Why do Yanks always bag the fighting ability of the French? (1 Viewer)

[Rob]

As regards the "surrender" fallacy about the French, I believe the first seeds of this were brought back to the US by the returning Doughboys after WW1. By the time the US got into the war and got troops to the front, the GI's saw nothing but a war weary, exhausted country that was desperate for peace. US troops saw retreating French troops and refugees and this left a bad impression that never was really overcome. I heard on many occasions such stories from vets about the French who wouldn't fight. All this ignores the sacrifice of the French people after 3+ years of war on their home territory, the worst war ever fought to that point. Now, at the end of the war and up until May 1940, the French Army was seen as the finest Army in the world. This is not my opinion, but the actual evaluation by various militaries. Germany feared the French and many of her Generals thought Hitler was leading them to disaster with the invasion of France. The result of inter-war policies, faulty strategy and tactics, bad leadership, all these faults were hidden and unknown prior to May 1940. The blitzkrieg against France was a huge unknown and was not a guaranteed victory from the German point of view. Again I make the point, prior to May 1940, the French Army was greatly feared, respected, and emulated, all because of her sacrifice and part in the victory of WW1. WW1 had torn the heart out of France and this fact wasn't exposed until May 1940. -- Al

To be fair I think there were also concerns at how the French performed in the opinion of the British troops and command as well, there was/is an opinion that the fighting spirit of the French soldier was not up to much in these circumstances, and as a result the Allied effort was doomed.

Rob

 

[Scott]

If you point out that the 20th Maine was on a hill and the Confederates had no water in July doesn't take away from the 20th Maine.

 

[Rob]

Perhaps the Brits can help me understand something...

There seems to be an assumption that anyone who believes that the English Channel slowed down/stopped Hitler is being anti-British. Is it possible to believe that the Channel played a major role while STILL beliving that the RAF fought valiantly in the BOB? I haven't seen anyone dispute their heroic work.

Happily Pete. Because your point is the wrong way round. The sacrifice of the men of the RAF is THE major reason the Battle was won, does anyone seriously believe if the RAF had not won the Battle Hitler would not have invaded because of the Channel?? .Of course not. The inference that the Channel was the reason is deeply offensive to the memory of the men who gave their lives. So yes offensive and one could argue done on purpose because some folk can't stand the fact that it was the Brits AND Pilots from many other nations that won the Battle.

Rob

 

[lancer]

I do not want to add fuel to the fire about the importance of various contributions to victory made by the US and GB, but I will. WW2 was not going to be won without the combined efforts of both countries. GB was not going to win it alone and neither was the US. Had GB not stood up, alone, to the Germans, there would have been no place to launch a Europen invasion from, much less build up the neccesary troops and supplies, or run an air campaign. Had the US not supplied GB and assisted in the defeat of the U-boats (a VERY important factor), GB may not have been able to hold out for as long as she was able to. Sacrifice and bravery enough to go around, gentleman. Now for the last factor: Russia. How do the Allies win if not for the massive sacrifice of Russia? Answer: they probably don't. Without the German strategic blunder of invading Russia and opening a major two front war, what happens? Without the Germans expending the vast majority of her resources against the Russians and commiting 75+% of her armed forces in Russia, what chance would there have been for GB and the US to have mounted a successful invasion against Europe? How do the armies of GB and the US beat the ENTIRE German armed forces on the battlefields of France? WW2 was won by unprecedented co-operation and sacrifice, BY ALL INVOLVED. -- Al

 

[marco55]

How are you connecting the Roman invasion to my people in 1940?. Are you saying that because the Romans did it you expected the Nazis to?

Also Britain was pretty War weary follwing 14-18 too.

Rob

Rob,
I agree that Britain was war weary too but your homeland wan't occupied for 4 years with your country being torn apart.I brought up the invasions because some act as if Britain had never been invaded and conquered.
Mark

 

[Rob]

Rob,
I agree that Britain was war weary too but your homeland wan't occupied for 4 years with your country being torn apart.I brought up the invasions because some act as if Britain had never been invaded and conquered.
Mark

Where?

Rob

 

[Peter Reuss]

So yes offensive and one could argue done on purpose because some folk can't stand the fact that it was the Brits AND Pilots from many other nations that won the Battle.

Rob

IMHO you read more into the posts than was intended.

 

[marco55]

Perhaps the Brits can help me understand something...

There seems to be an assumption that anyone who believes that the English Channel slowed down/stopped Hitler is being anti-British. Is it possible to believe that the Channel played a major role while STILL beliving that the RAF fought valiantly in the BOB? I haven't seen anyone dispute their heroic work.

No Peter no one disputes the heroic men of thr RAF or the RN nor the Army.Britain was a beacon of light in a dark world in 1940.I just think the French are better than given credit for.Their tactics and strategies at the start of both wars cost them dearly,especially in the second one.What about the French resistance fighters or the Free French.And saying that French soldiers are better than given credit for is not putting down any other nationality.
Mark

 

[Rob]

IMHO you read more into the posts than was intended.

To which you are of course you are entitled, but if check in previous exchanges on this subject you may be surprised.

Rob

 

[Scott]

From the original question, does one hear French bashing of their war record from history "buffs" or just French bashers?

 

[marco55]

Where?

Rob

What do you mean where?Do you mean the invasions or do you mean WWI?Like it or not Britain has been invaded and occupied.As for WWI the Germans didn't have trenches in Britain unless I missed something.
Mark

 

[Rob]

What do you mean where?Do you mean the invasions or do you mean WWI?Like it or not Britain has been invaded and occupied.As for WWI the Germans didn't have trenches in Britain unless I missed something.
Mark

I mean where did someone act as if Britain had never been invaded?

Rob

 

[Peter Reuss]

I wonder how much the language barrier has to play in these discussions...

This forum is full of English speaking folk whose tendency is to see things from British/American points of view. If we had more Frenchmen on here to give their side of the story, some posts might sound 'anti-French' to them, causing a sharp reaction.

 

[Rob]

I wonder how much the language barrier has to play in these discussions...

This forum is full of English speaking folk whose tendency is to see things from British/American points of view. If we had more Frenchmen on here to give their side of the story, some posts might sound 'anti-French' to them, causing a sharp reaction.

Yes quite possibly, but I think the guy who put forward the French view earlier in thread was pretty forthright in his views and as a result got some forthright replies.

Rob

 

[Jay]

From the original question, does one hear French bashing of their war record from history "buffs" or just French bashers?

Generally I think it's just French bashers. Same with people who gripe about visiting France who have never actually been there. And those that have may take one incident where they thought they were treated rudely and blame an entire country. Anyone of us who travels a lot could make the case for any place we have ever been, including our hometown. But somehow one rude Frenchman equals an entire country of rude people, just as one rude French general/president makes the whole country inferior.

Btw, this is one of the most interesting discussions on a board that I've seen in a long time. Very nice, gentlemen. :salute::

 

[Rob]

Generally I think it's just French bashers. Same with people who gripe about visiting France who have never actually been there. And those that have may take one incident where they thought they were treated rudely and blame an entire country. Anyone of us who travels a lot could make the case for any place we have ever been, including our hometown. But somehow one rude Frenchman equals an entire country of rude people, just as one rude French general/president makes the whole country inferior.

Btw, this is one of the most interesting discussions on a board that I've seen in a long time. Very nice, gentlemen. :salute::

Yes thats probably true!^&grin.

Must say I've visited France many times over many years and have always thoroughly enjoyed it and never had any rudeness shown to us at all. In fact they've always been very friendly and often give a kindly smile as they watch their British visitors obsessed with another Battlefield^&grin^&cool:salute::

Rob

 

[Scott]

Jay,

This IS a good discussion

 

[Mitch]

Scott...

Many historians not buffs have discussed and shown how poor the french were during the western campaign thats a reality not french bashing. there has also been debate about the whole western allies strategy to counter Hitler even, the mistakes Hitler etc made.

The whole french system from command to ground level was poor thats a military and historical fact. Open to debate? quite possible but, evident in the speed and manner it all went wrong can that be argued?? I would say not unless, which, is liked, we try to somehow rewrite history to fit with certain beliefs.

I don't think anyone has been french bashing or anti french in showing what happened they are facts and, if you purport to have the largest most feared army and are over ran and defeated in a few days (not exact but point made) then something is wrong and the narrative can and should discuss that.
Mitch

From the original question, does one hear French bashing of their war record from history "buffs" or just French bashers?

 

[theBaron]

Britain has been invaded, successfully, but the last time was in 1066, wasn't it?

Prost!
Brad

 

[Mitch]

I think that was noted by Rob earlier and both he and I used it as evidence of the fact that it emphasised the role of the RAF in defeating Hitler properly for the first time and paving the way for may 1945. It also was part of the tenacity and spirit of defiance that we had at this time when all the rest of europe was under german rule.

Regardless of lack of material that Rutledge noted earlier we kept attacking with what we had the RAF, Royal Navy and as Churchill was instrumental in designing the commando's the hit and run attacks which caused so much disaray to the germans.

It was also mentioned earlier something about the atlantic war and how it was won with US help true, but, the brits getting enigma (not the hollywood image of the US getting it) was instrumental in turning the sea war
Mitch


Mitch