What do you think? Can a country learn more and better lessons from it's defeats than it's victories? Since wouldn't victories in wars eventually lead to destruction through overexpansion and gluttony? Keep in mind, wars that can result in the immediate destruction and/or enslavement of your nation must be won. However, wouldn't it better to lose insignificant wars that take place thousands of miles away in order teach ourselves the consequences of war once in a while?
You can say I was inspired by the novel Catch 22, especially the old man's speech,"You put so much stock in winning wars. The real trick lies in losing wars, in knowing which wars can be lost. Italy has been losing wars for centuries, and just see how spendidly we've done nonetheless. France wins wars and is in a continual state of crisis. Germany loses and prospers. Look at our own recent history. Italy won a war in Ethiopia and promptly stumbled into serious trouble. Victory gave us such insane delusions of grandeur that we helped start a world war we hadn't a chance of winning. But now that we're losing again, everything has taken a turn for the better, and we will certainly come out on top again if we succeed in being defeated."
A great novel if you haven't read it.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I would say the English loss in the hundred years war was better for the country in the long run for a couple of reasons. Although in the second phase of the war the English monarchy (Henry V and Henry VI) and nobles were more "english" and spoke it as a first language rather than French compared to the first phase (Edward III), if they had won how long would it have been before the monarchy ended up being based on the continent and England became a political backwater? France had a much larger population and would've required more attention.
As well as this there are much more enemies to fight on the continent than the numerically inferior scots and a few welsh/irish rebellions. This would've brought the country into costly continental wars in the future. Would a combined English-French kingdom have become protestant, united with Scotland or built an empire if it had great swathes of land on the continent to concentrate its energies?
Looking back now from an English POV I think these wars were better lost.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
= A pathological liar is someone who often embellishes his or her stories in a way that he or she believes will impress people.
= In psychology, mythomania (also known as pseudologia fantastica or pathological lying) is a condition involving compulsive lying by a person with no obvious motivation.
http://www.bushywood.com/mythomania.htm
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"France wins wars and is in a continual state of crisis. Germany loses and prospers".
How the hell is Germany better off than France when they are equally rich and France is militarily and politically more affluent than Germany despite having 20 million less people. If anything, this just proves why it is vital to win wars. ****, France has been a top power for a thousand years non-stop.
I agree to some extent though; a country like France with mostly a glorious military history is more likely to take risks than say Germany, which most of its existence was a battlefield for France.
---------------------------
De Gaulle to the General Koenig, Norman hero of Bir Hakeim: "Hear and tell your troops: the whole of France is watching you, you are our pride."[
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
= A pathological liar is someone who often embellishes his or her stories in a way that he or she believes will impress people.
= In psychology, mythomania (also known as pseudologia fantastica or pathological lying) is a condition involving compulsive lying by a person with no obvious motivation.
http://www.bushywood.com/mythomania.htm
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I agree to some extent though; a country like France with mostly a glorious military history is more likely to take risks than say Germany, which most of its existence was a battlefield for France.
I don't think a Frenchman should be talking about Germany as a battlefield for France. In the last three wars Germany used France as a battlefield.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
= A pathological liar is someone who often embellishes his or her stories in a way that he or she believes will impress people.
= In psychology, mythomania (also known as pseudologia fantastica or pathological lying) is a condition involving compulsive lying by a person with no obvious motivation.
http://www.bushywood.com/mythomania.htm
This message has been edited by sampaix on Aug 26, 2009 11:42 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The French when they versed the Germans mano a mano lost to the Prussians and it made the Germans bigger rivals then the English... that takes a lot for the French to view you with more disdain then they do for the English. The Germans managed to force a 'devils alliance' between two peoples who warred for the better part of a 1000 years.
The last two wars was Germany and some regional power verses three Empires of France, Russia (later Soviet) and Great Britain, quit admirable to lose in these situations.
German Resistance to Allied occupation.
The Germans lost the better part of 3 million soldiers, the most physically fit fighting soldiers. The French did not. It also helps that the Germans were filled with sheer terror at the idea of retribution at the hands of the Soviets.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Actually Vietnam is doing pretty well nowadays for a country that went red. On the otherhand, Cuba is the one that's diluting itself by trying to keep the revolution alive.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"How the hell is Germany better off than France when they are equally rich and France is militarily and politically more affluent than Germany despite having 20 million less people."
With all due respect the opinion of France in international affairs is worth sh1t.
Before the Frenchies jump at me, i wanna ask them a simple question.
Take the example of US invasion of Iraq. If Iraqis pleaded before France to defend them against US invasion, can the French protect them? NO.
If France were to attack Iraq and Iraqis asked US to defend them, can France attack Iraq? NO.
France for all its positive points is stil a overrated power living in its past glory. Powerhouse of world is in Asia, we are simply too too big for you to compensate with superior technology.
colours of Kaziranga
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
![[linked image]](http://vieuxtroyes.free.fr/t/histo/guilconq.JPG)
![[linked image]](http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j198/rcelej/RedList20Fist_1.png)
![[linked image]](http://i33.tinypic.com/o0qg0h.jpg)
