Why do Yanks always bag the fighting ability of the French? (2 Viewers)

[The General]

I always hear Americans snigger and joke about the ability of the French when it comes to fighting.

You know stuff like "Wow that was faster than a Frenchman surrendering!" or "The top three exports of France are wine, cheese & white flags". You know the ones. ^&grin

I think it was pretty tough for them as a nation when the full might of the armies of the Third Reich rolled across their borders. These guys were fighting the Nazis from 1939. Long before America entered the war.

I mean centuries ago those Gauls were pretty tough dudes. They gave the Romans a God-awful time. Then there was Napoleon and his army that practically conquered all of Europe. In modern times the French Foreign Legion have shown they are right up there with the SAS.

After all wasn't it the French that came to the rescue of the Continentals in the 1770's in the defeat of Britain?

When it comes to war Australians and French have a huge respect for each other. We don't joke about their fighting ability here. Is it just an age old standing joke or do some Americans actually believe the cowardly stereotype of the retreating Frenchman?

Always wondered about this??? %^V

 

[theBaron]

Re: Why do Yanks always bag the fighting ability of the Fench?

It's based on the past two centuries, basically, and Napoleon notwithstanding.

Yes, the French allied themselves with the Colonies against Britain, but they completed the process of bankrupting their state that had begun during the Seven Years War. In the process, they saw their holdings in India and the Indies reduced. And remember, in the Seven Years War/French and Indian War, they lost Canada.

After the revolutionary armies rolled over Europe, they were driven back and defeated in 1812-1815. That was the start of a gradual losing trend.

Though the French had some successes in their involvement in the Risorgimento, we have the Franco-Prussian War, World War I and World War II, in which they were overrun and needed their allies to drive the invaders out of "la Patrie", and then they tried to re-assert their influence over their erstwhile colonial holdings, and were defeated in those efforts as well.

I think those historical events serve as the basis for the stereotype of the French as "cheese-eatin' surrender monkeys", as Groundskeeper Willie so eloquently put it.

Really, in the past 400 years, the only high points in French military history are Louis XIV and Napoleon.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Re: Why do Yanks always bag the fighting ability of the Fench?

Really, in the past 400 years, the only high points in French military history are Louis XIV and Napoleon.

Prost!
Brad

Well, Brad...I would suggest that little Napoleon episode is enough to recommend them as a respectable fighting force. On the other hand, I don't suppose that any nation by itself can be catagorized as innately superior in warfare. Rather the confluence of economies, technology, and leadership seem to make the difference as we pass from one epoch to the next. Oh...and hats...did I mention hats?

 

[The General]

Re: Why do Yanks always bag the fighting ability of the Fench?

It's based on the past two centuries, basically, and Napoleon notwithstanding.

Yes, the French allied themselves with the Colonies against Britain, but they completed the process of bankrupting their state that had begun during the Seven Years War. In the process, they saw their holdings in India and the Indies reduced. And remember, in the Seven Years War/French and Indian War, they lost Canada.

After the revolutionary armies rolled over Europe, they were driven back and defeated in 1812-1815. That was the start of a gradual losing trend.

Though the French had some successes in their involvement in the Risorgimento, we have the Franco-Prussian War, World War I and World War II, in which they were overrun and needed their allies to drive the invaders out of "la Patrie", and then they tried to re-assert their influence over their erstwhile colonial holdings, and were defeated in those efforts as well.

I think those historical events serve as the basis for the stereotype of the French as "cheese-eatin' surrender monkeys", as Groundskeeper Willie so eloquently put it.

Really, in the past 400 years, the only high points in French military history are Louis XIV and Napoleon.

Prost!
Brad

I've got to admit Brad that's a pretty well reasoned and well though out answer. ^&cool

Cheers Pete

 

[The General]

Re: Why do Yanks always bag the fighting ability of the Fench?

P.S. The thread title should say French not Fench. ^&grin

 

[marco55]

Re: Why do Yanks always bag the fighting ability of the Fench?

I myself don't as my main interest is the French-Indian War and the French and Canadiens did quite well.The main reason the French lost was Britains superior navy that was able to cut off reinforcements and supplies and were themselves able to bring large number of troops over here,not the fact that the French lacked fighting ability. The French were highly respected by the Indians as warriors.
Mark

 

[Louis Badolato]

In modern times the French Foreign Legion have shown they are right up there with the SAS.

Just for the record, there are no French soldiers in the Foreign Legion - its all men from other nations who volunteer to fight for France.

Seriously though, in response to your point, the French soldier fought courageously in WWI, until almost an entire generation was wiped out due to completely incompetent high commanders, leading to the only mutiny of a major nation's army in modern times. In my eyes, it is from the mutiny forward that the French Soldier gets the "surrender monkey" reputation.

Again in WWII, they were poorly led by octegenarian generals ready to fight the trench war of WWI with the Maginot Line, and completely incapable of using the superior armor they had in a modern war of movement, leading to an incredibly quick defeat at the hands of the Nazi blitzkreig. The British were also unprepared to meet the German tactics, but they had the advantage of being able to retreat across the channel to an Island protected by a superior navy and tenacious air force, permitting them time to regroup. So the French collapse in WWI and WWII, fairly or unfairly, is blamed on the capabilities of the French fighting soldier.

 

[Martin Tabony]

Does the fact that France is the traditional enemy of England not also come into it? I mean just because you move across the Atlantic to start a new colony doesn't mean that you forget you're upbringing and all the stories you will have heard, about when Grandad was fighting the "frogs", and how they persucuted us pour Protestants! Has that not resinated through the years?
I've never realy studied the American War of Indapendance, so tell me if I'm wrong but were there not people who felt that they were English at heart and they had been forced into a war they didn't want. It's never good falling out with family.

Martin

 

[Martin Tabony]

Just for the record, there are no French soldiers in the Foreign Legion - its all men from other nations who volunteer to fight for France.

Seriously though, in response to your point, the French soldier fought courageously in WWI, until almost an entire generation was wiped out due to completely incompetent high commanders, leading to the only mutiny of a major nation's army in modern times. In my eyes, it is from the mutiny forward that the French Soldier gets the "surrender monkey" reputation.

Again in WWII, they were poorly led by octegenarian generals ready to fight the trench war of WWI with the Maginot Line, and completely incapable of using the superior armor they had in a modern war of movement, leading to an incredibly quick defeat at the hands of the Nazi blitzkreig. The British were also unprepared to meet the German tactics, but they had the advantage of being able to retreat across the channel to an Island protected by a superior navy and tenacious air force, permitting them time to regroup. So the French collapse in WWI and WWII, fairly or unfairly, is blamed on the capabilities of the French fighting soldier.

I could be wrong but I think their officers can be French.

Martin

 

[lancer]

Given that the war record of France over the last two centuries isn't the best, they still must be given their due for their performence in WW1. The French nation sufferred the highest percentage of casualties relative to their population of all the antagonists, except Serbia. French population at the start of the war was 35 million or so. French losses totaled 5 million with about 1.5 million of those KIA. Now, that works out to 1 in every 7 Frenchman as a casualty, a very high percentage. Translated to current US population of 300 million or so and you have 42 million+ casualties. France was all but ruined and knew it could not fight another war like it, so the solution was the Maginot line, or so they thought. France figured this would keep down casuaties, inhibit invasion, and offset the German superiority in population numbers as it translated to army size. Cowardice had nothing to do with the collapse in WW2. It was bad strategy, leadership, interwar military decisions, and above all, the lingering effects from the horiffic losses of WW1. It is a very complicated history. -- Al

 

[aujj65]

I always hear Americans snigger and joke about the ability of the French when it comes to fighting.

You know stuff like "Wow that was faster than a Frenchman surrendering!" or "The top three exports of France are wine, cheese & white flags". You know the ones. ^&grin

I think it was pretty tough for them as a nation when the full might of the armies of the Third Reich rolled across their borders. These guys were fighting the Nazis from 1939. Long before America entered the war.

I mean centuries ago those Gauls were pretty tough dudes. They gave the Romans a God-awful time. Then there was Napoleon and his army that practically conquered all of Europe. In modern times the French Foreign Legion have shown they are right up there with the SAS.

After all wasn't it the French that came to the rescue of the Continentals in the 1770's in the defeat of Britain?

When it comes to war Australians and French have a huge respect for each other. We don't joke about their fighting ability here. Is it just an age old standing joke or do some Americans actually believe the cowardly stereotype of the retreating Frenchman?

Always wondered about this??? %^V

Don't forget "Why are French roads tree lined?....so the German army can march in the shade!"....^&grin

Also, from what I've seen the average Frenchman doesn't hold a very high opinion of Americans or us British for that matter. Ungrateful lot really. :rolleyes2:

Jeff

 

[marco55]

Just for the record, there are no French soldiers in the Foreign Legion - its all men from other nations who volunteer to fight for France.

Seriously though, in response to your point, the French soldier fought courageously in WWI, until almost an entire generation was wiped out due to completely incompetent high commanders, leading to the only mutiny of a major nation's army in modern times. In my eyes, it is from the mutiny forward that the French Soldier gets the "surrender monkey" reputation.

Again in WWII, they were poorly led by octegenarian generals ready to fight the trench war of WWI with the Maginot Line, and completely incapable of using the superior armor they had in a modern war of movement, leading to an incredibly quick defeat at the hands of the Nazi blitzkreig. The British were also unprepared to meet the German tactics, but they had the advantage of being able to retreat across the channel to an Island protected by a superior navy and tenacious air force, permitting them time to regroup. So the French collapse in WWI and WWII, fairly or unfairly, is blamed on the capabilities of the French fighting soldier.

I don't know about now but there was quite a few Frenchmen in the old days.They said they were Swiss or Walloon (Belgian).

 

[Rutledge]

Blame it on our Generals!

These quotes I love, although there are suggestions they are "misattributed" (from Wikipedia and Snopes)

General George Patton: "I'd rather have a German division in front of me, than a French one behind."

General Norman Schwartzkopf:
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." —

 

[Mitch]

I did think along with others here that french could serve.

aujj65...

You crack me right up!!!!
Mitch

 

[Martin Tabony]

Don't forget "Why are French roads tree lined?....so the German army can march in the shade!"....^&grin

Also, from what I've seen the average Frenchman doesn't hold a very high opinion of Americans or us British for that matter. Ungrateful lot really. :rolleyes2:

Jeff

I don't know if you saw that "Brainiacs" tested to see if humour would translate from English to German, the joke that did was. "What's the difference between a dead Frenchman in the road and a dead Hedgehog? the answer "skid marks in front of the Hedgehog".

Martin

 

[jazzeum]

From my point of view, and as already posted here, they have fought bravely. As Louis noted, they were poorly led in the early stages of WW II. However, in the Desert War and following D Day they fought bravely.

I think the attitude that Americans have has less to do with how the French have fought in general but the regrettable attitude towards France and French people in this country.

I don't see anybody questioning the fighting ability of the British in WW I or WW II but in WW II they got their you know what kicked for quite a while, just as badly as the French.

 

[Mitch]

Jazzeum...

Would you like to elaborate please where we were as beaten as the frence were?? I do not recal when our country was defeated so gravely that our country was occupied in either war. and, we as a country ensured victory over the axis forces without question in WWII.

We are not in the same catagory as the french when it comes to fighting in the wars
Mitch

 

[marco55]

Uh Oh.
Mark

 

[Mitch]

Mark...

No need for Uh Oh! at all. a perfectly reasonable question to such a statement. I just don't recall the huge defeats that were inflicted upon us in any of the readings or factual history.

We had defeats I think you could say Dunkirk but, the BEF was not a huge force and possibly Crete maybe Norway but, thats debatable with the bloody nose given to the german navy and some attacks on german ports. but, they were not in any way where we were royally kicked in the you know what to the defeats and capitulation of the largest army in the west.
Mitch

 

[jazzeum]

Mitch,

Aside from winning the Battle of Britain and the fact that you were never occupied, the British did suffer significant reverses in the opening stages of WW II (Scandinavia and Dunkirk) and all the way up until El Alamein. As Churchill himself said, more or less, "Before Alamein we never had a victory, after Alamein we never had a defeat."

Sorry if I caused any offense. However, my point is that although both countries suffered defeats, the Americans didn't view the British in the same way they viewed the French and my opinion is that they viewed (and view) the French in the way they do because many Americans just don't care for France or the French.