Why do people think the French are bad in Wars

[Ace of Gold]

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.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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...

 

[scy12]

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

 

[Dachs]

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.

 

[flyingchicken]

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

 

[Dachs]

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 )

 

[flyingchicken]

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

 

[Dachs]

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.

 

[Wilphe]

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.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

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

 

[Dachs]

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. 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.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

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

 

[thecommonnate]

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.

 

[warpus]

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

 

[scy12]

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.

 

[Mowque]

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.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Dude, you live in America

True That made my....night??? Good night everybody

 

[Patroklos]

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 ), 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.

 

[Ace of Gold]

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.

 

[Ace of Gold]

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