Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
French Army to Market 'Ultimate Surrender' Video Game
outfctrl
Member UncommonPosts: 3,619
Paris - Inspired by the commercial success of the United States Army’s "Boot Camp" video game, the General Staff of the French Army has announced plans to market "Ultimate Surrender," a video game based upon the proud military traditions of the Gauls.
In the game we follow the exploits of Lucky Pierre, an apprentice garlic salesman from Marseilles, as he joins the French Army and begins a rigorous course of combat training. The First Level of the game is called "Survival School," and the players have to help Lucky Pierre survive 24 hours without red wine or crème brulé. The Second Level is "Capitulation," and the goal here is to see which player can have Lucky Pierre surrender the fastest without firing a shot or getting his uniform dirty. Level Three is "Collaboration." Here the players battle to see who can collect the largest numbers of pairs of nylon stockings and packages of chocolates by having Lucky Pierre perform sexual favors for members of the occupying forces. Level Four is "Be Ungrateful to America for Rescuing Your Sorry French Ass Once Again." In this extremely challenging part of the game contestants vie with one another to see who can make Lucky Pierre behave in the surliest manner when the United States inevitably comes to the rescue of the defeated French. The Final Level is "Pretending to Have Been in the Resistance." Here contestants compete in a battle of tall tales and whoppers as they try to protect Lucky Pierre from treason charges.
Marketing tests show that "Ultimate Surrender" is a big hit with French teenagers and young adults who are too young to have experienced France’s lightening surrender to the Germans in 1940 or its defeat by the Vietnamese in 1954 at Dien Bien Phu. "Zees is a great tool to inspire ze patriotism in ze youths, n’est ce pas?" said General Jean-Jacques Loseur, Commander-in-Chief of the French Army, during his weekly press conference. "Since ze end of ze Cold War we French have not had many opportunities to surrender or to show great cowardice in the face of much weaker opponents."
When questioned about comments made in the French Chamber of Deputies that "Ultimate Surrender" makes the French Army look like a bunch of gutless mama’s boys, General Loseur pulled out a white handkerchief, put his hands over his head and said, "Oh heck, I give up."
Comments
Apprentic garlic salesman
ROFL
We will shzow zem who are zee frogs no? UH HO HO HO!
I don't know if i should call this funny or just plain anti french...
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
I don't know if i should call this funny or just plain anti french...
It's plain anti french.
No longer visiting MMORPG.com.
I saw an advertisement for WWII vintage Italian rifles for sale….Only dropped once!
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
I live 400 km north of Paris...
Trust me... They make alot of anti American jokes there too...
Oh wait, that gives me an excuse to laugh
Ok, i admit, it's funny
I live 400 km north of Paris...
Trust me... They make alot of anti American jokes there too...
Oh wait, that gives me an excuse to laugh
Ok, i admit, it's funny
Hehe, exactly. I think we're all grown up enough that we can take it. Canadians make fun of us here in the States all the time and vice versa. C'est la vie.
rofl, hillarious and VERY true. God I hate the french.
Written by an american:
Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when NOT led by a Frenchman."
Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars -- when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.
Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flower pots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War - Tied.
War of the Augsburg League / King William's War / French and Indian War -Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.
American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.
Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
War Against Greenpeace - Lost. 1985, the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior prepares to sail for Moruroa Atoll for a major campaign against French nuclear testing. Agents of the DGSE [secret service] bomb and sink the ship in Auckland Harbor. I tree-hugger sans tree drowns. Six weeks later agents Prieur and Mafart plead guilty to charges of manslaughter and willful damage. They get sentences of 10 years and 7 years. French Prime Minister Fabius admits to state terrorism on TV.
War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in
a McDonald's.
Yep outfctrl, this is an example of bullshit written by stupid people. I recommend you and anyone who cares about knowing the truth to go here and look for those wars mentioned (thirty years' war "tied"? war of devolution "tied"? dutch war "tied"?... etc) and for all the wars not mentioned because they were won by France
And before you say anything about wikipedia, I think it's far better to trust in it than trusting in webpages like the one you quoted, don't you think? And if you don't trust the article, look for the books used as references, they are there for that.
Its all in jest. I am sure there is allot of stuff on the US too. I would never desire harm to anyone. I have just been feeling a little rightwing lately. I am sorry if I offended anyone, if I did, I apologize.
I wont post this junk anymore. To all the french on here.....again, I apologize.
Partypooper that I am I find no amusement in this. In fact I find it pretty disgraceful, French soldiers have been and are currently risking their lives for your country for no gain and very possible terrorist reprisals in their homelands, and you insist on mocking them for cowardice.
I was just messing around. I cracked up when I saw that spoof game, then I went overboard on french bashing. My bad.
Let's take the toughest case first: the German invasion, 1940, when the French Army supposedly disgraced itself against the Wehrmacht. This is the only real evidence you'll find to call the French cowards, and the more you know about it, the less it proves. Yeah, the French were scared of Hitler. Who wasn't? Chamberlain, the British prime minister, all but licked the Fuhrer's goosesteppers, basically let him have all of Central Europe, because Britain was terrified of war with Germany. Hell, Stalin signed a sweetheart deal with Hitler out of sheer terror, and Stalin wasn't a man who scared easy.
In-article ad
The French were scared, all right. But they had reason to be. For starters, they'd barely begun to recover from their last little scrap with the Germans: a little squabble you might've heard of, called WW I.
......
I call bullshit. Maybe whoever wrote it should have done some real research into this? Rather than posting useless arguments based on spin? Chamberlain was not scared of the man, he was doing what any sane politician in the British position at the time would have done. Germany was out number one trading partner. It's not a good idea to put trade sanctions on your trade partner now, is it? And aside from invasion, this was the only real threat toward Germany that the League could impose. Also, America would not have respected the trade sanctions - they never did - and it would have been pointless. Also Britain was not terrified - we were being realistic. Our forces were still recovering from WWI, and more importantly, our economy was awful because of the 1929 Crash (another reason NOT to blockade your best trade partner). If we were scared of Hitler, why on God's earth would we send hundreds of thousands of soldiers into a war that - if we stayed out of - would only have benefitted us? Another reason not to blockade of course was that it would CLEARLY drive the Germans either into all-out war, or into rebellion because of their political situation at the time. Stalin was not scared by Hitler. That idea made me giggle... Lots... Try and understand how politicians desiring expansion work. Hitler promised him a half of Poland as well as several other countries he was set to conquer if the USSR did not raise arms against them. Yes, the French WERE scared of the Germans, and of Hitler (both individually). They had actually recovered reasonably well - the Maginot Line (sp?) was the most substancial border defense ever established at the time, and the Germans knew it was impenetrable. The problem was, the french were too damn stupid in estimating German intentions, and only thought of themselves when building the Line, leaving themselves open to attack through the lands NE of them.
When the sequel war came, the French relied on their frontier fortifications and used their tanks (which were better than the Germans', one on one) defensively. The Germans had a newer, better offensive strategy. So they won. And the French surrendered. Which was damn sensible of them.
This was the WEHRMACHT. In two years, they conquered all of Western Europe and lost only 30,000 troops in the process. That's less than the casualties of Gettysburg. You get the picture? Nobody, no army on earth, could've held off the Germans under the conditions that the French faced them. The French lost because they had a long land border with Germany. The English survived because they had the English Channel between them and the Wehrmacht. When the English Army faced the Wermacht at Dunkirk, well, thanks to spin the tuck-tail-and-flee result got turned into some heroic tale of a brilliant British retreat. The fact is, even the Brits behaved like cowards in the face of the Wermacht, abandoning the French. It's that simple.
As said, their frontier fortifications were non-existant in the area that the Germans Blitzkrieg'd. Their tanks were no better than the German Tigers or the British/American Grants in fact... The Russians also had an equivalent, but I forget the name of it... T-51 or something like that... They were all pretty much equal, with different weaknesses (the french of course having the problem of having 2 forward gears and 5 reverse....
) The Germans offensive strategy was nothing special, EXCEPT for the fact that the French left themselves open to it. If they'd tried the same tactic on the Maginot Line... You know when you throw an apple at a wall... It woulda looked something like that...
They conquered all of Western Europe so fast because they were conquering countries with tiny populations/standing militaries who had no chance to survive such an attack. As said, had they tried the same tactic on a properly defended country, it would never have worked. The French couldn't hold them off because of their own ineffective defensive strategies. They could have done a fair bit more than they did in fact though. Had they held the Germans off for another month or two - easily possible if they had actually stood up and fought instead of letting the Germans waltz into Paris - then the British would have been able to re-enter and open a front at the north or at least have been prepared to face the Luftwaffe.
The English army did not 'face' the Wehrmacht at Dunkirk, we had withdrawn to there pending pick-up. It was priorly arranged. It was not a battle that went bad. The Germans were in fact commiting war crimes there, firing on unarmed and withdrawing soldiers. The beaches were total carnage thanks to mass bombing and shelling of unarmed troops. It was agreed between the French and British Prime Ministers that the BEF had fulfilled it's purpose and should return home to prepare to retake France/repel German invasion. Also, we did not survive because we had the Channel. Had the French been on our Island, they would have been taken. Our airforce and navy are what stopped us being captured - along with the 'bulldog' attitude and the Germans not having a substancial enough Navy at the time.
I'm an American myself and love to make fun of France. But I never say anything about WWI, they fought hard in that one and lost a lot of brave people.
Written by an american:
Actually, I think Huhbein is a Brit...
Lighten up! They are jokes!
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
Oh, and of course at the start of the war french tanks had better firepower and armor than their german counterparts, but the advantage finally had little importance due to the poor french command. Although I don't know why did you mentioned the Tiger, as when it was introduced the war with France was already over Huh? you fought the germans and you lost every battle until you got to dunkirk where finally you were able to stop them for a time, but british were so scared that you withdrew the troops as soon as you could (and it was a good decision, but that does not change the fact that you fled) . And you are completely right, you stopped the germans because your navy was superior to the german, and it was superior first, because you knew that anyone wanting to invade the UK had to cross the sea so the best defense was having a good navy, and second because the treaty of versailles limited the numbers for the german navy. Of course if the french were on the island maybe they would have lost because their navy, although strong, was not as good as yours simply because they had to invest more money in the army. For the same reason, if the british were in the continent, you would have lasted less than the french because your army was poorly equiped (specially with tanks, all of them were ridiculous until the UK produced the cromwell and comet)
Geezzzzz…sounds like someone is still butthurt from losing their armada back in the late 1500s’.
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
Dunkirk went badly, it went really badly, it was a disaster where we lost thousands of men and all of our equipment. We did no better than the French or anyone else against the Germans in 1939. Unlike the French, we had somewhere to run to. Plenty of British surrendered. The germans whupped everyone. You either ran surrendered or died.
We didn't just lose in France to the Germans, but we lost all over Asia against the Japanese, where the bulk of our armies surrendered without a fight. We're British, we play by our own rules of war, we try and be nice to our enemies, so that if they catch us with out pants down, rather than die, we can surrender also.
This is why prosecuting your enemies for war crimes and torturing or murdering your captives is so deeply unwise. One day it will be our turn. No one wins every fight.
No army is invincible. Most armies do not fight to the very last man. Dying for the sake of it isn't very smart and not what they are paid for.
.
Trade has always been massively important in every time throughout history.
Written by an american:
Actually, I think Huhbein is a Brit...
Lighten up! They are jokes!
Unfortunately all these jokes have become too politicised. They are no longer funny. Had you said them in 1999 I would have laughed.
Your President and my Prime Minister played the race card and abused the French rather than admit they were lying about WMD. Cheap and easy, scapegoat the foreigner. Hitler would have been proud. And then a good number of our society all jumped on the idiot wagon and joined in. Really poor.
It would be funny if these jokes weren't so readily used to display contempt towards a country of people who tried to talk us out of going into an an unjust war for the wrong reasons. Especially when those same people you call cowards were on deployment fighting to defend you at the time and still are. They were right, you were wrong. You are too cowardly to admit it. Your taking the piss out of the French priviliages have been revoked. You abused it, and now you need to re earn the right as nation.
Deeply scummy, I love to hate on the French, but this century I'm just a little too ashamed of being English.