Why do people think the French are bad in Wars

[Zardnaar]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Verbose]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Zardnaar]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ace of Gold]

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

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

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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

They fought rather bravely in North Africa as well.

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

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

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

Certainly less deceptive than declaring that they lost it.

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

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

 

[Verbose]

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

Err, not quite I would think:

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

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

Or:

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

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

 

[Angst]

that was Vichy France that surrendered and lost the war

Free France never surrendered, and won the war.

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

 

[Steph]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler :

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

 

[Zardnaar]

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


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



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

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

Spoiler :

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

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

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

 

[Steph]

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

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

he French can be quite arrogant and historically haven't been overly grateful to America for example. Postwar French tank design is one example. Lets do it ourselves. Should have just used American tanks, or captured German ones/plans.

You really are ridiculous...
1) the French army used American tanks or/captured German ones, before we started to build our own again. We started to build AMX-13 only in 1953. What do you think we used during 8 years?
2) Why rebuilding our industry and building our own hardware is ungrateful? I suppose you also have a grudge against UK as they built Centurion and chieftain, or against the Germans for building Leopard?
3) You should decide if the French should build their own equipment, or not. You criticize France because we use American equipment, "better used for Allied soldiers", and the next post, you call France ungrateful because we don't use American tanks

 

[privatehudson]

One aspect of the French using German equipment can be seen in a rather unusual location. The Israeli Armoured Corps Museum has a Panzer IV which was captured on the Golan heights during the 6 day war. It had been sold to the Syrians by the French, although others were sold to them by Spain and Russia. Perhaps Steph or Verbose could enlighten us as to whether these tanks were built new in France after the war, or whether the French simply re-used and repaired tanks captured during the conflict?

Either way Its bizare to imagine WW2 being re-run on a small scale thirty years after VE day with the Israelis using their Shermans and the Syrians their Panzer IVs.

 

[Zardnaar]

One aspect of the French using German equipment can be seen in a rather unusual location. The Israeli Armoured Corps Museum has a Panzer IV which was captured on the Golan heights during the 6 day war. It had been sold to the Syrians by the French, although others were sold to them by Spain and Russia. Perhaps Steph or Verbose could enlighten us as to whether these tanks were built new in France after the war, or whether the French simply re-used and repaired tanks captured during the conflict?

Either way Its bizare to imagine WW2 being re-run on a small scale thirty years after VE day with the Israelis using their Shermans and the Syrians their Panzer IVs.

Syrians didn't have that many PanzerIV and I thought it was the Soviets who supplied them.

 

[Zardnaar]

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


You really are ridiculous...
1) the French army used American tanks or/captured German ones, before we started to build our own again. We started to build AMX-13 only in 1953. What do you think we used during 8 years?
2) Why rebuilding our industry and building our own hardware is ungrateful? I suppose you also have a grudge against UK as they built Centurion and chieftain, or against the Germans for building Leopard?
3) You should decide if the French should build their own equipment, or not. You criticize France because we use American equipment, "better used for Allied soldiers", and the next post, you call France ungrateful because we don't use American tanks

The French fleet should have sailed to an Allied port and turned the ships over or soldiered on. Given the amount of collaboration the Vichy government conducted with the Germans a French reassurance wouldn't have been worth much. The existence of the French fleet was an unacceptable risk for the British.

 

[Verbose]

One aspect of the French using German equipment can be seen in a rather unusual location. The Israeli Armoured Corps Museum has a Panzer IV which was captured on the Golan heights during the 6 day war. It had been sold to the Syrians by the French, although others were sold to them by Spain and Russia. Perhaps Steph or Verbose could enlighten us as to whether these tanks were built new in France after the war, or whether the French simply re-used and repaired tanks captured during the conflict?

Either way Its bizare to imagine WW2 being re-run on a small scale thirty years after VE day with the Israelis using their Shermans and the Syrians their Panzer IVs.

Yeah, and France probably supplied both sides in that war.

Other than that, I'm not really sure what the question is. Obviously the French inside their occupation zone in Germany picked up every WWII German scrap of military hardware left post 1945 and recycled it through their own armed forces. The Germans did the same, first to all those Czech tanks used in the Battle of France, and then they used the French tanks captured. If one looks at footage from the liberation of France in 1944, pre-1940 French tanks crop up, but operated by the Germans.

Apparently tanks, if they survive, seem to get handed down for decades. The Shiite Amal militia in the Lebanese civil war of the 1980's used a couple of T-34s. I have a bizarre picture somewhere from Afghanistan in the early 1980's, where a Renault FT-17 is guarding one of the entrances to Kabul. That's old hardware.

 

[Angst]

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


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

Ehm I concur that Free France made great deals of action towards the Reich and its allies, but that still does not answer my question, so I do not really care. No, no trolling intended, but I am just saying that so that you wont continue to talk about it

They were revolting colonies. That's all that the problem is. Due to your logic, Denmark didn't fall either because we had Greenland untouched.

 

[privatehudson]

Other than that, I'm not really sure what the question is

Well I was already pretty sure that France repaired and re-used a greant many captured German AFV's after the war. All I wished to know is whether they also built from scratch any German vehicles in French factories. Its kind of the difference between what Germany did with the French armour and the Czech armour in the sense that the Germans only repaired and modified the captured French tanks, they didn't put them back into production (at least not AFAIK anyway).

Not trying to prove a point either way, just interested.

Apparently tanks, if they survive, seem to get handed down for decades. The Shiite Amal militia in the Lebanese civil war of the 1980's used a couple of T-34s. I have a bizarre picture somewhere from Afghanistan in the early 1980's, where a Renault FT-17 is guarding one of the entrances to Kabul. That's old hardware

Well a tank is better than no tank at all, especially if the enemy doesn't have one, but that's nothing. Apparently the Martini-Henry rifle was still popular in Afghanistan a century after the likes of Zulu.

 

[privatehudson]

Syrians didn't have that many PanzerIV and I thought it was the Soviets who supplied them.

That rather depends on how you define "that many". During the 6 day war Syria had a total of about 400 tanks, and whilst I don't know for sure how many Panzer IV's they had I do know that Spain sold them 17, and they got others from USSR, France and Czechoslovakia (check out Achtung Panzer's page on the Panzer IV to confirm this). Even assuming they got 10 each from those countries that still means they made up about 10% of Syria's entire armoured stregnth, which isn't bad for a 30 year old tank which unlike most of the Israeli Shermans hadn't been brought up to date. It also explains why they were mostly used dug into the Golan heights rather than as MBTs since even the Israeli light tanks like the AMX13 could be a danger to them.

Since France used the tank after WW2 and traded equipment with Syria on a regular basis before the latter switched to using Soviet equipment it shouldn't come as any suprise that she ended up with French Panzer IV's along with those from the other countries.

 

[Zardnaar]

That rather depends on how you define "that many". During the 6 day war Syria had a total of about 400 tanks, and whilst I don't know for sure how many Panzer IV's they had I do know that Spain sold them 17, and they got others from USSR, France and Czechoslovakia (check out Achtung Panzer's page on the Panzer IV to confirm this). Even assuming they got 10 each from those countries that still means they made up about 10% of Syria's entire armoured stregnth, which isn't bad for a 30 year old tank which unlike most of the Israeli Shermans hadn't been brought up to date. It also explains why they were mostly used dug into the Golan heights rather than as MBTs since even the Israeli light tanks like the AMX13 could be a danger to them.

Since France used the tank after WW2 and traded equipment with Syria on a regular basis before the latter switched to using Soviet equipment it shouldn't come as any suprise that she ended up with French Panzer IV's along with those from the other countries.

Kinda wondering why the Allies didn't use German factories to pump out a few Panthers on the cheap in the post war years or put the Panther 2 into production. Lotsa cheap WW2 surplus equipment I suspect along with national pride.

The French briefly used Panthers after the was. Just because a few PanzerIV were used in 67 doesn't make it a good idea. The Syrians did get hammered and the Israeli's were using "Super Shermans" T-34 lingered on in a few places itno the 80's and it wouldn't surprise me to see a few here iand there in various parts of the world. I suppose a WW2 tank is still good if.

1. You have no other option- a tank is better than no tank.
2. Your opponent doesn't have any either.
3. Internal police duties in a dictatorship.

A 1945 bullet is probably about as deadly as an average modern bullet. A 75mm Panzer shell could make quite a mess of your car For the size of the population here during the war years (WW2) New Zealand ended up with a dispropotionate amount of WW2 equipment. A local body shop had a bren gun carrier and a valentine tank parked outside when I was a kid in the 80's and every 2 years at easter we have a Warbirds Over Wanaka event.

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

I also remember at school one of the boys took a defused WW2 pineapple grenade to show and tell. Don't think you would get away with that these days. Probably call the bomb squad. When we played "war" as children some of the bioys had WW2 weaponary and I had an old 303- we used them as toys but they weren't in working order.

An old joke here.

"For sale. 1 million ex French army rifles. Only dropped once"

The New Zealand army in the war also had several AFV despite having no armored divisions. A few of the boys were farm boys as we were an agricultural country. IN addition to shooting Germans at Crete (like hunting ducks was the quote over here) they would come across "abandoned" jeeps or shermans. Turns out theres not alot of difference between a tank engine and a truck engine. The American crews would turn up later and wonder where their equipment went to.

The Italian campaign was a good campaign for the New Zealand army according to my friends grandfather. The haul included around a dozen tanks including a Panther, several dozen Jeeps, enough wine to drown the country, several roman statues, some paintings. several horses and a few Italians wives. Kinda had to dump some of it in Yugoslavia where they finished the war. He also had some war art a Italian POW made for him. Nice POW's the Italians- according to him you didn't have to guard them and they were happy to cook and clean for you in return for various rations such as cigarettes and chocolate.

 

[Plotinus]

You're from Wanaka? I used to live there.

 

[privatehudson]

Kinda wondering why the Allies didn't use German factories to pump out a few Panthers on the cheap in the post war years or put the Panther 2 into production. Lotsa cheap WW2 surplus equipment I suspect along with national pride.

Well the Allies scaled down their military after the war in the Pacific ended so you find that a lot of the WW2 era tanks get sold off to ex colonial countries, left to the country when the colonial power jumped ship or simply abandoned. One of the first Shermans that the Israeli's captured was "borrowed" from a British tank transporter whose daily duty was to drive tanks up to the top of a ravine then dump the them over the edge. If you don't need the tanks you already have you sure as heck don't need ones your enemy built. If Britain or America wanted to start producing German armour it would involve either rebuilding German factories or re-organising British/American factories to do the job. Only if your country had a shortage of armour would you bother going to that effort.

Besides by the time WW2 drew to a close the British had the Centurion, the Russians the IS3 and the Americans would soon have the M47 Patton. Why build your enemies designs when you can create better tanks of your own using what you've learnt from testing theirs combined with the experience gained building yours?

The French briefly used Panthers after the was.

They also modified the Panther's gun and fitted this improved version to the AMX13 and some Shermans.

Just because a few PanzerIV were used in 67 doesn't make it a good idea. The Syrians did get hammered and the Israeli's were using "Super Shermans" T-34 lingered on in a few places itno the 80's and it wouldn't surprise me to see a few here iand there in various parts of the world. I suppose a WW2 tank is still good if.

1. You have no other option- a tank is better than no tank.
2. Your opponent doesn't have any either.
3. Internal police duties in a dictatorship.

By 1967 The Syrian's never intended them to duel with Centurions or Pattons, they were usually only still in use as static dug in gun positions and were ordered to support infantry in wartime. Its worth remembering that the Syrian army had only started to recieve Soviet equipment in the early 1960s, up until then their main supplier was France. Until you've completely re-armed and more importantly retrained your tank crews there's little point in throwing away working equipment that might come in handy in the kinds of situations you mention.

I would like to correct a previous statement I made though, I suspect that the figure of 400 tanks is closer what the Syrian's deployed initially for the war. Osprey's Men at Arms 128 states that they actually had a total of around 750 tanks. It also mentions that they received Panzerjager IVs and Stugs from european sources.