain Pine Beetle in Canada and the USA. Good thing we have leaders who bigly defend us from all enemies, KEK.

  48. Re: Nice deflection! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because its not the Chinks who spread disease and biological terrors around the world for fun & profit. sure thing Maoist!

  49. Re: STILL butthurt Americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whats the deal? Is it because GOD invented the REPUBLIC IN FRANCE and NOT USA?? Sacre blu! God must love The French more than USAmericans!!

  50. Re:Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran awa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're seriously analyzing World War I logistics in a post about worms?

  51. No by raymorris · · Score: 0

    > You're seriously analyzing World War I logistics in a post about worms?

    No, I'm analyzing world world TWO STRATEGIC planning in a THREAD about worms.

    Three errors in one sentence; that's impressive. Let me guess, you're a Democrat?

  52. Re:Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran awa by G00F · · Score: 2

    that french reputation existed before before US invaded Iraq. And was also quite popular in UK, not just the US.

    But yes, the leadership of France did create the stigma, not the front linemen.

    --
    The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
  53. Re:Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran awa by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

    The German army had taken heavy damage from the invasion of Poland
    No they/we did not. Poland attacked the german tanks with cavalry and lances.
    I don't know if they had a single tank or fight ready plane (as in a plane with weapons and not only scout plane).

    The Germans had barely entered France when Reynaud gave up.
    That is nonsense.

    In contrast, even after France was in fact occupied by the Nazis,
    Only north France was occupied. South France was under reign by the Vichy Government. They collaborated with Germany in some way.

    and the French might have a very different reputation today.
    In the US ...
    No one in Europe, and the least the French, care what reputation France has in the US.

    France is the center of Europe, cultural, in spirit, educational, and most certainly in food and wine. And besides the idiotic UK who are leaving, they have the finest armed forces in Europe. They have a superb reputation. Not at last due to 'la Resistance'. However they could have handled Vietnam and the rest of Indochina better and not drop nukes in north Africa.

    De Gaulle was an asshole, he lost Algeria which probably would now be a kind of "part of France", and most certainly part of the EU. Why? Because he did not want to give them voting rights!

    Like the US messed up Asia, and together with the Brits, the middle east, he messed up north Africa. Gaddafi in Lybia probably hat never made anything interesting if De Gaulle.

    If de Gaulle had not turned out into a power hungry semi dictator, the world would be a different place.

    But alas, that has nothing to do with the French's reputation in the rest of Europe.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  54. Re:Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran awa by HiThere · · Score: 1

    They didn't have that reputation in the US either, when I was a child. I suspect that a bunch of people embarrassed by Vietnam feel the need to feel superior, and they can say "at least we weren't conquered, so we're better". That's just a wild guess, though, as I didn't notice when the reputation began changing.

    Another possibility is that it could be based on some movie that I never saw. There are probably other possibilities. It's worth noticing that the word partisan was common terminology before the word guerrilla. I first heard it used to describe members of the French underground. I don't know quite when it went out of general usage.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  55. Hittler was Reckless, but what about Tiawan? by aberglas · · Score: 1

    Hitler's invasion of Poland was achieved with Soviet help. Poland had a reasonable army, Germany had only recently started to rearm. But Stalin wanted the Baltic states and east Poland, and Hitler gave them to him. Without Stalin, the war with Poland would have been difficult, particularly with an attack from France. With Soviet help, it was hopeless for the Poles.

    Hitler's invasion of France was reckless, and opposed by many of his generals. The Maginot line was very strong, and did its job of securing most of the border. Belgium was also fairly strong, which had resulted in Germany failing in WW one. Attempting to get through the Ardenne was also reckless, as a relatively small French force would have stopped them. At one point there was a huge traffic jam that would have been totally vulnerable to air attack.

    But as it turned out, Hitler got lucky, over and over again, largely due to incompetence of his opponents. The massive Belgium fort Eben Emael fell to a few commanders in gliders which should have been easily stopped. The French ignored intelligence about the penetration of the Ardenne, and sent no troops. And then they sent all their troops to Belgium far too early. One mistake after another. It was not easy for France to lose that war.

    In the USA, the republicans wanted to keep the US out of all wars. They would have let Britain fall under the joint force of Germany and the USSR. Perl harbor was fortunate.

    Huge Soviet losses were largely due to Stalin himself. First he invaded Finland which showed Hitler how incompetent his army was after Stalin had killed all his own generals. Then during the first year, that incompetence let Hitler easily defeat much more numerous soviet troops. And being utterly ruthless, Stalin did not care about soviet deaths at all. E.g. he refused to evacuate civilians out of Stalingrad.

    Now, here is the big question for our time:-

    What will we do when China invades Taiwan?

    Xi Jinping is just as much an absolute dictator as Hitler, although much more reserved.

  56. Re:Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran awa by darth.hunterix · · Score: 1

    "Lances against tanks" was German propaganda. In reality cavalry was mostly used for recon and disrupting supply lines by hit-and-run attacks with machine guns and anti-tank rifles by both sides. Polish cavalry was more numerous and more effective (due to better training and home-turf advantage), but German wasn't anything to spit on too.

    --
    What is best in life? Hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper.
  57. Re:Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran awa by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    that french reputation existed before before US invaded Iraq. And was also quite popular in UK, not just the US.

    You can maybe add the UK to that list but it's definitely not a world-wide thing.

  58. Re:Partially true. Weak, scared leadership ran awa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "was also quite popular in UK" ... UK, which was protected by the Channel ... If they shared a border with Germany and Italy in 1940, what would they have done ??? In 1940, they fled from Dunkerque. Some French followed them, the others stayed.

    https://www.quora.com/Did-the-British-abandon-France-by-withdrawing-in-Dunkirk

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dunkirk-how-french-troops-sacrifice-enabled-british-army-boutin/

    "In those painful times of Brexit and Trumpism, hatred towards French people reappears sometimes. The French are then described as "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys", suggesting they did not fight during WWII and surrendered immediately. Despite quite incompetent elderly generals, sticking to the First World War tactics of their "glorious" past, the French army fought hard and more than 100,000 French soldiers died within 3 weeks, in May 1940."

  59. Mmmmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shai-hulud!

  60. Re:On news of the invasion by redlemming · · Score: 1

    Germany invades Poland and conquers it in 5 weeks. France and England largely stood by and did nothing, except for a small operation called the Saar Offensive, which officially began the Phoney War. This offensive was so light that it didn't even tickle Germany. The USSR (on friendly terms with Germany at this point) invaded Finland, and then Germany invaded Denmark and Norway. This caused France to get cold feet, so they picked up what meager forces they sent and ran home.

    That is a very brief summary of what happened, and you'll find it to be accurate if you research it.

    It's not particularly accurate. Neither Britain nor France had the ability to project power that could seriously threaten Germany at that point. As much as anything it was a question of logistics and preparation. Poland was simply too far away. The French could have attacked Germany on the shared border, but they didn't have the logistical capability to sustain the offence long enough to make a military difference. Had they attacked in strength anyway, it could easily have made a political difference, but a purely military solution was not sustainable.

    The real world is not a computer game or a board game like A&A - real armies have to deal with logistics. Logistics in warfare is a much more complex subject than most people suspect - and modern warfare makes matters far tougher. For example, ammunition gets used up a lot faster, and you also need to supply gasoline, lubricants, and spare parts. Also, in addition to feeding combatants, you need to feed all the people taking care of the equipment. Just the sheer size of modern armies is a huge logistical challenge (many of the accounts by ancient historians of huge armies are provably impossible - they just made up the numbers - only the "modern" world could really support large armies, and then only with great difficulty). You might try looking at Martin van Creveld's book "Supplying War" for an introduction to this topic.

    It would take the British (and Americans) years to develop the specialized equipment needed to land a large army in a contested amphibious assault (let alone supply it). Nobody was prepared to do that in 1940, so that wasn't an option.

    The British had a strategic bomber force, but it wasn't ready for war. It would take years of combat experience before they would be able to project power on a strategic scale (and even then it's debatable how effective it was).

    In short, neither Britain nor France had the capability to directly help Poland in any meaningful way - and it would take years of work and real combat experience to develop that capability. The Soviet Union invading Poland from the other side (16 days after the Germans invaded) ensured that Poland had no chance at all.

    In spite of France having a large and well armed and prepared Army (which they never tried to use to break Polish invasion,) they surrendered in 6 weeks.

    The French Army was well prepared for a defensive war (involving relatively fixed lines) by WW1 standards. There were lots of problems with respect to WW2 standards. As mentioned above, they didn't have sufficient logistical capability for a sustained offence.

    On the defence, the professional French forces fought quite well, and generally stopped the Germans cold in their sectors. The big breakthrough happened in a supposedly quiet sector that was manned by reservists, not professionals. They were simply overwhelmed by the German Air Force (Luftwaffe), which was effectively being used as a mobile artillery force, in combination with German ground forces. This allowed the Germans to get behind the main French and British forces and led to disaster.

    The doctrine of the regular French forces was not up to the task of handling modern warfare once they lost their defensive position: the Germans were ahead in this regard, and this seemingly made it impossible for France recover at that point (problems in political leadership prob