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