this post was submitted on
547 points (57% like it)
2,060 up votes 1,513 down votes
shortlink:

funny

subscribe2,399,076 readers

8,180 users here now

PLEASE, No posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor. Click for an Example.

Welcome to r/Funny:

You may only post if you are funny.

Please No:

  • Screenshots of reddit comment threads. Post a link with context to /r/bestof or /r/defaultgems if from a default subreddit instead.

  • Posts for the specific point of it being your reddit birthday.

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress.

  • Rage comics - Go to /fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu instead.

  • Memes - Go to /r/AdviceAnimals or /r/Memes instead.

  • Demotivational posters - Go to /r/Demotivational instead.

  • Pictures of just text - Make a self post instead.

  • DAE posts - Go to /r/doesanybodyelse

  • eCards - the poll result was 55.02% in favor of removal. Please submit eCards to /r/ecards

  • URL shorteners - No link shorteners (or HugeURL) in either post links or comments. They will be deleted regardless of intent.

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic. (*) (*)

Need more? Check out:

Still need more? See Reddit's best / worst and offensive joke collections (warning: some of those jokes are offensive / nsfw!).

Please DO NOT post personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder.

If your submission appears to be banned, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators

The moderators of /r/funny reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.

CSS - BritishEnglishPolice ©2011

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

546
547

French army knife (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by JoypadRAGE

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on
all 84 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]FartRobot 56 points57 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Reminds me of the most unoriginal and boring joke ever told.

[–]blaze_all_day 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

One that has been told many times.

[–]NonAmerican 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The main propagators, the English, are more cowardly. Most of their history is filled with automatic weapons stationed in front of helpless tribes in Africa and fucking up the Scots.

[–]OJSlaughter 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A) I think you might offend the Scottish to put them in with the defenceless, seriously they did alright for themselves. Also when it comes to later history please stop calling it England where Britain is more appropriate

B)Most? You mean the period between 1884 and 1913.

C)France and Germany were both heavily involved in Neocolonialism and treated the natives pretty badly. Not only with the slaughtering of natives in war (which the British did too) but also the practical enslavement of the natives (which the British didn't do)

D)Grow up. I find it hard to like people who can't take a joke. For some reason the French seem to be finding it hard to take a joke recently. Still mourning the death of Napoleon?

[–]lestratege 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

C)

Source?

[–]OJSlaughter 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

'Africa betrayed' is a great book on the subject. There are various websites I am sure you can find although, I must say that I was being a bit general. Your impertinence brought it out in me.

[–]VikingSlayer 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And before automatic weapons were invented it was rows of longbows

[–]FeierInMeinHose 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No no no no no. Before automatic weapons it was semiautomatic weapons. Before that it was bolt action rifles, then muskets, Then longbows. Also, one musn't forget how the British, now Americans, came to a continent, swindled the natives out of their land, killed half of them, raped the rest of the women, destroyed everything that was precious to them, and then felt that they were being nice by giving their ancestors a small plot of almost unfarmable land to live off of.

[–]DivinusVox 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Question: Why did you go through the trouble of typing something almost all of us already know?

[–]FeierInMeinHose -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

For the lulz

[–]RedRager 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Are you talking about that one, with the army knife? It was some foreign country... France, yeah it was France. Oh yeah. It was the French army knife joke.

[–]thebebopfunk 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Stupid Americans, SO UNORIGINAL. PS: AMERICANS ARE SOOO FAT.

[–]VikingSlayer 26 points27 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually the French had a long long long history of beating the shit out of people in wars, the "cowardly french" stereotype is one started by their quick surrender in WWII because they hadn't recovered from WWI yet, where they were taken by suprise and superior numbers. Rudyard Kipling said about the French "Their business is war, and they do their business".

[–]frailgesture 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Plus they were a pretty big help in America winning the Revolutionary War. Props for that.

[–]OJSlaughter 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Bastards :p (I'm British)

[–]lickwidforse2 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

'merica! (I'm American)

[–]MrAquarius 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They were not outnumbered. Their tanks were better.

The reason why they lost was poor tactics and planning. This, added with the brilliant German generals, such as Erwin Rommel, meant quick defeat was inevitable.

French had very good chances to win but had poor tactics.

[–]friendlypoop 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

while the french army was still one of the strongest (or at least one of the biggest) in europe, the germans had been training/preparing for a long time (10 years or so) and their military might was unmatched (artilery tactics like blitzkrieg, tank warfare). in contrast, the french army was rusty and neglected because of europe's feelings of appeasement.

So while I agree with you that, inevitably, they lost to poor tactics and planning, I don't think they had any chances to win the 1940 invasion of france.

[–]MrAquarius 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The way it turned out to be no they had no chance to win- once Panzers got into mainland and cut of the Brits shit got real. However during the initial beginning phases they could have done better. I am reading a book by Erwin Rommel and in his diaries he states how hard it actually was to do anything in the begining phases. If the French would have reacted quicker they would have stopped the Germans in the Belgian ardenes and then it would be a slaughter house like WWI.

Germans had no real army before 1936. So it is incorrect to say they were fully prepared. Their army was new and relatively inexperienced. The Blitzkrieg was an unknown tactic. When they committed to attacking Poland - the allied France and England could have invaded and ended the war before it began.

The Germans were strong, however they won due to tactics and nothing else. On 1v1 French tanks were better and stronger armored.

tl;dr French could have won but did no know how anyway and were faced with better tactics and an entirely new type of war/army.

[–]friendlypoop 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We were talking about 1940 (not '36), when the german did have a sizable army which had good 'modern' military practice on Poland, Denmark, Norway and Czechoslovakia. So yes, they were quite prepared.

While indeed, the french tanks were stronger in armor/firepower, you could almost say it wasn't a factor in the battle because they had no radios and the tanks were considered more like "support" than "main battle units".

The blitkrieg WAS also a known tactic and it's use is what made the german's offensive during the start of WW2 so unbelievably unstoppable.

France didn't stand a chance in 1940. They did before they lost most of their inland European allies... to APPEASEMENT ARG.

[–]MrAquarius 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i agree to what you say. However Germany only recently had acquired a good army. In 1936 they started conscription again. By 1939 they had few soldiers. Their army was new and untested and so were their tactics. Battle of France served as one of the examples of their skills and proved their tactics work.

The French had a good chance to end it ONLY when Germans attacked Poland and left something like 30 divisions guarding the border with France. There was a meager attempt to attack but it lead no where.

The appeasement is also looked down at.. However many forget that Britain had no army to defend itself with or even impose anything upon Hitler. France had the same and would not act without Britain. During the appeasement British started creating a new army quickly and thanks to that were able to defend themselves later.

[–]friendlypoop 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I have to disagree with you on the state of britain's army and on when they had the chance to end the war.

Concerning the state of the the german's army, while I think they had good training on the countries I mentionned (espectially the blitzkrieging of poland), I guess we'll agree to disagree on that point because I don't think we'll be budging anything soon :p

From what I have read on the WW2, the European allies had a chance to stop the German war machine when:

1) Germany broke the treaty of versailles 2) The militarisation of the Rhinelands 3) Germany invaded Austria 4) Germany invaded Sudetenland 5) Germany invaded Czechoslovakia

During these 5 events, the German army would have not been able to handle the allies. The loss the Czechoslovakia (who had a sizable army) was huge but the allies still had the upper hand with a 2 front war with Poland on their side. Yet, like you mentionned, that opportunity was lost because of the appeasement and the lack of leadership from the allies.

While indeed, the Britain had little to no army in the late 1930's, it is not something I had forgotten (they still had a decent navy). It actually is a direct cause of appeasement and the british sentiment of pacifism; they had been reducing the size of their army for a couple of years (especially the RAF if memory serves)

Appeasement is main reason for why this war when out of proportions

[–]Krakenrider 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Don't forget the Spanish civil war in which Nazi forces were deployed.

[–]Reanimator 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To be fair, the Maginot Line is a pretty hilarious (looking back) attempt at national defense.

[–]ultrastoat 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm french and I find this hilarious. The rest of my french family didn't get it. My culturally sensitive American grandfather thought it was offensive and started shouting.

ಠ_ಠ

[–]JoypadRAGE[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

People seem to take things a little too seriously at times.

[–]freedumb23 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We all know the french are bad ass. French foreign legion could kill you 9 time before you hit the ground.

[–]MrAquarius 22 points23 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Too bad this is as true as me claiming to have had sex.

french have been at war longer than the Americans have had a country. And trust me when I say - they won most of those wars.

French have made great soldiers, feared and proud men. They fought against the Romans and alongside them. They fought the Arabs with their armor full of sand and in 40 degree heat. They battled the British for a hundred god damn years. Over a hundred years. Do yo use any country now making such an effort today? They have even fought Asians. They have battled the empires of Europe. In the high mountains of Austria. The deep snowy country side of Russia was shelled by them.

No European nation is weak or meager. Europe has had one of the richest war histories of all continents. French have shown to excel themselves.

However just because some pathetic, uneducated bigots know of only 1 instance where the french were defeated and saturated with idiotic patriotism and self righteousness these basement-dwellers make such stupid things as this. Waste hours just to showcase their ignorance and deface the name of all those who have battled and killed men better then any of us.

I would rather fight and die along side a Frenchmen than any other man of any nationality.

Please, for the love of the children stop this fucking joke. This is the shittiest thing ever. It is the funniest thing since cancer.

P.S. I am not French. I am a Latvian who simply enjoys history.

[–]Zarzaglub 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, I am French and thank you. Long live Latvia and respect between people.

[–]Quasic 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Do yo use any country now making such an effort today?

Isn't America trying very hard?

I'm British and have a great respect for France and the French, and agree that this joke has long outworn any humour.

[–]MrAquarius -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

America had a 10 year war and is now running away like a scared goat. The media and the people are all crying because of some few casualties and because people in Afghanistan are not out in the streets praising America.

In today's world very few countries are man enough to have a legitimate war effort, even when it is needed.

[–]Quasic 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Are you saying that the Iraq war was a failure because it didn't go on long enough?

[–]MrAquarius 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I never stated if it was a failure. never specified if it even was Iraq. Could also be Afghanistan and with some re-wording Vietnam.

If you start a war you finish it. Don't half-ass the job. You stay there and finish. The best you can do is save face in front of your enemies. The attacks won't stop until you die and all you stand for. (this is in relation to the middle east) American military is too much influenced by the media which often portrays things wrongly.

Iraq was fucked from the begining. Staying there longer as it was now would not have saved much. Then again we have shit information anyway. The whole thing should have been brought to a stop during the Gulf War. Iraq would be a good secular state then. However Afghanistan is a different case. Where allies should stay as long as unnecessary.

but we digress. The point was - nobody today, except hardline fundamentalists and tribes, are ready for a long war effort. This is unfortunate and what I was comparing us with the French who were able to have a war with the British for 100 years.

[–]Quasic 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Perhaps it is worth noting that functional democracies don't actively pursue long conflicts for both their costs and political implications.

[–]BrizerorBrian 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So what would "winning" look like. American style democracy in either of these areas? Given that these conflicts were initiated under "unclear" circumstances, should we double down on our control of another country so we don't lose? Not trying to be rude but I've never heard a good endgame.

[–]MrAquarius 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Whatever the west can offer is much better then the brutal regimes of Saddam and the crazy Taliban.

Yes the things we do there are not nice. But the possible prospects that Taliban and fundies bring are even worse. Also the attacks won't stop simply if we leave.

[–]dnj 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Also America has lost most of the wars it has started.

[–]Neker 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They fought against the Romans and alongside them

The tiny kingdom of France started to emerge more than six centuries after the final collapse of the Roman Empire.

[–]MrAquarius 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was talking about 'frenchmen' in general. They have had a long history of fighting even as celts.

[–]TomSwirly 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

...and yet when you ask your average person in the world to name a great general, it's still likely after hundreds of years that they'll say Napoleon...

[–]EveningCrickets 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He'd be near the top. But there are a lot of people near the top: Ike, Rommel, Alexander, Hannibal, Washington, Patton, Caesar, Lee, Saladin, Scipio, Ramses. They're all quite famous, and quite good at the art of war.

If we use Google Trends as a crude proxy for fame, George Washington is the most famous. But that seems to overly dominated by the US. Julius Caesar is second, Alexander the Great is third, Napoleon Bonaparte is fourth, followed closely by Ramses. And they're all more ancient than him as well.

All it really indicates is that famous generals can come from any culture and any time period.

[–]MrAquarius 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And are subject to 'propaganda'. Do not flame me, but George Washington was no a great general. He was good in what he did. But was not great.

[–]Null_Reference_ 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

People love to say stuff like this. How would you know? What metric do you use to determine the "greatness" of a general? You say that as if "greatness" isn't 100% subjective.

I am not saying that the boasting about him is true, but it is getting annoyingly trendy to say:

[historical figure] wasn't what he was cracked up to be [lesser known figure] was a REAL [occupation]

Its just silly.

[–]EveningCrickets 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree with you, it's quite subjective. And there are a lot of different ways of measuring greatness. Alexander was great at tactics. Hannibal was great at propaganda and psychological warfare. It's hard to say which would be better in war. And it's hard to compare them to, say, Patton, who was primarily a military commander, but not the polymath king/judge/admiral/politician/spymaster/scientist/etc that many ancient generals were.

I've seen at least one historian who ranked George Washington as the best leader who was a general. He was able to form a long-lasting nation. Something that many superior generals like Julius Caesar and Alexander weren't able to do. Again, it's subjective based on what one considers important.

[–]MrAquarius 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Alexander formed a long lasting kingdom. It lost territories but never the less he did. Also Julius Caesar formed a empire which currently has lasted longer then the Americans.

Also it is judged very simply - by the amount of victories he has had and general death/loss rate and other measures.

[–]EveningCrickets 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Julius Caesar did not form an empire. He added territory to an existing republic, destabilized the republic, and died.

Alexander's empire broke apart into a number of kingdoms. And as far as I can recall, none of them had a better claim to being his than any of the others. He won an empire but couldn't hold it.

Death/loss rate is a weak measure, because it favors ancient armies--where most of the slaughter happened after one side decided to run. Number of victories is a weak measure because it favors generals who fought a number of small battles over those who used strategy to force their opponents into one large battle (or it would discount them if you don't could small guerrilla battles as victories). Depending on how you define "victory", it would also underrate/overrate someone like Fabius Maximus.

You can account for those, but by the time all of that is factored in, it's not "very simple" anymore (IMO, at least). And it's largely subjective. If it wasn't subjective then most educated people would more-or-less agree on who are the N best generals and what order they're in. As it is, they that you can say is that there are some generals will be on everyone's list (who everyone agrees is "pretty good").

Something like "land area of empire" or "population of empire" would be what I would consider an objective measure. There may be some quibbling on exactly what parts of each empire get included, but more-or-less everyone should have the same list of the top N empires by land area/population/etc. (Edit: I'm not saying that those are ways of determining greatness. My point is that those are things that can objectively be measured, whereas "greatness" can not objectively be measured due to the subjective nature of what gets included.)

[–]MrAquarius 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Julius Caesar laid down the republic which lasted another 500 years and arguably continued on living with the Byzantine. Alexander formed a large empire which was split up into many smaller ones which also continued on existing as Hellenism cultures.

Death loss rate is a great measure. If you destroy all of the enemy and loose none, regardless of the numbers involved, it is a greater victory then someone who had 1;1 kill/death ratio. Alexander went against far superior forces in number and managed to come out on the top.It is all about ratios where the actual number of people does not matter.

Either way the worth of the general is measured by his skill displayed in combat and his tactics used. I never said Washington was a bad general. He was a skillful man and an intelligent commander. But, he was not great. He needed more battles and on 'fairer' grounds to prove his true worth. He was good enough for the task.

[–]whitediablo3137 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Shame on you for not saying sun tzu....

[–]FinKM 16 points17 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Peace out and party? I can live with that.

[–]SomeFokkerTookMyName 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I like the bit with the corkscrews.

[–]STOPITPLEASE 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Don't ever post on Reddit again.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I find it amusing how the French have a reputation for cowardice...coughNapoleoncough cough

[–]mongzords 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

and the american one will turn up late.

[–]Jaws666 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Someone has to kick the corpse.

[–]WildfireFox 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's not how you beat a dead horse.

[–]xrisnothing -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

and still manage to get the job done

[–]kotoandjuri 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Where's the cheese knife?

[–]Sneezes 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

why do americans find this funny?

[–]splice42 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh look, a totally original joke that no one has ever heard before! To the front page, stat!

[–]multipleegos 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I immediately heard "La Marseillaise" play in my head when I saw this.

[–]clintmccool 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What is this, 2003?

[–]dnj 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

An even funnier one is America who hasn't won a single war since the 1940's...

[–]eigenvector 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

hyuk hyuk surrender monkeys hurrrrr

[–]boondocktaints 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW: LE HAH HAH!

[–]tfk83 -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Reminds me of a joke I once told: "Like new French rifle for sale. Never been fired, dropped once."

[–]Sandinister -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What makes the French flag so special?

The red and blue are attached with velcro.

[–]Ekiph 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Needs a cheese knife.

[–]Pdawg7 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Forgot the corkscrew and the cheese knife edit: On phone, corkscrew not visible. Carry on

[–]lestratege 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

With a fleur-de-lys on it? Definitely not something post 1830 then....

[–]Khnagul 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No this is so wrong, how i am suppose to cut saucisson(sausage) with this ! Im' fr ^

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]Quasic 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You're pissed off at an unfair and dated representation of a country, fine. But don't try and redirect that immaturity elsewhere, it makes you look like a child.

[–]JonnySniper -5 points-4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Love it

[–]capnd -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Let me guess, dropped once?

[–]themightybaron -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

aah we.. but what do I use to cut du pate and brie?

[–]hitmantl -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Amazing.

[–]npgz -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You just spilled my coffee... asshole!

[–]Oathdynasty -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I lol'd pretty hard

[–]EpicTrollzor -5 points-4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Proof France pretty much always loses:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

To be honest there was really no excuse for France bowing out of WW2 so early. I believe one of their excuses was "they didn't want their beautiful cities destroyed". When fighting against tyranny a country hould never surrender until the last man. Britian had some of their beautiful cities destroyed by air and kept on fighting and won the war.If the French kept fighting at least the Germans would have been delayed in their conquest of Europe.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 30866 on app-102 running 2c0449c.