I think it is stupid that people assume that the French are horrible at wars just because of world War 2 and Algeria's independence. All the time I hear anti-French jokes that make fun of their military, fighters etc.

What alot of people do not realize is the fact that the French are actually good at wars, one of the best military histories ever. Like Napoleon, Napoleon 3, France in the Americain Revolution, World War 1, Italien Wars, French Revolution, Hundred year war, Thirty Years War, Norman Invasion, Crimean war and a bunch of other wars the French were actually good at.

What are your opinions, I would like to hear your opinion. Your educated Opinion. I do not want to hear the uneducated answer of, France just sucks at wars.


I will post a poll.


Now I do realize that people (mainly Americains) just say anti-French jokes because of where France stands on the Iraq War. Hopefully that is not you

Oh yeah, the rule is if you vote, you have to post and tell why you voted for that option.

It's beacuse the Germans thoroughly beat them in May-June 1940. Most people are ignorant of history, so they do not know the great French triumphs.

What many fail to realize is that, for most of the second millenium AD, France was fighting for its life. It was the most powerful and most populous country in Europe, and everyone wanted a piece of it. France winning a war doesn't mean it gained territory, it means it survived.

Most of all, though, it is perhaps the famous French hubris about things, and mostly about themselves and French things, that makes exacerbating the fact that they don't rule the world yet so sweet. I think most Americans poke fun at the French, though, in more of a friendly way, rather than in a truly degrading one. Now if it were and Englishman, it's anybody's guess...

People don't think that the French are bad at wars.

People don't think that the French are bad at wars.
Not in the good ol' US of A. People here have a lower opinion of French military prowess than they do of Congress. It's almost entirely unwarranted.

People forget Napoleon and (something that rhymes with Napoleon) but remember Waterloo and World War 2.

People forget Napoleon and (something that rhymes with Napoleon) but remember Waterloo and World War 2.
Napoleon was transitory. Good and sunny King Louie had much more lasting gains. (grumbles about Alsace in a nationalistically German way :p)

Is the Sun King more famous in popular media than l'Empereur?

Is the Sun King more famous in popular media than l'Empereur?
Nope. 'Course not. Napoleon is one of the few Frenchmen that American students learn about. They'd probably confuse Louis XIV with Louis XVI. :p

I think being derogatory about the French is a American thing - most recently noted in the run up to Iraq II (of which more below). The English might regard the French as their ancestral foe* (as demonstrated from Crecy through to Waterloo). That doesn't mean that you denigrate their prowess because there is no honour in beating someone who is totally worthless, your enemies need to be good you are just better.


If we want to mock someone for being crap at fighting we'll pick on the Italians, on their basis of their performance under Mussolini. Which is equally unfair but there you have it.
Or we'll mock the Americans, for being crass arrogant idiots with no idea how to fight a war without escalating it into World War III. That's not fair either but that is what you get when you are top dog.


* If you ignore the Spanish**
** And the Dutch
*** And the Germans, though they are latecomers to the party.


The inspiration for the dismal reputation of French arms rest almost solely on them going down hard in May-June 1940 and then spending 4 years under occuptation with all the messy compromises and moral dilemmas that result. They weren't alone in that and just everyone in europe had to cope with that to greater or lesser degree.

The Anglo-Saxon powers didn't, and therefore got to fight a realtively clean morally unambigous war unlike just about everyone else. However the only people whose record of collapse and collaboration gets held against them is the French. No one mocks the Finns for switching sides, no one mocks the Poles for managing to lose to both sides and no one mocks the Danes for being overun in a day. However if you were inclined to could do so, but no one does.

The reason for that can be found in the differing approaches France and Britain made took to their declines as world powers.

The British accepted at a very early stage that although the world might be painted red their colonies would ulitmatly become independent and almost all of their post-WWII campaigns have been about managing that process.

The French came out of WW2 with a point to prove about their status as a World Power and were resolved not to give up their colonies. The result of that was their nemesis in Indochina and nadir in Algeria.

Coupled with this they've had a Gaullist streak of ploughing their own furrow; the British have ended up as Robin to the American Batman. The French do their own thing, be it in Francophone Africa, sort of withdrawing from NATO, coming up with their own nuclear triad or not supporting invading Iraq. They are that aloof guy from the feed store who might join the posse but only if they haven't anything better to do and if asked really nicely. Even then they still think they should be sheriff and will not be shy about voicing that opinion.

Thirdly the Americans have only very briefly, sort of, fought the French. They can therefore safely be sniffy about them in a away that they cannot, say, about the Japanese. In fact given the not inconsiderable contribution the French made to American independence is in fact ego boosting to run them down as by implication that contribution is thereby minimsied.

Why? They've lost every war since Napoleon but WWI, where they lost millions of people.

Why? They've lost every war since Napoleon but WWI, where they lost millions of people.
Yes, the Austrian War with France and Piedmont and the War of Algerian Conquest and the Crimean War were all disasters for France. :rolleyes: You're proving our point, here. France was considered to be the cock of the walk in Europe even after Napoleon, especially after Russia utterly failed at the Crimean War. And their performance in the First World War is often denigrated but really oughtn't be; Joffre's redeployment prior to the First Battle of the Marne is one of the single most brilliant operations in military history and helped save France, to name one example. Foch's counteroffensives after the failure of the German Operation Michael were workmanlike but professional and effective, as well.

The above about 'disasters for France' is sarcasm. In case you couldn't tell from the smiley.

Oh. D'oh! I don't know much about history, yet I'm considered the history genius around where I live. Go figure.

They have a good military history, but you can't just leave out the last two, their strategies at both times brought their seemingly great history way down, especially in WWII, where they defeated by the Germans even after building up their defenses on their borders.

Of course the past history can't be denied either, France has had a good long history, and its not over yet, but still the last two are very big, and thats why I said they are ok.

Oh. D'oh! I don't know much about history, yet I'm considered the history genius around where I live. Go figure.

Dude, you live in America ;)

Luis Xiv was named a moron from you once i remember ? Why is that for the sun king ? He was relatively successful in wars as far as i remember.

Russia, England, Poland, Norway, and the Dutch were ALL overwhelmed by the Blitzkrieg. Why should we pick on the French? The Germans had mastered a whole new style of warfare, somebody had to pay the price.

Dude, you live in America ;)


True :lol: :lol: :lol: That made my....night??? Good night everybody :)

You sort of forgot about the Fanco-Prussian war and WWI. Their modern tract record isn't that good, which of course is what people know most about.

What alot of people do not realize is the fact that the French are actually good at wars, one of the best military histories ever. Like Napoleon (how did that turn out for them), Napoleon 3(Excuse me :lol: ), France in the Americain Revolution, World War 1 (Did you forget about the mutiny of their whole army? There performance left much to be desired), Italien Wars, French Revolution, Hundred year war, Thirty Years War, Norman Invasion (Not French), Crimean war(Utter failure, but not just for France) and a bunch of other wars the French were actually good at.


Now I do realize that people (mainly Americains) just say anti-French jokes because of where France stands on the Iraq War.

Are you freaking kidding me? French surrender monkey jokes are no more popular now than the were in 1995 or 1985 or 1965 for that matter. Your frame of reference needs adjusting.

Why? They've lost every war since Napoleon but WWI, where they lost millions of people.

by they are you talking about France.

France won both world wars, yes they did get partly occupied by the Nazis but they still won in the end.

You sort of forgot about the Fanco-Prussian war and WWI. Their modern tract record isn't that good, which of course is what people know most about.



Are you freaking kidding me? French surrender monkey jokes are no more popular now than the were in 1995 or 1985 or 1965 for that matter. Your frame of reference needs adjusting.

no actually alot of my friends and even some of my parents friends admitted that the main reason they make these jokes are because that the French did not agree with America with Iraq

And we all have to admit France was right in that Iraq was a bad idea

Then your friends are idiots. I have heard those jokes since as far back as I can remember, and I bet it would be no difficult task to find many a google reference to it from pre 2003. In case you didn't know, the French didn't surrender to anyone in 2003 :rolleyes:

It is been a running joke since WWII.

Russia, England, Poland, Norway, and the Dutch were ALL overwhelmed by the Blitzkrieg. Why should we pick on the French? The Germans had mastered a whole new style of warfare, somebody had to pay the price.

To be fair, neither Russia or England were truly overwhelmed... The fact that they ultimatly broke the Germans in a war of Attrition proves the fatal flaw in the blitzkrieg.

But back to France...

Ultimately, the factors that lead to victory or defeat isnt the quality or numbers of men, but rather the leadership... Even the greatest can be undone by poor leadership in the fields (Example. Nazi Germany!!! I suppose if you think of it, Hitler is the hero who undid Germany do to his poor leadership... what a prick)... French leadership during the second WW was not up to par with the Germans, the french were still thinking in terms of Trench Warfare while the Germans turned Mobile. The French dont suck at war, they just haven't had A (or even B) quality leadership then...

That shouldn't permanantly smudge their record.

Luis Xiv was named a moron from you once i remember ? Why is that for the sun king ? He was relatively successful in wars as far as i remember.
He was relatively successful, but I think a lot of that was in spite of him as opposed to because of him. A huge reason for his success was his excellent group of ministers and generals. I can't see any country that has both Conde and Turenne, along with Colbert, Luxembourg, Villars, Vendome, and the (comparatively for its time) French bureaucracy, losing very badly to anyone.

That said, he did make the cardinal error of the Edict of Fontainebleau, which yielded virtually no benefits for a great cost in propaganda, economic strength, and human resources. Louie also decided to pass on the idea of 'let's burn up the Rhineland! It's not as though the Thirty Years' War is over or anything! Nobody'll notice, it's only Germany!' Those two errors cost him a great deal.

I also, as you may have noticed, tend to go overboard with pejorative terms like 'moron'. :p I simply wish to get across the point that his reign was one of the greatest periods in French history, but that he still screwed up and it should have been a lot better for France than it ended up being.

Nope. 'Course not. Napoleon is one of the few Frenchmen that American students learn about. They'd probably confuse Louis XIV with Louis XVI. :p

If you mention Napoleon in a US school you will probably be asked if you meant the name+explosive substance created by Nobel.

The French are good at wars. Americans are just ignorant.

For all practical purposes, the size of Russia defeated the Germans, not any display of genius from the Russians. And the British won because to conquer England, you have to conquer the air and sea...not what the Blitzkrieg was designed for.

If France would of extended the maginot line across the belgian border, then Germany would of never crossed and invaded France

Why neither the French nor the Italians are the worst military nation (http://everything2.com/e2node/Why%2520neither%2520the%2520French%2520nor%2520the %2520Italians%2520are%2520the%2520worst%2520milita ry%2520nation)

It is a truth universally acknowledged that, en masse if not individually, E2 has a slight nagging tendency towards anti-French sentiment. For the Brits it's sort of traditional/historic, dating back to the Hundred Years War and all that (in which the English gloriously won, as they will be sure to note, at Crecy and Agincourt; strangely, at the end of it all, the French owned all of France, including the bits that the English had owned previously) and quite a lot of subsequent ones, mainly fought in Belgium, while for the Americans it seems to be something to do with the fact that they needed French help to run a revolution properly, along with the proximity of uppity Quebeckers and the fact that the French are marginally less prepared than the rest of the world to roll over and be McDisneyfied™; not being one I can't say definitively. But I digress.

When it comes to military history, this particular bias mostly comes out in references to three weeks in May 1940, and specifically one piece of particularly crap judgement by General Gamelin and one bypassed fortress line. The fact that that the allied participants - France, Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium - have spent most of the time since blaming each other and trying to work out who sold out whom has been allowed to mask the fact that this particular campaign was successful beyond all reasonable expectations for the Germans, and that when the French actually had troops in the right places, they were perfectly capable of fighting the advancing Panzers to a standstill at a tactical or operational level. Visitors to Paris may wish to note that the big - rather bigger than you think until you actually see it in the flesh - structure at one end of the Champs Elysées is called the Arc de Triomphe, and not the Arc de Defaite; it bears an admittedly tedious and tasteless, but indubitably long, list of battles at which the French did rather well. The fact that your school history lessons may have taught you rather more about Paul Revere or Clive of India than about Charles Martel is not relevant in the greater scheme of things.

Commonly held views on the Italians' military prowess are little less facile. Here we have two lasting images to deal with. In World War II we have the mass surrenders of several low-grade Italian infantry divisions in the Western Desert which provided the first images of victory for eager British newsreel cameras in three years of war - peasant conscripts fighting for a cause for which they had little sympathy in a blighted colony which they had no interest in defending. The first-line Italian units, despite poor equipment (what happens when you put centralised procurement into the hands of an idiot who likes shiny things) and being a long way second in line behind the Germans for ammunition, fuel, spares, food and pretty much everything else, provided serious opposition to the Eighth Army on many occasions. The best Italian army units, the Alpini, were sent, desperately underequipped for the conditions, to the Eastern Front under German command where they were used as cannon fodder; they left no trace on military legend except locally by virtue of their 100% failure to return, ever, but that was not their fault. A significant (if swollen after the event for reasons of political convenience) number of those less inclined to support the Germans fought a bitter and hard guerilla campaign on the Allied side as the British and Americans progressed rather slower than planned up the Italian peninsula.

Likewise, from World War I we have the enduring image of the defeat at Caporetto, a graphic demonstration of the perils of the potential weaknesses of a defensive line in mountains with an open plain to your rear (a breakthrough up one valley easily outflanks numerous valleys to either side while the terrain makes lateral redeployment impossible). It pays very little attention to the preceding three years' fighting in the Carso and the Altopiano di Asiago where troops from an army with truly atrocious human resources management (enlisted men were paid a fraction of what French or English troops received and denied leave for years at a time; emigrants to the USA serving in the US Army were listed as deserters by the Italian army!) fought tenaciously to hold the Austrians in terrain that made the Ypres salient look like a rest home. Small British and French forces sent to Italy in the aftermath of Caporetto were good for morale but hardly decisive, having on at least one occasion to be got out of the . .. .. .. . by the Italians (and about the same number of Italian troops were sent to fight on the Western Front).

Oh yes, did I mention the Austrians? A grand military tradition. The Radetzky march, all that stuff. Let's look at their record more closely, shall we?

The Austrians (or rather the Habsburgs) built up a moderately large empire by persuading the Magyars that they could be sort of equal partners in the empire in an unequal sort of way, expert politicking and setting one lot of Slavs against another in the Balkans and central Europe, and marrying into the right ducal families in bits of what was later to become Italy. They never quite managed to sort out the Serbs, however, who felt that fighting nobly against the Turks was their speciality, and they were forced out of Switzerland early on by a small boy with an apple on his head.

The year 1683 may reasonably be considered a turning point for Western Christendom. Over the preceding century or so the Turkish Ottoman Empire had steadily advanced up the Balkan peninsula and after being balked, as it were, for many years by Macedonians, Bulgars, Albanians, Serbs, Bosnians, Croats, Slovenians, Slavonians and some I've probably forgotten, finally got as far as the Habsburg capital, Vienna, to which they laid siege. The siege failed, and the Turks were repelled, never again to return. Why? Because Austria was rescued by the Poles under Jan III Sobieski.

Under the noted and renowned Empress Maria Theresa, a War of the Austrian Succession was held. In keeping with tradition, it was mainly fought between the French and the English in Belgium (the French, opposed to Austria, won), except for an unimportant sideshow which appears to have been between the French and the Indians in Saratoga. The upshot was naturally that the Austrians let the Prussians have Silesia. Twice, to be on the safe side. A few years later the Seven Years War, largely fought between the English and the French in Belgium (the English, opposed to the Austrians, won) confirmed the result.

When it came to the French revolutionary and the Napoleonic wars, the Habsburgs were naturally on the side of the divine right of kings (well, Marie-Antoinette was a Habsburg herself) and against mob rule, liberty, fraternity, and most certainly equality. In furtherance of this cause, the Austrians fought the French at such places as Marengo, Austerlitz, and Wagram - among other names listed on the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. By 1812 the Austrians decided to try being on the same side as Napoleon for a change. Napoleon promptly invaded Russia, with predictable results. Following Napoleon's final defeat at a battle in Belgium which the Austrians fortunately weren't in time to get to, they regained most of their possessions in Italy at the peace talks due to diplomatic manoeuvrings by the master of the art, Metternich, but lost influence in Germany.

In the 1850s Austria failed to back her treaty partner Russia when the latter was invaded by the Turks, French and English in the Crimean war. Sardinia/Savoy/Piedmont, the leading state in the Italian peninsula, fought with the Allies, gaining international favour when it came to removing the Austrian influence during the subsequent wars of the Italian unification. Austria lost battles at places like Magenta and Solferino, and with them most of its Italian possessions except Venice.

In 1864 the Austrians did actually win a battle, a small naval engagement near Heligoland in the North Sea, against the Danes, against whom they were fighting in support of the Prussians over the Schleswig-Holstein question, of course. Emboldened by this masterstroke, they promptly came to blows with their erstwhile allies and were soundly whipped at the battle of Sadowa-Königgratz. The Italians got most of the rest of their country back in the resulting confusion.

The Austrians managed to stay out of trouble for another few decades after that, building up a national economy based on cheap dance music and diplomatic manoeuvrings in the Balkans. Unfortunately they got out of their depth in this respect; in 1914 the foreign minister Conrad von Hotzendorff, believing himself to be the reincarnation of Metternich decided that it would be a really smart idea to start the First World War. It could reasonably be argued that all the countries involved lost the First World War, even the winners, but Austria, after some Pyrrhic successes against the Serbs, a certain amount of back-and-forth against the Russians in Galicia and a cheap and ultimately futile win at Caporetto after the Russians had pulled out and the Germans had sent rather a lot of extra troops, ended up losing its entire empire, its monarchy, access to the sea and any self-respect whatsoever. It also managed to export Adolf Hitler to Germany during this period, which was singularly unfortunate; he absorbed Austria into a Greater Germany and then lost a rather big war in the most spectacular of fashions, as you are probably aware. This ended the military involvement of Austria in world affairs, at least for the moment.

I rest my case.

The Itallians in the second world war fared far worse militarrilly as it would be expected. While they overpowered Greece in both numbers , and quality of equipment they certainly did not do so in regard of leadership , military organisation and experience . They where completly destroyed by the Greek artillery. There inability to seize control of Greece was not only the biggest and first victory against a power of Axon but also forced Germany to invade Greece at the time which delayed their plans in the Eastern front. So actually i do think thy did suck at WW2. However i would not call Italy a country with bad military history or none at all. We must also remember that the supposed military history of each Nation has no effect to the outcome of any future war it may fight.
will lead

France hasn'r really won a war for almost 200 years. Even Napoleon lost in the end. They also lost in 1871 to Prussia, and would have lost in WW1 as well if it wasn't for the British. They've sucked since the rise of Prussia/Germany. To beat France in a modern war just wear German army uniform and in WW3 France surrenders before it starts. In effect France has been a second rate european power for almost 200 years.

France hasn'r really won a war for almost 200 years. Even Napoleon lost in the end. They also lost in 1871 to Prussia, and would have lost in WW1 as well if it wasn't for the British. They've sucked since the rise of Prussia/Germany. To beat France in a modern war just wear German army uniform and in WW3 France surrenders before it starts. In effect France has been a second rate european power for almost 200 years.

What, I know France got invaded during the WW2 but they still won, they also were really good in WW1 they won that.

They won the crimean war in the 1800's.

And France is not a second rate European Power. Even after France got liberated, they were given a section of Germany, and quickly became a world power again.

France right now is still a world power believe it or not.

this is ignorence right here, remember in my first post I said something about giving an educated opinion. Your post was far from educated considering you mentioned WW3 when it never even happened.

If France would of extended the maginot line across the belgian border, then Germany would of never crossed and invaded France

The issue wasn't the Belgian border per se, it was the Ardennes Forest. There were more than 100 French divisions that rushed to predesignated defensive locations when Germany broke Belgian neutrality (which everyone, including the Belgians, knew would happen); at those positions, they effectively halted German Army Group B's assault. The only reason they were forced to give up those positions was they they had been severely outflanked by 45 German divisions, including 8 armored ones, that came tearing through the Ardennes with only 16 French divisions between them and the Somme River. Through the entire Battle of France, those 16 divisions were the only ones that dropped what they were doing and booked it, and personally, I don't blame them for it. The rest of the French Army fought on with incredibly bravery and skill, and, as I noted, even halted German advance from the North.

If the Italians had just handed the regns over to Hitler things would of come out so differently.


There are so many countries that are worse then France that I think this lack of knowledge of basic hstory(lets face it who won and who lost is the core of history) is just plain arrogant ignorance.

they got beat by the british a bunch of times back in the day. The british basically saved france in WW1. They were beaten by the Germans in WW2 (I think the germans beat them also a few other time) they had there disasters in Vietnam and Algeria.

Ignorance and anti-French sentiment.

they got beat by the british a bunch of times back in the day. The british basically saved france in WW1. They were beaten by the Germans in WW2 (I think the germans beat them also a few other time) they had there disasters in Vietnam and Algeria.

like I said, if you are going to post, give an educated opinon.

The British beat them a bunch is not educated, give examples. The French has had their fair share of victories over the British. 100 years war, Napoleonic, Americain Revolution, Hastings etc. Britian and France have both been preety equal in terms of victorties over each other.

Again, yes Germany beat them in 1940, but France beat Germany in 1945 and won the war.

Battle of Bouvines anyone?

Because most of the people who think that are narrow minded Americans.

The first battles England fought in WW2 - Lost. The first battled the US fought in WW2 - Lost. Japanese sentiment at that time: What a bunch of surrender monkeys.

Every nation that faced the Axis forced completely underetimated them from the start. Luckely the English and Americans weren't occupied and were able to come back strong.

Perhaps if people didn't ask such ridiculously sweeping questions as "Are nation X good in wars" these stereotypes wouldn't emerge. You surely won't see serious historians asking questions like these. As with any country, some French people have been good at wars and some haven't. The proportions have varied over time. More importantly, there's no such thing as "the French" except as an abstraction. I don't know why people on this site like to talk as if "the French under Napoleon" and "the French in WWI" are the same people, as if their good showing in one war must be balanced by their poor showing in another to calculate an overall score. They're not the same people!

Napoleon is one of the few Frenchmen that American students learn about. They'd probably confuse Louis XIV with Louis XVI. :p You don't know how sad that is until you experience it >_<

French surrender monkey jokes are no more popular now than the were in 1995 or 1985 or 1965 for that matter. Your frame of reference needs adjusting.
Actually, the term 'cheese eating surrender monkey' was coined by the simpsons, in 195 (episode 'Round Springfield"). Seulement mes deux cents.

Stupid constant double posting. Just keeps loading, 'n loading, until I refresh and post it encore.

The issue wasn't the Belgian border per se, it was the Ardennes Forest. There were more than 100 French divisions that rushed to predesignated defensive locations when Germany broke Belgian neutrality (which everyone, including the Belgians, knew would happen); at those positions, they effectively halted German Army Group B's assault. The only reason they were forced to give up those positions was they they had been severely outflanked by 45 German divisions, including 8 armored ones, that came tearing through the Ardennes with only 16 French divisions between them and the Somme River. Through the entire Battle of France, those 16 divisions were the only ones that dropped what they were doing and booked it, and personally, I don't blame them for it. The rest of the French Army fought on with incredibly bravery and skill, and, as I noted, even halted German advance from the North.

Remind me if im wrong in my recollections of Fall Gelb and Manstein, but wasnt the point of Army Group B to to hold the main allied forces in position while they were flanked by Army Group A from the Ardennes. Army Group A under Runstedt was given the cream of the motorized divisions while B was infantry heavy and tasked with a holding attack intended to draw the allied armies into the pocket created by A's flank attack from the Ardennes.

Army Group B was halted as you say, but that was an anticipated part of the plan. The Germans accomplished the goal of drawing the allies into the pocket.

I think this hate for the french when talking about anglo-american culture can be traced back to the days of England, mocking them from lack of military success is just late habit. It's just one way of saying french are somehow odd or strange or "gay".

It's probably because some people in US think they have the biggest balls in this planet so even if it isn't true they must state it is so.

It's like US military success should be only measured by the failure in Vietnam. Rather ridiculous.

Remind me if im wrong in my recollections of Fall Gelb and Manstein, but wasnt the point of Army Group B to to hold the main allied forces in position while they were flanked by Army Group A from the Ardennes. Army Group A under Runstedt was given the cream of the motorized divisions while B was infantry heavy and tasked with a holding attack intended to draw the allied armies into the pocket created by A's flank attack from the Ardennes.

Army Group B was halted as you say, but that was an anticipated part of the plan. The Germans accomplished the goal of drawing the allies into the pocket.

Army Group B was to make a determined attack, because they realized what an incredibly risky move it was to send Runstedt and Group A through the Ardennes; most didn't think it would work, and there were so many things that could go wrong. If one of those things did go wrong, it was hoped that B would be able to break through, or at least wear them down, or put them in a position where retreat would be inevitable anyway. Hell, a lot of A's movements weren't even planned, Guderian and Rommel more or less took an idea and ran with it once they broke out of the Ardennes. They took the idea of "racing to the Somme" to a whole new level; at one point, even the German superiors lost track of Guderian, and he was almost relieved of command for it.

Don't get me wrong, the whole of Fall Gelb was completely brilliant, but part of that was beacuse they played to the French game. Von Molke the Elder said "no plan survives contact with the enemy," and the Germans certianly knew the French and Allied plan to rush into Belgium and flood canals and such. Manstein and Runstedt built Fall Gelb around that correct assumption.

France was bad in the most recent wars, being invaded both times. Completely disregarded in this way is Napoleon. To answer the question more precisely however, I do not think it is really possible to say if the French are bad in wars, purely because there has been no real test in recent years.

How come everyone says they got invaded in WW1, they did not

How come everyone says they got invaded in WW1, they did not

You need to read about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_%28World_War_I%29

"The German army came within 43 miles (70 km) of Paris"

That's an invasion- the German army were invading on France.

ok, I thought you meant a complete invasion, an Occupation

Yeah, it got me thinking what an "invasion" constitutes.

I think this hate for the french when talking about anglo-american culture can be traced back to the days of England

And when is that, exactly? England does exist right now, in fact.

ok, I thought you meant a complete invasion, an Occupation

"Invasion" means an army from country X enters country Y in order to attack it. It doesn't have any overtones of success. An occupation may follow an invasion but it doesn't have to. By any normal definition of the word, France was certainly invaded in WWI.

And when is that, exactly? England does exist right now, in fact.



"Invasion" means an army from country X enters country Y in order to attack it. It doesn't have any overtones of success. An occupation may follow an invasion but it doesn't have to. By any normal definition of the word, France was certainly invaded in WWI.

invaded, yes but not occupied, and technically France was never completly occupied in WW2 because they had their colonies in Africa, Asia, Carribean etc.

Losing a war to Mexico

Losing a war to Mexico

???

Are you thinking about cinco de mayo. That was a Battle. The Franco- Mexicain war ended when France occupied Mexico for 5 years.

The only Reason the Mexicains got their capital back is because America, just after finishing the civil war supplied weapons and ammo to the Mexicains.

It was also not the first time that France had occupied Mexico. Back in 1838 France invaded Mexico in the The Pastry War.

invaded, yes but not occupied, and technically France was never completly occupied in WW2 because they had their colonies in Africa, Asia, Carribean etc.

Were those colonies actually integral to France like French Guiana is today, or were they merely colonies?

Were those colonies actually integral to France like French Guiana is today, or were they merely colonies?

yes the colonies back then were as essential to France as French Guiana, Martinique, Guadalupe, St. Martin, etc are to France today.

And when is that, exactly? England does exist right now, in fact.Poor choice of words for my part.

I meant that english have always made funny of french and hated them.
This has been common for ages.

This rivalry then shifted over the pacific to the America but it's clear US did have some connection with french before but apparently being more close to GB always makes them also drift a bit from the french.

Just look the texts of Mark Twain and you can see that even though he probably liked France, he had also lot of say about the french.

The french have never liked the US since NATO since (to my understanding?) they didn't like the Post-WW2 world. basically the new world order sideleined the UK and France to second rate powers. Which is why France was always having issues with the US about overflight issues and whatnot for NATO missions.

yes the colonies back then were as essential to France as French Guiana, Martinique, Guadalupe, St. Martin, etc are to France today.
In other words, not all that essential, save in terms of prestige and (for French Guiana) space exploration.

Poor choice of words for my part.

I meant that english have always made funny of french and hated them.
This has been common for ages.

This rivalry then shifted over the pacific to the America but it's clear US did have some connection with french before but apparently being more close to GB always makes them also drift a bit from the french.

Just look the texts of Mark Twain and you can see that even though he probably liked France, he had also lot of say about the french.

I dont think the English make fun of the French anymore. When I go to Europe I notice they all like eachother. They dont make fun of eachother, because they have EU, Nato, UN. The U.S on the other hand make immature stereotype remarks. Hopefully U.S can outgrow that

Poor choice of words for my part.

I meant that english have always made funny of french and hated them.
This has been common for ages.



Quite, as I said on page 1 they are the ancestral enemy. You can mock them, you can hate them but you can't say they are rubbish otherwise there is no kudos in beating them.


It would be like the USMC saying the Japanese were walkovers

yes the colonies back then were as essential to France as French Guiana, Martinique, Guadalupe, St. Martin, etc are to France today.

Still stands though, the "invasion of France". Albeit in the geographical sense rather than the geo-political way.

They dont make fun of eachother

Which europe did you go too? :confused:

I dont think the English make fun of the French anymore. When I go to Europe I notice they all like eachother. They dont make fun of eachother, because they have EU, Nato, UN. The U.S on the other hand make immature stereotype remarks. Hopefully U.S can outgrow that

As the post above me says, what Europe do you go too? have you not even seen the UK north/south divide thread, we mock the southerners for being too close to France. These days its mostly meant without too much malice but there are still deep rooted animosities between countries.

Look at the eurovision song contest, most of that isn't even too far back historical animosity.

And i'm sorry did you just say europe has the UN? as in the rest of the world doesn't...

Most people mock France's army as through the ages it has generally been the most consistently strongest and therefore jealousy, more recent there has been the world wars to add to this.

I dont think the English make fun of the French anymore. When I go to Europe I notice they all like eachother. They dont make fun of eachother, because they have EU, Nato, UN. The U.S on the other hand make immature stereotype remarks. Hopefully U.S can outgrow that

Much much mocking, though now in good spirits.

Mostly.

It's beacuse the Germans thoroughly beat them in May-June 1940. Most people are ignorant of history, so they do not know the great French triumphs.

What many fail to realize is that, for most of the second millenium AD, France was fighting for its life. It was the most powerful and most populous country in Europe, and everyone wanted a piece of it. France winning a war doesn't mean it gained territory, it means it survived.

Most of all, though, it is perhaps the famous French hubris about things, and mostly about themselves and French things, that makes exacerbating the fact that they don't rule the world yet so sweet. I think most Americans poke fun at the French, though, in more of a friendly way, rather than in a truly degrading one. Now if it were and Englishman, it's anybody's guess...
A good post, but I bolded this particular part because I've almost exclusively witnessed actual hatred of the French. For example, people saying they wish that we had let Germany keep France after WWII, because its so worthless, one saying he wanted to take a steaming . .. .. .. . on the country (granted, he had his luggage lost on Air France but still- and he did get it back), and so on and so forth about the French sucking, being smelly, undeserving of being on this planet, pussys, etc.
What these people say about certain wars: WWI? They lost! Despite holding their lines. WWII? Lost! Sure, they were overrun, just like every other nation bordering Germany, barring its Allies and Switzerland. "SO? THEY LOST! THEY ARE TEH SUCK!" and they bring up the Maginot Line if they're smart, why not build it along Belgium as well? Surely they learned after WWI? Sure. That would have been smart. And expensive. And if you believe lightning never strikes the same place twice.. "But they surrendered!" Yeah. Like I said, as did most other countries that faced a direct invasion by Germany, maybe if they had the size, both geographically, in population, and ego as Russia, they would have done better? Then we go Vietnam: "They lost to VIETNAM!" so did we "No we didn't! We left!" ok...
And then there was the freedom fries crap and poring French wine down toilets, which just shows the level of intelligence we're dealing with. Gah.
People forget Napoleon and (something that rhymes with Napoleon) but remember Waterloo and World War 2.
I bring up Napoleon, and those that know he's Corsican play that up as meaning he's not French. Even Italian, so says my insanely nationalist Italian friend, but then I remind him in the end he lost, and he says of course, he was using French soldiers. I guess conquering Europe only gets you respect if you're German.
Why? They've lost every war since Napoleon but WWI, where they lost millions of people.
Haha. Because if we Americans had been there, oh we would've shown them!
Being surrounded by possible enemies makes things a bit difficult by comparison to the US.
If the Italians had just handed the regns over to Hitler things would of come out so differently.

Yeah, but I don't see dying in Russia being any better than dying in Greece or North Africa.
Ignorance and anti-French sentiment.
:goodjob:
The first battles England fought in WW2 - Lost. The first battled the US fought in WW2 - Lost. Japanese sentiment at that time: What a bunch of surrender monkeys.

Every nation that faced the Axis forced completely underetimated them from the start. Luckely the English and Americans weren't occupied and were able to come back strong.
Exactly. Plus they had these barriers, large swathes of water, in between too. Good planning on their parts.
Perhaps if people didn't ask such ridiculously sweeping questions as "Are nation X good in wars" these stereotypes wouldn't emerge. You surely won't see serious historians asking questions like these. As with any country, some French people have been good at wars and some haven't. The proportions have varied over time. More importantly, there's no such thing as "the French" except as an abstraction. I don't know why people on this site like to talk as if "the French under Napoleon" and "the French in WWI" are the same people, as if their good showing in one war must be balanced by their poor showing in another to calculate an overall score. They're not the same people!
Thank you! A very good post. Useful against nationalism in general. Soldiers everywhere are people like you and me. With good equipment and leaders they can probably accomplish a lot, regardless of the flag they fight under.
In other words, not all that essential, save in terms of prestige and (for French Guiana) space exploration.
As the French were very interested in space exploration in WWII :mischief:;)

I think that when we have already understood the cause of the problem to be stupidity , there is no much reason to discuss about it when it occurs , and do anything different than laugh at this phenomenon when it happens.

I dont think the English make fun of the French anymore. When I go to Europe I notice they all like eachother. They dont make fun of eachother, because they have EU, Nato, UN. The U.S on the other hand make immature stereotype remarks. Hopefully U.S can outgrow that
Obviously, you have not read many posts from the English posters or mine here...
The difference is when we make fun at each other with the English, it's more like a game of wit, and we know we are joking. We take the game seriously. But not what we say.
That's the difference with American bashing. I have the feeling a lot Americans who bash France really mean what they say.

I think that one of the characteristic of France is a kind of resilience. Especially when facing superior ennemies. Its when we are supposed to be the strongest that things are starting to get bad.

Yes, we have some bad time and lost battles against the English during the hundred years war... And strangely due to overconfidence... But then we manage to win at the end.
During the revolutionnary wars and initial Napoleonic wars, we were outnumbered, attack from everywhere, and yet we prevailed.
In WWI, the Germans outnumbered us as well, but we hold and we won at the end.
And when said beaten in WWII, we still were there at the end.

Even in some wars we lose, the result wasn't so bad.

In the French and indian wars, the English won at the end. But there were 50,000 English against less than 15,000 French, and initially the English took some serious beating until they learn how to fight in this area.

In Mexico, the French actually won from 1863 to 1865 (Camerone anyone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Camar%C3%B3n)?. There was some republican victory in 1865, and most importantly the American civil war was finished, and the American demand France abandonned Mexico in 1866 and started a blockade, and then Napoleon III decided to withdraw.

BTW, for the people who laughed at Napoleon III. He lost against Prussia in 1870. But Crimea = French Victory, French involved in Asia (Vietnam, China, Korea) were successfull, war against Austria in Italy is a French victory (Solferino). He wasn't that bad.

Don't forget that since the 13th century, France has been at war during more than 450 years... We should not be that bad if we are still there.

I think that one of the characteristic of France is a kind of resilience. Especially when facing superior ennemies. Its when we are supposed to be the strongest that things are starting to get bad.

Yes, we have some bad time and lost battles against the English during the hundred years war... And strangely due to overconfidence... But then we manage to win at the end.
During the revolutionnary wars and initial Napoleonic wars, we were outnumbered, attack from everywhere, and yet we prevailed.
In WWI, the Germans outnumbered us as well, but we hold and we won at the end.
And when said beaten in WWII, we still were there at the end.

Even in some wars we lose, the result wasn't so bad.

In the French and indian wars, the English won at the end. But there were 50,000 English against less than 15,000 French, and initially the English took some serious beating until they learn how to fight in this area.

In Mexico, the French actually won from 1863 to 1865 (Camerone anyone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Camar%C3%B3n)?. There was some republican victory in 1865, and most importantly the American civil war was finished, and the American demand France abandonned Mexico in 1866 and started a blockade, and then Napoleon III decided to withdraw.

BTW, for the people who laughed at Napoleon III. He lost against Prussia in 1870. But Crimea = French Victory, French involved in Asia (Vietnam, China, Korea) were successfull, war against Austria in Italy is a French victory (Solferino). He wasn't that bad.

Don't forget that since the 13th century, France has been at war during more than 450 years... We should not be that bad if we are still there.

I know Nap III was at war with China. Was that a French Victory. I really never looked into that.

And just a question I always wondered. There was Napoleon the first and third which you hear alot about, What about Napoleon the second. What did he do?

I know Nap III was at war with China. Was that a French Victory. I really never looked into that.

And just a question I always wondered. There was Napoleon the first and third which you hear alot about, What about Napoleon the second. What did he do?

The son of Napoloen died at the age of 21 on tuberculose. He was briefly emperor but didn't do much and wasn't in a position to do so.

He was emperor from 22nd June 1815 (after his fathe abdication) until the 7th of July, then the allies reached Paris.
He was 4 at the time... Not much he could have done

The French lost WWII. The fact that they were liberated in the process of others defeating Germany does not change that fact. Hell, they even officially surrendered.

Same with Poland and Belgium and Yugoslavia and Greece and whoever else was completely overwhelmed.

The French lost WWII. The fact that they were liberated in the process of others defeating Germany does not change that fact. Hell, they even officially surrendered.

Same with Poland and Belgium and Yugoslavia and Greece and whoever else was completely overwhelmed.

Yugoslavia put up a lot better fight than any of the rest (Croat collaborators excepted).

I bring up Napoleon, and those that know he's Corsican play that up as meaning he's not French. Even Italian, so says my insanely nationalist Italian friend, but then I remind him in the end he lost, and he says of course, he was using French soldiers.

Haha, that's great.

If the Italians had just handed the regns over to Hitler things would of come out so differently.

That is just wrong. The Italian army's faults were deeply rooted. One could argue they date to 476AD. Since then they had been divided culturally, politically, even geographically. The Italians of 1940 still had only been "unified" since 1860 and there was still an amalgamation of various Italian peoples making up this "Italian" population. That is just one reason why if the Italian army was headed by Hitler there would be no difference in Axis success. The Italian people still did not have a massive drive for success like the Germans did for example.

i voted "ok".

the only reason i didn't vote "good" is b/c of their mid 20th century results. of course, pre-20th century, they are among the elite imo (save for their navy).

they performed adequately enough in ww1 albeit some stubborn and inflexible leadership. however, much of the leadership during ww1, especially the early parts, were guilty of this. this includes the US's early forays as well (eg murderous frontal assaults).

i think they get a raw deal somewhat wrt ww2. they were caught flat-footed imo. sure the maginot debacle was a mess. but they encountered a terrifying new tactic and were never able to truly recover from it.

they had some initial successes in indo-china but were not able to follow up on them imo. dien bien phu was a major tactical miscalculation and they paid dearly for it. however, i'd never disparage the courage of those troopers. they held out for quite a long time there and under unbeleivable circumstances.

algeria is probably the worst of the lot imho. but i see this more as a political miscalculation (ie de gaulle) than a military one. sure their tactics there were pretty inhumane. however, imo, this was more a case of politics dictating the turn of events. so i'm far more critical of de gaulle and his intentions as opposed to anything that the french military may have done.

As the post above me says, what Europe do you go too? have you not even seen the UK north/south divide thread, we mock the southerners for being too close to France.

And the French* don't even consider most of the area north of Paris to be properly France, because it's too close to England. Although some French friends of ours who lived in Kent were in the habit of popping over to Scotland because it was so close, which suggests to me that the French sense of geography is not as great as it could be. This might explain a lot.

*Those of them who inhabit the more barbarous southern regions, at least.

Obviously, you have not read many posts from the English posters or mine here...
The difference is when we make fun at each other with the English, it's more like a game of wit, and we know we are joking. We take the game seriously. But not what we say.
That's the difference with American bashing. I have the feeling a lot Americans who bash France really mean what they say.

Heh, that's because Americans don't know about irony. That was irony!

Heh, that's because Americans don't know about irony. That was irony!

A similar thing is observed when our North vs. South arguments get going; it quickly turns serious, hostile, and vicious. It seems to generally be a part of the American psyche to be so adamant and up-tight about things.

Obviously, you have not read many posts from the English posters or mine here...
The difference is when we make fun at each other with the English, it's more like a game of wit, and we know we are joking. We take the game seriously. But not what we say.
That's the difference with American bashing. I have the feeling a lot Americans who bash France really mean what they say.

Agreed
The subsequent career of Naploeon III's heir Eugene is an example of how complicated and nuanced this relationship really is.

Yes, we have some bad time and lost battles against the English during the hundred years war... And strangely due to overconfidence... But then we manage to win at the end.

Yep the English got their collective arse kicked - and thank Dieu for that! If England had one it would have ended up as 'Northern France' to the the far richer and more populous French state ;).

Yep the English got their collective arse kicked - and thank Dieu for that! If England had one it would have ended up as 'Northern France' to the the far richer and more populous French state ;).
Or France might have revolted under a genial and partially insane military leader who goes on to spectacularly beat up everybody and then die just after his greatest victory. Might be an unoriginal idea though.

If any European nation deserves grief for their military history it is Italy (not counting Rome) far more than France.

If any European nation deserves grief for their military history it is Italy (not counting Rome) far more than France.

May I ask why?

May I ask why?

same reason people think the French are bad in wars.

WW2

same reason people think the French are bad in wars.

WW2

But now that I think about it, they did win WW1.

It is Germany who has not won a war since the Franco-Prussian war. There the ones that always end up surrenduring. At least Italy won 1 world war. France won 2.

That's what annoys me so much about some people. They are all, "France and Italy are so crap in wars", basing their whole theorem on their limited knowledge of World War II, forgetting everything else.

Well , France has today one of the best militaries in the world. I don't know about Italy , how strong is your military today , Rossiya ?

I don't know, I am a British national. ;)

However, I would imagine that the Italian military is as good as or perhaps slightly worse than France's?

I don't know, I am a British national. ;)

So you don't know how good is the British army?


However, I would imagine that the Italian military is as good as or perhaps slightly worse than France's?
Italy has 300,000 miltiary personnel, 8th militry expanditure in the world.
Italy has 200 Ariete and 120 Leopard I, weaker than Leclerc
The airforce has 580 aircrafts, including 75 Eurofighters, and 100 Tornados.
The navy has two small carriers, a dozen frigates, 6 subs.

France has 380,000 military, we have 400 Leclerc and 600 AMX 30.
Air force has 800 aircrafts, including 30 Rafale and 250 Mirage 2000.
We have one large carrier, 23 frigates, 10 subs.

So France military is bigger and has more hardware than Italy. For the quality of the troops themselves, hard to tell.

It's definitely worse: France came out of WWII as a winner after all, built to keep an empire and had (has?) geopolitical ambitions that simply have... evaporated in Italy.

I can't imagine how anyone could think the Italian military was anything short of pathetic during WWII.
The Italians were mauled by the already beaten up French when they attempted to invade Southern France when Italy first entered the war.
Then there was the disastrous invasion of Egypt where 250,000 Italians couldn't defeat 30,000 British troops. Then there was the even more humiliating invasion of Greece where the Greek army nearly drove the Italians out of Albania before Hitler was forced to bail out Mussolini.
The Italian Navy was badly damaged during the British raid on Taranto soon after. Finally when the Allies invaded Sicily it was the Germans who took the lead in defense up to capitulation.

It is true Italy was on the winning side of WWI; however the Italian military performance is nothing to brag about.

Then there is the battle of Adowa.

All Italy has ever won by itself was the Italo-Turkish war.

So you don't know how good is the British army?


Italy has 300,000 miltiary personnel, 8th militry expanditure in the world.
Italy has 200 Ariete and 120 Leopard I, weaker than Leclerc
The airforce has 580 aircrafts, including 75 Eurofighters, and 100 Tornados.
The navy has two small carriers, a dozen frigates, 6 subs.

France has 380,000 military, we have 400 Leclerc and 600 AMX 30.
Air force has 800 aircrafts, including 30 Rafale and 250 Mirage 2000.
We have one large carrier, 23 frigates, 10 subs.

So France military is bigger and has more hardware than Italy. For the quality of the troops themselves, hard to tell.

I see. I thought the Italians where worse actually. And lets me post some statistics here for the Greek army which should be strong since it has to compete with the Turikish one. I won't include the greek forces in Cyprus.

There are 180 000 active personel. However there is conscription , where in a case of war under law there is always a draft and they cn moblize conscripts faster than countries without such system.

In airforce there are around 500 airplanes but i do think , Greek pilots beat Italian pilots in experience due to the constant " Dogfights" with turkish airforce only they usually don't use real firepower or shoot at each other. (And when they do , it is named as an accident.) There are in plans of buying a new type of plane which they can't decide which it must be. IMO they must get F35 if only because also the Turks will buy it.

The Navy has 12 subs and 14 Frigates and other ships.

The land army is nothing special actually , IMO.

So did nobody read my "Austria is has been worse than either Italy or France" post?

I know very little about the Risorgemento or the wars of Italian unification so I can't say very much about that. After largely inventing moden war in the 15th century they lost their autonomy in the early 16th and from there through to the early 19th century any Italian troops worked in the service of France, Spain or Austria rather than on their own account.

However, the Italians do deserve considerable credit for their perfomance in WW1 (okay they did get badly mauled by the Germans) but the fact is they endured everything the troops on the western front did except they had to do it in the Alps with all the attendent hazards of altitude sickness,

They did break eventually in 1917 but so did the Russians (who nobody disses) and French, and ultimatly the Germans at the end and the British came closer than we were subsequently willing to admit (going to conscription two years later than everyone else helped there). So they should have come out of WW1 with as good a reputation as anyone else.


Their WW2 performance suffered from indifferent leadership at the top and poor industrial organisation and equipment that could best be described as total crap.

Their mass surrenders happened because they had no way of running away, generally the British had far better transport and the Germans tended to steal the Italians when push came to shove.

Their performance was by no means stellar - and the Japanese did far better with similarly strained resources. Doesn't make them cowardly eyeties though.

It's definitely worse: France came out of WWII as a winner after all, built to keep an empire and had (has?) geopolitical ambitions that simply have... evaporated in Italy.

One of the qualifying measures of a powerful nation is being able to form a government that lasts more than one year.

So did nobody read my "Austria is has been worse than either Italy or France" post?

I did, and I thought it was brilliant. :)

I think it is stupid that people assume that the French are horrible at wars just because of world War 2 and Algeria's independence. All the time I hear anti-French jokes that make fun of their military, fighters etc.

What alot of people do not realize is the fact that the French are actually good at wars, one of the best military histories ever. Like Napoleon, Napoleon 3, France in the Americain Revolution, World War 1, Italien Wars, French Revolution, Hundred year war, Thirty Years War, Norman Invasion, Crimean war and a bunch of other wars the French were actually good at.

France is not bad at wars, it is indeed ridiculous to say that. But your analysis is quite flawed, too/

You are forgetting the Franco-Prussia War, and the Indochina War. In World War 1 the french were not particularly brilliant either, they just took alot of punishment. Napoleon was defeated twice, the Norman Invasion was hardly a french project and the Hundred Years War is much more a reason for french shame than pride - they fought against an opponent with less than 1/5th of the population and a fraction of the wealth and managed to suffer some resounding defeats.

That said, all of those defeats are natural in a country as old and involved in wars as France. They also have a big number of incredible victories. And in WW2 I consider the italian performance more shameful than the french by a considerable margin.

For the OP, the traditional answer is...

Poland Lasted Longer then France.

False, false and false.

False, false and false.

We did, we never actually surrendered, and we continue fighting after occupation, via the polish underground, Warsaw Uprising, Battle of Britain, Market Garden, Monte Cassino, the "defend Norway" thing, and much more.

I wonder why the Poles continue to bring this myth...

In Eastern Europe, the German invasion of Poland started the 1st of September 1939, and ended the 6th of October.
That's 36 days.

In Western Europe, the German invasion of France started the 10th of May, and the capitulation was the 25 of June, that's 46 days.

And after that, both countries had resistance fighters, and both countries had an exiled army, both countries fought in Italy, etc.

At least, we kicked the Americans out of France in 1966, while you needed 30 more years to end the Russian occupation :p

I wonder why the Poles continue to bring this myth...

In Eastern Europe, the German invasion of Poland started the 1st of September 1939, and ended the 6th of October.
That's 36 days.

In Western Europe, the German invasion of France started the 10th of May, and the capitulation was the 25 of June, that's 46 days.

And after that, both countries had resistance fighters, and both countries had an exiled army, both countries fought in Italy, etc.

At least, we kicked the Americans out of France in 1966, while you needed 30 more years to end the Russian occupation :p
You just proved that Poland lasted longer lol!

What great Military did France do during Occupied time? Poland had a whole Uprising, while it's exiled forces took Monte Casino and others.

Russian Occupation was much harder to break through, and you know that.

I wonder why the Poles continue to bring this myth...

In Eastern Europe, the German invasion of Poland started the 1st of September 1939, and ended the 6th of October.
That's 36 days.

In Western Europe, the German invasion of France started the 10th of May, and the capitulation was the 25 of June, that's 46 days.

And after that, both countries had resistance fighters, and both countries had an exiled army, both countries fought in Italy, etc.

At least, we kicked the Americans out of France in 1966, while you needed 30 more years to end the Russian occupation :p

yes, the French Resistance did alot. They fought in more places than Italy. . But in the beginning when Charles de Gaulle made the speech on BBC, only 7,000 joined

What great Military did France do during Occupied time? Poland had a whole Uprising, while it's exiled forces took Monte Casino and others.
The Free French did fairly well. They actually managed to liberate their own capital city and keep it, unlike the Poles. (2nd Armored Division, Leclerc's boys. Woot.) :p (Yes, there are extenuating circumstances on both sides. It's a ridiculous argument.)

The Free French did fairly well. They actually managed to liberate their own capital city and keep it, unlike the Poles. (2nd Armored Division, Leclerc's boys. Woot.) :p (Yes, there are extenuating circumstances on both sides. It's a ridiculous argument.)

Letting LeClerc's Division enter Paris first was a PR move, and a good one at that. It was not because the 2nd Armored took the city.

Letting LeClerc's Division enter Paris first was a PR move, and a good one at that. It was not because the 2nd Armored took the city.
It's as superficial as the rest of the argument, hence the 'extenuating circumstances' bit.

You just proved that Poland lasted longer lol!
Stop taking your wishes for reality.


What great Military did France do during Occupied time? Poland had a whole Uprising, while it's exiled forces took Monte Casino and others.

French forces fought in North Africa, Italy, France.

Stop taking your wishes for reality.


French forces fought in North Africa, Italy, France.


I thought France fought in Germany too in the end of the war. I know they were given a zone of Germany

I thought France fought in Germany too in the end of the war. I know they were given a zone of Germany

Yes. Saarland iirc.

Stop taking your wishes for reality.


French forces fought in North Africa, Italy, France.

Polish forces fought in North Africa, Italy, Poland, Germany, Britain, Netherlands, Norway, Belguim. (let's not forget the enigma code to)

Anyway, let's not go offtopic, because i think they both did an even amount of work, and in WWII, should be known as equals. If you want to discuss more, create a new topic.

For the OP, the traditional answer is...

Poland Lasted Longer then France.

Bloody freaking hell. Can you damn nationalists shut the hell up for some time? Dammnit you've thread jacked just about every other thread and turned it into something about your country.

This thread is about France not Poland. No one gives a damn how long Poland lasted because this is about French military history. If you feel like talking about how long Poland lasted then open another thread.

Its not just in this forum either. I remember in the Civ 4 forums the endless threads which would get thread jacked by Poles pissing and moaning about why Poland wasn't added as a civ.

Get the hell over it.

What great Military did France do during Occupied time? Poland had a whole Uprising, while it's exiled forces took Monte Casino and others.

The fact that there were 1.3 million men in the Free French armed forces by the end of the war tends to suggest that they were doing quite a fair bit does it not?

Besides part of why Monte Cassino fell is because it was outflanked and in danger of being isolated. Part of that flanking movement was by Free French Colonial forces I believe.

I'm not trying to take anything away from Poland's contribution to the war effort, just suggesting that France wasn't irrelevant either.

One of the qualifying measures of a powerful nation is being able to form a government that lasts more than one year.

The Italian attack on Ethiopia was ordered by the Crispi cabinet (dec 1893 - mar 1896). The conquest of Lybia happened under the Giolitti IV cabinet (mar 1911 - mar 1914).
Although I get what you mean, governments don't have to be that long-lasting to be adventurous. But speaking of the post-WWII world... just where would be go looking for a sphere of influence? :lol:

@privatehudson: you're right, French colonial forces fought at Montecassino.

Yes, During the first battle. It was the 3rd Algerian division. They made good progress toward Monte Cifalco to bypass Cassino, but then general Juin requested reinforcement to continue moving forward, it was denied.
The French had 2,500 casualties in the fighting.

The French also fought during the 3rd battle, where they achieved their objectives while the Americans were stalled.

In the order of battle for Operation Diadem, there were:

French Expeditionary Corps
3rd Algerian Infantry Division
4th Moroccan Mountain Division
2nd Moroccan Division
1st Motorised Infantry Division (1st Free French Division)

And
Polish 3rd Carpathian Rifle Division
Polish 5th Kresowa Infantry Division
Polish 2nd Armoured Brigade

There was also 11 American divisions, 6 British and 2 Canadians, but strangely, the Poles are not only weak in Geography, they also seem to have difficulty with basic mathematics.

They beleive they beat the Germans single handedly at Cassino (has 3 divisions is a lot more than 23), and have difficult grasping that 36 days is 10 days LESS than 46.

The problem when you want to claim something to support your pride in your nation, but it contradict some blattant figures of fact is then you lose much of your credibility.

I try to remain objective, and to recognize what France did poorly, while hilighting what we did well. I hope my comments on such issues are seen as relatively trustwothy by the communit.

I think it is stupid that people assume that the French are horrible at wars just because of world War 2 and Algeria's independence. All the time I hear anti-French jokes that make fun of their military, fighters etc.

What alot of people do not realize is the fact that the French are actually good at wars, one of the best military histories ever. Like Napoleon, Napoleon 3, France in the Americain Revolution, World War 1, Italien Wars, French Revolution, Hundred year war, Thirty Years War, Norman Invasion, Crimean war and a bunch of other wars the French were actually good at.

What are your opinions, I would like to hear your opinion. Your educated Opinion. I do not want to hear the uneducated answer of, France just sucks at wars.


I will post a poll.


Now I do realize that people (mainly Americains) just say anti-French jokes because of where France stands on the Iraq War. Hopefully that is not you

Oh yeah, the rule is if you vote, you have to post and tell why you voted for that option.


Napoleon was more Italian than french, mentioning Napolean III= 1870 :lol:, American revolution was fought by American generals and mostly american men with french guns, saved by America and Britain in WWI, Italien wars? you supported the Papal States who lost, French Revolution wasn't a war...

In the hundred years war you were mostly dominated by Britain, they still had an outpost on French soil and only won on attacking through a truce. Thirty years war wasn't even fought by you guys for the most part. The Normans were VIKINGS. Crimean war was mainly fought by the british. You didn't name the bunch of othe wars.

Perhaps saying France just sucks at wars is the abbreviated answer?

Napoleon was more Italian than french, mentioning Napolean III= 1870 :lol:,
That's actually kind of funny; I know you meant Napoleon I (and that particular comment is neither here nor there), but Napoleon III was in many ways more Italian than French. It was for Italian nationalism and Italian issues that he exerted himself most (in the first decade of his reign anyway, before that Italian nearly assassinated him), and the comment has been made that he looked like a shifty Italian waiter in a fifth-rate restaurant. :p
American revolution was fought by American generals and mostly american men with french guns,
That's partly true, but the French were there when it counted, and the actions of the French navy (and those of the rest of the Allies) were extremely important in inducing the British to the peace table.
Italien wars? you supported the Papal States who lost,
Mmm. All in all, I'd say France came out ahead from the Italian Wars, which did a great job of diverting Habsburg attention and money from either consolidating their territory in the HRE or from attacking France itself. France also made territorial gains in northern Italy. It doesn't change the fact that they were incredibly destructive, especially to the respective states' finances, though.
French Revolution wasn't a war...
The Wars of the French Revolution (First and Second Coalitions, with the Second Coalition mostly just a war against Napoleon) were actually one of the greatest French success stories in the military sphere. The War of the First Coalition is full of extremely interesting campaigns (Napoleon in Italy, 1796-7, for example, or those in the Netherlands, the Ardennes and in south-central Germany from 1793 to 1797), especially.
In the hundred years war you were mostly dominated by Britain, they still had an outpost on French soil and only won on attacking through a truce.
The French victory during the last few years of the war was mostly due to their excellent (for the time) new military, with a core of the Bureau brothers' artillery and the famed compagnies d'ordonnance. (sp?) Castillon was "Agincourt-in-reverse", not just a vile truce-breaking. :p And then there's the du Guesclin period in midwar, which saw the English getting mostly dominated out of France outside of a few tiny chunks of territory (although the Constable himself was defeated by the Black Prince at Navarette).
Thirty years war wasn't even fought by you guys for the most part.
They were in about half of it and did very well, beating the Habsburgs and winning the crucial battle of Rocroi. In the great campaign of 'smash the Habsburgs' in the last five years of the war the French armies played a crucial part.
Crimean war was mainly fought by the british.
There were more than twice as many French as British in the Crimean War. :p

I've just got to say, it's really interesting to see people I see primarially in Off-Topic talking to people who I've only seen here. ^^

Bloody freaking hell. Can you damn nationalists shut the hell up for some time? Dammnit you've thread jacked just about every other thread and turned it into something about your country.

This thread is about France not Poland. No one gives a damn how long Poland lasted because this is about French military history. If you feel like talking about how long Poland lasted then open another thread.

Its not just in this forum either. I remember in the Civ 4 forums the endless threads which would get thread jacked by Poles pissing and moaning about why Poland wasn't added as a civ.

Get the hell over it.

/signed

At least people bother to insult the French, the most thought anyone gives to the Polish is a vague stereotype about being tall and stupid. Except, of course, the Pols. I think we should add something about Thread Hijacking to the stereotype? :lol:

A few points.

France lasting 10 days longer than Polan isn't somehting to be prioud of. The Poles didn't have the modern military hardware the French had, no real fortifications and they got invaded by the Soviets as well. No one is claiming they didn't at least fight well where the perceptio of the French is cowardly and pathetic.

The Germans lost WW1 and 2 but think about it. A country of 80 million Germans take on the Americans, Russian and the British Empire in both wars and still damn near win. They're outnumbered about 5:1 and are out priduced by some hideous amount. Thats deserving of respect. The French couldn't even hold their own country in WW2 with 6 months notice, 20 year build up and better equipment than the Germans and they had the British helping them. They probably would have lost WW1 as well if it wasn't for the British and late ron the Americans. They also lost vs Prussia in 1870/71.

It doesn't help the French postition due to their prewar actions either. They were really the only ones who could have stopped Hitler in 36 but didn't bother. A few troops over the border and a short war later Germany=kaput. I prefer good honest Prusiian/German aggression to French duplicity. Wish Germany defeated France in 1914 (no joke).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Warrior_%281978%29

That's actually kind of funny; I know you meant Napoleon I (and that particular comment is neither here nor there), but Napoleon III was in many ways more Italian than French. It was for Italian nationalism and Italian issues that he exerted himself most (in the first decade of his reign anyway, before that Italian nearly assassinated him), and the comment has been made that he looked like a shifty Italian waiter in a fifth-rate restaurant. :p

I hereby slam any rumor that such things (fifth-rate restaurants) exist here.

More seriously, Napoleon III may have sympathized for the Italian cause, but ultimately asked Nice and Savoy for armed involvement. For which he had obviously very good reasons, but still, this kind of thing gets in the way of a portayal of him as more Italian than French.

Let's just say it's been a very very long time since the French would good at war.

I don't think it's fair to say that anyone, including France, ever did a thing in WWI would rate a tiny bit above "utterly incompetent".

Let's just say it's been a very very long time since the French would good at war.

I don't think it's fair to say that anyone, including France, ever did a thing in WWI would rate a tiny bit above "utterly incompetent".

If it's been 150 years since you've come out of a war victorious and not totally dehabilitated , you rate a tiny bit above utterly incompetent

I don't think it's fair to say that anyone, including France, ever did a thing in WWI would rate a tiny bit above "utterly incompetent".
I give you Tannenberg, Gorlice-Tarnow, von Mackensen's invasion of Rumania, the Battle of Caporetto, Joffre's turning movement prior to the First Battle of the Marne, and that fun color picture of those African soldiers from the French colonies.

The rating of the French as incompetent in World War One is idiotic. They had probably the best overall strategists of any nation (if not the best tacticians), and managed to make do with a lot fewer people and a much smaller industry than Germany ever did. Make no mistake, the French were a tough lot, especially early on, when the BEF was more there for moral support than anything else (they had about two moments of actual importance). The French tactics in that war gradually improved until they were on a par with the British, and more suited for the war than the Germans ever were.

And on a less serious note, the British were closer to surrendering in World War One. Silly surrender monkeys who start wetting their pants just because a little bit of shipping was sunk. Honestly. :p

I give you Tannenberg, Gorlice-Tarnow, von Mackensen's invasion of Rumania, the Battle of Caporetto, Joffre's turning movement prior to the First Battle of the Marne, and that fun color picture of those African soldiers from the French colonies.

Not really buying it.

Not really buying it.

A lot of the later bits of the war had some real vision that the early part lacked. It wasn't just sitting around in trenches until tanks came up.

So I hear alot about France always losing to Germans, or prussians, or any type of Germans.


Well I just found this really interesting video about French military victories over Germany.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoGgbbpEl0k

incase some of you might be lazy, the video was about how out of the 40 Battles Germans and French fought against eachother, 30 of them were won by the French.

The same guy who made that video also made one about French military victories over Austria, which had the same result as the German video :)

Well I just found this really interesting video about French military victories over Germany.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoGgbbpEl0k

incase some of you might be lazy, the video was about how out of the 40 Battles Germans and French fought against eachother, 30 of them were won by the French.
That just means that the person picked the wrong battles. :p Claiming that France is better than Germany or vice versa all the time is stupid.
The same guy who made that video also made one about French military victories over Austria, which had the same result as the German video :)
Ooh, fun, another 'dump on the Habsburgs' party! What fun! Sounds like something I'll want to get in on! :rolleyes:

American revolution was fought by American generals and mostly american men with french guns,
At Yorktown, there were 10 800 French, 8 845 Americans.
The French had 52 dead, 134 wounded, the Americans 20 dead, 56 wounded.
Perhaps you have heard names such as La Fayette or Rochambeau?


saved by America and Britain in WWI,

That's another myth. The Americans did not "save" the allies in WWI, the war would have been won by France-Britain anyway. The Americans just help make it faster.
About Britain, they did not "save" France either. The Franco-British alliance was balanced, with each country armies "saving" the other in several occasion. The British navy was decisive to allow the French and British industry to produce more tanks, more guns, etc. But on the ground, the French and the British are on equal footing. The main difference is the battle was done on the soil of France, and so there was more civilian destructions in France.

French Revolution wasn't a war...
Try to learn a bit of history before making stupid comment.
The French revolutionnary wars include:
- War of the first coalition, from 1791 to 1797, against Austria, Prussia, Great Britain, French Royalists, Spain, Portugal, Sardinia, Naples and Sicily, Other Italian states, Ottoman Empire, Dutch Republic. With battles in France, Central Europe, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Netherlands, and victory such as Valmy, Jemmapes, Fleurus... And the campaign of Napoleon in Italy
- War of the second coalition, from 1799 to 1802, against Austria, Great Britain, Russia, French Royalists, Portugal, Naples and Sicily, Ottoman Empire, and victory such as Marengo
- And you can add the campaign in Egypt in 1798...
That's 10 years of war against 10 countries, most of Europe, that you just forgot.


Crimean war was mainly fought by the british.
300,000 Turks
400,000 French
250,000 British
18,000 Sardinian

The British are mostly known for the big blunder of the "Charge of the light Brigade".


Perhaps saying France just sucks at wars is the abbreviated answer?
No, the short answer is you suck at history, and don't know tha basic facts.

France lasting 10 days longer than Polan isn't somehting to be prioud of
I never said I'm proud of that, on the contrary. But it doesn't change the fact that the claim Poland lasted longer than France is false.

I prefer good honest Prusiian/German aggression to French duplicity.
Yes, it's so much better to support a dictature than a democracy. A least dictators do things right!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Warrior_%281978%29

Ah! There it is! You are so obssessed by ONE event that you would forget anything else.

They had probably the best overall strategists of any nation (if not the best tacticians)... The French tactics in that war gradually improved until they were on a par with the British, and more suited for the war than the Germans ever were.

Well, going to war with red trousers and casoar for officers in 1914 was not really an example of brilliant tactical minds.
The second part is true, with the introduction of "horizon blue" uniforms for instance.

That just means that the person picked the wrong battles. :p Claiming that France is better than Germany or vice versa all the time is stupid.

This guy doesn't claim France is better than Germany all the time, only 75% of the time :p

Next time France gets invaded lets just stay at home. Not exactly a grateful nation or anything now.

Bloody freaking hell. Can you damn nationalists shut the hell up for some time? Dammnit you've thread jacked just about every other thread and turned it into something about your country.

This thread is about France not Poland. No one gives a damn how long Poland lasted because this is about French military history. If you feel like talking about how long Poland lasted then open another thread.

Its not just in this forum either. I remember in the Civ 4 forums the endless threads which would get thread jacked by Poles pissing and moaning about why Poland wasn't added as a civ.

Get the hell over it.

I ended it the post above, but you had to ocontinue it. Anyway as i stated earlier, Poland and France did about equal amount of work in WWII, and should be treated as equals in terms of war effort. I just said "to answer the OP, Poland lasted longer then france" it doesn't mean France contributed less, and i was pointing out that france only lasted 3 weeks, and then surrendered. That was the point of my post. Mentioning Poland was an additional comparison.

It is people like you who make people like me hijack threads.

Now let's try to end polish discussion in this thread, enless you have the need to bump the topic again.

I ended it the post above, but you had to ocontinue it. Anyway as i stated earlier, Poland and France did about equal amount of work in WWII, and should be treated as equals in terms of war effort..
On this I could agree


I just said "to answer the OP, Poland lasted longer then france" it doesn't mean France contributed less, and i was pointing out that france only lasted 3 weeks, and then surrendered. That was the point of my post.
On this I can't, because the capitulation was after 46 days, not 3 weeks (3 weeks = 3x7 = 21 days in case you don't know), and that's more than Poland 36 days.
Can you accept that?

This guy doesn't claim France is better than Germany all the time, only 75% of the time :p

This guy claims that both the French and the Germans are secretly in love with each other and want their nations to merge.

On this I can't, because the capitulation was after 46 days, not 3 weeks (3 weeks = 3x7 = 21 days in case you don't know), and that's more than Poland 36 days.
Can you accept that?

ok i messed up the time, but the point still stands. :mischief:

But no more discussion.

This was a greate thread, very informative and with a very definite insight in that one side is the actually well informed one while the other side is the uninformed/misinformed one.

It is obvious that the reason "people" think that the French are bad in wars is because of the recent international policies of France have been in oposition to a certain superpower. And in stead of actuall admissions from some citizens of this superpower that their superpower has done wrong, they direct their negative atention towards their righteous allies.:crazyeye:

This and probably the fact that the French often are very rude to people. (But of coarse Steph is one of the polite ones):mischief:

Next time France gets invaded lets just stay at home. Not exactly a grateful nation or anything now.

The vast majority of people defending France in this thread aren't French. :p

Where did this picture of a very boring, static WW1 come from? I'd have to say, other then learning about French history this thread is rather pointless...

At Yorktown, there were 10 800 French, 8 845 Americans.
The French had 52 dead, 134 wounded, the Americans 20 dead, 56 wounded.
Perhaps you have heard names such as La Fayette or Rochambeau?


That's another myth. The Americans did not "save" the allies in WWI, the war would have been won by France-Britain anyway. The Americans just help make it faster.
About Britain, they did not "save" France either. The Franco-British alliance was balanced, with each country armies "saving" the other in several occasion. The British navy was decisive to allow the French and British industry to produce more tanks, more guns, etc. But on the ground, the French and the British are on equal footing. The main difference is the battle was done on the soil of France, and so there was more civilian destructions in France.


Try to learn a bit of history before making stupid comment.
The French revolutionnary wars include:
- War of the first coalition, from 1791 to 1797, against Austria, Prussia, Great Britain, French Royalists, Spain, Portugal, Sardinia, Naples and Sicily, Other Italian states, Ottoman Empire, Dutch Republic. With battles in France, Central Europe, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Netherlands, and victory such as Valmy, Jemmapes, Fleurus... And the campaign of Napoleon in Italy
- War of the second coalition, from 1799 to 1802, against Austria, Great Britain, Russia, French Royalists, Portugal, Naples and Sicily, Ottoman Empire, and victory such as Marengo
- And you can add the campaign in Egypt in 1798...
That's 10 years of war against 10 countries, most of Europe, that you just forgot.



300,000 Turks
400,000 French
250,000 British
18,000 Sardinian

The British are mostly known for the big blunder of the "Charge of the light Brigade".


No, the short answer is you suck at history, and don't know tha basic facts.

:love: You are so great!

Where did this picture of a very boring, static WW1 come from? I'd have to say, other then learning about French history this thread is rather pointless...

The oversimplification that plagues the American education system. It really walks the line of being intellectually dishonest.

This was a greate thread, very informative and with a very definite insight in that one side is the actually well informed one while the other side is the uninformed/misinformed one.

It is obvious that the reason "people" think that the French are bad in wars is because of the recent international policies of France have been in oposition to a certain superpower. And in stead of actuall admissions from some citizens of this superpower that their superpower has done wrong, they direct their negative atention towards their righteous allies.:crazyeye:

This and probably the fact that the French often are very rude to people. (But of coarse Steph is one of the polite ones):mischief:

Well, I have to say I disagree, and while the French military is not some pathetic laughingstock, in the past 130 years it has shown a less than admirable track record in world conflicts. I hate to disagree, but making fun of the French didn't begin with them not responding to an attack on their ally. It's been around for dozens of years. But the French care much more about this position then everyone else, so they are obviously going to put more effort into refuting the points.

I know this thread is about "being good in wars" (as if there can be anything "good" about a war... I certainly wouldn't be proud of it), but in the last decades, French forces have been active in many UN-, EU- and other peace keeping missions, like Haiti, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Kosovo and even Afghanistan. And I think they are pretty good at it (unlike some others...)

The British are mostly known for the big blunder of the "Charge of the light Brigade".

Perhaps outside Britain they might be, but here we (or at least the moderately well educated people here) know that the Crimean War also provided us with the origin of the term "Thin Red Line" and the origins of the Victoria Cross. Most people can also relate to the story of Florence Nightingale as well.

Just as a side note one episode from the war illustrates a great deal about the British army in the 19th Century. Major Foley de St Georges, a rich aide-de-camp to General Rose was not deterred when he encountered Commissariat red tape. He visited Balaclava to buy a few nails only to be told that they were issued by the ton. "Very Well" he said "I'll take a ton" and paid for them forthwith.

Its not known what he did with the ones he didn't need...

The US frequently uses the "if it wasnt for us youd be speaking German" argument against the French, so this is really just a way to emphasise a point. The problem is that Americans frequently see world history as compared to their history, which descrides 50 years in the way we describe 200.

I think it's because if you're involved directly,like in you're face wars in you're homeland you're neighborhood/town turned into rumble(friends,towns,family,infastructe wiped off the map) you do lose the will to fight. I know this because of my family with civil war in central america. The U.S has'nt faced something like this in along time so it cant compare exactly...

About American Ignorance- Simply put France (and Europe in general) is far away. No wonder misinformation is speared around.

About the Crimean- I've read in many places that the French Army was far more professional and well organized compared to the British Army. Is this true?

About the Crimean- I've read in many places that the French Army was far more professional and well organized compared to the British Army. Is this true?
Largely, yes. And the war only enhanced their reputation. Hell, up to the mid-1860s, they had the best army in Europe, and even after that they still had some of the best technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico

french lost to mexico of all the countries.

That's been addressed before.

I think it's because if you're involved directly,like in you're face wars in you're homeland you're neighborhood/town turned into rumble(friends,towns,family,infastructe wiped off the map) you do lose the will to fight. I know this because of my family with civil war in central america. The U.S has'nt faced something like this in along time so it cant compare exactly...

This is a very important point, i have listened to a lecture about this once, Americans not actualy suffering from the greate wars compared to Europe and especialy not actualy taking part in WW1 for that long, has set the US on a different track of development of its social mentality. Significantly in its relation towards the use of force on the international arena.

Esentialy European culture has been ingraind with a kind of predisposed warwearyness and the preference of using diplomacy to solve problems.

This can also be a paralell explanation for American eagerness to describe reality in black and white in stead of the the grayscale prefered by a greater number of europeans. Few things open your eyes to the many gradings of reality like all out war in your backyard followed by the cold war and the resulting schisms not only in ones nation but also inside the family (like having family members working for the Stasi as informants and whatnot).

I have voted that France is bad in wars. But it depends on time. Some times they were good, sometimes they were bad. Without some ability they would be not alive during many centuries in such strenght.
I think that in ww1 and ww2 it wasnt that bad..in ww1 clearly better than Ottomans, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Italy. And if in ww2 Great Britain had land connection with Germany, they would end exactly how France ended...
Crécy, that was big fail. I know it because many Bohemians died there when French were running off.

:hatsoff: to king John the blind

in ww1 clearly better than Ottomans, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Italy.

I would argue that man for man, the French seemed to be better than the Germans, too, actually. They were outproduced by the German Empire easily, and yet they managed to hold on with minimal British help.

Note: Soldier for soldier, the British were easily the best at the beginning of the war, and probably throughout it; the beginning was an artifact of being the only army with experience in a real modern conflict (the Boer War) and the only army trained for real action.

:hatsoff: to king John the blind
He was great fighter and succesful in strenghtening Bohemian position, but in medieval Bohemia he had also other nickname "King the foreigner", because he was usually abroad in wars to joust or negotiate. Nobody has known him, nobody cared about him:)

I would argue that man for man, the French seemed to be better than the Germans, too, actually. They were outproduced by the German Empire easily, and yet they managed to hold on with minimal British help.

Note: Soldier for soldier, the British were easily the best at the beginning of the war, and probably throughout it; the beginning was an artifact of being the only army with experience in a real modern conflict (the Boer War) and the only army trained for real action.

Well I said that mentioned countries were clearly worse. If Germans or English were better or worse, I rather do not judge. About that Germans thing, dont forget that they had to manage two fronts and they were attackers on front which has shown position warfare in best form. About English you should have point, but its question how much should experience from war againist Boers help in defending war againist Germans.

Well I said that mentioned countries were clearly worse. If Germans or English were better or worse, I rather do not judge. About that Germans thing, dont forget that they had to manage two fronts and they were attackers on front which has shown position warfare in best form. About English you should have point, but its question how much should experience from war againist Boers help in defending war againist Germans.

They were attackers, yes, but when they actually ran into anything unexpected, their plans dissolved. Hence the early stop before the Marne.

The Boer War at least taught them fire-and-move tactics, which were almost unknown in European war up until then, as no one really appreciated the power of the bolt-action magazine rifle.

They were attackers, yes, but when they actually ran into anything unexpected, their plans dissolved. Hence the early stop before the Marne.
I would argue that the German inability to innovate was only really noticeable at the operational and strategic (especially strategic) levels, and that their small-unit leadership was highly innovative and skilled. Germany had the best NCOs in the war, I believe, unless the British had better (haven't read up on this in a loooong time).

Also, the halt at the Marne was more of a 'supply' problem (in addition to 'sudden counterattack' problem) than a plan failure. The 'plan' failure was more noticeable before the battle itself, when the First Army was repeatedly stripped of its troops for random other purposes and sent in the wrong direction, and the order for Rupprecht's two Armies to attack in Alsace-Lorraine was another failure. Those created some of the preconditions for the battle itself, in which the Germans did reasonably well for their bad positioning.

I would argue that the German inability to innovate was only really noticeable at the operational and strategic (especially strategic) levels, and that their small-unit leadership was highly innovative and skilled. Germany had the best NCOs in the war, I believe, unless the British had better (haven't read up on this in a loooong time).

Wouldn't know about the small units.

Also, the halt at the Marne was more of a 'supply' problem (in addition to 'sudden counterattack' problem) than a plan failure. The 'plan' failure was more noticeable before the battle itself, when the First Army was repeatedly stripped of its troops for random other purposes and sent in the wrong direction, and the order for Rupprecht's two Armies to attack in Alsace-Lorraine was another failure. Those created some of the preconditions for the battle itself, in which the Germans did reasonably well for their bad positioning.

Very true, but the Schiefflen Plan was more of a script than a strategy, and the French didn't play their part. Even if the right wing had been strong enough, I very much doubt they could have won.

Very true, but the Schiefflen Plan was more of a script than a strategy, and the French didn't play their part. Even if the right wing had been strong enough, I very much doubt they could have won.
Oh, absolutely. The Belgian bridges problem was just one of the main reasons. But yeah, not even von Clausewitz told people to get stuck in a plan like that. Flexibility is kinda important. The inability to react to French moves all that well (as well as those of the Russians) made it a poor idea from the start. The basic concept wasn't hugely sound either. Personally, I wouldn't have tried to knock France out quickly, but would instead have aimed at Russia...and then either at Italy or, if they honor the alliance, the Balkans.

The oversimplification that plagues the education system.

Fixed your typo.

All History you learn at school is a gross oversimplification.

Hell, probably most stuff you learn at undergraduate level is too.

About the Crimean- I've read in many places that the French Army was far more professional and well organized compared to the British Army. Is this true?

Just about anything you'd care to mention would be far more proffessional and organised than the British Army in the Crimea

I belive France is good in war, but have not been doing very weel in modern warfare.

Fixed your typo.

All History you learn at school is a gross oversimplification.

Hell, probably most stuff you learn at undergraduate level is too.

Which is why it is our responsibility to assuage this by our own power. :)

Just about anything you'd care to mention would be far more proffessional and organised than the British Army in the Crimea

The British army up till and including World War I is notorious for its poor leadership and organization. And it was much smaller than the French Army as well. Really until the rise of Prussia the French Army has always been the most professional, well organized, well equipped, well trained force on the continent. And even after that it was nothing to sniff at. Even during WWI the French field guns were superior to the German one's in terms of rate of fire and mobility I recall.

The British army up till and including World War I is notorious for its poor leadership and organization.
This is not, strictly speaking, true. After the Second Boer War the Brits were actually pretty good. They were the only ones of the European Great Powers' regular armies to see consistent combat in the time before 1914 and consistently win (the Russians' loss in 1904-5 having not, sadly, pushed them to innovate much or even reform a whole lot; Sukhomlinov alone would sink an army by his lonesome). Their performance during the critical months of August and September 1914 was nothing short of astonishing for a force that von Bismarck once said could be rounded up by the Belgian police.
Even during WWI the French field guns were superior to the German one's in terms of rate of fire and mobility I recall.
Key word being 'field guns'. The 75 really wasn't all that effective compared to the Krupp and Skoda behemoths that turned Liege into dust.

This is not, strictly speaking, true. After the Second Boer War the Brits were actually pretty good. They were the only ones of the European Great Powers' regular armies to see consistent combat in the time before 1914 and consistently win (the Russians' loss in 1904-5 having not, sadly, pushed them to innovate much or even reform a whole lot; Sukhomlinov alone would sink an army by his lonesome). Their performance during the critical months of August and September 1914 was nothing short of astonishing for a force that von Bismarck once said could be rounded up by the Belgian police.

Your talking about their quality. I never said their quality was bad I was talking about their leadership mainly. Haig for instance was notorious for giving order which resulted in slaughter of British troops. I think they called him the Butcher of Somme or something. Lions lead by donkey's and all.

Key word being 'field guns'. The 75 really wasn't all that effective compared to the Krupp and Skoda behemoths that turned Liege into dust.

I remember reading that those field guns gave them an early edge against the Germans. Though that was gone shortly.

Your talking about their quality. I never said their quality was bad I was talking about their leadership mainly. Haig for instance was notorious for giving order which resulted in slaughter of British troops. I think they called him the Butcher of Somme or something. Lions lead by donkey's and all.

I think you're looking for an Alexander the Great quote:

"I do not fear an army of lions led by a sheep. I do fear an army of sheep led by a lion."

Individual fighting spirit can only take an army so far, there must be compitent leadership to augment those fighting mens' hearts.

I remember reading that those field guns gave them an early edge against the Germans. Though that was gone shortly.

I suppose they would be more useful in a tactical sense, rather than a stratiegic one, like an 88mm vs a railway gun.

I remember reading that those field guns gave them an early edge against the Germans. Though that was gone shortly.
If it's the French 75mm we're still talking about that wasn't quite the situation.

The 75mm system was brilliant in fact; a flat-trajectory, rapid-fire system which is pretty much the mother of all modern field artillery.

It was designed to be deployed very agressively and offensively by and army pushing forward and blasting the enemy at close to medium range. And the French army had these babies by the thousand.

But since the French army was caught on the break by the Germans, forced to fight not how they had intended, trained and equipped, they instead found themselves fighting defensive stand-off artillery duels with heavier and longer ranged German artillery. So having no option, the French gunners cranked their pieces to maximum elevation, and were usually still outranged by the Germans.

The one excpetion to this situation in the early months of WWI was the French counter-offensive at the Marne, where the French artillerists finally got to deploy their pieces the way they were supposed. And then they worked brilliantly.

So the French kept the 75's around all through the war, and it was a superb gun for what it was intended for, but they put all their effort into producing heavier and longer ranged pieces to catch the Germans up, succeeding at this by mid 1917.

I put France is OK at wars
In WW2..well
If England was where France is on a map, England would have fell too
France was just a nation that bordered Germany, and as so they where one of the first to fall

If you type French Military Victories in google search, then hit Im feeling lucky instead of Search..youll see a surprise

If you type French Military Victories in google search, then hit Im feeling lucky instead of Search..youll see a surprise

I know that trick.
I think its stupid
Just proves ignorence nowadays.


(oh yeah, when you type it in and press I am feeling lucky, look at the URL for a suprise)

Your talking about their quality. I never said their quality was bad I was talking about their leadership mainly. Haig for instance was notorious for giving order which resulted in slaughter of British troops. I think they called him the Butcher of Somme or something. Lions lead by donkey's and all.
Leadership wasn't terrible either. The job of a general isn't to prevent his soldiers from dying, it's to use the resources at hand to complete an objective, i.e. win the war. Haig wasn't particularly good, true, but he wasn't a fool. Trying any and every way possible to break the trench deadlock wasn't stupid of him; attrition was not the way to go. The 'lions led by donkeys' bit obviously has truth to it but isn't entirely correct. I mean, the Germans and the French did the exact same thing. Every side had its blockheaded boners, and every side had flashes of brilliance, like Vimy Ridge.

I put France is OK at wars
In WW2..well
If England was where France is on a map, England would have fell too
France was just a nation that bordered Germany, and as so they where one of the first to fall

France probably could have run the Battle of France though. Bad leadership and tactics doomed France. They had good equipment for the time. The Maginot line should have either been longer or the resources devoted towards something. France couls have also invaded Germany in 36 by themselves or in 39 with most of the German army in Poland.

France also had 6 months to prepare for the German invasion.

France probably could have run the Battle of France though. Bad leadership and tactics doomed France. They had good equipment for the time. The Maginot line should have either been longer or the resources devoted towards something. France couls have also invaded Germany in 36 by themselves or in 39 with most of the German army in Poland.

France also had 6 months to prepare for the German invasion.

about the Maginot line..they couldnt make it any longer..they didnt have the money..
They put it where they thought an attack would come from, they didnt think some 1 would come through the Lowlands
Im shure if another nation was where France is, they would have thought the same at that time period

about the Maginot line..they couldnt make it any longer..they didnt have the money..
They put it where they thought an attack would come from, they didnt think some 1 would come through the Lowlands
Im shure if another nation was where France is, they would have thought the same at that time period

they had the money, they just spent it on new tanks and airplanes instead of devoting to extend the line, which they were in 1938, they started extending the line, but the problem was it would not finish untill 1941

Grance is Ok Like You Said All THose Wars But Especialy hundred Years war They Where Driven Mad and Even With The Loss Of Jone De Arc They Won They Beat Burgundy,Humilated England and Showed Europe Not to Mess With Them And They Really Wherent Involed in Another War Until The 1500's

they had the money, they just spent it on new tanks and airplanes instead of devoting to extend the line, which they were in 1938, they started extending the line, but the problem was it would not finish untill 1941
Mobile forces > cordon defense. The French made the right decision. As others have mentioned, though, the French timetable was off, which helped make the Ardennes hole that Guderian and Kleist and the other panzer commanders were able to dash through. Said panzers had to fight their way in at Sedan; had the French been moving much faster, they would have won the race. (The fact that they were reservist divisions, IIRC, didn't help either.)

Mobile forces > cordon defense. The French made the right decision. As others have mentioned, though, the French timetable was off, which helped make the Ardennes hole that Guderian and Kleist and the other panzer commanders were able to dash through. Said panzers had to fight their way in at Sedan; had the French been moving much faster, they would have won the race. (The fact that they were reservist divisions, IIRC, didn't help either.)

Yes, the 16 divisions guarding the Ardennes were reserves.

It is worth mentioning, though, that had the Maginot Line been extended all the way to the Channel (though it never would have, for a variety of reasons, incuding that it implied they were leaving Belgium to fend for themselves), the Germans may well have never gotten into France. Von Leeb assaulted the Line in 1940 with 18 divisions; though the intent was to tie up the 30 or so French divisions inside the Line, the attacks they did make proved the tenacity of the Line's defense. Though it may not have held the Germans back forever, it would have been more than a serious headache to break, air superiority taken into account (though, of course, if the Germans are halted at the Line, there's no reason the RAF couldnt've set up camp across the Channel, closer to the front.

It is worth mentioning, though, that had the Maginot Line been extended all the way to the Channel (though it never would have, for a variety of reasons, incuding that it implied they were leaving Belgium to fend for themselves), the Germans may well have never gotten into France.
Extending said Maginot Line all the way to the Channel implies the political decision to leave Belgium and the Netherlands to their fate. After the experiences of the last war, this would have been suicide for the Chamberlain and Daladier governments as well as all other British and French leaders in the interwar period. Besides, there's the always-lethal Italian invasion from the rear! :p (That attack was just embarrassing. 32 divisions lost to some 6 French ones, and even accounting for the smaller size of the Italian 'dual-brigade' divisions it was still a disastrous and disgusting defeat.) On a more serious note, turning France into a fortress does not do anything to break the Germans. Further phony war would probably be given up after a few months, a year at the most. It's been remarked before that Hitler just wanted the West out of the way so's he could drive back into the East; such a negotiated settlement could work to his ends and leave the British Empire intact and relatively unbelligerent.

Yes, the 16 divisions guarding the Ardennes were reserves.

It is worth mentioning, though, that had the Maginot Line been extended all the way to the Channel (though it never would have, for a variety of reasons, incuding that it implied they were leaving Belgium to fend for themselves), the Germans may well have never gotten into France. Von Leeb assaulted the Line in 1940 with 18 divisions; though the intent was to tie up the 30 or so French divisions inside the Line, the attacks they did make proved the tenacity of the Line's defense. Though it may not have held the Germans back forever, it would have been more than a serious headache to break, air superiority taken into account (though, of course, if the Germans are halted at the Line, there's no reason the RAF couldnt've set up camp across the Channel, closer to the front.

You might be right, but given the way the Germans sliced through Belgian fortifications like Eban Emael I dont think thats certain.

The real question is what would have been the outcome of a German direct assualt against the line held by frontline French forces.

Good thread, good thread. It's actually quite funny to see a bunch of really high-quality posts interspersed with the occasional "LOL FRANCE SURRENDER MONKEY ROFL VIETNAM" :lol:

I guess my main question is how do you measure military success? Is it winning a battle? Winning a war? Having your territory expand via conquest over time?

Grance is Ok Like You Said All THose Wars But Especialy hundred Years war They Where Driven Mad and Even With The Loss Of Jone De Arc They Won They Beat Burgundy,Humilated England and Showed Europe Not to Mess With Them And They Really Wherent Involed in Another War Until The 1500's

Only to be smashed by a United Great Britian in almost every subsequent war from 1688 onwards

Only to be smashed by a United Great Britian in almost every subsequent war from 1688 onwards
That's overestimating the UK. You might as well state that it got smashed by Austria. The UK without allies, on land, was nothing much, even if the soldiers were first rate. British armies before WWI were just too small to win anything on their own against a major European power. Which was of course why the UK became very adept at playing European politics through coalitions.

And it's a very relative meaning of "smashed". The wars of Louis XIV in particular are interesting in the way the fighting itself was a mixed bag, but France just kept on inexorably expanding regardless.

The French wars after Louis XIV were less successful on land, though nothing really disastrous occurred for France, but instead you had a situation where the royal French navy won about as much as they lost to the British. (Quick and dirty from the Wikipedia page on French battles from 1688 to 1789 i get French won/draw/lost to the British to 11-5-11.) Again relative success fighting isn't really tied to how well you do at the peace talks. And the biggest French coup of the period was of course sticking it to the English at Chesapeake bay and subsequently Yorktown, which considering what it did to the British empire weighs up a bunch of less successful endeavours.

The revolutionary and subsequent Napoleonic wars sort of defy pat description. Yes France lost, though the social and political gains of the revolution to French society were safeguarded, but in the process the French gained a military reputation as the worlds best fighters lasting a century, until it was eclipsed by the similarly weird German reputation, never mind the way the Germans always end up losing in the end. The list of victorious French revolutionary and Napoleonic battles is just insane.

There is a reason France was considered a dangerous adversary and a credible threat by the British in the 18th c., and it wasn't from being "smashed" by them with sufficient regularity, not even at sea. It sort of took a Nelson in form to get the drop on the French navy when it mattered.:)

That's overestimating the UK. You might as well state that it got smashed by Austria. The UK without allies, on land, was nothing much, even if the soldiers were first rate. British armies before WWI were just too small to win anything on their own against a major European power. Which was of course why the UK became very adept at playing European politics through coalitions.
This is one of the greatest statements of truth in history ever. I applaud you, sir. This post is like a condensed version of one of my AP Euro essays some time ago. (Which is odd, considering you're supposed to be verbose. Maybe my prolixity wins. :p)

I mostly agree with what you're driving at with regards to your overall points Verbose, but I see that you didn't directly talk about Napoleonic naval battles in that post which were almost all French defeats (and most of those both tactical and strategic defeats unlike Chesapeke Bay). Nelson may have been an important part of it being so but he was far from being the only admiral to score sucess against the French, just as Wellington wasn't the only general in the peninsula (or indeed the whole continent) to be able to defeat the French Imperial army, although he was arguably one of the few who could do it on a regular basis.

If the Napoleonic wars bought lasting fame for France's army it brought just as much for Britain's navy. A comparison could also be drawn between the way that each had a thorn in their side (the US navy from 1812 for the Royal Navy and the British in the Peninsula for Napoleon's army) which is conviniently forgotten about in favour of more memorable battles and campaigns.

I mostly agree with what you're driving at with regards to your overall points Verbose, but I see that you didn't directly talk about Napoleonic naval battles in that post which were almost all French defeats (and most of those both tactical and strategic defeats unlike Chesapeke Bay). Nelson may have been an important part of it being so but he was far from being the only admiral to score sucess against the French, just as Wellington wasn't the only general in the peninsula (or indeed the whole continent) to be able to defeat the French Imperial army, although he was arguably one of the few who could do it on a regular basis.
The point was that the ancièn régime French navy, "la Royale", gave the RN about as good as it got, which keeps us in the 18th c. From the Revolution onwards the French navy was in a shambles due to political and financial causes.

That French navy became a casualty as much of the French Revolution as of the RN. The French monarchy might have been rotten with privilege systems, and that includes the selection of naval commanders, but to successfully do the naval warfare stuff requires actual competence, and the royal French navy in the 18th c. did manage to acquire that.

That competence was one of the things that seriously dissipated with the social shake up of the revolution. Lots of naval tradition seems to have gone missing there. Nelson sinking a large part of the remnants of the royal navy and its officers at Aboukir sure didn't help either of course, especially when the mechanisms for reproducing competent naval officers seems to have gone wonky.

It was probably inevitable, as the French navy was a pet project of the monarchy and not strictly something of primary importance to France, unlike the continental armies. And since the new republic almost immediately found itself fighting for its life the former royal pet project of the navy became very secondary very quickly.

Napoleon toyed with the idea of rebuilding it, possiby regretted not having given it more priority, but never got around to it as more pressing matter kept cropping up and needed to be dealt with.

The point was that the ancièn régime French navy, "la Royale", gave the RN about as good as it got, which keeps us in the 18th c.

That's all fine and good, but if you are going to make an overview of French performance post 1688 in comparison to the British (which is what I understood your previous post to be) and include the land aspects of the Napoleonic wars in that overview its wrong to gloss over and play down the naval aspect of it by ascribing British sucess to Nelson being on form. This is the one period where the French were getting smashed regularly by the British in naval battles.

It was probably inevitable, as the French navy was a pet project of the monarchy and not strictly something of primary importance to France, unlike the continental armies. And since the new republic almost immediately found itself fighting for its life the former royal pet project of the navy became very secondary very quickly.

Your analysis of the French Navy's faults is fair and accurate, although I would argue that the Royal Navy's training and performance also helped tip the balance. It also didn't help that the French navy spent much of its time (especially post 1805) cooped up in blockaded ports limiting the crew's ability to gain experience at sea.

Napoleon toyed with the idea of rebuilding it, possiby regretted not having given it more priority, but never got around to it as more pressing matter kept cropping up and needed to be dealt with.

Napoleon didn't just toy with the idea of rebuilding the Navy, he regularly built ships of the line at places like Antwerp where 19 a year were being turned out. He seemed to hold the belief that numbers were all that was required to defeat the Royal Navy.

That's all fine and good, but if you are going to make an overview of French performance post 1688 in comparison to the British (which is what I understood your previous post to be) and include the land aspects of the Napoleonic wars in that overview its wrong to gloss over and play down the naval aspect of it by ascribing British sucess to Nelson being on form. This is the one period where the French were getting smashed regularly by the British in naval battles.
I did put in the time limit up to 1789. We're sifting through the Napoleonic naval warfare as we go along now instead.:)

My intention of including the pre-rev. relative strength of the French navy was just to point something out which I think can be assumed to be practically unknown by most posters reading this thread, not to attempt a fuller analysis.

My post was spawned by Aronnax' assertion that the UK "smashed" France ever since 1688, which apparently is the impression of history in the "Anglosphere". We all know the RN "ruled the waves" and all in the 19th c., and most people with an interest in that kind of history can rattle of a string of won Nelson engagements. I didn't see too much reason to reiterate stuff everyone knows.;)
Your analysis of the French Navy's faults is fair and accurate, although I would argue that the Royal Navy's training and performance also helped tip the balance. It also didn't help that the French navy spent much of its time (especially post 1805) cooped up in blockaded ports limiting the crew's ability to gain experience at sea.
Certainly. I wasn't intending to somehow give impression that the French navy just defaulted to the British, far from it.
Napoleon didn't just toy with the idea of rebuilding the Navy, he regularly built ships of the line at places like Antwerp where 19 a year were being turned out. He seemed to hold the belief that numbers were all that was required to defeat the Royal Navy.
Well yes, it did get up to parity with the losses incurred during the Napoleonic wars, and there were some ambitious facilities under construction when the war ended. But there was no concentrated effort to try to tip the balance in French favour.
I don't even find any clear evidence Napoleonic France even chose a definite strategy. While ships of the line to replace those lost were built, that in itself obviously wasn't sufficient to take on and defeat the RN, and the alternative proposed by French "filibustres" like Surcouf, to wage a commercial war on the UK by raiding commercial shipping on a global scale (sort of U-boat warfare sans U-boats) wasn't really tried on the scale he envisaged.

So my impression is that the French navy under Napoleon mostly plodded on in old ruts with little idea how to win a naval war, simply getting enough to keep the war going.

As for his grasp of the complexities of naval warfare, you're probably right that Napoleon wasn't too interested hence not too knowledgeable.:)

From the Revolution onwards the French navy was in a shambles due to political and financial causes.
Well, the French navy did undergo a bit of a renaissance under the reign of Napoleon III, being a forerunner in ironclad construction and innovation, and developing the Paixhans gun. This, too, was in a period when the Royal Navy, while still the top dog, was not at the world-conquering standards to which it had been held before (before the Naval Defence Act of 1889 and the Two-Power Standard). So for about fifteen to twenty years, la Royale looked pretty good.

I did put in the time limit up to 1789. We're sifting through the Napoleonic naval warfare as we go along now instead.

It just struck me as selective to talk in detail about the Napoleonic land warfare whilst not talking about Napoleonic naval warfare in the same post. Britain's ability to retain her commercial trade and blockade France at the same time did play a role in bringing about Napoleon's fall from grace so its inclusion is important when discussing whether Britain was a significant factor in "smashing" France during the wars.

My post was spawned by Aronnax' assertion that the UK "smashed" France ever since 1688, which apparently is the impression of history in the "Anglosphere". We all know the RN "ruled the waves" and all in the 19th c., and most people with an interest in that kind of history can rattle of a string of won Nelson engagements. I didn't see too much reason to reiterate stuff everyone knows.

I rather think it depends on the person doing the asserting as to what impression they have. Someone with a good knowledge of the period could tell you a balanced viewpoint including our defeats. Most lay people (ie non historians/amateur historians) know about the American revolution and France's role in it even if they can't point specifically to Chesapeke Bay, but they'd probably think that we were mostly dominant. To be fair however for Chesapeke Bay and Yorktown we can counter with the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, Quiberon Bay and Clive's campaigns in India. If they don't count as disasters for the French they certainly count as us "sticking it" to the French first. ;)

As to why the Napoleonic naval battles are important see my previous remarks.

Well yes, it did get up to parity with the losses incurred during the Napoleonic wars, and there were some ambitious facilities under construction when the war ended. But there was no concentrated effort to try to tip the balance in French favour.

I don't even find any clear evidence Napoleonic France even chose a definite strategy. While ships of the line to replace those lost were built, that in itself obviously wasn't sufficient to take on and defeat the RN, and the alternative proposed by French "filibustres" like Surcouf, to wage a commercial war on the UK by raiding commercial shipping on a global scale (sort of U-boat warfare sans U-boats) wasn't really tried on the scale he envisaged.

So my impression is that the French navy under Napoleon mostly plodded on in old ruts with little idea how to win a naval war, simply getting enough to keep the war going.

I'd say gathering 79 with 39 under construction by 1814 and the improvement of naval bases was quite an effort. I'd also say that its doubtful that they were being gathered just to keep the war going since ships of the line rarely saw large scale action after 1805. Some would have been lost to other problems however, but probably not as many as 19 a year. I agree however that French naval strategy was largely without direction although that may have changed when the numerical balance had ever tipped back in France's favour. You can't help but think that with better numbers and more direction the French navy could have least have tried to contest some of the Royal Navy's later actions rather than avoiding a fleet action after Trafalgar.

As for his grasp of the complexities of naval warfare, you're probably right that Napoleon wasn't too interested hence not too knowledgeable.

Well part of the problem was that his lack of knowledge lead him to not only oversimplify naval warfare but also expect too much of the French Navy. I think that the dominance of the Royal Navy ensured that the kind of war Napoleon wanted to wage just simply wasn't practical for the French Navy. It just wasn't strong enough to blockade British ports nor to close off British smuggling to the continent. It may have achieved some sucess as you mention via Surcouf but to be frank even the American success in the war of 1812 didn't cripple British trading interests or economy (quite the opposite, the US treasury was nearly bankrupted by the war) so its hard to see how even that would achieved what he wanted - the defeat of the UK through crippling its economy.

It may have achieved some sucess as you mention via Surcouf but to be frank even the American success in the war of 1812 didn't cripple British trading interests or economy (quite the opposite, the US treasury was nearly bankrupted by the war) so its hard to see how even that would achieved what he wanted - the defeat of the UK through crippling its economy.
Well, France at the time was a considerable bigger fish with more muscle than the early US republic. An effort by France proportional to what the US did would have been a much greater challenge for the UK, though that's not saying it would have worked, i.e. brought the UK down.

Demographically France had the drop on the UK by a good margin, and while the UK was riding high on the first wave of industrialisation, the total GDP estimates for the time I've seen put France and the UK on roughly equal footing.:scan:

The US by comparison was tiny.:)

Well, France at the time was a considerable bigger fish with more muscle than the early US republic. An effort by France proportional to what the US did would have been a much greater challenge for the UK, though that's not saying it would have worked, i.e. brought the UK down.

A concentrated and co-ordinated effort certainly would have hit the Royal Navy hard and stretched it pretty thin so yes I think it would have been a massive challenge for the Royal Navy. Fortunately it never came and after the initial shock of realising that we were not quite as invincible as we had been accustomed to thinking we managed reasonably well against the Americans.

Demographically France had the drop on the UK by a good margin, and while the UK was riding high on the first wave of industrialisation, the total GDP estimates for the time I've seen put France and the UK on roughly equal footing.

Well I think that unlike the USA France was able to move towards being relatively self sufficient, so the loss of sea-borne trade wasn't as significant to France as it clearly was to the USA. On the other hand Napoleon's plan to close Europe off to British shipping had virtually no effect on our income from exports. It fell the year the Continental system came into place by only a million pounds only to rise by 2 million the next year. I guess Napoleon had the luxury of still being able to trade internally with Europe thus negating to some extent the need for seaborne trade. I'm no expert on this issue though so if you have more info feel free to share it. Clearly Britain was never going to be able to use the Royal Navy to bankrupt France, but a poor performance by it could have a serious impact on Britain's economy.

I think the point I'm making is that Britain's ability to continue to support its continental allies with subsidies and supplies, its ability to launch and maintain major operations so far from the UK and its ability to hamper some of Napoleon's designs were directly linked to the Royal Navy's ability to control the seas. Remove that control briefly or for an extended period and Britain's ability to wage war on France comes under threat, and that's why the Royal Navy's sucess or failure is an important discussion point for the Napoleonic wars (and for that matter most wars from the period under discussion) because whilst Austria, Prussia or Russia might have committed more soldiers to fighting Napoleon it was Britain that was the enemy he couldn't buy off or defeat (well not for long anyway).

Demographically France had the drop on the UK by a good margin, and while the UK was riding high on the first wave of industrialisation, the total GDP estimates for the time I've seen put France and the UK on roughly equal footing.:scan:

The US by comparison was tiny.:)

A good demographic margin? Try triple the population during the Napoleonic Wars, and four times during most the 18th. France also had a much, though not proportionally, higher GDP (~double at most estimates) - its just the effective resources available to the state that were on par due to the UKs much more monetised and documented economy and habit of actually taxing the rich ;).

due to the UKs much more monetised and documented economy and habit of actually taxing the rich ;).
But if you tax the rich they won't build factories and railroads for you! [/Victoria]

:rolleyes:

My post was spawned by Aronnax' assertion that the UK "smashed" France ever since 1688, which apparently is the impression of history in the "Anglosphere". We all know the RN "ruled the waves" and all in the 19th c., and most people with an interest in that kind of history can rattle of a string of won Nelson engagements. I didn't see too much reason to reiterate stuff everyone knows.

Prehaps I should be clearer on by my post that UK smashed France in every other war since 1688.

I believe the French are okay or even great at war. The wars under Louis which expanded the French Kingdom to its "natural borders" were greats feats of battles and wars, a good amount of times thrashing the British army for the win.

France has a amazing ability to be able to survive any war no matter how the results of the war shows that, even though during some years the battlefield events favoured the Allies, France could never be truly knocked out of the war and be neutralise as a threat no matter the amount of enemies she had.

My idea of UK smashing France is not a blitzkerg of every French town and the annihaltion of the entire French army. My idea of Smashing France is Britian being able to achieve its political objective that it first went to war for.

The War of the Grand Alliance ended in France's failure to reinstall the pro-French James II on the throne. However, this could be explain as the main French aims and army were fighting along the Rhine, annexing German Kingdoms. Neverless, it had England triumphantly, securing its new King in power and making sure James did not recover his crown agaisnt French aggresion.
Score 1:0 to the leading English.

The War of Spanish Sucession
The treaty of Utrech resulted that the French and Spanish crowns not united, the very same reason Britian had gone to war for. Adding on to the victory of getting France to relinquish the claim, France ceded over various colonial claims in the New World.
Score 2:0 to the leading British

War of the Austrian Succession
Not much of a war between Britian and France but between Spain and Britian and France and Austria.
Britian and France were dragged into the war via their military Alliances with Austria and Prussia respectively

Seven Years' War
Complete loss of French Colonial Ambition in America and destruction of the French Naval power for the moment. Sounds like a French defeat. Though France was really more into crushing Prussia than Britian

American Revolution
Battle wise, France had dominated and avenge the loss of the 7 years war. This in all was a French military win. However, the French had failed in their attempt to break Britians monopoly on American goods which was their main political goal. After the revolution, America still traded mostly with Britian rather than their war ally France. France inherited a crippled budget and a massive dept.

The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars
If after 25 years of bloody war, and I quelled your revolution, restore the balance of power, overthrew a dictator and freed the many countries spread across Europe and stop Frances millitary Ambitions in creating a colonial empire that threathen Britians trading interest (Egypt and India) and restore the original monarchs. I call that a win for Britian

The War of Spanish Sucession
The treaty of Utrech resulted that the French and Spanish crowns not united, the very same reason Britian had gone to war for. Adding on to the victory of getting France to relinquish the claim, France ceded over various colonial claims in the New World.
Score 2:0 to the leading British
Have you taken a look at the British war aims that were once demanded of the French during the War of Spanish Succession? At one point the Allied terms were that the French not only relinquish the Spanish claim but also use the French army to dethrone Felipe V, in addition to territorial cessions in northern and western France. Instead, the French managed to keep a Bourbon on the throne in Madrid and keep from losing French territories in Europe. Those overseas had nothing to do with French war aims, which were almost totally focused on Europe. I would say that the geopolitical result of the War of the Spanish Succession, i.e. the creation of the Family Compact and the elimination of a French need to look south when fighting a war, was immeasurably better than the result to the British, i.e. the seizure of some colonies as well as the acquisition of the asiento.
American Revolution
Battle wise, France had dominated and avenge the loss of the 7 years war. This in all was a French military win. However, the French had failed in their attempt to break Britians monopoly on American goods which was their main political goal. After the revolution, America still traded mostly with Britian rather than their war ally France. France inherited a crippled budget and a massive dept.
And yet French politics still had a very strong influence in America's government, France had retaken some of their colonies (if you wish to count the Spanish Succession as a crushing British victory you must count the American Revolution as a crushing French one :p), France had split off the United States from Britain itself, and France had secured strong working relationships with several of the European Powers, including the Dutch, transforming the European diplomatic scene into one almost totally favorable to them.
The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars
If after 25 years of bloody war, and I quelled your revolution, restore the balance of power, overthrew a dictator and freed the many countries spread across Europe and stop Frances millitary Ambitions in creating a colonial empire that threathen Britians trading interest (Egypt and India) and restore the original monarchs. I call that a win for Britian
If you consider that a single conflict, yeah, but I would say that the Peace of Amiens was a win for France while the Peace of Vienna was a win for Britain.

The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars
If after 25 years of bloody war, and I quelled your revolution, restore the balance of power, overthrew a dictator and freed the many countries spread across Europe and stop Frances millitary Ambitions in creating a colonial empire that threathen Britians trading interest (Egypt and India) and restore the original monarchs. I call that a win for Britian
Except:

1) Despite the defeat the Bourbons could not be again enthroned in a French state quite like the one of the Ancièn Regime, no matter how much the alliance propping them back up might have wanted it - arguably more Metternich's wishes than any British politicians, but then again the peace didn't really cater to specific British aims as much as those of everyone else, and Britain was fine with that.
So that's a win for Austria and Russia even more than the UK. Russia gained more from the Napoleonic wars than Britain I'd say.

2) What liberation? Britian helped put a slew of true-blue autocratic reactionary monarchists in charge of European politics. Which was why the next wave of revolutions followed already in the 1820's (Spain, Italy, quelled in blood with such extreme harshness the British withdrew from their continental allies in disgust), and the 1830's, and finally 1848. From the point of view of European revolutionary history, the Napoleonic wars weren't really an end, and the UK certainly was no more able dam these forces than any of their more or less nasty continental allies.

You forgot the 1821 Revolution in Greece my friend. The previous waves of revolutions lead to that one too.

Despite the defeat the Bourbons could not be again enthroned in a French state quite like the one of the Ancièn Regime, no matter how much the alliance propping them back up might have wanted it - arguably more Metternich's wishes than any British politicians, but then again the peace didn't really cater to specific British aims as much as those of everyone else, and Britain was fine with that.
So that's a win for Austria and Russia even more than the UK. Russia gained more from the Napoleonic wars than Britain I'd say.

I don't see how the congress/peace didn't really cater to our needs frankly. The restoration of the Bourbons may have been a weak success but that was the flip side of removing Napoleon from power, a major British aim and success from the wars. Connected to that was the British aim to avoid putting Europe through another prolonged period of conflict by maintaining a balance of power and peace in Europe (which in the eyes of the British simply wouldn't happen with Napoleon still at large), and internal divisions aside Europe did fall into a protracted period without a major conflict after Vienna.

Ok the other major powers gained more land (although some of Britain's gains whilst small were important to future Imperial and trade aims) and Britain did fall into a period of economic struggle after the wars but to me we gained a lot out of the wars, even if they were very expensive.

The real suprise of the Vienna Congress/Peace is that France got anything out of it, but that stems as much from the fact that Britain and others recognised that to ensure a proper balance and peace you needed to engage with a beaten but still powerful faction.

What alot of people do not realize is the fact that the French are actually good at wars, one of the best military histories ever. Like Napoleon, Napoleon 3, France in the Americain Revolution, World War 1, Italien Wars, French Revolution, Hundred year war, Thirty Years War, Norman Invasion, Crimean war and a bunch of other wars the French were actually good at.



This is because it was long long ago, WW2 wasn't, the French got overrun quite easily by Germany... I voted they are bad at wars now, but the question is how they actually are now, the closest French wars however, they lost, the ones they won were long long ago.

I doubt there'd be much of a war now, if France would be invaded by someone I reckon they'd just Nuke em.

This is because it was long long ago, WW2 wasn't, the French got overrun quite easily by Germany... I voted they are bad at wars now, but the question is how they actually are now, the closest French wars however, they lost, the ones they won were long long ago.

I doubt there'd be much of a war now, if France would be invaded by someone I reckon they'd just Nuke em.

I get what your saying, but France did end up winning World war 2, so yes they do win modern wars.

I get what your saying, but France did end up winning World war 2, so yes they do win modern wars.

Not on their own I'm afraid. Without the US&UK&Canadian invasion they'd end up being commies :(. Same as for the rest of western europe.

The only True good countries in war in Europe are/were the British and Russians/Soviets, who were able to hold of the Nazi's (invading their homeland) without help .

Not on their own I'm afraid. Without the US&UK&Canadian invasion they'd end up being commies :(. Same as for the rest of western europe.

The only True good countries in war in Europe are/were the British and Russians/Soviets, who were able to hold of the Nazi's (invading their homeland) without help .

yes I get that, they would still be occupied today if it was not for those countries but in the end, France won the war.

yes I get that, they would still be occupied today if it was not for those countries but in the end, France won the war.

Not reakky.. Its more accurate to say they ended up on the winning side like Italy.

The real suprise of the Vienna Congress/Peace is that France got anything out of it, but that stems as much from the fact that Britain and others recognised that to ensure a proper balance and peace you needed to engage with a beaten but still powerful faction.
The really tricky bit here is that what's at stake isn't just "France" in some general sense, but just as much "what kind of France?" Which is the bit I often think lacking in British overviews of the situation.:)

The France the victors of the Napoleonic wars wanted and expected - a dynastic monarchy - did get something out of it. The kind of France that came out of the revolution and solidified under Napoleon, the new kind of modern, liberal nation state, got only just as much as the victors of the wars could not help to accord it, the bare minimum. Which set up the next round of revolutions.

So while the UK with some credibility could tell itself it was opposing a dictator on behalf of various nations threatened to fall under his domain in the immediate future, from the pov of the political liberalisation and modernisation of Europe, in the very long run the UK, when fighting revolutionary France, in the end was still fighting on the wrong side, and a losing battle.

The Napoleonic empire was not a hell-hole of repression, and a fair few of the reforms it pushed through abroad were quite popular, at least with the apsiring professional middle-class starting to come into its own. That Imperial France exported choice bits of revolutionary, liberal freedom is just as true as that it occupied and dominated its neighbours.:)

The really tricky bit here is that what's at stake isn't just "France" in some general sense, but just as much "what kind of France?" Which is the bit I often think lacking in British overviews of the situation.:)

The France the victors of the Napoleonic wars wanted and expected - a dynastic monarchy - did get something out of it. The kind of France that came out of the revolution and solidified under Napoleon, the new kind of modern, liberal nation state, got only just as much as the victors of the wars could not help to accord it, the bare minimum. Which set up the next round of revolutions.

So while the UK with some credibility could tell itself it was opposing a dictator on behalf of various nations threatened to fall under his domain in the immediate future, from the pov of the political liberalisation and modernisation of Europe, in the very long run the UK, when fighting revolutionary France, in the end was still fighting on the wrong side, and a losing battle.

The Napoleonic empire was not a hell-hole of repression, and a fair few of the reforms it pushed through abroad were quite popular, at least with the apsiring professional middle-class starting to come into its own. That Imperial France exported choice bits of revolutionary, liberal freedom is just as true as that it occupied and dominated its neighbours.:)

Its not like Britain had much of a choice, if you had to pick from a megalomanic who wouldn't accept anything but complete control, and a bunch of squabbling aristrocrats that would at least not try and lock you out - who would you pick? There weren't any powerful liberal opponents to Napoleon at that point, and Britain couldn't win without the manpower of Prussia, Austria and Russia, so you work with what you have.

And please, liberalism was all well and good, but Napoleonic France put a straitjacket on anyone who wasn't French - you need only look at the continental system for that. Plus whos to say the good ideas of the revolution wouldn't have spread on their own, especially without the reactionaries fear of another "Reign of Terror".

Its not like Britain had much of a choice, if you had to pick from a megalomanic who wouldn't accept anything but complete control, and a bunch of squabbling aristrocrats that would at least not try and lock you out - who would you pick? There weren't any powerful liberal opponents to Napoleon at that point, and Britain couldn't win without the manpower of Prussia, Austria and Russia, so you work with what you have.
Exactly, there was no way the UK could really get this one just right in the first place.

There were no liberal alternatives to Napoleon in the role of continuator of the French revolution - so clearly you work with what you have, which was not so much a bunch of "squabbling aristocrats" (nice piece of rhetoric of dimuniation there:goodjob: ) as a set of autocratic monarchs (much nastier).:)

The matter of the role assigned to Napoleon and his empire in the British collective historical mythology of their nation is another matter. Just like the French have spent 200 years bickering over the exact content of a Napoleonic legacy, giving it an inch here and reducing it there (how much of a promoter of the revolution was he, and how much a traitor to it, with nothing clear-cut).

But in general, between the UK and France, my take on it is that the Napoleonic wars were a series of conflicts where the UK was as much in the wrong, or right, as the French empire ever was. The major British allies however are another matter; not that any of these pretty awful political entities has survived to this day, and good riddance.

If you wish, it's an interesting situation, where allowing Napoleon to overrun Europe (the British not denying him the seas and bankrolling the coalitions facing him), would likely not have been conducive of a more profound political modernisation and liberalisation of conquered and defeated nations, but where nevertheless the example of the Napoleonic empire, the social reforms of French society it cemented, and the examples it forced upon defeated societies were necessary for establishing the pattern for the modern, liberal nation states of the 19th c.

Consequently, France had to be opposed, but the radical challenges, on all manner of levels, the post-revolutionary French empire issued to the traditional European monarchies were equally necessary.

As I'm sure you've noticed, I'm prone to want to try to break the matter of the role of the UK vis à vis the French Revolution and Napoleon out of certain kinds of limited frame-works for understanding it.:)
And please, liberalism was all well and good, but Napoleonic France put a straitjacket on anyone who wasn't French - you need only look at the continental system for that. Plus whos to say the good ideas of the revolution wouldn't have spread on their own, especially without the reactionaries fear of another "Reign of Terror".
That's of course the fortunate bit in this history for Britain, how despite the way, by its choice of allies, it allowed itself to become an instrument in support of political reaction on the continent, there was no real long term harm done.

But this was also because there really was no reason for the UK NOT to drop their continental allies in the 1820's when it became clear to them what manner of beast they were dealing with. Britian sending troops to put down revolutions in Italy and Spain, like the French and Austrian monarchies did in the 1820's (establishment of the first French Foreign Legion btw), wasn't an option. The difference in British historical mythology seems to be that Napoleon the UK actively fought, so he must be "bad", but their blood-soaked reactionary former continental allies the UK could simply ignored in disgust, since there was no pressing need to actively fight them.

But then again, since apparently there was no official British interest in supporting European liberal revolutionaries trying to effectuate change either, the UK in the 19th c. wasn't really regarded as a bastion of the principles of freedom and liberalism by said continentals (even if someone like Garibaldi could make successful fundraising tours of the UK, collecting donations from private individuals).

Granted the French empire under Napoleon had operated on the principle of short-sightedly endorsing what was good specifically for France, like everyone else, the UK included. From the perspective of some, for instance the Danes (receiving end of unprovoked British agression), the Poles (Prussia, Russia and Austria) and a couple of other places (Bavarians have claimed that the only war they really liked was the Napoleonic, 'cause then they got to shoot at the Prussians), France wasn't necessarily half bad by comparison.

A fair amount of the social cobwebs of history Napoleon swept away(irrational privileges of some groups in society, colletive rights over individual freedoms, systems of guild secrecy) weren't really missed, and even when the French acted in an exploitative fashion, they were showing how to organise a modern society by example, that were later to be emulated elsewhere.

As for the revolutionary ideas, we have already established that Napoleon was defeated and serious attempts were made to stuff them back into the box, which failed, and rather faster than anticipated.:)

I don't think Napoleonic/Revoulutionary France was a hell-hole of repression, I do think however that Napoleonic France was a very real threat to British interests and the interests of the established powers in Europe. I don't think it matters much whether Napoleon was right or Britain was, what mattered was that for the British Napoleon had to be either accomodated (usually on his terms) or defeated. Britain wasn't about to experiment with the idea of sitting on the sidelines allowing one country to gain control over the whole continent just to see if they were more progressive and better than the lot they replaced. I don't think that British politicians would have thought that a good gamble at all.

Anyway as interesting as the discussion is this is moving away slightly from whether a country is good in wars or not and into the realms of political and social history.

Not in the good ol' US of A. People here have a lower opinion of French military prowess than they do of Congress. It's almost entirely unwarranted.

That's classic. I think the US tends to be more mocking of the French military. Most probably due to their track record with regards to major military events (WW1, WW2, etc).

Didn't the French army mutiny in WW1or something like that and they also sucked in Vietnam. I think the French were in trouble with the rise of Prussia and definately once Germany unified.

Way to read the thread, Zar.

Didn't the French army mutiny in WW1or something like that

mutiny?:rolleyes:
and they also sucked in Vietnam.

America also sucked in Vietnam too. I think anyone who was in America's or France's position would of sucked in Vietnam

And like I said 500 times before in this thread, France did not "suck" in WW1. They had the 2nd most casualties in the war (behind Russia) and they were brave and kept on fighting. And for World war 2, No one in France's Position could of stopped Blitzkrieg. Britain had the channel to protect them, Russia had their vast land and winter to protect them. All the other countries (France, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Greece) lost to Blitzkrieg too. Are you saying all of those countries suck at war too?

I think the French were in trouble with the rise of Prussia and definitely once Germany unified.

That is a stupid statement considering France has won three of the four wars that were fought against a United Germany.

mutiny?:rolleyes:


America also sucked in Vietnam too. I think anyone who was in America's or France's position would of sucked in Vietnam

And like I said 500 times before in this thread, France did not "suck" in WW1. They had the 2nd most casualties in the war (behind Russia) and they were brave and kept on fighting. And for World war 2, No one in France's Position could of stopped Blitzkrieg. Britain had the channel to protect them, Russia had their vast land and winter to protect them. All the other countries (France, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Greece) lost to Blitzkrieg too. Are you saying all of those countries suck at war too?



That is a stupid statement considering France has won three of the four wars that were fought against a United Germany.


They had alot of help. They lost in 1871, would have lost in 1914-1918 if they were by themselves, and they surrendered in WW2. I was referring to some problems the Fench army had in 1917 but I can't recall the details.

The USA didn't suck in Vietnam. 50000 casualites over 10 ears isn't that bad and they didn't really lose a battle. They never got surrounded by the Vietcong like the French did nad have to surrender.

The Germans may have lost the war but no ones claiming they sucked as they took on 3-4 of the superpowers of their time and almost won in both WW1 and WW2. Its probabl;y got something to do woith the stereotype of the French as well. What other country could take on Britain, USA, Russia and France all at the same time and amost win. That would be none.

France couldn't even defend that well vs Germany by itself and the Germans themselves had a low opinion of French troops themselves as opposed to say the Scottish or British troops.

The Germans may have lost the war but no ones claiming they sucked as they took on 3-4 of the superpowers of their time and almost won in both WW1 and WW2. Its probabl;y got something to do woith the stereotype of the French as well. What other country could take on Britain, USA, Russia and France all at the same time and amost win. That would be none.
That's exactly how people felt about France after the Napoleonic wars. "What other country could,,,"

That's exactly how people felt about France after the Napoleonic wars. "What other country could,,,"

200 years ago. Germany didn't even exist back then as a unified country.

200 years ago. Germany didn't even exist back then as a unified country.
The process of forming itself into a modern nation state began under the double preassure of the French example of liberal nationalism and imperial occupation.

And in both the case of France and Germany the key to their military success is having a relative demographic and economic edge over the nearest competitors on the continent.

Oversimplified in the late 19th and early 20th c. Germany was the France of the late 18th and early 19th c.

Their trajectories as perceived martial nations mirror each other, Germany just being the more recent.

They had alot of help. They lost in 1871, would have lost in 1914-1918 if they were by themselves, and they surrendered in WW2. I was referring to some problems the Fench army had in 1917 but I can't recall the details.
I believe it was a nearly a mutiny or mass desertion. Which could have been disastrous as the German Spring Offensive (1918) hit just a few monthes afterwards. If the offensive happened during the mutinies, the war could have went very differently.
USA didn't suck in Vietnam. 50000 casualites over 10 ears isn't that bad and they didn't really lose a battle. They never got surrounded by the Vietcong like the French did nad have to surrender.
We did get surrounded several times, Ia Drang, Que Sanh, Plei Me, Con Thien, and a few others. A lot of time by NVA regulars which are far more disciplined and trained than VC.

And like I said 500 times before in this thread, France did not "suck" in WW1. They had the 2nd most casualties in the war (behind Russia)

Since when does sustaining massive casualties indicate a good performance by a military? Yes, the French were brave in defending their country but over all I'd say it was the ineptness of the French military leadership and tactics that resulted in massive losses though they were certainly not alone in that regard.

They had alot of help. They lost in 1871, would have lost in 1914-1918 if they were by themselves, and they surrendered in WW2.

Well it wasn't as if they just gave up in 1940. They were soundly and honestly beaten, and except for the 16 reserves divisions left to guard the Ardennes, the French soldiers weren't done until the fat lady sung.

But then again, let's just concentrate on the last few wars, and not think about the hundreds of years of French victories BEFORE 1815, or the many during World War I, or Free French actions during the Second World War. :rolleyes:

I was referring to some problems the Fench army had in 1917 but I can't recall the details.

There were threats of a mutiny in 1917, but there were also in 1916 and 1915, and again in 1918. The 1917 one is often blown out of proportion because of the Luddendorf Offensive, and the arrival of American troops.

The USA didn't suck in Vietnam.

By your measure of the French sucking in Vietnam, the Americans did equally so. The point being that the French didn't suck in Vietnam.

50000 casualites
59,000

over 10 ears isn't that bad and they didn't really lose a battle.

The Vietnam and Algerian Wars were the beginning of a new kind of warfare, one where winning individual engagements doesn't matter, its winning hearts and minds, to borrow Gen. Westmorelands' euphemism, that matters. Vietnam was not a war, it was a counterinsurgency. We fought it like a war, and that is why we lost. That is why the acusation that "Iraq is the new Vietnam" was initially a sound one: counterinsurgency and war are two different matters, the only thing they have in common is that a lot of lead gets flung through the air.

They never got surrounded by the Vietcong like the French did nad have to surrender.

The French didn't surrender at Dien Bien Phu, they fought to the end. And the Americans were surrounded, at Khe Sahn in 1968, when 6,000 Marines were locked up in a Fire Base on the DMZ by 30,000 NVA. The Marines (and a small ARVN detachment) were besieged for three months until Allied relief broke the siege.

The Germans may have lost the war but no ones claiming they sucked as they took on 3-4 of the superpowers of their time and almost won in both WW1 and WW2.

Another common misconception. The moment that Britain joined the Allies was the moment that the war was lost for Germany. They could beat France, they could beat Yugoslavia, or Rumania, or Poland, or Norway, but so long as Britain remained independent, Germany would be eternally harassed by her, and never have complete victory. That Germany then declared war on the Soviet Union sealed the deal. To put it quite simply, Germany could not win in the East. Fullstop. Hitler vastly underestimated the capability of the Red Army (as did Stalin of Hitler, to be fair), and while it is true that the officer corps was very much hindered by a lack of adequate leadership thanks to the Purges, and the rest scared into not thinking on their own, it is also important to note that the great penetration of Germany into the Soviet Union was very much a planned operation by the Soviets. The long-existant plan for the defense of Russia laid out three teirs of defense; the border, which would be lightly defended, but enough to make it not seem lightly defended, a breakwater around the Minsk area, and a final layer between Rzhev and Moscow, running to Leningrad, and down to the Don near Voronzeh and then to Rostov. The best Soviet equipment, which even in Jun3 1941 including large numbers of T-34s, were held at the second and third lines, which would break the tide of German advance when their supply lines were running thin, and were by that time hundreds of miles long. This is why the Germans made it so far into Soviet territory; the Reds had a plan, and Hitler played into it. That they were taken by surprise excacerbated the situation, but even had the Reds known about it, they would have conducted themselves similarly. It was realized that they could not hope to contain an invasion from the West at the border, where their own supply lines would be as long as the German ones were by the time they reached Minsk. It's classic miltary strategy, really, fall back on your supply lines while forcing your enemy to spread himself thin to cover possible axes of penetration, which is precisely what the Russians did.

This is to say nothing, of course, of the sheer impossibility of occupying the cities of Leningrad and Moscow. We saw what happened when Soviet resistance would not give up a city. Where determined Red Army stands were made in urban areas, the Germans were simply unable to lock down the city, as at Stalingrad, to even enter the city effectively, as at Tula, or to have enough of the city left for it to be worth their while, as at Voronezh. Stalingrad stands as an excellent example, even when the entire 9th Army was committed to the city itself, they could not hold the city; Stalingrad was flanked and surrounded while Paulus and the 9th were still in the city, fighting Russian forces there, and losing. Moscow and Leningrad are cities many times larger than Stalingrad, it is entirely concievable that even more German armies would need to be committed to city fighting to clear those cities, and even more concievable that, while trapped in those cities, they could be outflanked and surrounded, as at Stalingrad, and effectively liquidated. This does not even touch on the fact that both Leningrad and Moscow had considerably more time to prepare defenses inside and around the city, tank traps and minefields and such, and that vast numbers of the city's populace could and would have been drafted into the war; Zhukov was able to organize the conscription of 500,000 Muscovites in only three weeks in November 1941, and organized the use of tens of thousands of citizens to build the previously described defensive works.

And then there is the power of conscription, which I've already touched on somewhat. At the outbreak of war on 22 June, the Red Army numbered at 4.3 million men. By the end of 1941, Red Army losses since war's start were at 4.2 million men, yet, the size of the Red Army in late December was 5.6 million, meaning the Russians had completely replaced their losses AND added another million and a half men to their army in only six months.

And then we have industrial capacity. By the end of 1941, the Soviet Union was outpacing Germany in production of aircraft, tanks, and munitions; by the end of 1942, they were making more T-34s alone than the Germans were all tank types combined (the Russians made many other tanks as well, including the KV heavy tanks, which gave the Germans a nasty shock when their shells wouldn't penetrate 90mm armor except at point-blank range), and by 1943 they were outproducing by multiples in every category. Add to this industrial inferiority a great disadvantage in supplies, because of an almost guaranteed protracted continental blockade by the Royal Navy, and the unlimited potential supplies of the Soviet Union, even within its own country, and it becomes very easy to see that, so long as Germany was at war with both Great Britain and the Soviet Union, it simply could not win.

Its probabl;y got something to do woith the stereotype of the French as well. What other country could take on Britain, USA, Russia and France all at the same time and amost win. That would be none.

I'll disregard the fact that they didn't "almost win," which I elaborated on above.

During the French Revolution, France fought Great Britain, Spain, Belgium, Prussia, Sweden, Austria-Hungary, and Russia, and still won. I count that as far more impressive than Germany's brief salient into Europe.

France couldn't even defend that well vs Germany by itself and the Germans themselves had a low opinion of French troops themselves as opposed to say the Scottish or British troops.

The Germans had the utmost respect for French troops, I don't know where you get this idea from.

As for the conduct of the defense of France, it's in this thread already, discussed at length.

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

And yet theres various ways the Germans could have won had things gone differently. Redploying troops from army group centre in 41, attacking the USSR at the wrong time, not sending enough resources to Africa, not grabing Dunkirk etc.

The Americans may have got surrounded in Vietnam but they weren't defeated as they held out. The Australians gor surrounded in Tobruk as well but held out in 41 unlike the British in 42. 59000 casualties isn't that much over a 10 year period compared to previous wars like WW1,2 Korea. How many did the Vietnamese lose? 10 -20 times that? Also smashed the NVA for 5 years or so after they lost the Tet offensive.

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

HAHAHAHAHAHA THATS SO FUNNY HAHAHA STOOPEED SMEELY SNEAILEATERS LOLOLOLZ HAHA YAY THEY SUCK SO BAD HAHAHA SCREW FRENCH OH YEAH!



ignorance is bliss

And yet theres various ways the Germans could have won had things gone differently. Redploying troops from army group centre in 41, attacking the USSR at the wrong time, not sending enough resources to Africa, not grabing Dunkirk etc.

All those judgements are made in retrospect. There was no way they could have known to do that, so we can't include it.

Although I don't understand your comment about Army Group Center, it was North that was split, twice, to help out Center; first at Smolensk, and then again during the Battle of Moscow.

The Americans may have got surrounded in Vietnam but they weren't defeated as they held out.

Only beacuse there were relief forces available, but even that took three months. There were no forces to relieve Dien Bien Phu.

The Australians gor surrounded in Tobruk as well but held out in 41 unlike the British in 42.

The Australians were still somewhat supplied by sea. That was why Tobruk was so important to the Italians and the Afrika Corps; there were large port facilities there. One of the contributing factors to the fall of Tobruk in 1942, aside from some outstanding tomfoolery on Rommel's part, and a very determined assault (Rommel records in his diary the fantastic British defense of Tobruk, and his repeated frustrations with them), that a very important supply ship was sunk by divebombing.

59000 casualties isn't that much over a 10 year period compared to previous wars like WW1,2 Korea.

59,000 is way too many. It is interesting to note (perhaps to the detriment of my own argument, but so be it), that this number is also the number of British soldiers lost during the first day of the First Battle of the Somme, the deadliest day in British Army history.

How many did the Vietnamese lose? 10 -20 times that?

Vietnamese deaths are recorded at 2.5 million, but that includes civilians. Not that their loss makes the American losses any less terrible.

Also smashed the NVA for 5 years or so after they lost the Tet offensive.

The Tet Offensive was a Viet Cong operation, not NVA. And no, niether the NVA nor Viet Cong were "smashed" by it. Charlie continued to hinder American operations in South Vietnam, and the NVA continued to prove a severe threat to all cities in Quang Tri province, and kept huge numbers of Army soldiers and Marines at the DMZ for the rest of the war. Further, remember that almost immediately following the fall of Saigon, Vietnam was engaged in both an invasion of Cambodia, and shortly thereafter repelling an invasion by China, collectively known as the Third Indochina War.

Napoleon was transitory. Good and sunny King Louie had much more lasting gains. (grumbles about Alsace in a nationalistically German way :p)

I doubt they'd still have Alsace if the Brits/Russians/Americans didn't whip the Germans in WWI/WWII

I doubt they'd still have Alsace if the Brits/Russians/Americans didn't whip the Germans in WWI/WWII
Of course not. Hitler wasn't too interested in fighting the UK or the US. France he absolutely had to defeat to be able to forge ahead. That's the importance of France in WWII.

And it's also a big reason why the UK and the US had to whip Germany for, among a number of things, the sake of France.

France was simply either a stumbling block or a necessity for either side in the grand scheme of things in WWII.

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


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


:yeah:


10 char....

The Germans may have lost the war but no ones claiming they sucked as they took on 3-4 of the superpowers of their time and almost won in both WW1 and WW2.
In the First World War, Germany would have lost much faster if it had been by itself without help from the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Ottoman Empire. It has been estimated that, had the Ottomans not joined the war, it would have been over for the Central Powers two years earlier due to the Anglo-Russian forces that they pulled away.

EDIT:
Of course not. Hitler wasn't too interested in fighting the UK or the US. France he absolutely had to defeat to be able to forge ahead. That's the importance of France in WWII.
Uh...Hitler declared war on the US when he didn't have to in 1941. Japan sure as hell didn't DoW the USSR in 1941 when the Nazis needed it. The Tripartite Pact and the entire Axis framework was basically Germany helping out Italy and Japan for little gain if any.

France has always been among the strongest military powers even when it lost, like all countries French had good and bad periods in their military history.

they have 4 "bad periods" in their military history.

-Approximetaly half of the Hundred year's war.
-The seven years' war 1756 1763 even if the French army wasn't defeated ( contrary to the French navy ) it was a bad performance because they didn't win against the small Brunswick's army.
-Franco Prussian war 1870
-Second world war with the disaster of may june 1940.

All the rest of their military history is globally good and sometimes very glorious.

-The crusades the crusaders came mainly from France, France was the country of Chivalry and French knights were undefeated before the XIVth century.
-The Italian wars between the end of 15th century and the middle of 16th century France had the best artillery and resisted during decades to Charles Quint's Empire.
-in the 17th century they won all battles, they were the great winners of the Thirty' years war with the Swedes and under Louis XIV they led two glorious wars against all of Western europe.
-In 18th century The French army won the austrian succession war 1740 1748 against the British and Dutch armies.
- Under Napoleon they conquered nearly all of Europe and probably no other army in history won so many battles in a such short period, the victory of Austerlitz is one the greatest masterpiece in military history.
- The Crimea war contrary to the British and Russian was glorious for the French they took Sebastopol and saved the British to the disaster severals times especially at Inkerman.
- The first world war 1914 1918 was glorious for the French for severals reasons :
It was a french general the Marshall Foch who lead the allied to victory.
In the Entente side the French did the most of fighting on land and won several major battles, the two battles of the Marne in 1914 and 1918 and the battle of Verdun in 1916.
During the German offensive Michael in 1918 without the divisions sent by the French to the British sector British army would have probably been crushed.
The prestige of french army in the world was very great after the victory of 1918.


So yes their military history is glorious.
Their bad reputation come from the second world war because it's the most well known war and they didn't win a great victory since this period and also the tensions between USA and France during Irak crisis in 2003.

But on the ground, the French and the British are on equal footing. The main difference is the battle was done on the soil of France, and so there was more civilian destructions in France.


On the Western front before the battle of the Somme 1916 the british were a junior partner.
Even in 1918 the French had 102 divisions and British 60 divisions.
On the ground it's mainly the French who defeated the German a little like the Soviets in WW2.

Yes, the British had less troops, but I consider the quality was similar.

Yes, the British had less troops, but I consider the quality was similar.


The Germans seem to have a higher opinion of the British soldiers. Wasn't WW1 the Lions lead by Donket's remark by one of the German Generals? The French are only ood at wars when theres no Germans involved.

no one mocks the Danes for being overun in a day.

Even though I agree on the amusing undertone, what could we actually have done? We were pure, flat, roaded soil with our enemy next door, and we didn't have any industry even to construct weapons before the war began.

No one expected the Danes to defeat Germany. France lasted 4 years in WW1 (with help) buit only 6 weeks or so in WW2 and only 10 days longer than Poland. It would be kinda like the US invading Iraq and losing. The French had a more modern military, 6 months to prepare for a German invasion, argueably better tanks was similar in size to Germany, and had a heavily fortified border and had the BEF there as well.

No one expected the Danes to defeat Germany. France lasted 4 years in WW1 (with help) buit only 6 weeks or so in WW2 and only 10 days longer than Poland. It would be kinda like the US invading Iraq and losing. The French had a more modern military, 6 months to prepare for a German invasion, argueably better tanks was similar in size to Germany, and had a heavily fortified border and had the BEF there as well.

It was not just France that screwed up, it was Britain as well.

Think about it this way, No one expected in 1942 that Germany would loose the war, Berlin bombed to dust (Germany had been bombed the most during the whole war) Germany split between France, Russia, Britain, And America, then East and west Germany, and not becoming a unified Country until the 90's.

It was not just France that screwed up, it was Britain as well.

Think about it this way, No one expected in 1942 that Germany would loose the war, Berlin bombed to dust (Germany had been bombed the most during the whole war) Germany split between France, Russia, Britain, And America, then East and west Germany, and not becoming a unified Country until the 90's.

Yeah but Germany was taking on 3 superpowrs and it still took them 6 years almost to defeat Germany. France lasted 6 weeks. Germany was never really in a position to invade Brtain et alone America. A German vitory would have been to defeat the Soviets and some osrt of peace trety with the west. By 1942 the writing was on the wall for the Germans realy. If I was the German leader I would have sent out peace feelers after Stalingrad. No surrender of course but a return to the 1941 borders or something similar.

Yeah but Germany was taking on 3 superpowrs and it still took them 6 years almost to defeat Germany. France lasted 6 weeks. Germany was never really in a position to invade Brtain et alone America. A German vitory would have been to defeat the Soviets and some osrt of peace trety with the west. By 1942 the writing was on the wall for the Germans realy. If I was the German leader I would have sent out peace feelers after Stalingrad. No surrender of course but a return to the 1941 borders or something similar.

Like I said earlier, Germany never completely invaded France, Free France lasted the entire war

Like I said earlier, Germany never completely invaded France, Free France lasted the entire war

Technicality. France was occupied and the French signed a surrender treaty in 1940.

It would be like claiming England won the war if Britaiin had fallen to the Germans but the USA ended up winning the war with help from the "British Empire" of Australia, New Zealand and Canada and other dominions. The free french couldn't even equip themselves.

France ended up on the winning side, They lost the war.

The Germans seem to have a higher opinion of the British soldiers. Wasn't WW1 the Lions lead by Donket's remark by one of the German Generals? The French are only ood at wars when theres no Germans involved.
Haven't really seen anything in the form of German sources making that assesment.

Considering how, over the course of that war, the French army inflicted casualties on the Germans by a factor of almost 2 to 1 over the British army on the Western Front, I don't think it really mattered much if the Germans thought the British the better soldiers (if that was what they did).

Technicality. France was occupied and the French signed a surrender treaty in 1940.

It would be like claiming England won the war if Britaiin had fallen to the Germans but the USA ended up winning the war with help from the "British Empire" of Australia, New Zealand and Canada and other dominions. The free french couldn't even equip themselves.

France ended up on the winning side, They lost the war.
The army of the provisional government of France, from 1943, by war's end numbered about 1,5 million men, and had reasserted full administrative control over all French territories (after repeatedly facing down and winning over the US and UK with regards to control over sovereign French territory, and by beating the US army occupation authorities to control of France proper). 12 French army divisions stood deep in German territory in 1945, and 100 000 Frenchmen had died fighting for allied victory after the Fall of France.

So while Fall Gelb lasted six weeks in 1940, France only stopped fighting if one decides to ignore the Free French and subsequent developments, and consider the Vichy as the France there was.

Funnily enough this was the view of the US president and state department, until late 1944, when they could no longer continue to ignore the existance of the Free French, and Charles de Gaulle as the leader of the provisional French government.

For some reason, many seem intensely unhappy with there ever having been a crowd of never-say-die Frenchmen, who decided to snatch victory from defeat in WWII, and pulled it off despite all odds, apparently against the wishes of even their closest allies.:goodjob:

It really is a completely improbably turn of events how France could end up one of the victorious powers in WWII after the events of 1940, but it did.

How else should a French allied million-man army, full French sovereignity, colonies included, a French occupation zone in Germany, and a French seat in the UN security council be interpreted than as France won WWII along with its allies?:scan::)

One might think it didn't deserve to come off looking as good as all that, for some reason or other, but won it did.:king:

Technicality. France was occupied and the French signed a surrender treaty in 1940.

It would be like claiming England won the war if Britaiin had fallen to the Germans but the USA ended up winning the war with help from the "British Empire" of Australia, New Zealand and Canada and other dominions. The free french couldn't even equip themselves.

France ended up on the winning side, They lost the war.

that was Vichy France that surrendered and lost the war

Free France never surrendered, and won the war.

that was Vichy France that surrendered and lost the war

Free France never surrendered, and won the war.

Still a technicality. France surrendered and was occupied, doesn't get much more beaten than that. By 1944 the Allies didn't need the Free French and the french liberation of Paris was basically a PR move (13000 Germans who weren't inclined to fight). The Soviets smashed the German Army, the Americans and British sashed the Luftwaffe

Where did the Free French get all their equipment from? The Americans thats who. The French were liberated by mainly the Americans and then got to wave the Tricolour at the end of the war and claim they won it??????

Using the same logic Brazil won the war because they were on the Allied side a well or that the Poles also didn't lose the war because they had a free polish government in exile as well.

Still a technicality. France surrendered and was occupied, doesn't get much more beaten than that. By 1944 the Allies didn't need the Free French and the french liberation of Paris was basically a PR move (13000 Germans who weren't inclined to fight). The Soviets smashed the German Army, the Americans and British sashed the Luftwaffe

Where did the Free French get all their equipment from? The Americans thats who. The French were liberated by mainly the Americans and then got to wave the Tricolour at the end of the war and claim they won it??????

Using the same logic Brazil won the war because they were on the Allied side a well or that the Poles also didn't lose the war because they had a free polish government in exile as well.

Still, I am trying to prove to you that France won the war. mainland france got occupied and basically, France split in 2. One side, the vichy allied with Germany after they surrendured. The other side Free France, never surrendured and fought Germany till the end of the war. And they won the war

Free France lasted untill D-Day because it then became France. Vichy lasted until 1943 after being occupied by Germany

So what I am trying to say is France did win they war, even though mainland france got invaded, the French government was in the French Africa and they never surrendured.

Did Belgium or the Netherlands win WWII?

Still, I am trying to prove to you that France won the war. mainland france got occupied and basically, France split in 2. One side, the vichy allied with Germany after they surrendured. The other side Free France, never surrendured and fought Germany till the end of the war. And they won the war

Free France lasted untill D-Day because it then became France. Vichy lasted until 1943 after being occupied by Germany

So what I am trying to say is France did win they war, even though mainland france got invaded, the French government was in the French Africa and they never surrendured.

France didn't win the war, but were on the Allied side. Using your logic any country that had a government in exile also won the war. The French contribution towards the war after 1940 was reasonably minimla and they spent moree time arguing with the Allies. Then the Allies had to equip the Free French with their equipment which probably would have been put to better use giving that equipment to more Allied soldiers (less arguements and more control in your own command structure.

Poland probably contributed more to the Allied war effort than France did after its defeat. The Poles cracked enigma which was probably more important to the war effort than a few divisions of Free French towards the end of the war when it was all but over.

France didn't win the war, but were on the Allied side. Using your logic any country that had a government in exile also won the war. The French contribution towards the war after 1940 was reasonably minimla and they spent moree time arguing with the Allies. Then the Allies had to equip the Free French with their equipment which probably would have been put to better use giving that equipment to more Allied soldiers (less arguements and more control in your own command structure.

Poland probably contributed more to the Allied war effort than France did after its defeat. The Poles cracked enigma which was probably more important to the war effort than a few divisions of Free French towards the end of the war when it was all but over.
Yes, it's very annoying how the French weren't just defeated and became good turncoats that could simply be dismissed. Instead at the end of the day had managed to make something of themselves and their nation in WWII. Obviously it would have been better for everyone but the French if the they had just sided with the Nazis properly and lined up for a second defeat.;)

But I think we're making progress here, since you are now moving in the direction of perhaps having to specify what the French did and didn't do after 1940, so we can discuss its relative merits, or lack thereof.:)

You've yourself raised the comparison with the Poles, which is all fine and good. But you base your positive assesment of the relative value of the Poles and negative assesment of the French on what to be precise? Care to enumerate, and not just what the Poles did, but what the French did as well? Since so far that seems a bit underdeveloped in your argument.

Yes, it's very annoying how the French weren't just defeated and became good turncoats that could simply be dismissed. Instead at the end of the day had managed to make something of themselves and their nation in WWII. Obviously it would have been better for everyone but the French if the they had just sided with the Nazis properly and lined up for a second defeat.;)

But I think we're making progress here, since you are now moving in the direction of perhaps having to specify what the French did and didn't do after 1940, so we can discuss its relative merits, or lack thereof.:)

You've yourself raised the comparison with the Poles, which is all fine and good. But you base your positive assesment of the relative value of the Poles and negative assesment of the French on what to be precise? Care to enumerate, and not just what the Poles did, but what the French did as well? Since so far that seems a bit underdeveloped in your argument.

Some Free French pilots flew in the Batte of Britain and a few participated in the middle east battles. It wasn't until the invasion of Italy Free French entered the war in signifigant numbers. IN total the FF forces numbered 1.3 million apparently butfront line strength peaked in 1945 with 7 infantry divisions and 3 armored divisions.

I just don't think 10 divisions or so late in the war made any real difference to the allied war effort as Germany was defeated already. I also think its deceptive to claim the French won the war despite being on the winning side at the end of it. Its like taking on Mike Tyson with 10 guys armed with baseball bats, beating him up and having Skinnny Mc Bob Bob turn up, put the boot in while he is down and then claim Skinny Mc Bob Bob won the fight.

I just don't think 10 divisions or so late in the war made any real difference to the allied war effort as Germany was defeated already.

those divisions did matter, the french armored division took paris from the nazis

Some Free French pilots flew in the Batte of Britain and a few participated in the middle east battles. It wasn't until the invasion of Italy Free French entered the war in signifigant numbers. IN total the FF forces numbered 1.3 million apparently butfront line strength peaked in 1945 with 7 infantry divisions and 3 armored divisions.

They fought rather bravely in North Africa as well.

I just don't think 10 divisions or so late in the war made any real difference to the allied war effort as Germany was defeated already.

Considering there were only 8 armies in the Western Theater, the French First Army was a considerable manpower addition. It compromised half of Devers' Army Group of Southern Armies, along with the US Seventh.

I also think its deceptive to claim the French won the war despite being on the winning side at the end of it.

Certainly less deceptive than declaring that they lost it.

those divisions did matter, the french armored division took paris from the nazis

Actually, the rest of the invasion force stalled so that LeClerc could walk into Paris (left almost as a free city) first. It was 100% a PR stunt.

Actually, the rest of the invasion force stalled so that LeClerc could walk into Paris (left almost as a free city) first. It was 100% a PR stunt.
Err, not quite I would think:

If Leclerc doesn't turn up with the 2ème DB, or someone at least, you will get one of two possible outcomes:

1) Paris, where the local resistance has already risen to try to chuck the Germans out, is clobbered into submission by the Germans, with the Allies looking, despite being able to intervene. Apart from being a nasty spectacle, that's politically a very bad situation for anyone with a stake in post-war French domestic policies. Small wonder the Free French were fully prepared to throw any amount of hizzy-fits and make themselves impossible to be allowed to head for Paris, if that would do the trick, since talking politics to US senior officers apparently was a lost cause.

Or:

2) The French resistance liberates Paris all by their lonesome, which under the circumstances most likely means the Communists will control Paris, after liberating it with no help from the Free French or the western allies. Which is also a very bad political situation, at least from the POV of the Free French and anyone interested in a non-Communist post-war France.

So while the US military never ever managed to get their heads around the politics involved, French politicians, like de Gaulle, knew full well that there was a bit more on the line than just "PR".:)

that was Vichy France that surrendered and lost the war

Free France never surrendered, and won the war.

Sorry, but I still see the Free France as partisans of some sort. Rebelling colonies because their home nation is occupied by an unpleasant faction. It's that simple.

Sorry, but I still see the Free France as partisans of some sort. Rebelling colonies because their home nation is occupied by an unpleasant faction. It's that simple.
The partisans are the FFI (Forces Françaises de l'Intérieur). The FFL (Forces Françaises Libres, the Free French), are the French armed forces from the colonies, and the one who escaped to England, who fought in Africa, Middle East, and later Italy, and France, equipped mostly with American or British hardware, and organized as a normal military force.
The FFL were reunited with the Armée d'Afrique after the allied landing in Morocco and Algeria, and formed the Armée Française de libération.


Example of Bir Hakeim, 1942, where the First Free French brigade under General Koenig, 3,700 men, hold their ground during 16 days against a 45,000 stong Italo-German forces, allowing the retreating British to regroup, saved the 8th army, and allow El Elamein later. The French casualties were 140 dead and 229 wounded, the Axis had 3,300 casualties.


British General Playfair wrote: "The lengthened defense of the French garrison played a major role in the re-establishment of the British troops in Egypt. The free French gravely disrupted, from the beginning, Rommel's offensive, resulting on a disturbed supply line of the Afrika Korps. The growing Axis troop concentration in the sector, needed to subjugate the fort, saved the British 8th Army from a disaster. The delays in the offensive caused by the relentless French resistance increased the British chances of success and eased the preparation of the counter-offensive. On long term, holding back Rommel allowed the British forces to escape from its meticulously planned annihilation. That's why we can say, without exaggerating, that Bir Hakeim greatly contributed to El-Alamein defensive success."

On June 12th, marshal Claude Auchinleck would release a statement: "The United nations must be full of admiration and gratitude towards those French troops and their valiant General [Koenig]".

Winston Churchill would be more terse: "Holding back for fifteen days Rommel's offensive, the free French of Bir Hakeim had contributed to save Egypt and Suez canal's destinies."

Even Adolf Hitler would answer to the journalist Lutz Koch, coming back from Bir Hakeim: "You have heard, gentlemen, what Koch recounts. It is a new proof of the thesis I've always supported; namely, that French are still, after us, the best soldiers in Europe. France will always have the possibility, even with its current birthrate, to raise a hundred divisions. We will definitely, after this war, have to set up a coalition able to military control a country capable of such impressive military feats." As a consequence, the Führer gave the order to execute the Free French prisoners, an order that Rommel refused to carry out.


Zaardnar, I'm not sure the allies would be that interested in giving the hardware to allied soldiers (as if the Free French were not allies), because then it's more Americans or Brits who would die using them. Better to have the French dies. Oh, and by the way, we should probably dismiss all the contribution of Anzacs troop as well. Weren't they equipped with British weapons? So they don't count

You know what your problem really is? You are so blinded by the Rainbow Warrior that you will always see France and the French negatively, so it's useless to discuss with you anyway. What we expect from someone living in a country whose people slaughtered all the inhabitants of the Chatam island anyway.

The last sentence should not be taken is an insult to New Zealand or New Zealander, it's an illustration of how ridiculous it is to base an opinion of a country on one event made by a small group of people years ago

The partisans are the FFI (Forces Françaises de l'Intérieur). The FFL (Forces Françaises Libres, the Free French), are the French armed forces from the colonies, and the one who escaped to England, who fought in Africa, Middle East, and later Italy, and France, equipped mostly with American or British hardware, and organized as a normal military force.
The FFL were reunited with the Armée d'Afrique after the allied landing in Morocco and Algeria, and formed the Armée Française de libération.


Example of Bir Hakeim, 1942, where the First Free French brigade under General Koenig, 3,700 men, hold their ground during 16 days against a 45,000 stong Italo-German forces, allowing the retreating British to regroup, saved the 8th army, and allow El Elamein later. The French casualties were 140 dead and 229 wounded, the Axis had 3,300 casualties.



Zaardnar, I'm not sure the allies would be that interested in giving the hardware to allied soldiers (as if the Free French were not allies), because then it's more Americans or Brits who would die using them. Better to have the French dies. Oh, and by the way, we should probably dismiss all the contribution of Anzacs troop as well. Weren't they equipped with British weapons? So they don't count

You know what your problem really is? You are so blinded by the Rainbow Warrior that you will always see France and the French negatively, so it's useless to discuss with you anyway. What we expect from someone living in a country whose people slaughtered all the inhabitants of the Chatam island anyway.

The last sentence should not be taken is an insult to New Zealand or New Zealander, it's an illustration of how ridiculous it is to base an opinion of a country on one event made by a small group of people years ago


Doesn't worry me, and during the war their were weapon factories here making Bren Guns and the like. Backthen we were also culturally more British than we are now days. The Rainbow Warrior is just one incidence it is more the French attitude and conduct during the war years and straight after that disgust me. The amouint of collaboration that went on with the Germans. Helpiong them round up Jews etc. On would think the French fleet for example would have been happy to join the Allies but no. The amount of active collaboration that went on in France with the Germans was disgusting. Passive collaboration I can understand (shopkeeper selling Germans goods, French women dating German soldiers etc)

Losing to the Germans is fine, but yeah the French can be quite arrogant and historically haven't been overly grateful to America for example. Postwar French tank design is one example. Lets do it ourselves. Should have just used American tanks, or captured German ones/plans. French pride can be ridiculess. My opinion on the French is like the Americans. Reasonably neutral/posiitve. My opinion of the French/American polititians/government. Don't ask.

On would think the French fleet for example would have been happy to join the Allies but no.

Like the French French Naval forces? Including the Richelieu battleship after the rallying of Western Africa?
Or the ships the British destroyed at Mers El Kebir, when Britian attacked and destroyed its ally's fleet despite reassurances from France that it would not let it fall into German hands?
Or the fleet in Toulon, that the French scuttled to avoid the capture by the Germans in 1942 destroying 3 battleships, 7 cruisers, 15 destroyers, 13 torpedo boats, 6 sloops, 12 submarines, 9 patrol boats, 19 auxiliary ships?

he French can be quite arrogant and historically haven't been overly grateful to America for example. Postwar French tank design is one example. Lets do it ourselves. Should have just used American tanks, or captured German ones/plans.
You really are ridiculous...
1) the French army used American tanks or/captured German ones, before we started to build our own again. We started to build AMX-13 only in 1953. What do you think we used during 8 years?
2) Why rebuilding our industry and building our own hardware is ungrateful? I suppose you also have a grudge against UK as they built Centurion and chieftain, or against the Germans for building Leopard?
3) You should decide if the French should build their own equipment, or not. You criticize France because we use American equipment, "better used for Allied soldiers", and the next post, you call France ungrateful because we don't use American tanks :rolleyes: