The Fall of France

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-01-30 11:32am

All of the popular French jokes aside, the nation of France is steeped in history of both glory and (more recently) shame. Indeed, the United States owes its existence as a nation to France, which intervened and fought with the fledgling nation against the great superpower of the day: Great Britain. Napoleon's armies swept across Europe and inspired only fear and dread in the hearts of the enemies of France. Contrast that with the France that swiftly fell beneath the iron boot of the Wermacht in WW2.

So, when did the tables turn? When did the glorious France of old become the mere shadow of its former self it is today?

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-01-30 11:51am

When they grew too cocky and depended on the Maginot line as their only line of defense.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-01-30 12:06pm

When they stopped fighting the British.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-30 12:14pm

At the end of World War I I belive they became pussfied

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-01-30 12:26pm

Cardial Richeleiu, 30 Years war = impressive power
Loius XIV = A superpower of the day
American Revoloution = Helped the revoloutionaries.
Revoloutionary era = weakened
Napoleon part I = The Superpower of the day
Restored Monarchy = Controlled by forigners
Napoleon part II = Not that great, never recovered from invasion of russia. (at the end of part I)
Downhill slide after that really, they didn't seem to do anthing very notable in the rest of the 19th century, minus the usual colonialism.

IMO

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2003-01-30 12:26pm

Vorlon1701 wrote:When they grew too cocky and depended on the Maginot line as their only line of defense.

Actually the Maginot line made perfectly sense once you examine the defensive problems that France faced when it was built.
Generally it receives a bad name and in effects it probably acted in a bad way on the french morale.But as concept it was sound once you examine all the factors involved.
Keep in mind that the germans built something of similar as well.
Their defeat in WW2 was due to a variety of factors,not last grossly incompetent (well incompetent is an euphemism) leadership,but please note that the germans defeated practically everyone else until they invaded Russia.
In WW1 they behaved like everyone else,no more no less.And after WW2 I would say they have not performed poorly overall.Certainly it is quite stupid making mock of them for having lost in Vietnam while the USA lost there despite having far more resources available.
As for today they are the only country in the world apart from the USA to deploy a nuclear fleet carrier.Obviously a country with only a fraction of the US resources cannot be behave like a superpower.That is all what is about.
The USA are a superpower essentially because they have a lot of resources.
In WW2 a single factory in the USA,the Detroit tank arsenal,churned out more tanks than the whole Third Reich.And this is just an example.
The bad mouth the frenchs have is nothing more than american jingoists for which the US Army ass spanking Iraq is a proof of the superior american manhood but when they learn the frenchs did the same they say "uh everyone could do that".
For the note,I am not french,neither have such an enormous sympathy for them.But facts are facts.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-01-30 12:30pm

I beleive he means when did they fall from being a super power to becoming 'only' a major power.

Just wait until the European Empire, sorry, European Union is completed...

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-01-30 12:35pm

Admiral Piett wrote:
Vorlon1701 wrote:When they grew too cocky and depended on the Maginot line as their only line of defense.
Actually the Maginot line made perfectly sense once you examine the defensive problems that France faced when it was built.
Generally it receives a bad name and in effects it probably acted in a bad way on the french morale.But as concept it was sound once you examine all the factors involved.
Keep in mind that the germans built something of similar as well.
Their defeat in WW2 was due to a variety of factors,not last grossly incompetent (well incompetent is an euphemism) leadership,but please note that the germans defeated practically everyone else until they invaded Russia.
In WW1 they behaved like everyone else,no more no less.And after WW2 I would say they have not performed poorly overall.Certainly it is quite stupid making mock of them for having lost in Vietnam while the USA lost there despite having far more resources available.
As for today they are the only country in the world apart from the USA to deploy a nuclear fleet carrier.Obviously a country with only a fraction of the US resources cannot be behave like a superpower.That is all what is about.
The USA are a superpower essentially because they have a lot of resources.
In WW2 a single factory in the USA,the Detroit tank arsenal,churned out more tanks than the whole Third Reich.And this is just an example.
The bad mouth the frenchs have is nothing more than american jingoists for which the US Army ass spanking Iraq is a proof of the superior american manhood but when they learn the frenchs did the same they say "uh everyone could do that".
For the note,I am not french,neither have such an enormous sympathy for them.But facts are facts.

One of my former battalion commanders told me that the French commanders of WW2 would not act until they had what they felt to be perfect intelligence, and then they fought the battle plan instead of the enemy. Inflexibility to that degree allowed flexible German commanders to exploit success.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2003-01-30 12:46pm

NecronLord wrote: I beleive he means when did they fall from being a super power to becoming 'only' a major power.

Ah,this? Well, it comes down to economics basically.Around 1945 the USA accounted for nearly the two thirds of world's economy.Do your math.

NecronLord wrote:
Just wait until the European Empire, sorry, European Union is completed...

Well you will probably have to wait for a few decades.
The note under the picture is a reference to a certain Reagan statement.
I suspect that the USA driven by their own paranoia will start to to consider the EU as a threat,even if there is no a good reason to do so.If you think that there are people in the USA who fear the UN,that is not so far off.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-30 12:49pm

I think that losses during WWII, Vietnam, and other conflicts have turned the population into pacifist. The U.S. went through the same phase after Vietnam. Ten years ago, many were relucant to fight Iraq, fearing that Vietnam would repeat itself. Of course we kicked Iraq's ass, and confidence improved. Then after Somalia, we once again kind of withdrew. Now that we liberated Afganistan with very few casualties, people once again have a lesser fear of war.

I think that if some country were to piss off France enough, they'd go stomp them like it's 1799.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-01-30 12:57pm

One factor that we have ton take into account was the fact that after WWI the country that suffered the most casualties on teh Allied side was France. She lost an entire generation of young men, only Germany IIRC suffered heavier casualties. Not to mention the fact that the war was fought on her soil and in her backyard. SO after the war, France was scarred by the aftermath of the war. They did not want to fight another war if they did not have to.

The same could be said for most of Europe at teh time and it was an attitude that Hitler exploited much to his credit. So when the time came to fight, the horrors of millions of more dead certainly came up in the leadership's minds.

They were a psycholigically scared nation not ready or willing to really fight the kind of war neccessary to confront the German blitzkrieg. Don't look too far, the US military was in such a state shortly after Vietnam. Only now have we had the military rennaissance that we have had and teh Gulf War proved to many that we were on the right track, our quality was the edge we needed against Soviet quantity.

France never had the chance to regain that military confidence.

I would also like to point out that there is an article in the Nation IIRC, that points out that the recent trend in Gerrmany and France for appeasement with Iraq is mirroring almost eerily the trend in Europe during the 20's. An elitist mentality and aversion to all things Imperialistic and a distinct dislike of America. It is a disturbing trend that one wonders what it could lead to.

Besides a French surrender I mean....

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2003-01-30 12:57pm

Wicked Pilot wrote: I think that if some country were to piss off France enough, they'd go stomp them like it's 1799.

Well,a third world country maybe.Or nukes if they were really pissed.
But as I said resources are the keyword.
In the 18th-early 19th century resouces meant mainly agricultural soil and manpower.And they were the most popolous european country with the largest amount of farmable soil.
Now of course things are different.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2003-01-30 01:10pm

Stravo wrote:I would also like to point out that there is an article in the Nation IIRC, that points out that the recent trend in Gerrmany and France for appeasement with Iraq is mirroring almost eerily the trend in Europe during the 20's. An elitist mentality and aversion to all things Imperialistic and a distinct dislike of America. It is a disturbing trend that one wonders what it could lead to.

This bla bla about appeasentment is a load of bullshit.Germany was still an industrial power at the time.Iraq is a broken country leaded by an asshole
who is more than happy abusing its own people.
The word appeasentment has become a clichè that the hawks love to use to shut down any objections about a war when they have run out of real arguments.
NK has far more WMD than Iraq,but last time I ckecked the way the USA is dealing with them would qualify nicely as appeasentment.And I doubt that this is going to change once the war in Iraq was over.
You may argue,correctly, that the iraqui citizens would stay better under the US rule,assuming that everything goes as planned,or you might stop lying yourself and recognize that this is nothing more than realpolitik at work.
But in any case this is not WW2.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-01-30 02:03pm

Two world wars in two decades, followed by 50 years on waiting for the Red Army to come storming through to the Bay of Biscay, and endless colonial wars that all ended with the Europeans getting kicked out, seems to have left Western Europe in a pacifistic mood. Partly it's pragmatic (Europe depends on a safe, stable world order for its prosperity), and partly that in the wake of the absolute failure of right-wing politics in Europe, leftism, which tends to be more pacifist, became much more attractive than it is over here. Britain, which escaped the worst of the world wars and generarally left its colonies peacefully, seems less pacificst than the continent, though not nearly so aggressive as the United States.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-01-30 02:26pm

Every Frenchman with a backbone died eiether for Napoleon or during the Great War. In reality France is a scarred and battered nation that is still recovering from the wounds inflicted on it in the first half of the century. The Great War combined with the interminable colonial wars(Both of which France lost, and badly I might add) in Algeria, and importantly Vietnam(France fought a supression Campaign, financed by the US, from 1949 to 1954 when they were finally defeated at Dien Bien Phu) that followed after WWII. France has no will to fight left in it, every time they have gotten involved in world affairs the government has fallen......not something any French President and Prime Minister wants to have happen on their watch. Therfore France is now the great compromiser of Europe. Add to this the fact that England might as well be the 51st state and Germany's ongoing self-loathing over WWII cripples any hope of leadership from the Krauts....and Europe just sits and squabbles
Maybe the French and English should start warring again, at least it would liven things up a bit

bad joke I know.......

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-30 02:32pm

France may extremely pacifist these days, but I'm sure that if al-Quada had rammed airplanes into the Eifel Tower, they'd also go to Afganistan and give a smackdown worthy of Napoleon.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-01-30 02:43pm

That might be the only thing that would wake them out of their stupor.....I would love to see a resurgent France, fly the Eagles, embrace their past and be a nation of leaders and forward thinkers in Europe , God knows the Continent could use it.....instead of a bunch of whiners who occasionally burn down a McDonalds when they have a slow newsweek....

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2003-01-30 02:47pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:France may extremely pacifist these days, but I'm sure that if al-Quada had rammed airplanes into the Eifel Tower, they'd also go to Afganistan and give a smackdown worthy of Napoleon.

I doubt.It was an effort even for the USA fighting a war there,so far from any base.Even if France has one of the highest military budget in Europe, and they have the willingness to spend for the military, they could not afford to that.Not even with US level of military expenditure.
They simply do not have the economy for that.Only the EU as a whole would have enough economical resources to sustain the military necessary for a war overseas.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-01-30 02:52pm

Doubtful it wil happen. They will wring their hands and see if they cannot get the US to do the ass stomping for them (see Yugoslavia) or worse yet, try to hammer out a peace with the Middle east. French policy in regards to the Middle east has been simple - make no enemies and sell them whatever arms we can. The French have consistenelty remained mum on these matters because they do not want to be a target of muslim fundamentalist aggression. They have even suggested a program by which the GOVERNEMENT would pay or subsidize the payment for the construction of Mosques in France so as that the growing muslim ninority has a positive outlook on France. (Yet as a gentle reminder - antisemetic violence in France and Europe in general are in a rapid increase) France wants to make NO enemies, they want to be neutral as the swiss in many maters YET take a leadership role in Europe. The French are in for a helluva shock when they realize that if you want to lead it means taking risks and making enemies. Leaders stand for something, right now France stands for nothing.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-30 03:38pm

Stravo wrote:One factor that we have ton take into account was the fact that after WWI the country that suffered the most casualties on teh Allied side was France. She lost an entire generation of young men, only Germany IIRC suffered heavier casualties. Not to mention the fact that the war was fought on her soil and in her backyard. SO after the war, France was scarred by the aftermath of the war. They did not want to fight another war if they did not have to.

France was third in casualties. The worst was Austria-Hungary, with fully 90% dead or missing after the war. However, the war had been fought primarily on French soil, and the economy was badly damaged. Add to that the internal conflict against the Socialist Party, and the government became too concerned with internal politics to really even notice that their military had become rather weak.

They were a psycholigically scared nation not ready or willing to really fight the kind of war neccessary to confront the German blitzkrieg. Don't look too far, the US military was in such a state shortly after Vietnam. Only now have we had the military rennaissance that we have had and teh Gulf War proved to many that we were on the right track, our quality was the edge we needed against Soviet quantity.

And even then people have said there were too many casualties in Iraq, when it came out to 1/20 of a percent (that's 0.05%).

France never had the chance to regain that military confidence.

I would also like to point out that there is an article in the Nation IIRC, that points out that the recent trend in Gerrmany and France for appeasement with Iraq is mirroring almost eerily the trend in Europe during the 20's. An elitist mentality and aversion to all things Imperialistic and a distinct dislike of America. It is a disturbing trend that one wonders what it could lead to.

Besides a French surrender I mean....

I hadn't thought about that, but it's true that much of Europe (in my experience with Europeans over here) still consider America the country bumpkins of the world. I'll agree that we don't have the 13th century cathedrals or the Louvre or ancient castles...that's not our history. Modern American history begins in different times in different places. Florida's starts early but doesn't become important until late. The oldest settlement in the United States is St. Augustine, but there were only ~10,000 votes in Florida in the 1860 election.

If you look at it, though, the United States has never been at peace. From the Revolutionary War we sailed straight into the War of 1812, then the campaigns against the Barbary Pirates, then the Mexican-American War, and then the Civil War. Then we had the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia...I doubt you can find five years in the past two hundred twenty-five when no soldiers have fought for America. The United States has a military tradition dating from its inception, and is not old enough to have really forgotten about its military beginnings.

Sonnenburg · Post by **Sonnenburg** » 2003-01-30 08:10pm

Do you think anything short of a full-scale invasion of their homeland would cause the French to deploy nuclear weapons, even if only limited to a warhead or too?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-30 08:17pm

Admiral Piett wrote:I suspect that the USA driven by their own paranoia will start to to consider the EU as a threat,even if there is no a good reason to do so.If you think that there are people in the USA who fear the UN,that is not so far off.

I smell generalizations.

I certainly don't fear Europe or Europeans.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2003-01-30 08:23pm

France started declinig in the mid 1800s especially after their loss to the unified Germans.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-01-30 08:23pm

I believe another one of the Factors was getting ass kicked in the Franco-Prussian war.

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2003-01-30 08:30pm

jegs2 wrote:All of the popular French jokes aside, the nation of France is steeped in history of both glory and (more recently) shame. Indeed, the United States owes its existence as a nation to France, which intervened and fought with the fledgling nation against the great superpower of the day: Great Britain. Napoleon's armies swept across Europe and inspired only fear and dread in the hearts of the enemies of France. Contrast that with the France that swiftly fell beneath the iron boot of the Wermacht in WW2.

So, when did the tables turn? When did the glorious France of old become the mere shadow of its former self it is today?

You know I was going to post a topic like this before. As much as I don't like the French, they do get a raw deal. I would have basically have said the same thing.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Fall of France

The Fall of France

Re: The Fall of France