Gerald Wright10 said:In the former America, there was actually a much stronger resistance movement than what you saw in a massive country like France, where they literally needed Americans and Britons to liberate them after the landings in Normandy. But hey, I guess that’s why they don't carry any political weight today.
The British (along with everyone else) have been kicking their teeth in throughout history. They handed Joan of Arc over to the British, they lost at Waterloo to the same people, and even Hico was out there posing in front of the Eiffel Tower with his buddies... it's just one thing after another!
😂
The Germans were responsible for sparking two World Wars, so if they manage to trigger a third, things aren't going to end well for them. As for the Turks, they couldn't care less about the Germans or the German military strength—it's all meaningless to them.
We all know exactly how long Hitler's Reich lasted compared to the Ottoman Empire.
Regarding your comparison between Hitler's Reich and the Ottoman Empire, you're right on the money; you can draw parallels in plenty of ways, from the genocide aspect and so on.
But if we're talking strictly about longevity, the German Empire actually lasted a good 210 years longer than the Ottomans—
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire.
As for your comments about the French, I can only tell you one thing again...🙂
Just for the sake of clarity, the French ultimately won the Hundred Years' War.
At Waterloo, the Prussians carried most of the heavy lifting, not the British, and for them to be defeated at all, all of Europe had to unite along with Britain and the Russian Empire.
And if it hadn't been for the French, the USA wouldn't have a President right now; we'd probably have someone like the Queen of Canada instead...