How considerate to have a guy in the corner translating to Italian.
this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
3877 readers
8 users here now
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Unfortunately, this didn't really happen
it should though. everyone should go hard on these parasites. fascists always get a free ride from all the authorities. that's how they get into power. they never suffer consequences, because all the consequences are fake and designed to stop people from being too free or too communist, both of which fascists also work to stop, so the nation's enforcement mechanisms see them as friends and go really ridiculously easy on them.
france needs to nail america's dick to the wall, and declare that no more american goods will be coming into france until these scum pay their debts. maybe even give a 'we brought you into this world, and we can damn sure take you out of it.'
Thanks for this. We need a way of flagging satire or misinformation more clearly. I don’t think it’s enough to have it buried in the comment sections.
Well. Seeing as this is NCD…
Sorry, that deal was made with the French royal family, not the republic. It's null and void.
It doesn't matter. The debt was repaid in 1795 by James Swan, a banker who assumed the debt from the U.S.
If you transfer debts and loans they're still valid, it's what the ussr Russia exchange did.
The debt was already paid anyways
as if these assholes have ever read a history book. they don't fucking know that.
Ah, same as with Haiti.
It only took Haiti 122 years to pay off the French.
Liberte, egalite, fraternite. 😑
I don't think France would want to open up the indemnity/ reparations conversation...
They aren't? They are talking about a loan which has nothing to do with indemnity / reparations.
They financed the US independence movement / war out of self interest to screw on England and any way they got paid with the Quasi-War.
Looking at history the US were never a reliable partnet, cough remember the maine cough.
i mean they did give us democracy, existentialism, and the blow job.....
...menage à trois.....soixante-neuf....
But aside from those, what have the French done for us?
Baguette, croissant, macarron
Yes, yes, but other than that, what have the French really ever done for us?
Napoleonic law, the metric system, pasteurization
Well, yes, but other than that?
The guillotine?
Yeah, uhuh. I think if you look at the papers, that debt was owed to a king whose head ended up in a basket. 🧺. That was, hmm, quite a few French republics ago.
Meanwhile, why don't we discuss that little Normandy caper that one time
The UK did pay the US back for WW2 support. Took 60 years to pay off.
Sure let's talk about Normandy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_liberation_of_France
More specifically, Lilly estimated that U.S. servicemen committed around 3,500 rapes in France between June 1944 and the end of the war.[10]
Rape per capita in 2022 France: ~116 per 100,000 men
Rape per capita in 2022 England and Wales: ~234 per 100,000 men
Number of American troops in France during WW2: ~2,300,000
Estimated American rape per capita in WW2 France: ~152 per 100,000 American soldiers
By those numbers, it would be safer to be a French woman with an American soldier in WW2, than to be a woman with an English man today.
I wonder if people are more likely to report it today than they were 80 years ago. Or if more report in England vs France? I honestly don't know much about that aspect of their cultures.
I wonder if people are more likely to report it today than they were 80 years ago.
Almost certainly, but the estimate of rapes in WW2 was, itself, done by assuming that only 5% of rapes were reported.
More pertinently, rapists use time, social connections, and lack of oversight to commit their crimes. All of those factors would've been in short supply for US soldiers in France, for various reasons.
The conduct of US soldiers in Germany, on the other hand, was considerably worse.
OP overestimates rape incidence in present day by over 5 fold. I can guarantee that they report it at a much higher rate today as there are actual procedures on how to handle it. it reads like rationalizing rape committed by soldiers.
OP overestimates rape incidence in present day by over 5 fold.
Fuck's sake, can you not read the sources you yourself provide?
I can guarantee that they report it at a much higher rate today as there are actual procedures on how to handle it.
Yes, it is generally considered that ~25%-33% of rapes are reported in the modern day, whereas the researcher on WW2 whose numbers are quoted assumed, probably not unfairly, that only ~5% of rapes were reported - which is how the estimate of 3,500 rapes was reached.
it reads like rationalizing rape committed by soldiers.
... what.
cut this crap.
- Your numbers are wrong
- Your hypothesis is wrong
- Your conclusion is wrong
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/rape-statistics-by-country
Your numbers are wrong
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/rape-statistics-by-country
By your own source, it would be 118 per 100,000 men in France and 218 per 100,000 men in England and Wales.
You appear to bend the numbers every step of the way to support a conclusion you simply can't draw. Here's the laundry list of issues:
1. The reported numbers of today and the estimated numbers from 1944 are uncomparable I find it crazy to use a multiplier within the same scale to 1944 rapes as to 2022 rape.
A) Reporting patterns changed over the years: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_France #Statistics)]
B) Definitions had changed over the years such as inclusion of marital rape which : [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_France#Marital_rape] [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jo-Lovett/publication/238713283_Home_Office_Research_Study_293_A_gap_or_a_chasm_Attrition_in_reported_rape_cases/links/00b7d52a09b4935e0e000000/Home-Office-Research-Study-293-A-gap-or-a-chasm-Attrition-in-reported-rape-cases.pdf]
C) Increases happened in inclusion of female perpetrators into the convictions (it's about 4% in France but it's still a major shift from 0%) [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1085508/people-indicted-sexual-violence-france-gender-age/] and male victims in the estimates [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8713172/]
D) Age of consent was redefined over the years, with now 3rd of 2022 rapes were committed against underaged girls (younger than 15) in France.
2. You can't draw conclusions on population distribution-dependent statistics, by assuming a 50-50% distribution but a 100% perpetration rate by one sex. In fact natives males are quartered diffusely with females, whereas solders are quartered with males predominantly and thus the distribution is uneven. Since the majority of present-day rapes happen between current or past intimate partners (60%), the patterns are very much different. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1158136009000486?casa_token=egmg2OrX84oAAAAA%3Aan10FT7p5uFwGrxUWjhU1IH3Awc6oOR8tyrEZlkuqE88WHE7R-pcvEmCyTYY9EYJap6yFJA3
The fair way to compare these stats is to that of German and Russian forces from the same time, which is totally fair game. But bending numbers to claim that women were safer with GI Joes in 1944 than in present days is just fucking bullshit.
You appear to bend the numbers every step of the way to support a conclusion you simply can’t draw. Here’s the laundry list of issues:
Then I suppose you retract the accusation that my numbers were wrong, and only maintain that my conclusion was wrong?
- The reported numbers of today and the estimated numbers from 1944 are uncomparable I find it crazy to use a multiplier within the same scale to 1944 rapes as to 2022 rape.
We aren't using the same multiplier with 1944 rapes and 2022 rapes. The estimates of the UN and the estimates of J. Robert Lilly are not done using the same multiplier.
and male victims in the estimates
The estimate of total rapes extrapolated from number of reported rapes includes the reported rapes of men by men in WW2.
D) Age of consent was redefined over the years, with now 3rd of 2022 rapes were committed against underaged girls (younger than 15) in France.
The age of consent in France was 13 in 1940, and 15 in 1945, where it has been ever since.
- You can’t draw conclusions on population distribution-dependent statistics, by assuming a 50-50% distribution but a 100% perpetration rate by one sex.
By your own number cited just above, it would be a 96% perpetration rate by one sex. So, uh, don't really know what you're trying to prove here.
In fact natives males are quartered diffusely with females, whereas solders are quartered with males predominantly and thus the distribution is uneven. Since the majority of present-day rapes happen between current or past intimate partners (60%), the patterns are very much different.
Okay?
The fair way to compare these stats is to that of German and Russian forces from the same time, which is totally fair game. But bending numbers to claim that women were safer with GI Joes in 1944 than in present days is just fucking bullshit.
My point was to illustrate that the article was not saying what was implied. The rape rate of American soldiers in WW2 France was not significantly over the rape rate of the civilian population by the numbers the article itself cited. As far as "Let's talk about American crimes" go, "The American soldiers were as bad as civilians, statistically speaking" is not very compelling.
As mentioned, elsewhere, the numbers of American rapes in Germany were much worse. But France? Terrible example.
Then I suppose you retract the accusation that my numbers were wrong, and only maintain that my conclusion was wrong?
I updated my comment.
We aren’t using the same multiplier with 1944 rapes and 2022 rapes. The estimates of the UN and the estimates of J. Robert Lilly are not done using the same multiplier.
You're right. My source claims to have used "police recorded" incidents only. Again reporting patterns, definitions, and perceptions are extremely different now, especially post meetoo, than in 1944. I.e., you're using a multiplier on a heavily underreported number (1944) to compare to a heavily overreported number (based on change in criteria) from 2022.
The age of consent in France was 13 in 1940, and 15 in 1945, where it has been ever since.
Good on you for looking this up. Your search history must look interesting. Regardless, unless they changed the age of consent and its enforcement before May 1945, this actually supports my point.
Okay? [on population distribution]
The background on this is, the first time I realized Elon Musk is either very dumb or a nazi (or both) was when he boosted a post on interracial violence that did not adjust for population distribution. It's one of those ways to make outlandish statements that are "technically correct". It's like saying that based on their lower obesity rates, stone age people were healthier than modern humans.
As mentioned, elsewhere, the numbers of American rapes in Germany were much worse. But France? Terrible example.
That's a point I consider much more acceptable. Yet this ruined an otherwise pretty funny original post.
I updated my comment.
So now your complaint is that I use an estimate of rapes instead of reported rapes to compare against reported rapes?
You do realize that if I used an estimate of rapes vs. an estimate of rapes, or reported rapes vs. reported rapes, in both cases the numbers would be much more favorable to the argument regarding the relatively low rate of rape committed by American soldiers in France, right?
You’re right. My source claims to have used “police recorded” incidents only. Again reporting patterns, definitions, and perceptions are extremely different now, especially post meetoo, than in 1944. I.e., you’re using a multiplier on a heavily underreported number (1944) to compare to a heavily overreported number (based on change in criteria) from 2022.
But the 1944-45 is an estimated number that presumes that only 5% of rapes were reported; ie the 3,500 number is itself using a significantly higher multiplier than the modern estimation. Unless your argument is that unlike numbers cannot be compared even with attempts at correction, in which case any comparison of rape statistics over a significant period of time is impossible, there's nothing here.
Good on you for looking this up. Your search history must look interesting. Regardless, unless they changed the age of consent and its enforcement before May 1945, this actually supports my point.
Does it? Unless your argument is that a massive proportion of the girls who were raped-but-not-recorded were between the ages of 13 and 14, it displays that there's not much of a numerical difference caused by the change in the age of consent laws.
The background on this is, the first time I realized Elon Musk is either very dumb or a nazi (or both) was when he boosted a post on interracial violence that did not adjust for population distribution. It’s one of those ways to make outlandish statements that are “technically correct”. It’s like saying that based on their lower obesity rates, stone age people were healthier than modern humans.
Because I... contested that the incidence of American wartime rape in France in WW2 was significantly higher than under normal circumstances?
That’s a point I consider much more acceptable. Yet this ruined an otherwise pretty funny original post.
Sorry for pointing out that something was a terrible example?
if I used an estimate of apples vs. an estimate of oranges, or reported apples vs. reported oranges, in both cases the numbers would be much more favorable to the argument of apples being better than oranges
FTFY. Since the definition of rape and consent had heavily changed in that 80+ year interval, you are not comparing the same thing.
Unless your argument is that unlike numbers cannot be compared...
Yes that's exactly my argument.
...even with attempts at correction,
Not as specific absolute numbers when your correction multiplier can arbitrarily go anywhere between 2-10x (look up Radzinowicz dark figure formula that Lilly reportedly used)
...in which case any comparison of rape statistics over a significant period of time is impossible
definitely not possible without taking the differences in definition (including age of consent), reporting behavior and the distribution and behavior of population at risk (like hiding...) , etc into consideration just to make a statement like
the incidence of American wartime rape in France in WW2 was [not] significantly higher than under normal circumstances
Ironically, the BBC article you're referring to captures my objections very well even in its title: Revisionists challenge D-Day story
One woman - from the town of Colombieres - is quoted as saying that "the enthusiasm for the liberators is diminishing. They are looting... everything, and going into houses everywhere on the pretext of looking for Germans." Even more feared, of course, was the crime of rape - and here too the true picture has arguably been expunged from popular memory. According to American historian J Robert Lilly, there were around 3,500 rapes by American servicemen in France between June 1944 and the end of the war. "The evidence shows that sexual violence against women in liberated France was common," writes Mr Hitchcock. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8084210.stm
Sorry for pointing out that something was a terrible example?
You managed to outdo the example in outlandishness.
if I used an estimate of apples vs. an estimate of oranges, or reported apples vs. reported oranges, in both cases the numbers would be much more favorable to the argument of apples being better than oranges
That's not even close. Jesus H. Christ.
FTFY. Since the definition of rape and consent had heavily changed in that 80+ year interval, you are not comparing the same thing.
Would you like to elaborate on how the definition of rape and consent changing in that 80+ year interval changes an estimation made in the early 2000s using modern definitions of rape?
Yes that’s exactly my argument.
So you couldn't say, for example, that modern rates of rape are lower than that of American soldiers during WW2? Since numbers are incomparable, of course, by your own argument.
Ironically, the BBC article you’re referring to captures my objections very well even in its title: Revisionists challenge D-Day story
... what? I haven't referred to any BBC article.
You managed to outdo the example in outlandishness.
How? By your own argument, you have nothing to contradict my point, since numbers are apparently incomparable. How can you say a point is outlandish if you can't even dispute the basis of the assertion?
Would you like to elaborate on how the definition of rape and consent changing in that 80+ year interval changes an estimation made in the early 2000s using modern definitions of rape?
I've specified differences between 2022 and 1944 few times above how they may apply differently to the two eras and situation, particularly the marital part, I don't think I need to repeat myself about it. Now, have you read the book?
So you couldn’t say, for example, that modern rates of rape are lower than that of American soldiers during WW2?
Correct and I'm not the one comparing apples to oranges here.
… what? I haven’t referred to any BBC article.
Mea culpa, you've just responded to it and seem to be quoting the numbers from it:
Reference [10] is the BBC article.
How can you say a point is outlandish if you can’t even dispute the basis of the assertion?
Let me recite it:
By those numbers, it would be safer to be a French woman with an American soldier in WW2, than to be a woman with an English man today."
Those numbers say nothing about the actual safety of a French woman now vs. WW2.
But this is getting a little boring at this point. Just use a contemporary comparison next time and then you won't give off the impression of someone trivializing war associated sexual violence.
I’ve specified differences between 2022 and 1944 few times above how they may apply differently to the two eras and situation, particularly the marital part, I don’t think I need to repeat myself about it.
Unless you think marital rape was a major problem amongst American GIs in France from 1944-1945, it's not really a salient point.
Now, have you read the book?
Yes, actually. It has its problems, but the estimation of the number of rapes performed by GIs in France is not in dispute here; we are accepting it for the sake of the argument and as the citation given, the implication thereof which is being disputed.
Correct and I’m not the one comparing apples to oranges here.
How can you say a point is outlandish if you can’t even dispute the basis of the assertion?
Mea culpa, you’ve just responded to it and seem to be quoting the numbers from it:
I quoted the wiki article because the wiki article was what was offered by the original commenter, and was the implication that I was refuting. Jesus H. Christ.
Those numbers say nothing about the actual safety of a French woman now vs. WW2.
Which means your point is "We don't know and we can't know because evidence doesn't exist", which is utterly worthless as a contribution to the discussion.
So, uh, thanks, I guess.
But this is getting a little boring at this point. Just use a contemporary comparison next time and then you won’t give off the impression of someone trivializing war associated sexual violence.
I love that you offer both "Numbers are meaningless" and "You should've used contemporary numbers instead!"
Of course, if I did, then your argument would doubtlessly be "But contemporary definitions of rape don't include acts we include in modern definitions of rape, therefore, it's incomparable and my preconception remains untarnished by evidence."
Unless you think marital rape was a major problem amongst American GIs in France from 1944-1945, it’s not really a salient point.
Bravo, you've found the difference!
Yes, actually. It has its problems, but the estimation of the number of rapes performed by GIs in France is not in dispute here;
The comparability of arbitrarily picked numbers is in dispute which depends on the methodology.
“We don’t know and we can’t know because evidence doesn’t exist” / "Numbers are meaningless” and “You should’ve used contemporary numbers instead!” / your argument would doubtlessly be “But contemporary definitions of rape don’t include acts we include in modern definitions of rape, therefore, it’s incomparable and my preconception remains untarnished by evidence.”
Fair, my time is better spent on people understanding the difference between "use comparable metrics FFS" and "numbers are useless".
Bravo, you’ve found the difference!
If marital rape was not an issue amongst GIs, it would not have driven their rate of rapes up. As we are concerned with actual rapes committed, and not arbitrarily excluding rapes because of legal definitions, it makes no sense to try to claim the lack of marital rape recognized by contemporary law to be at all relevant.
The comparability of arbitrarily picked numbers is in dispute which depends on the methodology.
Yet you aren't disputing the methodology, but the definitions of rape. Yet in your dispute of the definitions, you manage to define literally nothing that would create substantial discontinuity between the statistics being compared.
Fair, my time is better spent on people understanding the difference between “use comparable metrics FFS” and “numbers are useless”.
Comparable metrics like "Rape per capita" and "rape per capita".
But sure, go back to claiming that the numbers are wrong, and that I've inflated them fivefold, and then backtrack and completely reverse your argument into a dismissal of the applicability of those numbers once it turns out that the numbers are valid and are against your argument, not in support of it.
Pathetic.
You wasted a perfectly good opportunity for a Hamilton reference. I was very sad when it didn't arrive
Since you decide to be salty and whiny about a joke, let's educate you a bit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_of_states
This is a joke about the US's recent demands for Ukraine to 'pay back' the aid given to defend its independence against Russian imperialism and genocide.
Such a fragile ego, so easily hurt.
By the rules of "we got there first", France would owe Canada for that one.