NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is the general consensus that the French people are incompetent at war or that they are not able warriors?


Especially considering the conduct of the French SS members. The Charlemagne division and French SS volunteers in general were held in very high regard by their peers for their dedication, ferociouty and professionalism.

Many Frenchmen were randomly split up into the many divisions. But even the all French division made a name for itself. At the battle of Koerlin, managed to hold off the massively superior (in terms of weaponry and men) Soviet army attacking them against all expectations of their commanders.

Whereas many divisions gave up or surrendered. The French SS remained loyal to the end and retreated to Berlin, fighting in the last battle. The last person to recieve the Knight's Cross was a Frenchman. Eugen Vaulot who singlehandedly destroyed eight tanks with panzerfausts. As well as the French Charlemagne SS being the last defenders of Hitler's bunker, rather than German soldiers. And to their respect, they made a formidable last ditch effort. Defending the bunker rather valiantly until May 2nd (To prevent the Soviets from capturing it on May-day).

As well as when they were captured not as per stereotype surrendering meekly. General Leclerc was famously presented with a defiant group of 12 captured Charlemagne Division men. The Free French General immediately asked them why they wore a German uniform, to which one of them unwisely replied by asking the General why he wore an American one (the Free French wore modified US army uniforms). The group of French Waffen-SS men were then promptly executed without any form of military tribunal procedure.

I could of course go on and use examples from most of the war. So why are the French tarred as cowards? Or is the conduct of the many Frenchman in the SS during WW2 ignored? I just find it an oddity to the stereotype.

For the same reasons Americans are stereotyped as stupid and fat, Irish and Scotish as drunk brawlers, etc.


Stereotypes are convenient. And fun.

For the same reasons Americans are stereotyped as stupid and fat, Irish and Scotish as drunk brawlers, etc.
Wha's ye sayin..? Come 'ere... *hic* Ah'll fuckin hav ye, bas...

*collapses*

You've actually answered your own question--the SS is not a French organization, nor is Berlin the French capital. The French change sides more than a pancake at IHOP, and the actual examples you should be using are of the Free French divisions who fought in Paris and other theaters--not Nazi sympathizers.

Actually, it seems more like a combination of stupid leaders and bad luck, the same thing that eventually did in Germany...not to mention seeing a huge chunk of its military manpower wiped out in WWI, something that left the otherwise quite strong French armed forces in a pretty serious bind when war broke out.

It all seems to stem from WWII, the one war that seems to matter in our colonial minds here in America.

The French army at the beginning of WWII was larger than the German Army, and its armored forces, at least at a casual glance, looked larger and better than Germany's.

However, their tactics and communications were still fighting the last war. As a result, Germany's combined arms and blitzkrieg tactics routed them, and the government went into exile. Since their entrenched military aristocracy got outfoxed, the soldiers and thus the French people must be cowards.

QED.

The French have never gotten it together; they lost at Quebec, for example, even though they had a fort, and the high ground.

The French reputation has to do not just with the spectacular collapse in 1940, but the haplessness in WWI, and the Franco-Prussian War, and so on. Napoleon was superb; so was Joan of Arc; otherwise French military history is studded with fiascos (two French kings captured on the battlefield, etc.)

the leadership is what hold the french army back.

I'm sorry, why are you using the French Schuztstaffel as an example of French bravery? Seriously? Are you trying to make your argument look poor? Or are you just trolling?

If you really want French bravery, go with the original Charlemagne, or Joan of Arc, or Napoleon's armies, or Charles de Gaulle, not the Schuztstaffel.

The poster is French-American and speaks fluent French. However I cannot resist to poke some fun. Here it goes.

The Complete Military History of France.

- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian. [Or at ths time in history, a Roman -ed.]

- Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.

- Italian Wars
- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

- Wars of Religion
- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

- Thirty Years War
- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

- War of Revolution
- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

- The Dutch War
- Tied

- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

- War of the Spanish Succession
- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

- The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

- The Franco-Prussian War
- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States [Entering the war late -ed.]. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

- World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

- War in Indochina
- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

- War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France collapses?"

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage."

Or, better still, the quote from last week's Wall Street Journal: "They're there when they need you."



With only an hour and a half of research, Jonathan Duczkowski provided the following losses:

Norse invasions, 841-911.
After having their way with the French for 70 years, the Norse are bribed by a French King named Charles the Simple (really!) who gave them Normandy in return for peace. Normans proceed to become just about the only positive military bonus in France's [favour] for next 500 years.

Andrew Ouellette posts this in response:

1066 A.D. William The Conquerer Duke and Ruler of France Launches the Largest Invasion in the history of the world no other was as large until the same trip was taken in reverse on June 6th 1944 William Fights Harold for the Throne of England Which old king Edward rightfully left to William but Harold Usurped the throne Will fights the Saxons (English)wins and the French Rule England for the Next 80 Years. then the French start the largest building and economic infrastructure since the fall of the Roman Empire the Norman Economy skyrockets and the Normans inadvertantly start England to become a major world Power Vive La France-

Matt Davis posts this in response to Andrew Ouellette above:

Oh dear. We seem to have overlooked some basic facts. Firstly, Philip the First (1060 - 1108) was King of France at the time of the Norman invasion of 1066 - William was Duke of Normandy and, incidentally, directly descended from the Vikings. William was, therefore, as alien to France as the experience of victory. Since Philip did not invade England, the victory at Hastings was Norman - not French. Normandy may be a part of France now but it most certainly wasn't in 1066. Therefore, William's coronation as King of England had nothing whatsoever to do with the French. As usual, they were nowhere near the place when the fighting was going on. The mistaken belief that 1066 was a French victory leads to the Third Rule of French Warfare; "When incapable of any victory whatsoever - claim someone else's".

Mexico, 1863-1864.
France attempts to take advantage of Mexico's weakness following its thorough thrashing by the U.S. 20 years earlier ("Halls of Montezuma"). Not surprisingly, the only unit to distinguish itself is the French Foreign Legion (consisting of, by definition, non-Frenchmen). Booted out of the country a little over a year after arrival.

Panama jungles 1881-1890.
No one but nature to fight, France still loses; canal is eventually built by the U.S. 1904-1914.

Napoleonic Wars.
Should be noted that the Grand Armee was largely (~%50) composed of non-Frenchmen after 1804 or so. Mainly disgruntled minorities and anti-monarchists. Not surprisingly, these performed better than the French on many occasions.

Haiti, 1791-1804.
French defeated by rebellion after sacrificing 4,000 Poles to yellow fever. Shows another rule of French warfare; when in doubt, send an ally.

India, 1673-1813.
British were far more charming than French, ended up victors. Therefore the British are well known for their tea, and the French for their whine (er, wine...). Ensures 200 years of bad teeth in England.

Barbary Wars, middle ages-1830.
Pirates in North Africa continually harass European shipping in Meditteranean. France's solution: pay them to leave us alone. America's solution: kick their asses ("the Shores of Tripoli"). [America's] first overseas victories, won 1801-1815.

1798-1801, Quasi-War with U.S.
French privateers (semi-legal pirates) attack U.S. shipping. U.S. fights France at sea for 3 years; French eventually cave; sets precedent for next 200 years of Franco-American relations.

Moors in Spain, late 700s-early 800s.
Even with Charlemagne leading them against an enemy living in a hostile land, French are unable to make much progress. Hide behind Pyrennes until the modern day.

French-on-French losses (probably should be counted as victories too, just to be fair):

1208: Albigenses Crusade, French massacared by French.
When asked how to differentiate a heretic from the faithful, response was "Kill them all. God will know His own." Lesson: French are badasses when fighting unarmed men, women and children.

St. Bartholomew Day Massacre, August 24, 1572.
Once again, French-on-French slaughter.

Third Crusade.
Philip Augustus of France throws hissy-fit, leaves Crusade for Richard the Lion Heart to finish.

Seventh Crusade.
St. Louis of France leads Crusade to Egypt. Resoundingly crushed.

[Eighth] Crusade.
St. Louis back in action, this time in Tunis. See Seventh Crusade.

Also should be noted that France attempted to hide behind the Maginot line, sticking their head in the sand and pretending that the Germans would enter France that way. By doing so, the Germans would have been breaking with their traditional route of invading France, entering through Belgium (Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, World War I, etc.). French ignored this though, and put all their effort into these defenses.

Thomas Whiteley has submitted this addition to me:

Seven year War 1756-1763
Lost: after getting hammered by Frederick the Great of Prussia (yep, the Germans again) at Rossbach, the French were held off for the remainder of the War by Frederick of Brunswick and a hodge-podge army including some Brits. War also saw France kicked out of Canada (Wolfe at Quebec) and India (Clive at Plassey).

Richard Mann, an American in France wants to add the following:

The French consider the departure of the French from Algeria in 1962-63, after 130 years on colonialism, as a French victory and especially consider C. de Gaulle as a hero for 'leading' said victory over the unwilling French public who were very much against the departure. This ended their colonialism. About 2 million ungrateful Algerians lost their lives in this shoddy affair.

Why does Paris have tree-lined streets?

Because the Germans like to march in the shade.

For the same reasons Americans are stereotyped as stupid and fat, Irish and Scotish as drunk brawlers, etc.


Stereotypes are convenient. And fun.

And true.
>.>
<.<

The poster is French-American and speaks fluent French. However I cannot resist to poke some fun. Here it goes.

The Complete Military History of France.

- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian. [Or at ths time in history, a Roman -ed.]

- Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.

- Italian Wars
- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

- Wars of Religion
- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

- Thirty Years War
- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

- War of Revolution
- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

- The Dutch War
- Tied

- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

- War of the Spanish Succession
- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

- The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

- The Franco-Prussian War
- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States [Entering the war late -ed.]. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

- World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

- War in Indochina
- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

- War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.



Seen it and love it.

I also want to add my own experience with the French Army. We had French armor guarding our left flank as we drove into Southern Iraq to cut off the retreat of the Iraqi Army in the Gulf War. Our group ran into Republican Guard armor. We were able to wipe them out quick with the help of the French armor repelling two attacks in an attempt to rescue the RG units we were laying waste to. So my hats off to them.

I'm sorry, why are you using the French Schuztstaffel as an example of French bravery? Seriously? Are you trying to make your argument look poor? Or are you just trolling?

I don't know, I'd say they're as valid an example of national bravery as any NKVD unit on the Soviet side. Of course, bravery doesn't equate to nobility or honor, although the Waffen-SS units did have their share of both despite the sheer depravity and brutality exercised by some of its units.

I doubt it's the best example of national bravery regardless...

I doubt it's the best example of national bravery regardless...

A better example of French national bravery I could think of was the last stand of the Imperial Guard at the close of Waterloo. All refused to surrender, and died fighting to the very last man, officer and enlisted.

A better example of French national bravery I could think of was the last stand of the Imperial Guard at the close of Waterloo. All refused to surrender, and died fighting to the very last man, officer and enlisted.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that Waterloo was the first time that the Old Guard was genuinely routed...

*edits*

Oh and they have won wars aplenty, let's be honest. They wouldn't have owned fairly large caribbean, African and polynesian territories without...

I think that given the choice of being remembered for surrendering or joining the SS, most people would prefer to say they surrendered.

I think that given the choice of being remembered for surrendering or joining the SS, most people would prefer to say they surrendered.

I think it depends on the country. Over on the Eastern front, joining the SS or the Heer as a general infantry volunteer was a way to exact revenge on the Soviet Union. Of course, when the war turned against them all of the sudden they were loyal Bolsheviks...

It's part of the "America, FUCK YEAH!!" mentality. They always have to paint the French as incompetent cowards because it makes themselves feel good.

I think it depends on the country. Over on the Eastern front, joining the SS or the Heer as a general infantry volunteer was a way to exact revenge on the Soviet Union. Of course, when the war turned against them all of the sudden they were loyal Bolsheviks...

If they were in the Wehrmacht its not quite as bad. The SS is inexcusable.

I think it depends on the country. Over on the Eastern front, joining the SS or the Heer as a general infantry volunteer was a way to exact revenge on the Soviet Union. Of course, when the war turned against them all of the sudden they were loyal Bolsheviks...
That would probably be because being a fan of exacting brutality is politically neutral.

On the other hand 'they' were nothing like loyal Bolsheviks. The East Germans left in droves until 1961, especially after the crackdown by Russian troops in 1954 (IIRC) towards construction workers protesting against what were basically wage cuts in East Berlin.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Waterloo was the first time that the Old Guard was genuinely routed...

Accounts differ, I'm sure.


As for the French army's eventual collapse in 1940, I put it down to their senior officer's trying to fight a war that had ended in 1918. Specifically the lack of thought put into the integration of armour and infantry units. French tanks where never in a position to engage their German counterparts in fair engagements, almost always outnumbered, as French armour was so thinly spread out amongst infantry to act as support guns.

Accounts differ, I'm sure.
Aye. See also numbers of troops and indeed casualties at Agincourt, amongst other things.
As for the French army's eventual collapse in 1940, I put it down to their senior officer's trying to fight a war that had ended in 1918. Specifically the lack of thought put into the integration of armour and infantry units. French tanks where never in a position to engage their German counterparts in fair engagements, almost always outnumbered, as French armour was so thinly spread out amongst infantry to act as support guns.
I'd also say that the French probably lost a massive amount of morale when Hitler's generals, in what can only be described as a stroke of genius, remembered the existence of Belgium and hence skipped the Maginot Line, wasting tens of millions of Francs of spending on military hardware.

Individual French soldiers performed acts of great bravery in a most desperate situation during the Second World War, and French resistance fighters were effective in hindering the Nazis and facilitating the Allied liberation of their country...a liberating army that had Frenchmen in it.

Their highest levels of leadership, political and military, was ghastly. It was cowardly and corrupt, shortsighted and nearsighted. Not that this was entirely an Anglo-Saxon viewpoint though, DeGaulle had more than his fair share of nasty things to say about folks like Petain and Darlan. Beyond that, Darlan was an ass, but that's a whole 'nuther story.

Aye. See also numbers of troops and indeed casualties at Agincourt, amongst other things.

Indeed.

I'd also say that the French probably lost a massive amount of morale when Hitler's generals, in what can only be described as a stroke of genius, remembered the existence of Belgium and hence skipped the Maginot Line, wasting tens of millions of Francs of spending on military hardware.


Well there was actually a good reason for the Maginot line not being extended to cover the northern-most border. There was great diplomatic pressure on the French by the Belgians and British not to allow the Maginot Line to extend across the Belgian frontier, as this would effectively "close" the border between France and Belgium. The Belgians, if invaded, would basically be at the mercy of the German Heer, as the French would be hesitant to move from an entrenched line to support the Belgians. It was argued that the morale of the Belgians would suffer tremendously at the idea that their ally could "close and bar the door".

In the event of Germany and France declaring war on one another, Belgian policy was to remain neutral.

This was an incorrect decision, with hindsight.

The French got conquered by the Germans in 17 days in WW II.... 'nuff said.

Accounts differ, I'm sure.


As for the French army's eventual collapse in 1940, I put it down to their senior officer's trying to fight a war that had ended in 1918. Specifically the lack of thought put into the integration of armour and infantry units. French tanks where never in a position to engage their German counterparts in fair engagements, almost always outnumbered, as French armour was so thinly spread out amongst infantry to act as support guns.

Don't forget that the Brits, the fine folks who created the tank, had placed virtually none of their armor in France, 2 1/2 Brigades, if I recall.

Don't forget that the Brits, the fine folks who created the tank, had placed virtually none of their armor in France, 2 1/2 Brigades, if I recall.
Not entirely surprising.

Not to mention no one seriously expected to be able to move an armored vanguard through the Ardennes with any reasonable tempo.

It's part of the "America, FUCK YEAH!!" mentality. They always have to paint the French as incompetent cowards because it makes themselves feel good.

Ah, actually it's a hobby of Anglo-Saxon peoples everywhere. It's one of our many peculiarities, like bat-and-ball sports.

The French got conquered by the Germans in 17 days in WW II.... 'nuff said.

Ah! Excellent! A typical American response.

Maybe in response, I should give an equally stupid European jibe about Americans arriving late for the first party, who's only role was to look pretty in their uniforms as the Armistice was signed...

However, then I realise that the vast force of inexperienced, but brave Americans shed plenty of thier own blood on the fields of battle during the Pershing offensive of 1918, where a green army had to become veterans within weeks, and ably assisted British and French armies to crush the last of Germany's defensive lines, and force the end of the war.

I'd suggest you swallow your pride, and at least admit whilst French leadership was hardly adequate, that the French soldiers, and citizens fought bravely overseas and in their occupied lands throughout the course of the war.

If they were in the Wehrmacht its not quite as bad. The SS is inexcusable.

I think it depends, though. There's no doubt the a sizable portion of the Waffen-SS were definitely involved in war crimes, and the Allgemeine-SS was of course the group responsible for carrying out the Holocaust. However, especially on the Eastern Front the motivations, structure, and activities of Waffen-SS units were considerably different.

It's not necessarily a cut-and-dry issue on the Eastern front compared to the West, where underlying sympathies for fascism and the racist rhetoric of the Nazi Party were far stronger motivators. The "struggle against communism" side of the argument is far stronger on the Eastern front, and I think this shows in the character and activities of Waffen-SS units.

Ah! Excellent! A typical American response.

Maybe in response, I should give an equally stupid European jibe about Americans arriving late for the party, who's only role is to look pretty in their uniforms as the Armistice was signed...

However, then I realise that the vast force of inexperienced, but brave Americans shed plenty of thier own blood on the fields of battle during the Pershing offensive, where a green army had to become veterans within weeks, and ably assisted British and French armies to crush the last of Germany's defensive lines, and force the end of the war.

I'd suggest you swallow your pride, and at least admit whilst French leadership was hardly adequate, that the French soldiers, and citizens fought bravely overseas and in their occupied lands throughout the course of the war.

Eh I dunno, I'll tell you the same story my grandpa on my dad side told me. He was a WW II veteran and help to free the French.

His unit was going through France, and he got picked to scout out ahead. They came upon a French village, which was flying German flags. So he went back, and told his unit it was all clear. As his unit marched through the same village, they were all waving American flags and cheering. After the unit moved through the village, my grandpa went back and they put the German flags back up.

The French are there when they need you.

That would probably be because being a fan of exacting brutality is politically neutral.

On the other hand 'they' were nothing like loyal Bolsheviks. The East Germans left in droves until 1961, especially after the crackdown by Russian troops in 1954 (IIRC) towards construction workers protesting against what were basically wage cuts in East Berlin.

1953. ;)

By and large, the Eastern Europeans were scared, probably even moreso than they had been when the Germans invaded back in 1939-1941. Once the Red Army began pushing back the Germans in 1943-1944, they had to basically switch sides to protect their homes and families from Soviet retaliation.

I guess it was a matter of the lesser of two evils; by and large, German occupation was less repressive than Soviet rule (although we're still talking horrendously brutal by democratic standards) and their dismantling of the massively unpopular communist system, especially in Ukraine and Belarus where resistance against the Soviet regime lasted well in to the 1950's with the last proven resistance fighter captured in the early 1970's.

I think we can conclusively say it was a tragedy for millions of people that they fell between those two brutal regimes.

Ah, actually it's a hobby of Anglo-Saxon peoples everywhere. It's one of our many peculiarities, like bat-and-ball sports.

I don't know, the French had that same kind of patriotic swagger back in the day. Whether or not they do now, I don't know.

Eh I dunno, I'll tell you the same story my grandpa on my dad side told me. He was a WW II veteran and help to free the French.

His unit was going through France, and he got picked to scout out ahead. They came upon a French village, which was flying German flags. So he went back, and told his unit it was all clear. As his unit marched through the same village, they were all waving American flags and cheering. After the unit moved through the village, my grandpa went back and they put the German flags back up.

The French are there when they need you.

The apparent lack of backbone of a single French town doesn't seem like justification to label the entire French people as cowards.

You also have to think of thier pragmatism. There were probably still German Heer remnant units, and, even worse, fanatical SS units roaming France at the time. They obviously managed to survive the war by deceiving their German conquerers, and weren't going to die because of carelessness.

If your Grandfathers account is from around the times of the D-Day landings, then I could quite believe such actions. The Allied invasion was hardly a guarantee of liberation at the time.

You also have to think of thier pragmatism. There were probably still German Heer remnant units, and, even worse, fanatical SS units roaming France at the time. They obviously managed to survive the war by deceiving their German conquerers, and weren't going to die because of carelessness.

Well, take a look at Prague. The Germans still managed to put down their rebellion in May of 1945, killing thousands of civilians, German and Czech, and resistance fighters alike. All of this when the Red Army and the Allies were only a few days away on both sides. I think a lot of people forget how much territory was still under German control in 1945 and how much remaining capacity for inflicting damage on civilian and military targets they still had.

Eh I dunno, I'll tell you the same story my grandpa on my dad side told me. He was a WW II veteran and help to free the French.

His unit was going through France, and he got picked to scout out ahead. They came upon a French village, which was flying German flags. So he went back, and told his unit it was all clear. As his unit marched through the same village, they were all waving American flags and cheering. After the unit moved through the village, my grandpa went back and they put the German flags back up.

The French are there when they need you.

I'm just curious - where did they get the flags?

Eh I dunno, I'll tell you the same story my grandpa on my dad side told me. He was a WW II veteran and help to free the French.

His unit was going through France, and he got picked to scout out ahead. They came upon a French village, which was flying German flags. So he went back, and told his unit it was all clear. As his unit marched through the same village, they were all waving American flags and cheering. After the unit moved through the village, my grandpa went back and they put the German flags back up.

The French are there when they need you.

I'm also willing to bet that even the most hardened resistance fighter would do the same thing. They had after all survived through 5 years of occupation, you do that by paying lip service whilst your invaders are looking then stabbing them in the back (or more accurately blowing them up) when their backs were turned. If a German unit at the time had come across the village flying US flags chances are they would have taken it out on the villagers, the men, women and above all children. Would you put your family at risk like that for the sake of flying a flag, as opposed to staying alive until you could do some real damage to the enemy?

I'm not sure the French are cowards, they're just incompetent.

'Allo, 'allo! taught me everything I need to know.

They make nice cheese, and the wine is good though.

It The French army at the beginning of WWII was larger than the German Army, and its armored forces, at least at a casual glance, looked larger and better than Germany's.

However, their tactics and communications were still fighting the last war. As a result, Germany's combined arms and blitzkrieg tactics routed them, and the government went into exile. Since their entrenched military aristocracy got outfoxed, the soldiers and thus the French people must be cowards.

Don't forget the one material area that Gerrmany was far superior in: Fighter aircraft (mainly because modern French/U.K designs had only built 100 or so of them when France was invaded). This allowed them to use equal or inferior bomber numbers in large quantities (not to mention wiping out the french airforce). If France and U.K started their fighter programmes a year or two earlier then they may have had a chance in the air war.

err, Battle of Britain?

That wasn't the invasion of France. Germany's problem with BoB was the lack of consistent targetting of radar towers/airfields and the lack of any proper escort fighters.

The French change sides more than a pancake at IHOPFrom allied to German and back to allied; I suppose IHOP does only flip their pancakes once, to bake it at both sides. Yet it sounds like an exaggeration.

Being the only army to have lost a battle against mexican troops (may 5 1862) automatically grants you the undisputed tittle as the second worst armed forces in the world.

Being the only army to have lost a battle against mexican troops (may 5 1862) automatically grants you the undisputed tittle as the second worst armed forces in the world.The US lost a few battles in the Mexican-American war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_the_Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

Yeah, the US army lost several battles to the mexicans. I guess that will change Santiago's posture in a matter of seconds.

For the french, I take my hat off for them because of the Bettle of Rocroi. They changed the way wars were fought back then, and defeated the best, never defeated before army of the era.

Being the only army to have lost a battle against mexican troops (may 5 1862) automatically grants you the undisputed tittle as the second worst armed forces in the world.

Note that it is possible to lose a battle against Mexicans in a truly epic way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Camar%C3%B3n).

The one thing that I have noted in many of the books about WW2 that I have read is the attitudes of the many different nations peoples, when it came time to clean up their destroyed cities or they had been liberated. The french seemed to believe that the destruction was not their fault or their problem so they didnt rebuild quickly. The germans on the other hand immediatly started cleaning up the moment a fight was over. That has really stuck with me. Not so much that they were cowards, though the the one thing that does bother me about the War is that the reason that the germans were so easily able to capture paris is because the leadership in franch did not want the city damaged so the surrendered it.

The US lost a few battles in the Mexican-American war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_the_Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

OK. So the Us also lost battles against mexico's army... maybe because it was the only war where they had to fight in home territory and could´nt arrive late to the war... still does'nt changes my opinion that mexican army is the worst in the world.

http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/mexican-army-high-desertion-rate-good.html

The only difference is mexico has'nt been involved in many important wars like french.

OK. So the Us also lost battles against mexico's army... maybe because it was the only war where they had to fight in home territory and could´nt arrive late to the war... still does'nt changes my opinion that mexican army is the worst in the world.

http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/mexican-army-high-desertion-rate-good.html

The only difference is mexico has'nt been involved in many important wars like french.

Watch those goalposts shift...

Watch those goalposts shift...

...As expected.

It is also keeping the goalposts the same, and just moving the field in other ways.

I'd suggest you swallow your pride, and at least admit whilst French leadership was hardly adequate, that the French soldiers, and citizens fought bravely overseas and in their occupied lands throughout the course of the war.
French leadership was adequate. That's why the Americans submitted to it.

Eh I dunno, I'll tell you the same story my grandpa on my dad side told me. He was a WW II veteran and help to free the French.

His unit was going through France, and he got picked to scout out ahead. They came upon a French village, which was flying German flags. So he went back, and told his unit it was all clear. As his unit marched through the same village, they were all waving American flags and cheering. After the unit moved through the village, my grandpa went back and they put the German flags back up.

The French are there when they need you.That civilians are known for wanting to not die in battle should come as no surprise. Coupled with the Allied tendency to bury any resisting town in artillery and the German tendency to exact painful retribution on any town that didn't offer resistance, perhaps those particular French can be forgiven for their conduct. Considering that I know that the German civilians behaved similarly and I don't doubt the other European civilians cared more about not getting killed than which army was marching through.

That civilians are known for wanting to not die in battle should come as no surprise. Coupled with the Allied tendency to bury any resisting town in artillery and the German tendency to exact painful retribution on any town that didn't offer resistance, perhaps those particular French can be forgiven for their conduct. Considering that I know that the German civilians behaved similarly and I don't doubt the other European civilians cared more about not getting killed than which army was marching through.

American civilians would act the exact same way in the invent of any sort of invasion of the United States. I know most Americans would refuse to believe so, but it's true.

Oh, we'd have partisans, and they'd definitely be well armed, but the vast majority of our citizenry would just want to continue living, just like anyone else.

Watch those goalposts shift...

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/curseyouvillainsu5.jpg (http://www.roflcat.com)

OK. So the Us also lost battles against mexico's army... maybe because it was the only war where they had to fight in home territory and could´nt arrive late to the war... still does'nt changes my opinion that mexican army is the worst in the world.

Not that they are very popular, but in Iraq Wars I and II America didn't exactly arrive late. And I think it's fair to say they rather crushed their opposition both times (even if they ruined the occupation efforts the second time).

My theory on why large chunks of English speaking peoples find the French armies to be a joke is because their society has long been considered rather effeminate. I don't think it IS effeminate, however, that's another large stereotype. I had thought this was purely an American thing, until an Englishman I met made the same kind of jokes.

The fact that France was crushed by Nazi Germany, and quickly, doesn't help, even if it doesn't really mean anything as related to cowardice. There is also the point that France DID surrender to Germany in WWII. While I don't necessarily blame them, that's probably another piece of it.

French leadership was adequate. That's why the Americans submitted to it.

I was talking about French leadership circa 1939-40.

American civilians would act the exact same way in the invent of any sort of invasion of the United States. I know most Americans would refuse to believe so, but it's true.

Oh, we'd have partisans, and they'd definitely be well armed, but the vast majority of our citizenry would just want to continue living, just like anyone else.

I wonder how many Kentuckians and West Virginians did that sort of thing during the Civil War?

Cybach writes of a French unit of which I am unfamiliar fighting for fascism on the Russian Front. These men were crazy. They joined the cause of their invaders. They were stupid fascists that thought deporting Jews to the "east" was a good idea. I have no time for them. They may well have been courageous but they're dead now after having fought for a totally dead ideology dreamed up by a madman.
The pro-Vichy French defenders of Syria put up a brave fight against the British forces in WWII as well. Tragically, they seemed to have put up a better fight against them than they did against the German army that invaded France.
I think that France was hopelessly divided ideologically in WWII. This is France's shameful little secret. I friend told me a joke:
"The French were so worried that they went to the next alert - from RUN! to HIDE!
There are only two levels higher than that - SURRENDER! and COLLABORATE!"
But seriously, bad politics happens to many countries. Maybe the French are better at making love than making war. In which case: VIVE LA FRANCE!

... still does'nt changes my opinion that mexican army is the worst in the world.
Surely that honor has to go to the Pakistani army, which has never won anything, ever.

Cybach writes of a French unit of which I am unfamiliar fighting for fascism on the Russian Front. These men were crazy. They joined the cause of their invaders. They were stupid fascists that thought deporting Jews to the "east" was a good idea.

Frankly, though, the logic behind the Holocaust baffles me. The Jewish people in Germany, let alone the other victims of Nazi hate, were hard-working, well-educated and fiercely loyal to the country and would have served admirably in its armed forces and military research facilities and yet those dumb bastards decided to murder them for no other reason than their beliefs.

The sheer levels of evil, stupidity, and arrogance in the Nazi regime is just plain sad. Had they never even thought of it and treated their Jewish and ethinc minorities with the respect they deserved, I'd say they would have won the war. Imagine the kind of weaponry the Germans could have developed had they retained their best scientists rather than driven them out in a tirade of hatred and violence. Hell, there probably wouldn't even have been a war if it weren't for Hitler's arrogance and the failure of the Wehrmacht to successfully drive him and his crew out of power.

I guess it's a pretty obvious lesson, though: prevent fascism in all its forms or risk untold evil and destruction.

If the French hadn't won the First Battle of the Marne early in WW1 Germany probably would have won that war.

I never doubted the Bravery of the French.

after all, they were the ones who found that snails are edible. :p

[QUOTE=Marrakech II;13995618]
- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
QUOTE]

This was the best one there. :)

EDIT: stupid non-ability to quote properly!

- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.


This was the best one there. :)

EDIT: stupid non-ability to quote properly!

you need a "[/" before the final quote]

If the French hadn't won the First Battle of the Marne early in WW1 Germany probably would have won that war.

Judging by what came of their defeat, that would've probably been a very good thing.

The US lost a few battles in the Mexican-American war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_the_Mexican%E2%80%93American_War
Yeah, the French Foreign Legion are made of men. :)

Judging by what came of their defeat, that would've probably been a very good thing.

Interesting.

What would imperial Germany have done with France if they had captured Paris in 1914?

What if the Nazi Party hadn't been able to fan the flames of resentment following Germany's defeat?

What if the Russian revolution hadn't happened?

What if the Austro-Hungarian Empire hadn't fallen?

What if the Ottoman Empire hadn't fallen?

What if the British economy hadn't been bankrupted?

What if the USA had remained isolationist?

What if the Paris Peace Conference hadn't taken place?

All imponderable.

Ah! Excellent! A typical American response.

Maybe in response, I should give an equally stupid European jibe about Americans arriving late for the first party, who's only role was to look pretty in their uniforms as the Armistice was signed...

However, then I realise that the vast force of inexperienced, but brave Americans shed plenty of thier own blood on the fields of battle during the Pershing offensive of 1918, where a green army had to become veterans within weeks, and ably assisted British and French armies to crush the last of Germany's defensive lines, and force the end of the war.

I'd suggest you swallow your pride, and at least admit whilst French leadership was hardly adequate, that the French soldiers, and citizens fought bravely overseas and in their occupied lands throughout the course of the war.

UN Protectorates, the United States did arrive far too late to World War I in my opinion; IMHO, the United States should have declared war on Germany on May 8 1915, the day after the Lusitania was torpedoed, resulting in the death of 123 Americans.

Instead, President Wilson, following Democrat Party script, decided against doing what was necessary. Indeed, it is probably just as true about the French not winning any wars that Democrat Administrations are usually cowardly and allow problems to get much worse (World War I, World War II, Cold War, et cetera).

...However, then I realise that the vast force of inexperienced, but brave Americans shed plenty of thier own blood on the fields of battle during the Pershing offensive of 1918, where a green army had to become veterans within weeks, and ably assisted British and French armies to crush the last of Germany's defensive lines, and force the end of the war...

I think you may be overstating the battlefield influence of the Americans in WW1. More important than that, I think, was the psychological influence.

Following the armistice with the Russians, the Germans were in the position of being able to move all their divisions to the western front, allowing them to overwhelm the French and British forces there. The arrival of the Americans had a negative impact on the German morale and a corresponding positive effect on allied morale. Once the Americans arrived the Germans knew they couldn't win. The collapse of their army followed shortly thereafter.

I think you may be overstating the battlefield influence of the Americans in WW1. More important than that, I think, was the psychological influence.
.

Absolutely a combination of the two. The latter probably being the most important as you say. The arrival of American Dough Boys gave the French and British armies new life. They fought harder and better because they knew the end was near. It just proves the psychological influence in war.

Absolutely a combination of the two. The latter probably being the most important as you say. The arrival of American Dough Boys gave the French and British armies new life. They fought harder and better because they knew the end was near. It just proves the psychological influence in war.
Also the fact that the Germans were abso fucking scunnered due to eating nothing much but turnips in the winter of 1917-18 can't have helped. But aye, cheers etc.

Also the fact that the Germans were abso fucking scunnered due to eating nothing much but turnips in the winter of 1917-18 can't have helped. But aye, cheers etc.


Aye, yet another factor.

Why is the general consensus that the French people are incompetent at war or that they are not able warriors?

Because they are!

lolololol

*runs off before he can be completely proven wrong*

Also the fact that the Germans were abso fucking scunnered due to eating nothing much but turnips in the winter of 1917-18 can't have helped. But aye, cheers etc.

Both sides were pretty worn down, though. Had the US not arrived with huge amounts of war material and fresh soldiers, the Germans would have probably been able to achieve a favorable or at worst neutral peace, considering they were no longer fighting a two-front war by 1917 and the sizable forces on the Eastern front were freed up for service in the West.

But then again, who knows? I think the US was critical, though, in providing the sheer economic and manpower reinforcements needed to overcome the Central Powers.

Both sides were pretty worn down, though. Had the US not arrived with huge amounts of war material and fresh soldiers, the Germans would have probably been able to achieve a favorable or at worst neutral peace, considering they were no longer fighting a two-front war by 1917 and the sizable forces on the Eastern front were freed up for service in the West.

But then again, who knows? I think the US was critical, though, in providing the sheer economic and manpower reinforcements needed to overcome the Central Powers.

Indeed. It just goes to show what happens when you take a country that bestrides a continent, give it isolation from the rest of the world by two oceans, and give it the industrial capability of all of Europe combined and put it on one side of a war.

Really, no one has any hope of defeating the United States in a war, unless the U.S. falls so completely apart that its military is broken down and its Navy can no longer act.

Anyway, I'm not so sure that a Germany victory would've been ideal in World War One. After all, the Ottomans were already committing genocide against the Armenians; who knows where they would've gone next, had they been able to somehow stay intact.

I think you may be overstating the battlefield influence of the Americans in WW1. More important than that, I think, was the psychological influence.

Following the armistice with the Russians, the Germans were in the position of being able to move all their divisions to the western front, allowing them to overwhelm the French and British forces there. The arrival of the Americans had a negative impact on the German morale and a corresponding positive effect on allied morale. Once the Americans arrived the Germans knew they couldn't win. The collapse of their army followed shortly thereafter.

More to the point they went for an all-or-nothing offensive to try and win before significant numbers of Americans. The allies already had the upper hand by the times the Americans were arriving, the question of how much longer the war would've lasted and whether when and on what terms peace would've been offered is very much guesswork, the French in particular don't seem likely to have been in the mood for peace.

Both sides were pretty worn down, though. Had the US not arrived with huge amounts of war material and fresh soldiers, the Germans would have probably been able to achieve a favorable or at worst neutral peace, considering they were no longer fighting a two-front war by 1917 and the sizable forces on the Eastern front were freed up for service in the West.
If the US hadn't joined the war, the German high command wouldn't have launched the offensive in early 1918, they would have waited. With more supplies, ammunition, vehicles and planning they would have been able to sustain the push forward for longer, and maybe taken Paris afterall, which would probably have ended the war.

And that would also have been the worst result possible, because by 1918 Germany had morphed into something quite nasty. The military was in charge, and the men in charge of the military was Ludendorff, who was basically some sort of proto-Hitler.

You've actually answered your own question--the SS is not a French organization, nor is Berlin the French capital. The French change sides more than a pancake at IHOP, and the actual examples you should be using are of the Free French divisions who fought in Paris and other theaters--not Nazi sympathizers.

Or the French Resistance, the Normandie-Niemen franco-polish squadron, or even the french Paratroopers in the Battle of Algiers (quite merciless), or the french colonial troops in Indochina/Vietnam.

With more supplies, ammunition, vehicles and planning they would have been able to sustain the push forward for longer, and maybe taken Paris afterall, which would probably have ended the war.


I don't know: the german society was in a sort of turmoil by 1918, and the german military also had to help Austria-Hungary with the italian front. Plus, the Central Empires were lacking import routes, while France, Britain and Italy could exploit their colonies (and also the Belgian ones). Situation was grim anyway for Germany in 1918.

I think you may be overstating the battlefield influence of the Americans in WW1. More important than that, I think, was the psychological influence.

Following the armistice with the Russians, the Germans were in the position of being able to move all their divisions to the western front, allowing them to overwhelm the French and British forces there. The arrival of the Americans had a negative impact on the German morale and a corresponding positive effect on allied morale. Once the Americans arrived the Germans knew they couldn't win. The collapse of their army followed shortly thereafter.

Whilst the psychological impact was very important, the Pershing Offensive was a major operation which was quite crucial in bringing about the end of the war. You should read up about it, it's certainly not something that's discussed in most circles. It changed my view of the American intervention.

Whilst the psychological impact was very important, the Pershing Offensive was a major operation which was quite crucial in bringing about the end of the war. You should read up about it, it's certainly not something that's discussed in most circles. It changed my view of the American intervention.

That could be tricky, since you're apparently the only person who calls it that.

Not that they are very popular, but in Iraq Wars I and II America didn't exactly arrive late. And I think it's fair to say they rather crushed their opposition both times (even if they ruined the occupation efforts the second time).Because the Gulf and Iraq Wars are comparable to World War 2...
The fact that France was crushed by Nazi Germany, and quickly, doesn't help, even if it doesn't really mean anything as related to cowardice. There is also the point that France DID surrender to Germany in WWII. While I don't necessarily blame them, that's probably another piece of it.France lost less territory to the Nazis than the Soviets did, the Soviets had the luck of having more land that the Germans had to cross, which made all the difference. Keil und Kessel didn't work when the Soviets could always retreat a bit further.
Frankly, though, the logic behind the Holocaust baffles me. The Jewish people in Germany, let alone the other victims of Nazi hate, were hard-working, well-educated and fiercely loyal to the country and would have served admirably in its armed forces and military research facilities and yet those dumb bastards decided to murder them for no other reason than their beliefs. That's not entirely true. Jews were just like any other bunch of people: There were poor, lazy, rich, and hard-working jews. And they didn't really get singled out for their beliefs, they were singled out for ethnicity.
UN Protectorates, the United States did arrive far too late to World War I in my opinion; IMHO, the United States should have declared war on Germany on May 8 1915, the day after the Lusitania was torpedoed, resulting in the death of 123 Americans.I hope I never catch you bitching about how terrorists use human shields, because the Lusitania was a legitimate target as a weapons carrier.
Instead, President Wilson, following Democrat Party script, decided against doing what was necessary. Indeed, it is probably just as true about the French not winning any wars that Democrat Administrations are usually cowardly and allow problems to get much worse (World War I, World War II, Cold War, et cetera).Wilson didn't have the power to declare war, Congress did, and Congress was damn isolationist at the time, just like the rest of America. It's hardly the Democrats fault that the US didn't join WWI, the blame lies squarely at the feet of the American people.
Aye, yet another factor.The decisive one. Compare Germany's 20 something tanks to the rows of Mark IVs that the British managed to muster. Aye, the Allies would have beaten the Germans, but the Germans beat them to it with the November Revolution, sparked by the decision to send the High Seas Fleet to a last stand against the Royal Navy and the desolate situation of supply of the general populace.
Both sides were pretty worn down, though. Had the US not arrived with huge amounts of war material and fresh soldiers, the Germans would have probably been able to achieve a favorable or at worst neutral peace, considering they were no longer fighting a two-front war by 1917 and the sizable forces on the Eastern front were freed up for service in the West. Germany was quite a bit more worn down than the Allies, considering the Allies could buy material and resources from other countries.

Whilst the psychological impact was very important, the Pershing Offensive was a major operation which was quite crucial in bringing about the end of the war. You should read up about it, it's certainly not something that's discussed in most circles. It changed my view of the American intervention.

While the arrival of the Americans was, imo, the determining factor on the western front, I would argue that the battlefield role of the Americans there was not as significant as that of the Canadians under Arthur Currie or the Australians under John Monash.

On the day that Ludendorff described as "the black day of the German Army" (8 Aug) the Americans were hardly involved.

Getting back to the OP, the French courage and resistance throughout WW1 was extraordinary. As I posted earlier, if the French hadn't won the Battle of Marne in 1914, Paris and France would probably have been overrun. The Battle of Verdun is a testament to the French soldiers' courage and endurance.

It seems to me that throughout WW1 the most aggressive generals in any army were the French. Of course, that often came at high cost.

Frankly, though, the logic behind the Holocaust baffles me. The Jewish people in Germany, let alone the other victims of Nazi hate, were hard-working, well-educated and fiercely loyal to the country and would have served admirably in its armed forces and military research facilities and yet those dumb bastards decided to murder them for no other reason than their beliefs.
The amusing thing is that during WW1 U.K made the mistake of thinking that the German Ashkenazi (central european jews) were all religious nuts who would jump at the chance to establish a jewish state and would readily betray the country they lived in.

If they were in the Wehrmacht its not quite as bad. The SS is inexcusable.

Ehm. One could only join the Heer or Wehrmacht when was a citizen of the Reich or living within the borders of the Reich. Vichy France was a sovereign nation insofar as it was a friendly government towards Berlin, but autonomous nontheless (although the autonomy would probably have been revoked had they danced too far out of line).

Hence for many young men in France at the time, the only chance to fight was to join the SS. Why they fought? France officially surrendered in 1940, a fact not even the Allieds tried denying since it's flat out written on paper. Where it gets murky. Who was the official government of France? The renegades who fled their country with their dick between their legs off to Britain, or those who stayed behind and didn't leave their people at the complete mercy of the invaders? For many Frenchman the "Free French" government in London was nothing more then a group of renegades. Afterall the leader of Vichy France, Petain, was one of France's biggest war heros in WW1 and much lauded by the people in general. One of the reasons the Nazis appointed him the leader of France after France's surrender. Whereas most of the Free French officials had little in terms of reputation or previous conduct.

For many young Frenchmen, in their late teens or early twenties they simply faced the realities of their situation. They saw the Vichy government as the official government of France, and since the Vichy government promoted supporting the Germans in their fight against Bolshevism in the East. Many young Frenchmen felt it their patriotic duty to join the fight and take up arms to fight off the Russians in the East.
The matter is further complicated that even before WW2, the French government along with most other Western governments were very strong in anti-communist rhetoric. So the prospect of joining the SS to fight the communist wasn't all that extreme. Since not only did the Nazis roll out the propoganda against communists, also their previous government was quite vocal about them.
Furthermore, many French prisoners of war were given the choice of detention/manual labor or the chance to fight. Many obviously chose to fight.

Also in the end. For a young Frenchman. It seemed like a lose/lose situation. The Free French government in London were seen as US/British puppets. The Vichy were German puppets. A sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't. So many chose the Vichy, since the Vichy were in charge of France.

I don't know: the german society was in a sort of turmoil by 1918, and the german military also had to help Austria-Hungary with the italian front. Plus, the Central Empires were lacking import routes, while France, Britain and Italy could exploit their colonies (and also the Belgian ones). Situation was grim anyway for Germany in 1918.Yeah, both France and Germany were under military dictatorships during the war. In Germany, Hindenburg and Ludendorff made use of their hero status gained by kicking the shit out of the massive Russian armies to usurp the Kaiser's war powers (who was rather incompetent to begin with) and in France, the Generals became trusted after the civilian government abandoned Paris. But the French managed to take their government back, whereas the German civilian government never managed until a socialist revolution did the job for them.

Also in the end. For a young Frenchman. It seemed like a lose/lose situation. The Free French government in London were seen as US/British puppets. The Vichy were German puppets. A sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't. So many chose the Vichy, since the Vichy were in charge of France.
Dear Cybach,
France was like a rape victim and Germany was doing the raping. Those who chose to collaborate with the Nazis were complicit in that rape. Perhaps they saw themselves as French patriots but they were looking at things through as fascist perspective. Their country had been invaded and they were abetting in the rape of France. As for being "Puppets" of Britain and the US, Britain and the US help to liberate French soil in two world wars. "Puppets" is one word for it but I prefer "allies".
In WWII, for me there was only one side that was clearly in the wrong - and that was the axis side. They were into aggression and genocide. And history has judged that the collaborators were traitors.

Also in the end. For a young Frenchman. It seemed like a lose/lose situation. The Free French government in London were seen as US/British puppets. The Vichy were German puppets. A sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't. So many chose the Vichy, since the Vichy were in charge of France.
Dear Cybach,
France was like a rape victim and Germany was doing the raping. Those who chose to collaborate with the Nazis were complicit in that rape. Perhaps they saw themselves as French patriots but they were looking at things through as fascist perspective. Their country had been invaded and they were abetting in the rape of France. As for being "Puppets" of Britain and the US, Britain and the US help to liberate French soil in two world wars. "Puppets" is one word for it but I prefer "allies".
In WWII, for me there was only one side that was clearly in the wrong - and that was the axis side. They were into aggression and genocide. And history has judged that the collaborators were traitors.


That may be the case. But remember the British bombed the French fleet, which was very unally like behavior. The British reasoning was, rather a destroyed French fleet than have the French fleet fall into Axis hands. But then again, getting pearl harbored by your own "ally" and the murder of Frenchman by British "Allies" was not something many Frenchman at the time forgot or chose to ignore. This event, added with proper German propoganda moved many to be disenfranchised with the British.

As well. I hope you remember that technically France declared war on Germany. France also made the first aggressive moves, by sending phalanxes into the Saarland and occupying several German villages there months before the German offensive. Again, I doubt many normal Frenchmen were blind to this fact. They saw it as reap what you sow, France wasn't a poor lamb that was attacked out of the blue. It outright provoked an attack, by pulling the tail of Germany to the point of outright sending French soldiers onto German soil, until it could no longer ignore it's west front. I would say, many Frenchman saw the political realities of this and therefore were more prone to serving in the German armed forces than otherwise.

I'm just curious - where did they get the flags?

I was wondering that myself. The whole story sounds like a World War II version of an urban myth, if you ask me.

I hope I never catch you bitching about how terrorists use human shields, because the Lusitania was a legitimate target as a weapons carrier.

Wilson didn't have the power to declare war, Congress did, and Congress was damn isolationist at the time, just like the rest of America. It's hardly the Democrats fault that the US didn't join WWI, the blame lies squarely at the feet of the American people

The Lusitania was still carrying women and children, and the rules of warfare at the time dictated that the submarine should surface, allow the civilians to get off, and then torpedo the boat. U-20 did none of that, and as a result, 1,201 people died (I know the accepted figure is 1,198, but there were also 3 Germans on board who were locked away). Yes, you can bring up the argument of the Lusitania sending morse messages to the navy, or Captain Turner attempting to ram the boat, but there was still an obligation to give civilians the opportunity to leave the vessel.

While Congress had the power to declare war; it was dominated by, guess who?

The Democrat Party

Thus emphasising my point about the Democrat Party being cowardly throughout the ages. The Secretary of State resigned over the idea that the United States would go to war.

I'm just curious - where did they get the flags?

Maybe hastily made homemade flags or ones provided by the resistance? I figure the Nazis had a fair number of them posted at important sites in the occupied part of France, but other than that who knows.

While Congress had the power to declare war; it was dominated by, guess who?

The Democrat Party

Thus emphasising my point about the Democrat Party being cowardly throughout the ages. The Secretary of State resigned over the idea that the United States would go to war.

It's Democratic, not Democrat, and furthermore, the Democrats HAVE engaged in warfare many times. The escalation of the Vietnam War was solely by the Democrats, for example.

The Lusitania was still carrying women and children, and the rules of warfare at the time dictated that the submarine should surface, allow the civilians to get off, and then torpedo the boat. U-20 did none of that, and as a result, 1,201 people died (I know the accepted figure is 1,198, but there were also 3 Germans on board who were locked away). Yes, you can bring up the argument of the Lusitania sending morse messages to the navy, or Captain Turner attempting to ram the boat, but there was still an obligation to give civilians the opportunity to leave the vessel.
In which case your problem isn't with the case of the Lusitania, but with unrestricted submarine warfare in general. And despite knowing what the rules said at the time, ultimately submarines couldn't be used in traditional cruiser warfare. They didn't have spare crew or space to capture another ship effectively, and given that transports were armed more often than not, a thinly-armoured sub with a little gun on top had little chance of even getting away in one piece.

I think the practical concerns that led to unrestricted sub warfare are pretty unanswerable. Any ethical concerns could probably be covered by saying that the war shouldn't have been fought in the first place.

It's Democratic, not Democrat, and furthermore, the Democrats HAVE engaged in warfare many times. The escalation of the Vietnam War was solely by the Democrats, for example.

I'll grant the Vietnam War, but otherwise, under Democrat Administrations, it has taken a lot of pressure for them to go to war; it took a long time before Wilson got involved in World War I; it took Pearl Harbor before Roosevelt declared war in World War II; it was because of the UN that Truman got involved in Korea. Of course, to make matters worse, they have been very willing to pull out very quickly - just look at Somalia, they entered and pulled out almost as soon as the going started getting tough.

In which case your problem isn't with the case of the Lusitania, but with unrestricted submarine warfare in general. And despite knowing what the rules said at the time, ultimately submarines couldn't be used in traditional cruiser warfare. They didn't have spare crew or space to capture another ship effectively, and given that transports were armed more often than not, a thinly-armoured sub with a little gun on top had little chance of even getting away in one piece.

I think the practical concerns that led to unrestricted sub warfare are pretty unanswerable. Any ethical concerns could probably be covered by saying that the war shouldn't have been fought in the first place.

Neu Leonstein, my problem is with unrestricted submarine warfare in general, although the Lusitania was probably the best example of it at its worst. At the very least, U-20 could have given the civilians on board the Lusitania (a number of whom were neutrals, remember) time to get into the lifeboats, and then torpedoed the vessel. Instead, they fired a torpedo and as a result, 1,201 people died, including the vast majority of the children on board.

Maybe hastily made homemade flags or ones provided by the resistance? I figure the Nazis had a fair number of them posted at important sites in the occupied part of France, but other than that who knows.

http://www.amazon.fr/

It's Democratic, not Democrat

He's doing that quite intentionally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_party

He's doing that quite intentionally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_party

I have always understood the name of the Democratic Party to be the Democrat Party, hence my use of it.

The Lusitania was still carrying women and children, and the rules of warfare at the time dictated that the submarine should surface, allow the civilians to get off, and then torpedo the boat. Rules of war also state that you may not disguise warships as civilian craft, which was exactly what the British did in order to sink German subs, catching them unawares. Ironically enough, that happened a couple days before, prompting the Germans to quit risking their subs and torpedoing ships outright without surfacing. Not to mention that rules of war also make embargos that target the civilian population (such as the British embargo of Germany) as war crimes.
Course, this would only be relevant if you actually support the US military announcing its targets beforehand so women and children can leave.
U-20 did none of that, and as a result, 1,201 people died (I know the accepted figure is 1,198, but there were also 3 Germans on board who were locked away). Yes, you can bring up the argument of the Lusitania sending morse messages to the navy, or Captain Turner attempting to ram the boat, but there was still an obligation to give civilians the opportunity to leave the vessel.I'd say so, but do you hold other civilians' lives as dear?
While Congress had the power to declare war; it was dominated by, guess who?

The Democrat PartyElected by? Oh, the American people. Congress' unwillingness to go to war was a direct result of the American people's unwillingness to go to war. Hilariously enough, some of the most vocal opponents of Wilson's later "warmongering" were Republicans like La Follette Sr., and the Republicans that disapproved of Wilson's peace stance like Roosevelt had split from the GOP and formed the Progressives.
Thus emphasising my point about the Democrat Party being cowardly throughout the ages. The Secretary of State resigned over the idea that the United States would go to war.Over Wilson's lip service to neutrality, more like. Note how unrestricted submarine warfare got condemned and Wilson pressured Germany into giving it up after the Lusitania, but nothing was done about the blockade, despite protests about seizure of American cargo destined for Germany.

I have always understood the name of the Democratic Party to be the Democrat Party, hence my use of it.

Ah, apologies then. 99% of the time when people say "Democrat Party" they have ulterior motives.

Stupid Americans who gloat about their own ignorance and have never heard of the Forces françaises libres or the Forces françaises de l'intérieur, or of France's involvment in any war before 1939, are simply making themselves look foolish.

Wikipedia, incidentally, has a featured and well-sourced article on French military history. For all the dummies out there, here's the summary:


The military history of France encompasses an immense panorama of conflicts and struggles extending for more than 2,000 years across areas including modern France, greater Europe, and European territorial possessions overseas. Because of such lengthy periods of warfare, the peoples of France have often been at the forefront of military development, and as a result, military trends emerging in France have had a decisive impact on European and world history.

Gallo-Roman conflict predominated from 400 BC to 50 BC, with the Romans emerging victorious in the conquest of Gaul by Julius Caesar. After the decline of the Roman Empire, a Germanic tribe known as the Franks took control of Gaul by defeating competing tribes. The "land of Francia," from which France gets its name, had high points of expansion under kings Clovis I and Charlemagne. In the Middle Ages, rivalries with England and the Holy Roman Empire prompted major conflicts such as the Norman Conquest and the Hundred Years' War. With an increasingly centralized monarchy and the first standing army since Roman times, France came out of the Middle Ages as the most powerful nation in Europe, only to lose that status to Spain following defeat in the Italian Wars. The Wars of Religion crippled France in the late sixteenth century, but a major victory over Spain in the Thirty Years' War, with help from Sweden, made France the most powerful nation on the continent once more. The wars of Louis XIV in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries left France territorially larger but bankrupt.

In the eighteenth century, global competition with Great Britain led to the Seven Years' War, where France lost its North American holdings, but consolation came in the form of preeminence in Europe and the American Revolutionary War, where extensive French aid led to America's independence. Internal political upheaval eventually led to 23 years of nearly continuous conflict in the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars. France reached the zenith of its power during this period, dominating the European continent in an unprecedented fashion, but by 1815 it had been restored to its pre-Revolutionary borders. The rest of the nineteenth century witnessed the growth of the French colonial empire and wars with Russia, Austria, and Prussia. Following defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, Franco-German rivalry reasserted itself again in World War I, this time France, with British and to a much lesser extent, American aid, emerging as the winner. Social, political and economic upheaval in the wake of the conflict led to the Second World War, where it was defeated in the Battle of France. The Allies, including Free French Forces, and later France as a liberated and restored nation, eventually emerged victorious over the Germans. As a result, France was given an occupation zone in Germany. The two world wars destroyed Franco-German rivalry and paved the way for European integration, economically, politically, and militarily. Today, French military intervention is most often seen in its former colonies and with its NATO allies.


France has been involved in more wars than any other country, its soldiers continuously demonstrating skill and courage even when their leaders let them down. France expanded its borders and conquered huge chunks first of Europe, then of the world. It remains one of the largest countries in Europe, having successfully defended its borders through the centuries, even in the face of seemingly unsurmountable odds (such as after the Revolution, when the fledgling republic stood alone against hostile monarchies all around it). French soldiers and civilians fought heroically throughout World War Two, both in the Free French Forces and in the Resistance, and were instrumental in the Liberation. I could go on, but xenophobic morons usually can't be persuaded to relinquish prejudice and error in the face of facts.

Even now, French soldiers are dying in Afghanistan. What it occur to xenophobic Americans to honour and praise them? Apparently not.

The United States has not, in recent history, had to face war in the way France has known it. It has not faced hostile neighbours and fighting on its own territory. Its civilians have not faced occupation and privation, the constant threat of being killed or executed by enemy soldiers. US troops have shown courage in the wars that the US has been involved in, but the US has never, in living memory, truly experienced war in the same way as France. French civilians and soldiers did their utmost to fight for France when there was no military command doing so. Thousands died fighting with the FFF, or showing extreme courage within the Resistance. Some Americans (by no means all) sit in their comfortable homes now and ignore this, looking down upon women and men who showed more courage, honour and determination than those moronic bigots could ever hope to understand, let alone emulate.

By the way, here is what H.L. Mencken, an American, was writing about Americans and war back in the first half of the 20th century:


Braggadocio, in the 100% American -"we won the war,' "it is our duty to lead the world", and so on - is probably no more than a protective mechanism erected to conceal an inescapable sense of inferiority.

That this inferiority is real must be obvious to any impartial observer. Whenever the Anglo-Saxon, whether of the English or of the American variety, comes into sharp conflict with men of other stocks, he tends to be worsted, or, at best, to be forced back upon extraneous and irrelevant aids to assist him in the struggle. [...]

What are the characters I discern most clearly in the so-called Anglo-Saxon type of man? I may answer at once that two stick out above all others. One is his curious and apparently incurable incompetence - his congenital inability to do any difficult thing easily and well [...]. The other is his astounding susceptibility to fears and alarms - in short, his hereditary cowardice.

[...] Almost always, indeed, mercenaries have done the Anglo-Saxon's fighting for him - a high testimony to his common sense, but scarcely flattering, I fear, to the truculence he boasts of.

[...] So far as I can make out there is no record in history of any Anglo-Saxon nation entering upon any great war without allies. The French have done it, the Dutch have done it, the Germans have done it, the Japs have done it, [...] the Danes, the Spaniards, the Boers and the Greeks have done it, but never the English or Americans. Can you imagine the United States resolutely facing a war in which the odds against it were as huge as they were against Spain in 1898? The facts of history are wholly against any such fancy. The Anglo-Saxon always tries to take a gang with him when he goes into battle, and even when he has it behind him he is very uneasy, and prone to fall into panic at the first threat of genuine danger. Here I put an unimpeachably Anglo-Saxon witness on the stand, to wit, the late Charles W. Eliot. I find him saying, in an article quoted with approbation by the Congressional Record, that during the Revolutionary War the colonists now hymned so eloquently in the school-books "fell into a condition of despondency from which nothing but the steadfastedness of Washington and the Continental army and the aid from France saved them" [...].

I turn to Dr. Eliot again. "In the closing year of the war," he says, "large portions of the Democratic party in the North and of the Republican party, advocated surrender to the Confederacy, so downhearted were they." Downhearted at odds of three to one![...]

Mencken's italics, not mine. Stereotypical and simplistic? Yes. But no more so than the rubbish spewed by anti-French bigots. Something to think about.

For those who are capable of thinking.

Ah, apologies then. 99% of the time when people say "Democrat Party" they have ulterior motives.

Then there is only a 1% chance that you do not have an ulterior motive!

WHAT IS IT? I DEMAND TO KNOW!

Stupid Americans who gloat about their own ignorance and have never heard of the Forces françaises libres or the Forces françaises de l'intérieur, or of France's involvment in any war before 1939, are simply making themselves look foolish.
.


Why is it that anytime someone French tries to talk good about their country they are forced to go back nearly a century?

Why is it that anytime someone French tries to talk good about their country they are forced to go back nearly a century?What, you expect them to mention Eurodisney instead?
You seem to be forgetting that this is in the context of war. France hasn't fought all that many wars since WWII, and I doubt they want to mention Algeria.

Elected by? Oh, the American people. Congress' unwillingness to go to war was a direct result of the American people's unwillingness to go to war. Hilariously enough, some of the most vocal opponents of Wilson's later "warmongering" were Republicans like La Follette Sr., and the Republicans that disapproved of Wilson's peace stance like Roosevelt had split from the GOP and formed the Progressives.

Over Wilson's lip service to neutrality, more like. Note how unrestricted submarine warfare got condemned and Wilson pressured Germany into giving it up after the Lusitania, but nothing was done about the blockade, despite protests about seizure of American cargo destined for Germany.

Actually, considering how close the 1916 election was (a small swing in California, and Hughes would have won); I suspect that the Americans were more in favour of entering World War I than you give them credit for. Bear in mind that Wilson campaigned on a platform of keeping America out of the war.

Course, this would only be relevant if you actually support the US military announcing its targets beforehand so women and children can leave.

Notice that I said, the rules of warfare at the time. Also, it had been established at the time that in land battles, military forces did not announce their targets; since it was unclear who was a civilian and who was not.

Then there is only a 1% chance that you do not have an ulterior motive!

WHAT IS IT? I DEMAND TO KNOW!To expose yours, of course!

rant....
Relax and take it with a grain of salt. I as a travelling American have to listen to all sorts of crap which really is unfounded and ignorant when I travel. Hell even in France do I hear stupid comments! I stopped getting upset about it long ago and just educate people instead of adding fuel to the fire by getting mad.

Why is it that anytime someone French tries to talk good about their country they are forced to go back nearly a century?

They have fought bravelly in two wars the past 15 years. It is not that far of a stretch to find good things about the French military.

As I already stated earlier while fighting in Iraq we had French armor protecting our immediate left flank. 3 platoons of French armor held off a sizeable RG of about 5 battalions that were trying to rescue the battalion of RG our 4 platoons were engaging.

I'll grant the Vietnam War, but otherwise, under Democrat Administrations, it has taken a lot of pressure for them to go to war; it took a long time before Wilson got involved in World War I; it took Pearl Harbor before Roosevelt declared war in World War II; it was because of the UN that Truman got involved in Korea. Of course, to make matters worse, they have been very willing to pull out very quickly - just look at Somalia, they entered and pulled out almost as soon as the going started getting tough.
Both Wilson and Roosevelt had to deal with serious isolationism on the part of hte American people. The American people didn't WANT to go to war. They didn't care, they didn't want to get involved.

If Wilson and Roosevelt had had their way, we'd have been wholly involved in both World Wars from the start, on 31st, July, 1914, and 1st September, 1939.

I'm on the same way that Marrakech II...didn't bother yourself with stupid comments, and don't get mad at them...or only one time in the year, when you have a day to lose for this...

As a Frenchman ascending also from German lines, I perfectly know the valour of French military.

Anti-French sentiment is a strong thing in England and USA, but it doesn't do much harm.

If you want recent wars fought by France, there's First Gulf War, there's also Kosovo, the military intervention in Sarajevo before that, or the uname war against Lybia called " Opération Epervier " in the 80's.

We could also speak of the GIGN operation into the Grand Mosquee of Mecca, or the operation of Kolwezi, both hostage crisis involving hundreds of fighters and even more civilians.

We could speak of Algeria and Indochine, even if they were lost war, even if we have done so many atrocities, I don't think that " cowardice " could apply...

But above all, remember of the FFL and FFI, remember of what we have endured during WWI, when France was alone against the German Armies, who haven't even to bother about Russians...remember of Verdun.

More than a third of the Frenchman aged between 20 and 30 were killed into battle during WWI.
During the few weeks of the Fall of France, more soldiers were killed than the US have lost in 3 years of Pacific campaign.
You know, this Pacific theater that American civilian were angry of, were thinking that the war was costing to much and caetera...

Oh, and finally, just remember that French bombers strike the Talibans in 2001, that French soldiers are still dyind there side by side with GI's.

Actually, considering how close the 1916 election was (a small swing in California, and Hughes would have won); I suspect that the Americans were more in favour of entering World War I than you give them credit for. Bear in mind that Wilson campaigned on a platform of keeping America out of the war.Go ahead and provide some sources to back up that statement.
Notice that I said, the rules of warfare at the time. Also, it had been established at the time that in land battles, military forces did not announce their targets; since it was unclear who was a civilian and who was not.It was unclear at sea as well. Overall, the "I said, rules of warfare at the time" is not some get out of jail card you can wave around. If taking civilian casaulties into account was wrong back then, its wrong today, whether on land or sea, whether the civilians are American or Afghani.

Then there is only a 1% chance that you do not have an ulterior motive!

WHAT IS IT? I DEMAND TO KNOW!

What is what?

Why is it that anytime someone French tries to talk good about their country they are forced to go back nearly a century?

Despite the silliness inherent in this statement anyway (by which I mean the French have recent military accomplishments), there are a great many good things one can say about France that have absolutely nothing to do with their military.

Despite the silliness inherent in this statement anyway (by which I mean the French have recent military accomplishments), there are a great many good things one can say about France that have absolutely nothing to do with their military.

You know, if I was gay, I would mate with you ;]

Both Wilson and Roosevelt had to deal with serious isolationism on the part of hte American people. The American people didn't WANT to go to war. They didn't care, they didn't want to get involved.

If Wilson and Roosevelt had had their way, we'd have been wholly involved in both World Wars from the start, on 31st, July, 1914, and 1st September, 1939.

I have not read the whole thread, so forgive me if this had been discussed earlier.

Why would the US enter into WWI in 1914? Hell, we shouldn't have entered it at all. It was purely a European conflict that we had no part in.

What possible benefit would the US have gotten if we would have entered 2 years earlier?

I have not read the whole thread, so forgive me if this had been discussed earlier.

Why would the US enter into WWI in 1914? Hell, we shouldn't have entered it at all. It was purely a European conflict that we had no part in.

What possible benefit would the US have gotten if we would have entered 2 years earlier?

I know we are talking alternate history here. But wasn't the ifluenza outbreak that killed so many millions a result of our involvement in WWI? It appears to have really spread out of Fort Riley, Kansas. So what I am thinking if those troops were already in Europe in 1918 it may not have been a pandemic that killed as much as 5% of the world population. Just thinking outside the box here.

The French are not cowards, in fact they are very brave and eager to enter battle. Thats been the biggest problem all along, the French have always tended to favor tactics that get as many men into the fight in one area as fast as possible. Preventing them from deploying soldiers to the greatest benefit over a period of time. The brave but tired and usually out maneuvered French troops would end up loosing in a long and bloody conflict time and time again.

Not cowardice, but foolhardiness.

(But the stereotype is pretty funny)

I have not read the whole thread, so forgive me if this had been discussed earlier.

Why would the US enter into WWI in 1914? Hell, we shouldn't have entered it at all. It was purely a European conflict that we had no part in.

What possible benefit would the US have gotten if we would have entered 2 years earlier?

I think that's a pretty fair point South Islands. It was a war for Empire and the good old Monroe Doctrine warned Americans against getting involved in European wars for a good reason. WWI marked the beginning of the end for both the French and the British empires. That war bled France of its brave young soldiers which may be part of the reason that the French put up such a bad show in WWII. (Another reason being incompetence and fascist sympathies among the French top brass).
In WWII it would have been great if the US had entered earlier because it was a different kind of war - a war against racism, totalitarianism and military expansionism. Thank you Japanese Navy for Pearl Harbor - because even though you attacked a a nation that was not at war with you and even though you your aeroplanes murdered thousands of US servicemen, you enabled Franklin Delano Roosevelt (one of America's greatest Presidents) to mobilise America. In so doing, you saved not only us Australians (in the Pacific Campaign) but the whole world.
And so far, beause of that chain of events, we have over sixty years of (relative) peace.
Mind you, that little statistic of 20 million dead Russians, may had had a lot to do with the victory over Nazism.
And back to the topic of France: well they still had to learn the lesson of holding onto a crumbling empire (Vietnam and Algeria).
Americans could do worse than learning the lessons from France's defeats and should resolve rather than to poke fun at the French and to call them "cowards", not to perpetuate their imperial follies.
Say after me America: "No more land wars in Asia! No more land wars in Asia!"

I know we are talking alternate history here. But wasn't the ifluenza outbreak that killed so many millions a result of our involvement in WWI? It appears to have really spread out of Fort Riley, Kansas. So what I am thinking if those troops were already in Europe in 1918 it may not have been a pandemic that killed as much as 5% of the world population. Just thinking outside the box here.

It wouldn't be surprising. It probably would have spread anyway, considering the world of yesteryear.

Fact remains that we had no reason to be in Europe in WWI. No reason to pick sides in a purely European affair. No reason to send our boys to die for foreign land.

I have not read the whole thread, so forgive me if this had been discussed earlier.

Why would the US enter into WWI in 1914? Hell, we shouldn't have entered it at all. It was purely a European conflict that we had no part in.

What possible benefit would the US have gotten if we would have entered 2 years earlier?

Had we been involved from the start, we could have had more influence over what happened to the Central Powers, specifically their colonies and overseas possessions. They didn't have much, true, but I'm sure Wilson would not have minded more expanded American influence in the world, especially if we had some colonies in Africa.

Of course I'm probably talking out of my ass here, so feel free to ignore me.

Had we been involved from the start, we could have had more influence over what happened to the Central Powers, specifically their colonies and overseas possessions. They didn't have much, true, but I'm sure Wilson would not have minded more expanded American influence in the world, especially if we had some colonies in Africa.

Of course I'm probably talking out of my ass here, so feel free to ignore me.

Any influence we would get would pale in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who would die in an aggressive European war.

Why is it that anytime someone French tries to talk good about their country they are forced to go back nearly a century?

Thank you for proving that you're either ignorant, or can't count, or both.

And since you seem to consider that only war is "good", and that accomplishments in science, culture and so on don't count, consider two points so simple that even you can understand them. First, France has been in several military conflicts since the end of World War Two. Have you heard of the First Gulf War? Or of Afghanistan, perhaps? Second, we tend to think that promoting peace whenever possible is a good thing.

On second thoughts, I'm not sure you're capable of understanding that after all.

Relax and take it with a grain of salt. I as a travelling American have to listen to all sorts of crap which really is unfounded and ignorant when I travel. Hell even in France do I hear stupid comments! I stopped getting upset about it long ago and just educate people instead of adding fuel to the fire by getting mad.

Oh, I'm not angry. Being angry would mean that idiots are worth getting angry about. They're not.

However, I'm far from certain that they have the required level of intelligence to be educated.

Some may, of course. But many haven't.

And, Marrakech, I'm sorry if you hear stupid comments when you're here.

France has been in several military conflicts since the end of World War Two.


Algeria - lost.

Vietnam - lost.

Iraq - sent a few soldiers in after the UK and US had done all the work.

Afghanistan - see above.

Had we been involved from the start, we could have had more influence over what happened to the Central Powers, specifically their colonies and overseas possessions. They didn't have much, true, but I'm sure Wilson would not have minded more expanded American influence in the world, especially if we had some colonies in Africa.

Of course I'm probably talking out of my ass here, so feel free to ignore me.Nah, if Wilson had been less naive and shown more spine when negotiating with Clemenceau, he might have managed to get more of his 14 points across.

Iraq - sent a few soldiers in after the UK and US had done all the work. I'd wager the work in Iraq only began after the war was over, and that France hasn't sent anyone to Iraq.
Afghanistan - see above.Fitting you'd use an example where American and British forces were sent after the Northern Alliance did all the work. Up until 2002, the US and UK involvement was limited to air bombings; the Afghanis were doing the fighting on the ground.

I thought they sent a small contingent, I'll have a look.

I thought they sent a small contingent, I'll have a look.Not to Iraq. I believe the French engage in training Iraqis, but not in Iraq, probably in Kuwait.

Yeah you're right.

Any influence we would get would pale in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who would die in an aggressive European war.
That's true. That would also be entirely irrelevant to imperialists and others who use militaries for their own ends.

Nah, if Wilson had been less naive and shown more spine when negotiating with Clemenceau, he might have managed to get more of his 14 points across.

Indeed.

"If" "If" "If"
Woodrow Wilson did what he could.
This whole thread is based on a false charge of French cowardice. The real villains were the leaders that let the ghastly Treaty of Versailles happen and paved the way for the Third Reich. Quelles imbecilles!
And Woodrow Wilson didn't have a chance. The Republicans shafted him.
Then came the 1919 repression when a Redneck Republican administration depoirted as many union organisers and left-wingers as they could, introduced Prohibition and created the society that would lead to the Great Depression.
Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter had a lot in common - they both choose a crappy time to be president.

The French are not cowards, in fact they are very brave and eager to enter battle. Thats been the biggest problem all along, the French have always tended to favor tactics that get as many men into the fight in one area as fast as possible. Preventing them from deploying soldiers to the greatest benefit over a period of time. The brave but tired and usually out maneuvered French troops would end up loosing in a long and bloody conflict time and time again.

Not cowardice, but foolhardiness.

(But the stereotype is pretty funny)

Yay? Nay?

Yay and nay.

Yay and nay.

Need more input...

They like getting into fights, but run away when it gets too much.

"If" "If" "If"
Woodrow Wilson did what he could.
This whole thread is based on a false charge of French cowardice. The real villains were the leaders that let the ghastly Treaty of Versailles happen and paved the way for the Third Reich. Quelles imbecilles!
And Woodrow Wilson didn't have a chance. The Republicans shafted him.
Then came the 1919 repression when a Redneck Republican administration depoirted as many union organisers and left-wingers as they could, introduced Prohibition and created the society that would lead to the Great Depression.
Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter had a lot in common - they both choose a crappy time to be president.


Not too false. After all if one considers the Battle of France. The united armies of France as well as significant amount of soldiers from the countries of the United Kingdom, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg versus the German armed forces (I won't count the Italians since they just joined in when the German victory was almost complete). The Germans were outnumbered by just short of 3 to 1 and were the attackers.

Add to this that due to the treaty of Versaille. Of the German army only 150,000 men were trained and properly drilled. The rest were mostly greenhorn conscripts.

But if one looks at the battle in the end;

27,074 Germans were killed

vs

France - 90,000 killed
Britain - 68,111 killed
Belgium - 23,350 killed
The Netherlands - 9,779 killed
Poland - 6,092 killed
Czechoslovakia - 1,615 killed




The Battle of France was one of the most spectacular victories and upset victories in history. The Allies had all the advantages, had better trained armies, held the high terrain with the defensive lines, had about 6x more planes in service, had many more men and yet managed to get decisively routed in just under 2 months.

So yes I can understand why the French are called cowards. One has to be insanely militarily inept to lose such a battle, and also the general defeatism and lack of enthusiasm found in the French armed forces hastenend their end.

Not to Iraq. I believe the French engage in training Iraqis, but not in Iraq, probably in Kuwait.

No, they're not in Kuwait either, at least not working in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Telic/whatever. Upon arriving in theater US troops receive briefings on the various foreign armies operating here (always given by a Brit or Aussie) and they labor the point that the French aren't here. Being an ardent francophile I'm given constant shit about this. Of course, no one has yet disagreed that perhaps the French were a bit brighter than us because they didn't come here...

Hear! Hear! New W! Maybe the French did learn something from Algeria and Vietnam.
Clearly the neo cons like Rumsfeld who really encouraged all the anti-French talk did NOT learn a thing from Vietnam.

When young American or Australian kids start calling any nation "cowards" I think that they have simply been brainwashed into being little chauvinists (It's a French word that made it into the dictionary). Look it up guys.

So yes I can understand why the French are called cowards. One has to be insanely militarily inept to lose such a battle

So why are the British, with twice the casualties of the Germans, not ridiculed for being militarily incompetent? Had the Germans had any sort of sealift capability the Brits would likely have met the same fate as the French.

The French are not cowards, in fact they are very brave and eager to enter battle. Thats been the biggest problem all along, the French have always tended to favor tactics that get as many men into the fight in one area as fast as possible. Preventing them from deploying soldiers to the greatest benefit over a period of time. The brave but tired and usually out maneuvered French troops would end up loosing in a long and bloody conflict time and time again.

Not cowardice, but foolhardiness.

(But the stereotype is pretty funny)

That was the "cult of the offensive" that the generals favoured in ww1. attack and keep attacking. wasted too many troops that way...

Algeria - lost.

Vietnam - lost.

Iraq - sent a few soldiers in after the UK and US had done all the work.

Afghanistan - see above.
Alright, compare this to the US' record :

A smaller and less populous African state, with even less money : Lost

Vietnam : Lost

Hmm...

The French got conquered by the Germans in 17 days in WW II.... 'nuff said.
It was more around a month.

The French weren't out fought, they were outflanked repeatedly.

Once the majority of the French Army was cut off and stuck in the British Pocket, the Germans had the rest of France open to them.

Germany did the same thing in at Russia and Poland, flank and seal off pockets of enemy forces.

It was more around a month.

The French weren't out fought, they were outflanked repeatedly.

Once the majority of the French Army was cut off and stuck in the British Pocket, the Germans had the rest of France open to them.

Germany did the same thing in at Russia and Poland, flank and seal off pockets of enemy forces.

Odd thing is that the Polish are not cowards. They are actually hailed for holding off the Germans as long as they did. Probably a sympathy move because they did get invaded by two large armies.


The flanking move is the oldest tactic in the book. The French command should have known better. I am in the camp that poor French leadership hastened their defeat. Not the guys fighting on the battlefield.

- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States [Entering the war late -ed.]. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.


France is renowned for being a nation of art and beauty, which it would not be if it had been corrupted by too much 'improvement' by the usa

Despite your little list of anti towards France, as has been pointed out, it is not the French as people who are bad at war, just their leaders
The body can only perform as good as the mind tells it that it can, so despite that the french troops when under the command of real leaders, can perform heroically, the same troops under a poor leader will suffer miserably.

At the end of the day, France left with french ideals and goals can exist in peace with other nations, do you really want France to become like USA and stage reasons to attack smaller, weaker nations, and then move in and milk them for what they are worth?

Thanks for the nod in my direction Kirchensittenback, but you laid yourself wide open to a counter-attack with your last paragraph.
In Australia, we still remember how French agents sank The Rainbow Warrior in Aukland harbor because they wanted to blow up the South Pacific. And there are plenty of kanaks in Nouveau Caladonie who "desire l'independence".

But hey! If I were the Republic of Georgia, I'd rather have the froggies as my neighbours than Vlad the Impaler!

At the end of the day, France left with french ideals and goals can exist in peace with other nations, do you really want France to become like USA and stage reasons to attack smaller, weaker nations, and then move in and milk them for what they are worth?

You mean France as it has been for most of its history? It was hardly an accident that they ended up with that big empire thing y'know.

France is renowned for being a nation of art and beauty, which it would not be if it had been corrupted by too much 'improvement' by the usa

Despite your little list of anti towards France, as has been pointed out, it is not the French as people who are bad at war, just their leaders
The body can only perform as good as the mind tells it that it can, so despite that the french troops when under the command of real leaders, can perform heroically, the same troops under a poor leader will suffer miserably.

At the end of the day, France left with french ideals and goals can exist in peace with other nations, do you really want France to become like USA and stage reasons to attack smaller, weaker nations, and then move in and milk them for what they are worth?

Get a sense of humor. Also as people already easily pointed out the hypocracy that you posted. You left yourself wide open for attack. Much like France did in WWII. Sorry, had to do it.

I'd also like to point out to all the flag waving US Patriots out there who revel in putting down the French that you ought to reflect on the big way they helped the US of A. In both its Revolutionary Wars with the British, America owes a big one to France.
So the score seems to be 2 all really.
True, the US assistance was in the 20th century and not the late 18th and early 19th as with the French.
The big question is "Is China going to overtake the US in everything in the 21st Century or will it only be in Olympic Gold medals, the economy and in manufacturing.
Oh and did I mention cooking? The French and The Chinese win there.

I'd also like to point out to all the flag waving US Patriots out there who revel in putting down the French that you ought to reflect on the big way they helped the US of A. In both its Revolutionary Wars with the British, America owes a big one to France.
So the score seems to be 2 all really.
True, the US assistance was in the 20th century and not the late 18th and early 19th as with the French.
The big question is "Is China going to overtake the US in everything in the 21st Century or will it only be in Olympic Gold medals, the economy and in manufacturing.
Oh and did I mention cooking? The French and The Chinese win there.

See the post above yours... ;)

At least the sense of humor part.

As for the cooking the US has everyone hands down. Why do you say? Because we take the best cooking every other nation has to offer and we franchise it into great restuarants. Remember the US is a compilation of everything else in the world. Some forget that. It just isn't pasty white British decendants.

Add to this that due to the treaty of Versaille. Of the German army only 150,000 men were trained and properly drilled. The rest were mostly greenhorn conscripts.

Actually, though, the treaty had a massively beneficial effect on the quality of the German army. Since it was limited to 150,000 men, those 150,000 were the best of the best, effectively meaning the core of the German armed forces were comprised

Add to that the success of the Germans at maintaining a modern General Staff and their ability to continue developing military doctrines despite the Treaty and it's pretty easy to see how they were so effective despite the comparative inexperience of their forces.

I agree with vetalia
Although France may have had the soldiers on the ground, they had woeful officers. There was a young Colonel De Gaulle who had written a book about the decisive way that tanks could be used in battle. The French top brass ignored it. The Germans didn't. His ideas were incorporated in the plans. The French were caught off guard by the German penetration through the Ardennes and the Maginot line did not extend to the Channel (the obvious point of German attack as it was the Schlieffen Plan that brought the German army close to the gates of Paris in WWI.)
The Germans also controlled the air.

1940 - not a good year for France - non!
It wasn't very good for Britain either but the Brits hung on in the Battle of Britain (thanks in part to Free French pilots).
Britain had to fight alone......and we owe a huge debt of gratitude to FDR for helping out with Lend Lease.

That was the "cult of the offensive" that the generals favoured in ww1. attack and keep attacking. wasted too many troops that way...

Also employed against the romans in the era BC, the British during the Hundred Years War, and pretty much almost every conflict they were involved in untill WWII.

Also employed against the romans in the era BC, the British during the Hundred Years War, and pretty much almost every conflict they were involved in untill WWII.

Huh. really? From what i've read about the "cult of the offensive" it was from the lessons that the french learned from the franco-prussian wars. and most of the french military leaders were so into this thinking that if you weren't, you didn't rise in rank.

The goal was to keep attacking and maintain the initiative against your enemy :confused:

Huh. really? From what i've read about the "cult of the offensive" it was from the lessons that the french learned from the franco-prussian wars. and most of the french military leaders were so into this thinking that if you weren't, you didn't rise in rank.

The goal was to keep attacking and maintain the initiative against your enemy :confused:

I'll go into a bit of detail, it had different names and different deployment strategies (slightly) but essentially for many of its conflicts the french used very similar battle tactics.

The Franks (the real civilization the French are descended from) basic battle strategy against the ailing and soon to be dead Roman Empire that earned them most of what is modern day France was to pepper the troops with missiles from a distance usually in the form od axes and rocks and then charge en-masse with thier heaviest cavalry forces who were then known as Paladins focused on the enemy's percieved weak point.

During the Hundred Years War some 500 or so years later French battle tactics against the British were to pepper the enemy with missiles usually in the form of crossbow bolts and then charge en-masse toward the enemy with thier heaviest cavalry forces who were then known as knights focused on the enemy's percieved weak point.

500 or so years after these tactics were implimented against the British Invasion (TM) the prefered battle tactics of the French Army against the German Aggressor was to pepper the enemy army with missiles in the form of bullets and artillery. Then they would charge en-masse toward the enemy with their heaviest cavalry forces who were now known as tanks focused on the enemies perceived week point.

Not too false. After all if one considers the Battle of France. The united armies of France as well as significant amount of soldiers from the countries of the United Kingdom, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg versus the German armed forces (I won't count the Italians since they just joined in when the German victory was almost complete). The Germans were outnumbered by just short of 3 to 1 and were the attackers. Raw number mean little. How many tanks and aircraft did each side have? The Germans had air superiority and didn't have fleeing civilians mucking up their advance.
Add to this that due to the treaty of Versaille. Of the German army only 150,000 men were trained and properly drilled. The rest were mostly greenhorn conscripts. This is only true if you're going under the assumption that Germany adhered to the treaty. The German army was obviously not mainly made up of greenhorn conscripts.