@Bluehawk2008 But that was not on the order of the Marquis de Montcalm, it was an independent attack by the Huron Indians. The Marquis acted with nobility and honour.
"Although Churchill had promised the French that the British would cover their escape, on the ground it was the French who held the line while the last remaining British were evacuated. Despite concentrated artillery fire and Luftwaffe strafing and bombs, the French stood their ground."
Whatever. For an anglo saxon, if the French win, it is because the ennemy was weak and it was a "coward victory" . If the french lost, it is because they are cowards. Then who care about what they think ? The English try to hide their cowardise ( lille 1940, Dunkirk 1940, suez 1956) and the american are...just stupidly ignorant corn boys. So ?
@Darodh Dunkirk was hardly a coward act....It was a completely untennable situation, the British were met with the vastly superior Wehrmacht and beaten back to the coast and managed to escape via sea. It was a tactically wise move and meeting the wehrmacht head on would have been catastrophic for the british.
@Kralhonj and remember that it's the english too who create Poland, séparating oriental Prussia from western Germany, and Treaty of Versaille wasn't only french
@Kralhonj you suck, english kiss american's asses, and during the 2nd world war, you abandon your allies ! how many division do you sent ? 10 ? IT IS A JOKE ? Then, who gave sixteen days to the brittanics in northern Africa,at Bir Hakeim ? The FRENCH, fighting at 3300 vs 42700 !
Never trust the French, the most duplicitous nation on the planet. We should have never signed such wide-ranging treaties with them, they dragged us into the first World War, when really we should have allowed the Germans to kick their arses. Their greed with the Treaty of Versaille and their brutal occupation of the Rhineland paved the way for Hitler et al and WW2 and the Vichy cowards. These days they love to kiss German arse. who know maybe the Germans will find liebensraum in the West.......
@Darodh Your entire nation surrendered in 1940, you allowed the enemy to take your capital, eat your food and fuck your women....A group of Royal Marines were detained by the Iranian coastguard, they didn't surrender as we are not at war with Iran....You people really are keen on the concept of surrender...hmmm....
@Kralhonj Yep we trust an ally the Brits: They ran away and after that , stabbed us in the back in Oran. As to surrender , it is a military act when the ennemy beat you, as the Germans the Japaneses did at the end of WWII. Are they cowards?. Being hidden until a stronger army came to rescue (the US) is an act of cowardise as it is to stab your allies in the back.
@Darodh Now for the record. I have nothing against the Brits, the English or the Anglo Saxons, I am aware about what we own to them recently. I just dont like people rewritten history. That is all....,
@Darodh ..and if we had stayed in France, then the 300,000 soldiers, many of which later stormed the beaches of Normandy, would have been lost. We had no answer to the German tactics, and if we didn't pull those men out, then all hope would have been lost with them.
With Britain out of the war, you might aswell forget the Americans. They had no chance of launching an assault of Europe from across the Atlantic.
@Embers73 I agree on that. But what I hate are stpuid people saying things like: French always surrender. French are better in using a white flag than a gun. etc etc. Britts especially should know how French are great fighters and should be deeply thankfull for what the french army did in Dunkirk. England doesn't really know what it is to get invade. The only time England was invade, it was by French-Norman in 1066, and England totally lost.
@Mr91OCB "The only time England was invade, it was by French-Norman in 1066"
England was invaded twice in 1066, and there were three great battles, Fulford, Stamford Bridge, and Hastings. The English army was made up of Fyrdmen, part time soldiers, who were farmers and craftsmen. The Norman army consisted of the best proffessional soldiers in Europe who flocked to a banner blessed by the pope.
@boss180888 Maybe you would like to expand on that, as the Norman knights are widely considered to be the best in Europe at the time.
But Normans only made up half the strength of Williams army, and would have been hopelessly outnumbered on their own. Without Papal support, William would not have been able to recruit enough men to invade England.
@Embers73 there is no proof of that, i'm not trolling, there really isn't, normandy was just another duchy of france, if you mean they were the best because of their norman ancestry, then how do you explain that 200 frank nights beat an army of 10000 at the siege of paris? if it was was because of their christian-chivalric adopted culture, then what makes them better than the people they copied their way from?
if you can logicaly and factually wrong me, i'll admit it, just don't be UK biased.
@boss180888 Norman knights were usually not as affluent as knights usually were in other parts of France. Most knights from other parts of France could trace their ancestors back to Carolignan times, most Norman knights didn't even know who their great grandfathers were.
They were hungrier, and had more to prove than their compatriots from other duchies.
@boss180888 This is not about UK bias. I am just going with the idea that richer fighters don't have the same edge to their motivation than poorer fighters.
It is like the difference between a rising Roberto Duran, born in slums in Panama, compared to Floyd Mayweather today. Not an absolutely perfect analogy, but I hope you catch my drift.
@Embers73 i agree that people who have more to prove will fight harder to show what they can do rather than live in your ancesters name, that is what made the noblety decay, initially they were really the best but soon they started to be a pestilence to true merit and talent. however i don't believe it was so at 1066, but i get your "drift" don't worry ^^.
El Peor exterminio de Toda América del Norte, Central y del Sur, 29 Millones de Indígenas y Aborígenes, en Nombre de la Libertad y de la Cultura Inglesa y Española, no olvidarse ya tenemos la Contabilidad reales en la base a los archivos y legajos de la Historia, Nadie puede engañar Nunca Más, en América la Espiritual, la Conectada Con El Todo Con El cosmos, Con El Universo, la cultura del Conocimiento de la Unidad Ecológica y de la Unidad Espiritual, de la Sabiduría.
@kevista117 And now come the days when men should live with honour and respect... but they don't. The nature of power, control, greed and exploitation is still dominant.
@France731000 France suffered twice as many casualties as the U.K. in WW1 with a similar sized population. The war was also fought on French, not British territory. France hadn't mentally recovered from that war by 1939.
Montcalm is more than a soldier contrary of monroe " i m a soldier". He knows that english army is totally superior of him. The reddition proposition is advantage for french army, because they need to keep all his force. Montcalm is alone because he wait french force of france who doesnt come. And he must to do the soldier and the politic of france at this location in front offrench king surrending.
He should have stipulated that the French Algonquin allies (I apologise if I have the nation name wrong) observe the same terms. They weren't French or even mercenaries, they had their own agenda. Mind you it's easy now to say what he 'should' have done.
I loved this movie. But I was so confused when I saw it as a child. I was 3 or 4 when I first saw it, and I couldn't understand why there were American Indians in France. I figured if the English were fighting the French it must have been in France. It just seemed so strange to me at that age to see half naked warriors fighting along side uniformed Europeans.
@brandonwild11 They taxed the Americans because it wasn't fair to the average citizen living in England at the time. They figured that the British taxpayers had payed enough money so that the colonists could live in safety, now it was the colonist's turn to pay their own way. The colonists living in the Americas had a lot of privileges that many British citizens didn't have and they didn't pay taxes for those privileges. This war made the frontier safe for colonists, shouldn't they pay for it?
@brandonwild11 No but I'm sure you're right, the colonists shouldn't have had to pay any taxes, the British taxpayers should have continued to pay so that British troops would remain in the colonies and protect the colonists from danger. What happened is the American colonists became spoiled and thought it was their right to live without taxes and just automatically be protected by soldiers from England.
@Rostokouban But his ally Magua did. Montcalm indirectly encouraged the Hurons to attack Monroe's forces as they left the fort because he didn't want to fight the same soldiers again in Albany.
@lotte604 what does is change? Monroe didn't want to surrender after all... so they were condemened... Montcalm gave them their chance, they had their weapons, no??? and it doesn't matter if Montcalm encouraged Magua or not, he wanted his revenge anyway... and don't forget it's a movie, the historian don't think it happens like that, because fenimore cooper exagerated the story...
@Rostokouban Your comment regarding historical accuracy isn't valid for this conversation, as my initial comment was in the context of this movie. My point is Montcalm knew Magua will slaughter Monroe's stragglers (which in a later exchange was what Montcalm wanted for the reason I stated last comment), and if they were in a French prison camp, most of them would probably live.
@lotte604 Montcalm had no advantage that monroe ll be attacked by magua. For the simple reason that french was inferior and want a peace or win time becauce he believe that france ll have send army. The proof is that 2 times montcalm have stop magua attack and have protect english army the long of the "road". Montcalm wanted english stay quiet.
@Rostokouban The Hurons needed the French as their ally since the Iroquois had the British, and to think that the general of the French forces in North America's words have no sway with the Hurons goes against logic.
@lotte604 I understand your point, but I just think that in the movie, it was an issue between Magua and Monroe, it was not the problem of Montcalm, and he let his chance to Monroe when he allow him to keep his ams. That's my point.
Only the french and english had such way to do parley, it was more difficult with others european nations do to such. For some reason, english and french are the best and the worse friends and ennemies.
@ManOWar2Red Parleys or a truce is nothing uncommon in war. One such parley in WWII was the Germans asked for a truce during the Battle of the Bulge aka The Wlatch on the Rhine. A German officer under a white flag was sent to ask the 101st Airborne to honorably surrender since it was felt the situation was hopeless for the Americans. The US commander did not feel the same. His 1 word answer was "nuts". The US won the battle. Just one example 200 years after this one of a parley.
While I enjoyed this part of the movie, what followed was a Hollywood mess. The Brits were not allowed to keep their weapons, and the Hurons raided the camp several times to grab booty during the night. It was only thru Montcalm's and his officers heroic efforts that anyone survived to tell the tale. But this would have made the French look like the good guys, and in a movie that would have confused the viewers. You have to remember that the movie was based on a work of historical fiction!
@shinyguts The colonists would fight this war a long time having no other choice. The saying was we will all hang together or we most certainly hang seperately. The redcoats could not win a guerrilla war with their technology as modern armies find it almost impossible to do today. True the French, thank you, were a decisive help at the Battle of Yorktown but there were other battles. The French fought the English at home & this war tied up British armies for them. The help was mutual.
What is historically innacurate is that back then the langage used in such parley was French, as all british aristocrats did speak french pretty well. Remember that scene in the end before the british officer get burned by the Hurons, he ask them mercy in French, and Magwa even answers his frustration in french.
@petpetfernandez hindi mo ba naiintindihan? mino-dernized ng mga British ang mga Tribes of America after that the Americans revolted against Tyranical British rule! hindi sila naglalaban dahil magkaiba ang American at European!
@petpetfernandez George Washington was indeed considered british. For at the time of his birth, america was still referred to as colonies owned by britain. Even after the American Revolution, most of the original colonist still had british origin.( Including Washington himself. ) Although, now being an american, many would personally not consider themselves being related to english bull. But any individual born after the events of the revolution were considered compleatly american.
@Xeavone yeah....if george is not elected president...americans will not use english language. if british is not a colonist...or if british dont want to conquer this
@petpetfernandez ...Erm, no. If Washington were not elected as president, someone else from the newley formed states would of taken his place. If the british won the revolution, all colonists who were all in on the idea of voting for independence ( Being catigorized as a rebel. ) Would of been shot on site or hanged at the gallows. We wouldn't of had the US and stilled be owned by british land. Either way, british or not, we would of still spoke english, but with a UK accent.
@petpetfernandez Washington was a British subject at the time of the French and Indian War as it is known in the US. I believe his ancestry was English also. The long hair was often wigs.
@petpetfernandez The Colonies of America were English. It was not easy for many seeking freedom to rise up against their own countrymen. It was a civil war. The Colonists resented the taxing and other methods of the British like billiting soldiers in private homes. Many chose to fight for the English & left the colonies at the end of the war being very unwelcome in the new country. My own ancestry is English. No matter who won that war, English would have been the spoken language here today.
when i search this...i thought the native brings gattling gun...i supposed not to beleive because i thought it was a gattling gun...when iwatch..its just a spear and a shield...hahaha..lol
DO you See Now, ALL INTERNET Viewers of this Video. The Exquisite WISDOM & Psychology but in TRUE HONOURED Spirit the,FRENCH TACTICAL "CHESS CAN BE A DRAW or STALMATE TOO".French True Luois the XVI Generals & Before, French Generals of the Civilized Jesus CHRIST Catholics, they do NOT want to Spill Blood but only offer Genuine Respect, Conditions of Surrender at the Terms that English Generals Desire!!Leave CANADA, Quebec in PEACE, & ALL ENGLAND Generals Ladies & Men can FULLY Return to England!
the french proved they were archaic, feudal, backwards nation in this war. the British proved they were scientific, industrilised nation. pitt, Amherst, genius men
@boss180888 The Nazi surface fleet was obliterated byt the Brits with no help from Stalin. Nazi U-boats were beaten after grave losses but still beaten. Stalin's navy did sink a German passenger ship near the end loaded with German civilians. 4 the German people the results were the same but worse than WWI. A war in which the Russian army did little but overthrow the Czar. The atlantic sea lanes were controlled by Britian who went where they wanted when they wanted occassionally with a loss or 2
@diverdown48 The British not only hurt the Germans in the sea but also in the air. During the Battle of Britain, 10 German planes were shot down for every one British plane. This battle took the air superiority of Western Europe away from the Germans thus disabling their ability to implament Blitzkrieg.
@eskimospy77 I agree, in the Battle of the Bulge in late in December 1944 what limited success the Germans had was when the flying weather was impossible. After that they were sitting ducks.
@trevor8930 It is common to have different names for wars & battles. US Civil War was called the War of Northen Agression in the South. Argentina's Malvinas War was the Falklands War to the Brits. Battles are the same. The Battle of the Bulge was called the Watch on the Rhine by the Germans. The battle of Antietum was called Bull Run. In the colonies the Colonists & British were fighting the French & Indian allies, thus the French & Indian War. Both sides had Indian allies settling old scores.
@diverdown48 I know I'm being nit-pickey. In fact, nit-pickey people annoy me. But right now I'm going to be nit-pickey anyway. The other name for the battle of Bull Run was The battle of Manassas in Virginia won by the South-not Antietum which was fought in Maryland and won by the North. I write you this with respect as you've demonstrated that you do your homework.
@trevor8930 It is common to have different names for wars & battles. US Civil War was called the War of Northen Agression in the South. Argentina's Malvinas War was the Falklands War to the Brits. Battles are the same. The Battle of the Bulge was called the Watch on the Rhine by the Germans. The battle of Antietum was called Bull Run. In the colonies the Colonists & British were fighting the French & Indian allies, thus the French & Indian War. Both sides had Indian allies settling old scores.
The numbers of killed of one nation or anohter in a war does not normally mean they are victorious. In fact it usually means they lost. All the allies except the USSR were fighting 3 countries, one a great naval power & the one a great land based army. The USSR fought the Nazi's because the had to defend their country from being invaded just as they had invaded Finland & Poland. When the war was just a few days from being over they declared war on Japan just to steal land.
stfu already about ww2,this movie was about the war of independance,so get your eras right,go to another channel if you want to talk about nazis,idiots
For the Soviets it was ok for the US, GB & allies to fight a two front war against Germany & Japan but not them. Stalin was not in the mood to help anyone but himself. Without the allies in WWII the Soviets would have very problaby been wiped from the earth. Just because they had more deaths in the civilian population & their military shows how poorly trained & led their army was. Stalin purged the officer corps so badly when he invaded Finland the Finns were able to more than hold their own.
@diverdown48 if the civilian population killed isn't enough to show ussr's greater part in the victory over the axis then the fact that 8 out of 10 german soldier killed in the war was killed by the ussr is enough? don't be an inconsiderate prick without the ussr the war could never be won, not a chance in the world, but without england or the us it still could, though much harder would be the task of course.
@boss180888 You are not very well versed on the tenacity & spirit of the Brits or the US. Neither one would have ever stopped fighting the Nazi's if the war had gone on forever. In the Battle of Britian the Nazi's lost the air war. In the Battle of the Atlantic the Germany Uboats were beaten by the US & the Brits. It was the US that developed the atom bomb. Do you think for a second we would not have used it on the Nazi's. You are a fool to think the allies would not have won without the USSR.
@diverdown48 the americans made the bomb at 45 ny then the germans would've won the war...
VERY poetic this stuff about tenacity, i don't need verses my friend i need truths like the ones i gave you, hitler could have ko'd britain after the fall of france but he didn't because he was convinced you people would surrender since the french who the germans considered the real threat were beaten, even during the air campaign he was fooling around because the british army was so small...(continue)
@boss180888 ... that the airborne troops of the wermacht were strong enough in number to beat the english army...he waited WEEKS after the fall of france before start toying with u by air, and then he made the crucial mistake to invade russia. the russians were fighting only hitler while the americans,english and CHINESE were fighting the japanese, first of, the allies never really fought the germans best units because they were at stalingrad,kursk, karkhov, varsovia being killed by russians...
The airborne troops of Hitler suffered a tremendous blow between the 10th and the 15th of May 1940 during the invasion of the Netherlands. Hitler expected to overrun this country within 24 hrs and dropped his airborne troops far behind the Dutch lines in the West. It took the Wehrmacht 5 days of hard and bloody fighting before they were able to break through the Dutch defenses and meanwhile the German airborne troops were decimated. Goerings revenge; bombing of Rotterdam.
@boss180888 You have no truth, understand no truth & wouldn't recognize the truth if it hit you in the face. You support your mad ravings with no facts, only ignorance. The Nazi's war machine had 18 million + including old men & little boys. The US & the Brits not counting their colonies had over 23 million with no old men & boys having to fight. Your bias is so beyond reason u prove u are incapable of learning. I am finished with u. I waste no more time on your senseless ranting. 4Q.
@diverdown48 ...3- when the russians entered the war against the japanese in a few weeks they killed and captured more japanese troops than the british and americans put together during the war, of course by then they were demoralized but still it's pretty embarasing, is it not?
the japanese were good but the germans were a lot better on land and though the battle of el alamein and d-day are well PUBLICIED in reality they were just bug-bite to hitler not like the eastern front defeats... :)
@boss180888 Obviously you have no clue what war is about. The US was called the arsenal of democracy before we entered the war. We sent millions dollars in supplies to the Soviets. You somehow believe that a country that was being bombed day & night by the Brits & US without any Soviets. The Brits decimated the Nazi airforce in the battle of Britian with 700 fighter aircraft to 1200 Nazi fighters not to mention the Nazi bombers. Hitler could not defeat the Brits even before we got involved.
@diverdown48 hey man. the russians were very primitive but if it were not for the normandy invasion the soviets would have had there tanks roll all the way to the straight of Gibraltar. yes the germans had the best military by far at the time but it didnt matter. Stalin was ruthless, one of his rules to the soldiers was if the first wave of men in an attack hasnt reached its goal in time, the second wave would kill the first wave. another rule was they could never take one step backward.
@Hendrik1293 The Russians actually took a lot of steps back. All the way to Moscow in fact.They were pounded by the Germans losing entire army groups. To say the Soviets won the war is rediculous. They never even fought the Japaneese until the very end. Stalin was able to use forces sitting opposite Japaneese troops when once they knew the Japaneese were not going to declare war on them. The bombing into oblivion of Germany by the Brits & the US was a great contributing factor.
@diverdown48 if you would research it, the reason they were fought all the way back to Moscow is because Stalin and the rest of Russia was in total shock since they were basically allies. he didn't speak for 3 weeks after operation Barbarossa started. They were not prepared for a friend to attack. Stalin focused all its attention on Germany not japan because like i said Hitler betrayed him and he to wanted revenge by destroying Germany.
@diverdown48 + the germans had only 18 million men in its army. every person was needed. the soviets had 32 million and they knew how to use them. they would just send wave after wave of thousands of men into the german lines and its impossible to kill them all. The T-34. Not that good but its equal to the panzer but easier to produce. they could make thousands of these tanks and not care how many they lost becuase they were easy to make. like it or not the russians won the war not America.
Respond to this video... you shuold also read how the russians kept fighting even 1 and a half weeks later after ww11 was over. It was a huge land grab
Stalin had prepared divisions along west soviet border in Poland to attack middle europe and Germany since 1941. He would achieved it withing several months.
Hitler attacked him before destroing these soviet invasion armies. Germans were able destroy also south wing of these armies round Kiev, but not north round Leningrad. Reserve soviet armies in front of Moskva stopped Germans and de facto won the war in 1941.
@bubibuLLo While on the subject of WWII "de facto" you all forget that WWII was started by Germans and Soviets who in 1939 were just a bunch of merry ALLIES,
Germany invaded Poland from the west on the 1st of September and that is the start of the whole mess as you know it, however, there is but a handful of you who know about Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and the fact that on 17 September 1939 Russia attacked Poland from the east.
Remember about that before you go on praising just anybody.
Yes, and before it Poland occupying since 1920 till now northern parts of Slovakian Spiš and Orava attacked Czechoslovakia with Hungary. On Polish maps were over 30% of Slovakia pictured as " territories with Polish majority ", " territories with polish minority ", " territories with assimilated Poles " .... despite the fact that all Poles in Slovak were just imigrants and there have never lived them more then any 3 - 5 000 living in all Slovakia, not concentrated in one place !
I reacted on diverdown claim that US, GB allies Stalin would loos the war.
Hitler personaly said that if he knew how strong are Russians, how many tanks they have, he would never attacket them.
During operation "Blue" in 1943 when Germans almost conquered Stalingrad they asked Turks to join them as allies. Turkish rejected it saing "why you need us when you by your own words already defeated Russians". Then Turkish generals said Germans they don´t want be on side of defeated
@diverdown48 They sure did! In fact it was practically Stalins' "Stalingrad' in the West as 1 million froze or something like that? Winter related casualties?
the man who stands left to General Monroe he was in Aliens, Romeo and Juliet, and The Omen 2006 version, Inception, Jurassic Park 2, His name is Pete Postlethwaite. Did not know he was in Last of the Mohicans.
@PWNR101 why do you think my country and france are begging to be extrem right ? (each case in North Belgium) and its not only ore problems but from hole western world
although warfare in that time had more chivalry than today, the idea of a Total War was synonymous with warfare in N. America. Look at the very first conflicts in N. America and you will see that ALL sides native and European understood that if you destroy the enemy population's will to fight, you destroy the enemy.
Vous etes tellement crétins les uns plus que les autres. Instruisez-vous 5 minutes sur la guerre de sept ans. Peut-être aurez-vous quelque chose d'intelligent à dire et que vous démontrerez un peu plus de respect pour vos aieux.
@PWNR101 Naah, America is currently in the process of imploding. It is bankrupt, both financially and morally. Soon we will look back on America and say: "It was a nice experiment while it lasted, but it failed..."
The French still kept Quebec, but Canada's head of state is still Queen Elizabeth & Canada's Royal Forces & parliament are similar to our own in Britain.
read "the children of ataentsic" by bruce trigger, (its a history of the huron/wendat up to 1660) huron and iroquois people regularly tortured, killed and ate captured warriors of other tribes as well as europeans, weather they be preists/soldiers or civilians...the book provides some very vivid accounts of ceremonial indian cannibalism.
@PsychedelicRedneck how?? if europeans didn't exist anyone who does exist would be living in the stone age and the americans would not be the same americans, the current americans would not exist
@danuk500 1. Yeah, probably right, but they don't have to FUCK up the world by spreading alcohol, war, colonizing, and this n that instead of combine with other nations or export stuff or teach others or something whatever peacefully.
2. LOL. That is the Indians land, fact. I'm not American and i don't care. But you got a right bit too; there would be no hippies without those Europeans. And that means no prog rock and LSD. ha ha ha!
@PsychedelicRedneck war will always go on with or without europeans as long as humans are around also no race is perfect everyone brings bad things to the world it's impossible to counter that
@ TheJim9191. Actually the British flag is the union jack. The fact that you don't know the name of the flag disappoints me you're from Great Britain.
If you look at wikipedia, you'll see this as fact. Besides, I prefer to call it Union Jack, as it has been called that by our ancestors for many years, and the name sounds less retarded.
Wow, downthread on this page you've got a savage argument between a couple right wing folks who think Indians were merely savage and should have been forcibly integrated into 18th century US civilization (as slaves?) versus raving loonies who relish all those indian deaths and propagate a bunch of "blood libels" about Iroquois cannibalism (The Iroquois committed genocide against rival groups, it's true, just like the British with their "Bloody Code").
@secretagent1965 I got that. But what is the third flag shown for each side? From what I gather the large union jack flag is the national flag or king's standard, one of the flags with the union jack in the corner is the regimental colours aka the colonel's flag, and the third??
the french used to be some realy bad motherfuckers
clodge631992 1 week ago
im aint french, but france ftw in17-18-19 century
The84eRegiment 2 weeks ago
This helped me a lot (:
KaArAn1231 2 weeks ago
Were watching this in school today
Imanilove2 3 weeks ago 3
is that a Dominican flag carry by the French?
hispanicuscorpus 1 month ago in playlist War 1750
@hispanicuscorpus No. Thats the old French flag.
jayjay042298456 1 month ago
@hispanicuscorpus that was the flag of French Colonies in America.
Besateswarrior 1 month ago
None of this nicety is worth a damn because the fort's garrison gets massacred while marching out.
Bluehawk2008 1 month ago
@Bluehawk2008 But that was not on the order of the Marquis de Montcalm, it was an independent attack by the Huron Indians. The Marquis acted with nobility and honour.
acrmd 4 weeks ago
"Although Churchill had promised the French that the British would cover their escape, on the ground it was the French who held the line while the last remaining British were evacuated. Despite concentrated artillery fire and Luftwaffe strafing and bombs, the French stood their ground."
Wikipedia about Dunkirk battle.
LeHappiste 2 months ago
Whatever. For an anglo saxon, if the French win, it is because the ennemy was weak and it was a "coward victory" . If the french lost, it is because they are cowards. Then who care about what they think ? The English try to hide their cowardise ( lille 1940, Dunkirk 1940, suez 1956) and the american are...just stupidly ignorant corn boys. So ?
Darodh 2 months ago
@Darodh Dunkirk was hardly a coward act....It was a completely untennable situation, the British were met with the vastly superior Wehrmacht and beaten back to the coast and managed to escape via sea. It was a tactically wise move and meeting the wehrmacht head on would have been catastrophic for the british.
Y2KillerSPOOBLY 2 months ago
@Y2KillerSPOOBLY So was the situation of France in may 1940. Thank to underdstand it .
Darodh 2 months ago
@Kralhonj and remember that it's the english too who create Poland, séparating oriental Prussia from western Germany, and Treaty of Versaille wasn't only french
mat290596 3 months ago
@Kralhonj you suck, english kiss american's asses, and during the 2nd world war, you abandon your allies ! how many division do you sent ? 10 ? IT IS A JOKE ? Then, who gave sixteen days to the brittanics in northern Africa,at Bir Hakeim ? The FRENCH, fighting at 3300 vs 42700 !
mat290596 3 months ago
I love the civility (pretended though it may be) of the 18th century. It is the pinnacle of the white man's way of war.
dbrecht 3 months ago
Never trust the French, the most duplicitous nation on the planet. We should have never signed such wide-ranging treaties with them, they dragged us into the first World War, when really we should have allowed the Germans to kick their arses. Their greed with the Treaty of Versaille and their brutal occupation of the Rhineland paved the way for Hitler et al and WW2 and the Vichy cowards. These days they love to kiss German arse. who know maybe the Germans will find liebensraum in the West.......
Kralhonj 3 months ago
@Kralhonj oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooH !
Darodh 2 months ago
@Kralhonj @Kralhonj oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooH !
What about some Royal Marines surrendering whitout a fight recently to Iranian Coast Guards ?
Darodh 2 months ago
@Darodh Your entire nation surrendered in 1940, you allowed the enemy to take your capital, eat your food and fuck your women....A group of Royal Marines were detained by the Iranian coastguard, they didn't surrender as we are not at war with Iran....You people really are keen on the concept of surrender...hmmm....
Kralhonj 2 months ago
@Kralhonj Yep we trust an ally the Brits: They ran away and after that , stabbed us in the back in Oran. As to surrender , it is a military act when the ennemy beat you, as the Germans the Japaneses did at the end of WWII. Are they cowards?. Being hidden until a stronger army came to rescue (the US) is an act of cowardise as it is to stab your allies in the back.
Darodh 2 months ago
@Darodh Now for the record. I have nothing against the Brits, the English or the Anglo Saxons, I am aware about what we own to them recently. I just dont like people rewritten history. That is all....,
Darodh 2 months ago
@Darodh ..and if we had stayed in France, then the 300,000 soldiers, many of which later stormed the beaches of Normandy, would have been lost. We had no answer to the German tactics, and if we didn't pull those men out, then all hope would have been lost with them.
With Britain out of the war, you might aswell forget the Americans. They had no chance of launching an assault of Europe from across the Atlantic.
Embers73 2 months ago
@Embers73 I agree on that. But what I hate are stpuid people saying things like: French always surrender. French are better in using a white flag than a gun. etc etc. Britts especially should know how French are great fighters and should be deeply thankfull for what the french army did in Dunkirk. England doesn't really know what it is to get invade. The only time England was invade, it was by French-Norman in 1066, and England totally lost.
Mr91OCB 1 month ago
@Mr91OCB I know what you mean.
Embers73 1 month ago
@Mr91OCB "The only time England was invade, it was by French-Norman in 1066"
England was invaded twice in 1066, and there were three great battles, Fulford, Stamford Bridge, and Hastings. The English army was made up of Fyrdmen, part time soldiers, who were farmers and craftsmen. The Norman army consisted of the best proffessional soldiers in Europe who flocked to a banner blessed by the pope.
Embers73 1 month ago
@Embers73 best? don't turn this into a historical novel, there were better soldiers in 1066 were those who invaded england came from.
boss180888 2 weeks ago
@boss180888 Maybe you would like to expand on that, as the Norman knights are widely considered to be the best in Europe at the time.
But Normans only made up half the strength of Williams army, and would have been hopelessly outnumbered on their own. Without Papal support, William would not have been able to recruit enough men to invade England.
Embers73 2 weeks ago
@Embers73 there is no proof of that, i'm not trolling, there really isn't, normandy was just another duchy of france, if you mean they were the best because of their norman ancestry, then how do you explain that 200 frank nights beat an army of 10000 at the siege of paris? if it was was because of their christian-chivalric adopted culture, then what makes them better than the people they copied their way from?
if you can logicaly and factually wrong me, i'll admit it, just don't be UK biased.
boss180888 2 weeks ago
@boss180888 Norman knights were usually not as affluent as knights usually were in other parts of France. Most knights from other parts of France could trace their ancestors back to Carolignan times, most Norman knights didn't even know who their great grandfathers were.
They were hungrier, and had more to prove than their compatriots from other duchies.
Embers73 2 weeks ago
@boss180888 This is not about UK bias. I am just going with the idea that richer fighters don't have the same edge to their motivation than poorer fighters.
It is like the difference between a rising Roberto Duran, born in slums in Panama, compared to Floyd Mayweather today. Not an absolutely perfect analogy, but I hope you catch my drift.
Embers73 2 weeks ago
@Embers73 i agree that people who have more to prove will fight harder to show what they can do rather than live in your ancesters name, that is what made the noblety decay, initially they were really the best but soon they started to be a pestilence to true merit and talent. however i don't believe it was so at 1066, but i get your "drift" don't worry ^^.
boss180888 2 weeks ago
l'anglais est mauvais
MrBillcale 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
El Peor exterminio de Toda América del Norte, Central y del Sur, 29 Millones de Indígenas y Aborígenes, en Nombre de la Libertad y de la Cultura Inglesa y Española, no olvidarse ya tenemos la Contabilidad reales en la base a los archivos y legajos de la Historia, Nadie puede engañar Nunca Más, en América la Espiritual, la Conectada Con El Todo Con El cosmos, Con El Universo, la cultura del Conocimiento de la Unidad Ecológica y de la Unidad Espiritual, de la Sabiduría.
jaimex18123470 3 months ago
Omg, he looks like Sarkozy! (Montcalm)
TheHasanMurat 3 months ago
Sigh. The days when men fought with honor and respect.
kevista117 3 months ago 29
@kevista117 Uh....after this surrender the unarmed British, men, women & children were massacred, scalped & raped.
festdir 3 months ago
@festdir I was about to say the same thing. ^^
AdhocHoopla 2 months ago
@kevista117 Yes definitely more respectfull than new way to treat your ennemies (Sadam Hussein, Ben Laden, Kadaffi), we never learn from the past.
So6renegade 2 months ago
Comment removed
Omerath9 2 months ago
Comment removed
Omerath9 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevista117 And now come the days when men should live with honour and respect... but they don't. The nature of power, control, greed and exploitation is still dominant.
Omerath9 2 months ago
@kevista117 Well i think it was quite stupid to see these guys speaking like that when so many died before.
Mr91OCB 1 month ago
@kevista117 You mean the days when generals talk of merits and honors while men fight on the field thinking they are honored too?
Jake4595 3 weeks ago
I miss this old strong France,we now have a bad reputation at war just because we lost ww2...
France731000 3 months ago
@France731000 France suffered twice as many casualties as the U.K. in WW1 with a similar sized population. The war was also fought on French, not British territory. France hadn't mentally recovered from that war by 1939.
breezeman199 2 months ago
Montcalm is more than a soldier contrary of monroe " i m a soldier". He knows that english army is totally superior of him. The reddition proposition is advantage for french army, because they need to keep all his force. Montcalm is alone because he wait french force of france who doesnt come. And he must to do the soldier and the politic of france at this location in front offrench king surrending.
chrisbreizh29 3 months ago
He should have stipulated that the French Algonquin allies (I apologise if I have the nation name wrong) observe the same terms. They weren't French or even mercenaries, they had their own agenda. Mind you it's easy now to say what he 'should' have done.
nuppanan 4 months ago
I loved this movie. But I was so confused when I saw it as a child. I was 3 or 4 when I first saw it, and I couldn't understand why there were American Indians in France. I figured if the English were fighting the French it must have been in France. It just seemed so strange to me at that age to see half naked warriors fighting along side uniformed Europeans.
666Silson 4 months ago
the double cross did not happen too far from the fort and Montcalm rode out and attempted to stop it.
Yorgar 4 months ago
i love how the top comment is about soviet russia when the video is about the Seven Year's War.
Wapow27 4 months ago
It is debatable if this really happened before battles. Ambushes were common place.
warriorprince1010 4 months ago
British army - Some american or futher americans would be in the army.
soon after the red coats win, they tax every dollar out of Americans, that causes a second war, i Se why the french were fight them.
The french were fighting for something else thoue.
brandonwild11 4 months ago
@brandonwild11 They taxed the Americans because it wasn't fair to the average citizen living in England at the time. They figured that the British taxpayers had payed enough money so that the colonists could live in safety, now it was the colonist's turn to pay their own way. The colonists living in the Americas had a lot of privileges that many British citizens didn't have and they didn't pay taxes for those privileges. This war made the frontier safe for colonists, shouldn't they pay for it?
USsocomDeltaForce141 4 months ago
@brandonwild11 No but I'm sure you're right, the colonists shouldn't have had to pay any taxes, the British taxpayers should have continued to pay so that British troops would remain in the colonies and protect the colonists from danger. What happened is the American colonists became spoiled and thought it was their right to live without taxes and just automatically be protected by soldiers from England.
USsocomDeltaForce141 4 months ago
They get double-crossed by the natives
LordPaynus 4 months ago
I liked it back then when the generals would fight along side their troops on the battlefield, not just sit in an office doing paperwork.
masterjoseph8 4 months ago
I can't find the sence where magua is speak to the french General about how much he hates the gray hair.
NYWAORCANZ 4 months ago
During those times whole America was like Middle-Earth or something...
TheHasanMurat 4 months ago
french rule
Thepatriot781 5 months ago
I guess Montcalm was still a gentleman when he sicked the Huron tribe on Monroe in the end :(
lotte604 5 months ago
@lotte604 he didn't control the Huron tribe...
Rostokouban 5 months ago
@Rostokouban But his ally Magua did. Montcalm indirectly encouraged the Hurons to attack Monroe's forces as they left the fort because he didn't want to fight the same soldiers again in Albany.
lotte604 5 months ago
@lotte604 what does is change? Monroe didn't want to surrender after all... so they were condemened... Montcalm gave them their chance, they had their weapons, no??? and it doesn't matter if Montcalm encouraged Magua or not, he wanted his revenge anyway... and don't forget it's a movie, the historian don't think it happens like that, because fenimore cooper exagerated the story...
Rostokouban 5 months ago
@Rostokouban Your comment regarding historical accuracy isn't valid for this conversation, as my initial comment was in the context of this movie. My point is Montcalm knew Magua will slaughter Monroe's stragglers (which in a later exchange was what Montcalm wanted for the reason I stated last comment), and if they were in a French prison camp, most of them would probably live.
lotte604 5 months ago
@lotte604 Montcalm had no advantage that monroe ll be attacked by magua. For the simple reason that french was inferior and want a peace or win time becauce he believe that france ll have send army. The proof is that 2 times montcalm have stop magua attack and have protect english army the long of the "road". Montcalm wanted english stay quiet.
chrisbreizh29 3 months ago
@Rostokouban The Hurons needed the French as their ally since the Iroquois had the British, and to think that the general of the French forces in North America's words have no sway with the Hurons goes against logic.
lotte604 5 months ago
@lotte604 I understand your point, but I just think that in the movie, it was an issue between Magua and Monroe, it was not the problem of Montcalm, and he let his chance to Monroe when he allow him to keep his ams. That's my point.
Rostokouban 5 months ago
Only the french and english had such way to do parley, it was more difficult with others european nations do to such. For some reason, english and french are the best and the worse friends and ennemies.
ManOWar2Red 5 months ago
@ManOWar2Red Parleys or a truce is nothing uncommon in war. One such parley in WWII was the Germans asked for a truce during the Battle of the Bulge aka The Wlatch on the Rhine. A German officer under a white flag was sent to ask the 101st Airborne to honorably surrender since it was felt the situation was hopeless for the Americans. The US commander did not feel the same. His 1 word answer was "nuts". The US won the battle. Just one example 200 years after this one of a parley.
diverdown48 5 months ago
While I enjoyed this part of the movie, what followed was a Hollywood mess. The Brits were not allowed to keep their weapons, and the Hurons raided the camp several times to grab booty during the night. It was only thru Montcalm's and his officers heroic efforts that anyone survived to tell the tale. But this would have made the French look like the good guys, and in a movie that would have confused the viewers. You have to remember that the movie was based on a work of historical fiction!
Bullettube 6 months ago
I like that little hat trick thing Montcalm does lol.
TOCR815 6 months ago
America exists because of France.Read George Washington's memoires and the history of the American war of independence,Stupid Ignorant Rednecks!
shinyguts 6 months ago
@shinyguts The colonists would fight this war a long time having no other choice. The saying was we will all hang together or we most certainly hang seperately. The redcoats could not win a guerrilla war with their technology as modern armies find it almost impossible to do today. True the French, thank you, were a decisive help at the Battle of Yorktown but there were other battles. The French fought the English at home & this war tied up British armies for them. The help was mutual.
diverdown48 5 months ago
What is historically innacurate is that back then the langage used in such parley was French, as all british aristocrats did speak french pretty well. Remember that scene in the end before the british officer get burned by the Hurons, he ask them mercy in French, and Magwa even answers his frustration in french.
ManOWar2Red 6 months ago
The Title of this video should read ignore the 18th century video this is a Blog for talking lots of shite about Russia and WW2 .
bisleybob3 6 months ago 9
THE OLD FRENCH FLAGS WERE COOL LOOKING
monkeynuts76 6 months ago
@monkeynuts76 I agree, the Lillies of France they were called
diverdown48 5 months ago
This is what the 18th Century was all about.
Axgoodofdunemaul 6 months ago
most of the british soldiers in that time are nice long hair......but,is george washington british?
petpetfernandez 6 months ago
@petpetfernandez i can see that George Washinton served the British Military during his early years.
luftwaffe789456123 6 months ago
@luftwaffe789456123 how can he declared independence.....are british fighting each other???or natives defeated british
petpetfernandez 6 months ago
@petpetfernandez hindi mo ba naiintindihan? mino-dernized ng mga British ang mga Tribes of America after that the Americans revolted against Tyranical British rule! hindi sila naglalaban dahil magkaiba ang American at European!
luftwaffe789456123 6 months ago
@luftwaffe789456123 can u translate it in english....so that others can know
petpetfernandez 6 months ago
thats not parley...thats humpreyy!!!!haha
petpetfernandez 6 months ago
@petpetfernandez George Washington was indeed considered british. For at the time of his birth, america was still referred to as colonies owned by britain. Even after the American Revolution, most of the original colonist still had british origin.( Including Washington himself. ) Although, now being an american, many would personally not consider themselves being related to english bull. But any individual born after the events of the revolution were considered compleatly american.
Xeavone 6 months ago
@Xeavone yeah....if george is not elected president...americans will not use english language. if british is not a colonist...or if british dont want to conquer this
petpetfernandez 6 months ago
@petpetfernandez ...Erm, no. If Washington were not elected as president, someone else from the newley formed states would of taken his place. If the british won the revolution, all colonists who were all in on the idea of voting for independence ( Being catigorized as a rebel. ) Would of been shot on site or hanged at the gallows. We wouldn't of had the US and stilled be owned by british land. Either way, british or not, we would of still spoke english, but with a UK accent.
Xeavone 6 months ago
@petpetfernandez Washington was a British subject at the time of the French and Indian War as it is known in the US. I believe his ancestry was English also. The long hair was often wigs.
diverdown48 5 months ago
how did americna independence happened???are natives defeated british...or british are fighting each other??
petpetfernandez 6 months ago
@petpetfernandez The Colonies of America were English. It was not easy for many seeking freedom to rise up against their own countrymen. It was a civil war. The Colonists resented the taxing and other methods of the British like billiting soldiers in private homes. Many chose to fight for the English & left the colonies at the end of the war being very unwelcome in the new country. My own ancestry is English. No matter who won that war, English would have been the spoken language here today.
diverdown48 5 months ago
@diverdown48 i already know..before u reply
petpetfernandez 5 months ago
when i search this...i thought the native brings gattling gun...i supposed not to beleive because i thought it was a gattling gun...when iwatch..its just a spear and a shield...hahaha..lol
petpetfernandez 5 months ago
Man I wish Last of the Mohicans wasn't like the only movie in the world about the Seven Years' War.
MajBlood 6 months ago
DO you See Now, ALL INTERNET Viewers of this Video. The Exquisite WISDOM & Psychology but in TRUE HONOURED Spirit the,FRENCH TACTICAL "CHESS CAN BE A DRAW or STALMATE TOO".French True Luois the XVI Generals & Before, French Generals of the Civilized Jesus CHRIST Catholics, they do NOT want to Spill Blood but only offer Genuine Respect, Conditions of Surrender at the Terms that English Generals Desire!!Leave CANADA, Quebec in PEACE, & ALL ENGLAND Generals Ladies & Men can FULLY Return to England!
Jules7892 6 months ago
, the crack british regulars of Howe, wolfe and amherst. the invincible british army
dmax631 7 months ago
@dmax631
invincible? are you blind?
you couldnt even hack it in the wilderness against indians
USMarineRifleman0311 7 months ago
Comment removed
dmax631 7 months ago
the french proved they were archaic, feudal, backwards nation in this war. the British proved they were scientific, industrilised nation. pitt, Amherst, genius men
dmax631 7 months ago
Comment removed
dmax631 7 months ago
@boss180888 The Nazi surface fleet was obliterated byt the Brits with no help from Stalin. Nazi U-boats were beaten after grave losses but still beaten. Stalin's navy did sink a German passenger ship near the end loaded with German civilians. 4 the German people the results were the same but worse than WWI. A war in which the Russian army did little but overthrow the Czar. The atlantic sea lanes were controlled by Britian who went where they wanted when they wanted occassionally with a loss or 2
diverdown48 7 months ago
@diverdown48 The British not only hurt the Germans in the sea but also in the air. During the Battle of Britain, 10 German planes were shot down for every one British plane. This battle took the air superiority of Western Europe away from the Germans thus disabling their ability to implament Blitzkrieg.
eskimospy77 7 months ago
@eskimospy77 I agree, in the Battle of the Bulge in late in December 1944 what limited success the Germans had was when the flying weather was impossible. After that they were sitting ducks.
diverdown48 7 months ago
why do Americans call this the French and Indian War, the rest of the world, ( or atleast most of it) call it the " seven years war?
trevor8930 7 months ago
@trevor8930 It is common to have different names for wars & battles. US Civil War was called the War of Northen Agression in the South. Argentina's Malvinas War was the Falklands War to the Brits. Battles are the same. The Battle of the Bulge was called the Watch on the Rhine by the Germans. The battle of Antietum was called Bull Run. In the colonies the Colonists & British were fighting the French & Indian allies, thus the French & Indian War. Both sides had Indian allies settling old scores.
diverdown48 7 months ago
@diverdown48 Good answer.
trevor8930 7 months ago
@diverdown48 I know I'm being nit-pickey. In fact, nit-pickey people annoy me. But right now I'm going to be nit-pickey anyway. The other name for the battle of Bull Run was The battle of Manassas in Virginia won by the South-not Antietum which was fought in Maryland and won by the North. I write you this with respect as you've demonstrated that you do your homework.
eskimospy77 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trevor8930 It is common to have different names for wars & battles. US Civil War was called the War of Northen Agression in the South. Argentina's Malvinas War was the Falklands War to the Brits. Battles are the same. The Battle of the Bulge was called the Watch on the Rhine by the Germans. The battle of Antietum was called Bull Run. In the colonies the Colonists & British were fighting the French & Indian allies, thus the French & Indian War. Both sides had Indian allies settling old scores.
diverdown48 7 months ago
The numbers of killed of one nation or anohter in a war does not normally mean they are victorious. In fact it usually means they lost. All the allies except the USSR were fighting 3 countries, one a great naval power & the one a great land based army. The USSR fought the Nazi's because the had to defend their country from being invaded just as they had invaded Finland & Poland. When the war was just a few days from being over they declared war on Japan just to steal land.
diverdown48 7 months ago
Back in the days when war was an art.
NathanH97 7 months ago 36
@NathanH97 its still an art
just really bloody and less respectful
axe11154 4 months ago
EVERYBODY!! YOU LIKE TO DEBATE ON ARMIES, RELIGION, HISTORY, POLITICS???? CHECK OUT THEWORLDDEBATING COM!!
fra2603 7 months ago
the last of the mohicans is nowhere near an avarege movie.....
Brampiescampie 8 months ago
stfu already about ww2,this movie was about the war of independance,so get your eras right,go to another channel if you want to talk about nazis,idiots
DuckingNDiving 8 months ago
@DuckingNDiving You mean french and indian war or the US theater of the Seven years war but other that i totally agree with your comment :)
ashly383 8 months ago
For the Soviets it was ok for the US, GB & allies to fight a two front war against Germany & Japan but not them. Stalin was not in the mood to help anyone but himself. Without the allies in WWII the Soviets would have very problaby been wiped from the earth. Just because they had more deaths in the civilian population & their military shows how poorly trained & led their army was. Stalin purged the officer corps so badly when he invaded Finland the Finns were able to more than hold their own.
diverdown48 8 months ago 18
@diverdown48 if the civilian population killed isn't enough to show ussr's greater part in the victory over the axis then the fact that 8 out of 10 german soldier killed in the war was killed by the ussr is enough? don't be an inconsiderate prick without the ussr the war could never be won, not a chance in the world, but without england or the us it still could, though much harder would be the task of course.
boss180888 7 months ago
@boss180888 You are not very well versed on the tenacity & spirit of the Brits or the US. Neither one would have ever stopped fighting the Nazi's if the war had gone on forever. In the Battle of Britian the Nazi's lost the air war. In the Battle of the Atlantic the Germany Uboats were beaten by the US & the Brits. It was the US that developed the atom bomb. Do you think for a second we would not have used it on the Nazi's. You are a fool to think the allies would not have won without the USSR.
diverdown48 7 months ago
@diverdown48 the americans made the bomb at 45 ny then the germans would've won the war...
VERY poetic this stuff about tenacity, i don't need verses my friend i need truths like the ones i gave you, hitler could have ko'd britain after the fall of france but he didn't because he was convinced you people would surrender since the french who the germans considered the real threat were beaten, even during the air campaign he was fooling around because the british army was so small...(continue)
boss180888 7 months ago
@boss180888 ... that the airborne troops of the wermacht were strong enough in number to beat the english army...he waited WEEKS after the fall of france before start toying with u by air, and then he made the crucial mistake to invade russia. the russians were fighting only hitler while the americans,english and CHINESE were fighting the japanese, first of, the allies never really fought the germans best units because they were at stalingrad,kursk, karkhov, varsovia being killed by russians...
boss180888 7 months ago
@boss180888
The airborne troops of Hitler suffered a tremendous blow between the 10th and the 15th of May 1940 during the invasion of the Netherlands. Hitler expected to overrun this country within 24 hrs and dropped his airborne troops far behind the Dutch lines in the West. It took the Wehrmacht 5 days of hard and bloody fighting before they were able to break through the Dutch defenses and meanwhile the German airborne troops were decimated. Goerings revenge; bombing of Rotterdam.
helmuthoorn 7 months ago
@boss180888 You have no truth, understand no truth & wouldn't recognize the truth if it hit you in the face. You support your mad ravings with no facts, only ignorance. The Nazi's war machine had 18 million + including old men & little boys. The US & the Brits not counting their colonies had over 23 million with no old men & boys having to fight. Your bias is so beyond reason u prove u are incapable of learning. I am finished with u. I waste no more time on your senseless ranting. 4Q.
diverdown48 7 months ago
@diverdown48 ...3- when the russians entered the war against the japanese in a few weeks they killed and captured more japanese troops than the british and americans put together during the war, of course by then they were demoralized but still it's pretty embarasing, is it not?
the japanese were good but the germans were a lot better on land and though the battle of el alamein and d-day are well PUBLICIED in reality they were just bug-bite to hitler not like the eastern front defeats... :)
boss180888 7 months ago
@boss180888 Obviously you have no clue what war is about. The US was called the arsenal of democracy before we entered the war. We sent millions dollars in supplies to the Soviets. You somehow believe that a country that was being bombed day & night by the Brits & US without any Soviets. The Brits decimated the Nazi airforce in the battle of Britian with 700 fighter aircraft to 1200 Nazi fighters not to mention the Nazi bombers. Hitler could not defeat the Brits even before we got involved.
diverdown48 7 months ago
@diverdown48 hey man. the russians were very primitive but if it were not for the normandy invasion the soviets would have had there tanks roll all the way to the straight of Gibraltar. yes the germans had the best military by far at the time but it didnt matter. Stalin was ruthless, one of his rules to the soldiers was if the first wave of men in an attack hasnt reached its goal in time, the second wave would kill the first wave. another rule was they could never take one step backward.
Hendrik1293 6 months ago
@Hendrik1293 The Russians actually took a lot of steps back. All the way to Moscow in fact.They were pounded by the Germans losing entire army groups. To say the Soviets won the war is rediculous. They never even fought the Japaneese until the very end. Stalin was able to use forces sitting opposite Japaneese troops when once they knew the Japaneese were not going to declare war on them. The bombing into oblivion of Germany by the Brits & the US was a great contributing factor.
diverdown48 6 months ago
@diverdown48 if you would research it, the reason they were fought all the way back to Moscow is because Stalin and the rest of Russia was in total shock since they were basically allies. he didn't speak for 3 weeks after operation Barbarossa started. They were not prepared for a friend to attack. Stalin focused all its attention on Germany not japan because like i said Hitler betrayed him and he to wanted revenge by destroying Germany.
Hendrik1293 6 months ago
@diverdown48 + the germans had only 18 million men in its army. every person was needed. the soviets had 32 million and they knew how to use them. they would just send wave after wave of thousands of men into the german lines and its impossible to kill them all. The T-34. Not that good but its equal to the panzer but easier to produce. they could make thousands of these tanks and not care how many they lost becuase they were easy to make. like it or not the russians won the war not America.
Hendrik1293 6 months ago
Respond to this video... you shuold also read how the russians kept fighting even 1 and a half weeks later after ww11 was over. It was a huge land grab
Hendrik1293 6 months ago
@diverdown48 Why are you talking about this ???
biggrigga 6 months ago
@diverdown48 Without the Soviets: war lost, without the americans: war lost, without the Commonwealth: war lost.
DerFeindr 5 months ago
@diverdown48
Nice joke.
Stalin had prepared divisions along west soviet border in Poland to attack middle europe and Germany since 1941. He would achieved it withing several months.
Hitler attacked him before destroing these soviet invasion armies. Germans were able destroy also south wing of these armies round Kiev, but not north round Leningrad. Reserve soviet armies in front of Moskva stopped Germans and de facto won the war in 1941.
bubibuLLo 5 months ago
@bubibuLLo While on the subject of WWII "de facto" you all forget that WWII was started by Germans and Soviets who in 1939 were just a bunch of merry ALLIES,
Germany invaded Poland from the west on the 1st of September and that is the start of the whole mess as you know it, however, there is but a handful of you who know about Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and the fact that on 17 September 1939 Russia attacked Poland from the east.
Remember about that before you go on praising just anybody.
Kwodlibet 5 months ago
@Kwodlibet
Yes, and before it Poland occupying since 1920 till now northern parts of Slovakian Spiš and Orava attacked Czechoslovakia with Hungary. On Polish maps were over 30% of Slovakia pictured as " territories with Polish majority ", " territories with polish minority ", " territories with assimilated Poles " .... despite the fact that all Poles in Slovak were just imigrants and there have never lived them more then any 3 - 5 000 living in all Slovakia, not concentrated in one place !
bubibuLLo 5 months ago
@Kwodlibet
I reacted on diverdown claim that US, GB allies Stalin would loos the war.
Hitler personaly said that if he knew how strong are Russians, how many tanks they have, he would never attacket them.
During operation "Blue" in 1943 when Germans almost conquered Stalingrad they asked Turks to join them as allies. Turkish rejected it saing "why you need us when you by your own words already defeated Russians". Then Turkish generals said Germans they don´t want be on side of defeated
bubibuLLo 5 months ago
@diverdown48 They sure did! In fact it was practically Stalins' "Stalingrad' in the West as 1 million froze or something like that? Winter related casualties?
norseleague 5 months ago
this is how war should be done. face to face with honour
ManicMammoth 9 months ago
Naym2011@ Virginia was named after the virgin queen of England Elizabeth Tudor, before the US was contemplating revolution.
ceaser543 9 months ago
stupid indians fighting with america...after the brits lost ,,,the america took your land and called it virgin land
naym2011 9 months ago
@naym2011 "america" was going to take their land no matter what they did. How are the Native Americans the stupid ones?
fuzzwahmrp 9 months ago
France was strong before the so called French revolution.
sirmicro 9 months ago
the man who stands left to General Monroe he was in Aliens, Romeo and Juliet, and The Omen 2006 version, Inception, Jurassic Park 2, His name is Pete Postlethwaite. Did not know he was in Last of the Mohicans.
tlwilliamson29 10 months ago
@PWNR101 why do you think my country and france are begging to be extrem right ? (each case in North Belgium) and its not only ore problems but from hole western world
turner2123 10 months ago
Strontium9T
although warfare in that time had more chivalry than today, the idea of a Total War was synonymous with warfare in N. America. Look at the very first conflicts in N. America and you will see that ALL sides native and European understood that if you destroy the enemy population's will to fight, you destroy the enemy.
icyhot000 10 months ago
Everything is wrong in the world today. We have no parley anymore. Nobody has honor.
ravenwing613 10 months ago
Vous etes tellement crétins les uns plus que les autres. Instruisez-vous 5 minutes sur la guerre de sept ans. Peut-être aurez-vous quelque chose d'intelligent à dire et que vous démontrerez un peu plus de respect pour vos aieux.
desbienscharles 10 months ago
@PWNR101 Naah, America is currently in the process of imploding. It is bankrupt, both financially and morally. Soon we will look back on America and say: "It was a nice experiment while it lasted, but it failed..."
flownet07 10 months ago
What movie is this?
MegansAFox2010 11 months ago
The French still kept Quebec, but Canada's head of state is still Queen Elizabeth & Canada's Royal Forces & parliament are similar to our own in Britain.
scarletjamable 11 months ago
This is how war should be fought.
joonte1010 11 months ago
read "the children of ataentsic" by bruce trigger, (its a history of the huron/wendat up to 1660) huron and iroquois people regularly tortured, killed and ate captured warriors of other tribes as well as europeans, weather they be preists/soldiers or civilians...the book provides some very vivid accounts of ceremonial indian cannibalism.
agricola 1 year ago
@agricola yes well the world today loves to cover everything up i can believe that they did that.
danuk500 1 year ago
FUCKING Europeans FUCKED UP most of the world!!
PsychedelicRedneck 1 year ago
@PsychedelicRedneck how?? if europeans didn't exist anyone who does exist would be living in the stone age and the americans would not be the same americans, the current americans would not exist
danuk500 1 year ago
@danuk500 1. Yeah, probably right, but they don't have to FUCK up the world by spreading alcohol, war, colonizing, and this n that instead of combine with other nations or export stuff or teach others or something whatever peacefully.
2. LOL. That is the Indians land, fact. I'm not American and i don't care. But you got a right bit too; there would be no hippies without those Europeans. And that means no prog rock and LSD. ha ha ha!
So ye got your reply 50% right, bro.
PsychedelicRedneck 11 months ago
@PsychedelicRedneck war will always go on with or without europeans as long as humans are around also no race is perfect everyone brings bad things to the world it's impossible to counter that
danuk500 11 months ago
@danuk500 Uh-huh. Because we aren't even CIVILIZED yet.
PsychedelicRedneck 11 months ago
@ TheJim9191. Actually the British flag is the union jack. The fact that you don't know the name of the flag disappoints me you're from Great Britain.
If you look at wikipedia, you'll see this as fact. Besides, I prefer to call it Union Jack, as it has been called that by our ancestors for many years, and the name sounds less retarded.
ChaitorPick 1 year ago
French is the international language of diplomacy.... English is the international business language to get things done!
ManchesterUnitedxxx1 1 year ago
@ManchesterUnitedxxx1 And Javanese is the language for cursing! LOL
PsychedelicRedneck 1 year ago
Apparently folks on the right really love to talk about our Indian heritage.
ijwi 1 year ago
Wow, downthread on this page you've got a savage argument between a couple right wing folks who think Indians were merely savage and should have been forcibly integrated into 18th century US civilization (as slaves?) versus raving loonies who relish all those indian deaths and propagate a bunch of "blood libels" about Iroquois cannibalism (The Iroquois committed genocide against rival groups, it's true, just like the British with their "Bloody Code").
ijwi 1 year ago
@ijwi how is it "blood libel" if its true?
agricola 1 year ago
I like the way the Frenchman bows, dont see that anymore in real life....lol
theunraveler 1 year ago
awesome
mreldude 1 year ago
@secretagent1965 I got that. But what is the third flag shown for each side? From what I gather the large union jack flag is the national flag or king's standard, one of the flags with the union jack in the corner is the regimental colours aka the colonel's flag, and the third??
omega856 1 year ago
@omega856 Union Flag* the Union Jack is only used for Royal and Merchant Navy vessels :)
TheJim9191 1 year ago
Epic times, awesome scene!
PseudoX 1 year ago
british uniforms are beautiful
jed371 1 year ago
I always wondered what flags were being used in this scene. I recognize both the british and french national flags but not the other four.
omega856 1 year ago
"Everything that is courteous, honorable and elegant in the English culture comes from the French invasion".
Walter Scott
gipcambero 1 year ago
@gipcambero Oh look you found a quote from a Scotsman trashing the English what a rare find... not.
JustThinkForYourself 8 months ago
and indians just watched and eated a popcorn*they invented it lol
Citzen92 1 year ago