France's War Record (again)

[Stravo]

All I'm saying is that the examples don't match up. The US has not suffered that kind of humiliation, even Vietnam once again was a lack of political will and the homeland was not at stake (unless you were a rabid anti-communist)

It isn't really about the humiliation, the discussion is about the French surrender and by extension the accusation that the French lack backbone and will constantly surrender, by comparison the US lacked backbone in Somalia and thus must always lack backbone.

Now when you raise specific issues like the homeland being at stake I could also raise mitigating circumstances such as the state of the French high command or the fact that the Nazis enjoyed such an overwhelming edge, which I repeat is my point seeing one instance of somebody lacking backbone out of context and then labelling that as their default action is inaccurate.

In essence we agree that the details were important, I am not saying the two situations are analogous apart from a demonstration of a lack of will on the parts of France/USA and when only taking a very shallow view of events (as the French bashers are doing) then most nations come out as equally guilty (not Britain of course though ).

I have always firmly believed that the Brits would have made the Germans suffer for every inch of land should Sealion have gotten off the ground.

[Rogue 9]

What are you talking about? The French surrendered in WW2. Napoleon lost. They were getting stomped in WW1 until we saved them. Agincourt. The French have been losers almost throughout history.

[TheDarkling]

I have always firmly believed that the Brits would have made the Germans suffer for every inch of land should Sealion have gotten off the ground.

If the miraculous winged Nazi troops had crossed the channel we would have fought because the British government was in a far better condition that the French one, which was just wanting to fall, not to mention that Britain hadn't been invaded for 900 years at the time whereas France had been invaded within the last 35 years.

However outside of an invasion without Churchill there is a real possibility that somebody like Halifax would have cut a deal with Hitler after the fall of France, Churchill was so damn stubborn though that he did the right thing even if it did destroy our nation in the process.

[TheDarkling]

What are you talking about? The French surrendered in WW2.

So did most of Europe.

Napoleon lost.

Yeah eventually after all the other powers of the time tag teamed him for almost 2 decades.

They were getting stomped in WW1 until we saved them.

The French were loosing to a superior enemy, boohoo.

Agincourt.

Superior English planning.

The French have been losers almost throughout history.

No England/Britain has been a winner thoughout history and the French came a croper to that, when they were on our side (Crimea, WW1, WW2) they came out ahead.

[MKSheppard]

The French were loosing to a superior enemy, boohoo.

Not really. France outnumberd germany in warm bodies,
the problem was the french threw their men's lives away in
futile charges to retake land thjat was targetted in and
ranged in, causing massive morale loss

[HemlockGrey]

What are you talking about? The French surrendered in WW2. Napoleon lost. They were getting stomped in WW1 until we saved them. Agincourt. The French have been losers almost throughout history.

I like mocking the French just as much as the next guy, but, let's see...4 examples? Three of them from wars in which the French eventually triumphed? France has existed as a cultural entity for over a thousand years and has about an even win-loss record.

[Master of Ossus]

No England/Britain has been a winner thoughout history and the French came a croper to that, when they were on our side (Crimea, WW1, WW2) they came out ahead.

That's great. When a loser teams up with a winner, they can sometimes win. Wow. That's great for them.

Actually, though, the French were getting schooled in WWI. They lost more troops in the war, and they were utterly destroyed by it economically and socially.

The French essentially lost WWII TWICE. First to the Germans and later to the Americans and British. That's not a victory. They also lost almost all of their colonial holdings as a direct result of getting schooled by both sides.

[Master of Ossus]

The French were loosing to a superior enemy, boohoo.

The French seem to face a LOT of superior enemies. You can blame it on the leadership, but you have to stop and think when you do this. As Dr. Demming pointed out when he visited Japan, if you only ask one "Why?" you get an excuse. Go beyond that. WHY do the French seem to always have crappy officers? Because their society, government, and military are all poorly organized throughout history.

The French have consistently made SPECTACULARLY costly blunders throughout their military history. You can say that it's because their military leadership was bad, but that is an evasion. A military's leadership is PART of the military, and if their leadership is preventing their army from performing then their military is obviously failing. We saw this in WWI. We saw this in WWII. We saw this in Indochina, Africa, and in several of their colonial possessions in the New World. By copping out and claiming that the French lose because their leadership is weak, and claiming that as a mediating factor, you in fact dodge the crux of the argument which is that France cannot win wars nearly as effectively as other nations of comparable size and power.

[TheDarkling]

Actually, though, the French were getting schooled in WWI. They lost more troops in the war, and they were utterly destroyed by it economically and socially.

So was Britain but at the end we were the winners.

France lost only marginally more troops (of %mobilised) than Germany did in and in absolute figures the Germans lost more, Britain did considerably better ( 10% to France's 16%) but we hardly got off lightly.

The French essentially lost WWII TWICE. First to the Germans and later to the Americans and British. That's not a victory. They also lost almost all of their colonial holdings as a direct result of getting schooled by both sides.

The same happened to Britain and we won the war, world wars tend to be a destructive business for those involved at the front.

[Andrew J.]

What are you talking about? The French surrendered in WW2. Napoleon lost. They were getting stomped in WW1 until we saved them. Agincourt. The French have been losers almost throughout history.

Every time the French were defeated easily it's because of incompetent hihger-ups, not the cowardice of the French army. The soldiers fought the Germans when they were in contact with them (having been placed near Belgium instead of the Ardennes), allowed the British to evacuate at Dunkirk by holding off the Germans, and continued to fight and undermine the Nazis until the liberation. Revolutionary France, especially under Napoleon, kicked everybody's ass on land for years and years. They actually won the Hundred Years' War, the only reason anyobody remembers Agincourt is Shakespeare. They helped America win the Revolutionary War. They stalemated the Germans on the ground for years at the cost of millions of men during WWI.

If you want real "losers throughout history," don't look to the French, or even to the Italians: look to Austria. At least France is still the same general size and shape it was hundreds of years ago. The Austro-Hungarian Empire got its ass kicked by Ottomans, Frenchmen, Russians, Prussians, and various pissant Balkan countries so much that it's nothing today.

[TheDarkling]

We saw this in WWI.

And Britain was doing spectacular with Human wave attacks which were granting victory after victory?

We saw this in WWII.

Where Britain was as badly beaten as the French were on the ground.

We saw this in Indochina,

Britain had its disasters in the pacific theatre (as did the US).

Africa, and in several of their colonial possessions in the New World.

Going back how far here, France hasn't had substantial new World possessions for some time.

By copping out and claiming that the French lose because their leadership is weak, and claiming that as a mediating factor, you in fact dodge the crux of the argument which is that France cannot win wars nearly as effectively as other nations of comparable size and power.

You mean cannot maintain an overseas empire and a strong continental land force, I agree and Britain constantly hammered them outside of Europe because of it but we always needed grand alliances to attack them in Europe. This is the key difference with France, they tried to be both a continental power and a colonial one and they couldn't pull it off (and when they began to concentrate more on continental affairs Germany already out classed them).


For French military defeats we have WW2 and the Franco Prussian War as the major examples, the example before that they beat off all of Europe for more than 2 decades, hardly the mark of a nation incapable of military competence.

[HemlockGrey]

Except, of course, imperial Hapsburg Austria was at one point one of the mightiest nations on Earth.

[TheDarkling]

and continued to fight and undermine the Nazis until the liberation.

I'm sorry but that doesn't fly, when the French gave in they gave in, the war was over for them, other nations had proper governments in exile and control of colonies/navies/air force/armies the Free French was an illegitimate organisation run by a mad general operating on his own authority (more or less).

[Master of Ossus]

You mean cannot maintain an overseas empire and a strong continental land force, I agree and Britain constantly hammered them outside of Europe because of it but we always needed grand alliances to attack them in Europe. This is the key difference with France, they tried to be both a continental power and a colonial one and they couldn't pull it off (and when they began to concentrate more on continental affairs Germany already out classed them).

For French military defeats we have WW2 and the Franco Prussian War as the major examples, the example before that they beat off all of Europe for more than 2 decades, hardly the mark of a nation incapable of military competence.

The fact remains that the French military leadership has been DISASTROUS. This does not vindicate the French military for losing constantly. It SHOWS how badly organized they are. You can window-dress it as much as you like, but the French military leadership has consistently been abysmal since the time of Napoleon (the example you continue bringing up while simultaneously asking how far back I was going, even though France had substantial New World holdings during Napoleon's time).

Face it: the French military is not producing good military leaders. That's problem number 1 for them, and pointing out that the French army only lost because their leadership sucks is not an excuse. There's a REASON why their leadership consistently sucks. It's cultural within the military. You can't excuse their disastrous military record in the past hundred years simply by saying they lost because of their leaders, because their leadership is PART OF THE MILITARY. There's a CONSISTENT pattern of military elitism within the French that goes back a thousand years that has prevented them from producing good leaders, and only a very few exceptional officers have grown from the French system whereas their neighbors in Germany and Britain and Spain and Russia and the US have produced plenty of good officers.

[Dahak]

There's a CONSISTENT pattern of military elitism within the French that goes back a thousand years that has prevented them from producing good leaders, and only a very few exceptional officers have grown from the French system whereas their neighbors in Germany and Britain and Spain and Russia and the US have produced plenty of good officers.

It has to be said that the German military, highly influenced by Prussia and its traditions, was highly elitist.
That's why so many high-ranking officers were "von"-s.

[Shaidar Haran]

There's a CONSISTENT pattern of military elitism within the French that goes back a thousand years that has prevented them from producing good leaders, and only a very few exceptional officers have grown from the French system whereas their neighbors in Germany and Britain and Spain and Russia and the US have produced plenty of good officers.

It has to be said that the German military, highly influenced by Prussia and its traditions, was highly elitist.
That's why so many high-ranking officers were "von"-s.

Except they also tended to be good or even oustanding officers.

[Dahak]

There's a CONSISTENT pattern of military elitism within the French that goes back a thousand years that has prevented them from producing good leaders, and only a very few exceptional officers have grown from the French system whereas their neighbors in Germany and Britain and Spain and Russia and the US have produced plenty of good officers.

It has to be said that the German military, highly influenced by Prussia and its traditions, was highly elitist.
That's why so many high-ranking officers were "von"-s.

Except they also tended to be good or even oustanding officers.

Sure, they were Prussians, after all
But to say that France didn't produce any good officers only due to elitism is just not completely right, as other militaries showed you can have elitists and still have competent officers...

[Pablo Sanchez]

The French seem to face a LOT of superior enemies. You can blame it on the leadership, but you have to stop and think when you do this. As Dr. Demming pointed out when he visited Japan, if you only ask one "Why?" you get an excuse. Go beyond that. WHY do the French seem to always have crappy officers? Because their society, government, and military are all poorly organized throughout history.

The French didn't actually have a lot of problems facing superior enemies--rather, they had some problems facing massive coalitions of superior enemies. If you were familiar with post-medieval history (as I guess you aren't) France was basically the caged beast of 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries on up to the establishment of Britain at the tip-top after the Napoleonic wars.

Other nations feared France (with good reason, it was a populous, wealthy nation, with a strong aristocratic military tradition) and formed coalitions against her. A good example is the Italian War, in which France suffered a greivous defeat and was cast out of Italy. Who did they face... oh, nobody important. Just Spain, Austria (who also recieved troops from various HRE states), the Italian city states, and the then-legendary Swiss. Generally speaking, it always took a mass application of multiple strong nations working on concert to bring France to a halt. They held the Spanish and HRE Imperials to a standstill at the very height of Spanish power, even bankrupting Spain while they were pulling in the wealth of Peru and Mexico.

The French were unable to win their wars because they always ended up facing coalitions, and they never managed to get any good allies themselves. By 1600 the French were cozying up to the fucking Ottoman Turks in search of somebody who didn't hate them!

Now, after British industrialization, they took the top slot. When the Germans unified, there were a lot more of them then there were in France, and they had better industry. Beyond them were the Russians--and there are/were a fuckload of Russians, enough to make up for their other deficiencies. So France faded into the background.

[Pablo Sanchez]

There's a CONSISTENT pattern of military elitism within the French that goes back a thousand years that has prevented them from producing good leaders, and only a very few exceptional officers have grown from the French system whereas their neighbors in Germany and Britain and Spain and Russia and the US have produced plenty of good officers.

Arthur Richemont was a pretty good commander (the man, more or less, who was in place to lead the men while Jean d'Arc improved morale), as was Jean Bureau (very, very good at concluding sieges). Henri Turenne was also quite good.

But that's only a few guys. I agree that the French couldn't pick good generals for most of their history. I think it had to do with the feeling they had that they were the best, which led them to make elementary fuckup mistakes. Just don't mention Nicopolis... please

[TheDarkling]

MOO: I see no particularly galling failures (that other nations don't have comparable examples of) outside of WW2 and that had special circumstances (not t mention that De Gaulle was actually on the ball with regard to mobile warfare, only trailing Fullers work in the field by 20 years but neither of them received support from their respective governments, their German opposite numbers did however).

[Shocker]

So did most of Europe.

Yeah but much of Europe wasn't quite as powerful nor as collaborationist as France was. The French resistance or underground, outside of saving a few Allied pilots, had done practically nothing and often assisted the Germans (especially in the hunting of Jews) until right up to the Normandy invasion.

[TheDarkling]

Yeah but much of Europe wasn't quite as powerful nor as collaborationist as France was. The French resistance or underground, outside of saving a few Allied pilots, had done practically nothing and often assisted the Germans (especially in the hunting of Jews) until right up to the Normandy invasion.

Oh no question about that, see above where I commented about the French resistance compared to that of other nations.

[Master of Ossus]

Arthur Richemont was a pretty good commander (the man, more or less, who was in place to lead the men while Jean d'Arc improved morale), as was Jean Bureau (very, very good at concluding sieges). Henri Turenne was also quite good.

But that's only a few guys. I agree that the French couldn't pick good generals for most of their history. I think it had to do with the feeling they had that they were the best, which led them to make elementary fuckup mistakes. Just don't mention Nicopolis... please

I agree that the French have produced a few quality commanding officers, but by-and-large they either haven't produced talent or they haven't recognized talent quickly enough to develop it properly. I think that this is a cultural problem within the French military, and I think that they clearly have a long history of problems finding the right people. This is the number one failing that has led to the exceptionally poor French military record.

[Raptor 597]

What are you talking about? The French surrendered in WW2. Napoleon lost. They were getting stomped in WW1 until we saved them. Agincourt. The French have been losers almost throughout history.

Every time the French were defeated easily it's because of incompetent hihger-ups, not the cowardice of the French army. The soldiers fought the Germans when they were in contact with them (having been placed near Belgium instead of the Ardennes), allowed the British to evacuate at Dunkirk by holding off the Germans, and continued to fight and undermine the Nazis until the liberation. Revolutionary France, especially under Napoleon, kicked everybody's ass on land for years and years. They actually won the Hundred Years' War, the only reason anyobody remembers Agincourt is Shakespeare. They helped America win the Revolutionary War. They stalemated the Germans on the ground for years at the cost of millions of men during WWI.

If you want real "losers throughout history," don't look to the French, or even to the Italians: look to Austria. At least France is still the same general size and shape it was hundreds of years ago. The Austro-Hungarian Empire got its ass kicked by Ottomans, Frenchmen, Russians, Prussians, and various pissant Balkan countries so much that it's nothing today.

The Germans were not held off at Dunkirk. XIX Panzer Corps was formed to cease the attack. The Luftwaffe supported by troops went in; the troos weakly. While Germany could not committ all elements west to destroy Dunkirk, how could considering still had sizeable defensive military strength. They could not counterattack and win anything, but they were still there.

Actually, what happened to Austria happened to plenty of nations. Hell, about half the nations you mention are ass kicked into oblivion. Prussia isn't part of Germany, the Ottomans fell and became a higher 3rd rate military power. And various Balkan countries? They absorbed them, and the nation was destroyed by an assassin in 1914. Granted, the Archduke was slowly trying to solve the issue and release the former nations. Land mass means nothing if you are no longer a power.

[Xon]

...

BLAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Yeah, a real military that'll surrender faster than you can cross the country in a B-1.

Oh please, as an Englishman it is my duty to mock the French but the crassness and lack of originality displayed in most (non English originated) French bashing is sickening.

You know they did set the world record for the least amount of time a country surrendering in one after an enemy force crossed the boarder.

Which was ~20 minutes.