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

[Rob]

Al is spot on about the effect on the French population still recovering to this day. Even today after the best part of a hundred years later the small towns and villages on the Somme battlefield are still eerily quiet and population levels have never regained pre war levels. An idea of how long it took the region to recover can be gleemed from the fact that while the British army were retreating towards Dunkirk in 1940, soldiers crossing the Battlefields of the Somme founds many bodies, bones and equipment still lying on the surface of the Somme Battlefield awaiting clearance. The French nation bled badly in WW1 and there can be no denying that, we can talk about their performance during the retreat to Dunkirk , and many people believe their performance was poor, but facts are facts and in WW1 France did suffer badly.

Rob

 

[Rutledge]

Well stated. I think that too many people here are either unaware of those stats (France had suffered 1.5 million dead, with over another 3.5 million injured and disabled. That is 1 in every 7 of total population) and are maybe unable to comprehend the effect that had... and for what? What did the victory in 1918 bring to France, did the years between 1918 and 1939 bear fruits that made it seem like the human and economic cost of the 1914 - 18 war was worthwhile and worth risking again? I'd suggest not.

I can well understand how the French leadership thought it better to avoid the same happening again, when the scars had not even begun to heal. It's easy for us to look back through the prism of history and criticize, particularly when we can't even really begin to comprehend the horror that they had just endured. It's often those with the least experience who are most unflinching in their belief that they 'know' what ought to have been done.

I dont pretend to know what OUGHT to have been done. All I know is what was done.

Another argument can be made that, to a degree, they brought the second world war upon themselves by placing so much burden on Germany with the TofV. Again, not advocating, just saying.

Also, since WWII, I would not say that France has distinguished itself in combat. Dien Ben Phu for example, and the 2008/7(?) debacle in which 10 of their soldiers were brutally killed in a taliban ambush in Afghanistan.

Not faulting any individual French soldiers. Just saying it is a reasonable position to have some doubt as to their overall military competence/preparedness.

 

[lancer]

I dont pretend to know what OUGHT to have been done. All I know is what was done.

Another argument can be made that, to a degree, they brought the second world war upon themselves by placing so much burden on Germany with the TofV. Again, not advocating, just saying.

Also, since WWII, I would not say that France has distinguished itself in combat. Dien Ben Phu for example, and the 2008/7(?) debacle in which 10 of their soldiers were brutally killed in a taliban ambush in Afghanistan.

Not faulting any individual French soldiers. Just saying it is a reasonable position to have some doubt as to their overall military competence/preparedness.

Good point on Versailles. There is no doubt that the French influence on the treaty talks was a huge (probably the dominant) presence. Their insistence on assigning all blame to Germany and the ruinous economic terms imposed on Germany, were indeed, the seeds of WW2. There were more moderate voices at the meetings but in the end, France would not be denied her vengeance for her horrible losses. The attempt to crush Germany under war debt and guilt was the chance that Hitler needed. -- Al

 

[lancer]

Need to remember what WW1 did to France. When war started, France had population of approx. 35 million, Germany almost twice that. By the time of "victory", France had suffered 1.5 million dead, with over another 3.5 million injured and disabled. That is 1 in every 7 of total population, by far the highest percentage of the major belligerents. Because of the casualties and cost in terms of economics (much of northern France was devastated and would take years to recover), plus the common border with Germany, France could not afford to fight another war like WW1. They chose the route they thought would give them the best chance to win by killing Germans and saving French lives, the Maginot Line. The Line did, in fact, do what it was designed to do, up to a point. The Germans were forced to develop a way to avoid the Line and they thus exposed the fatal flaw in the Line, the fact that the Line did not cover the whole French border. Because the French could not politically isolate Belgium,(and because of the huge extra cost) the Line had not been extended the length of the border with Belgium. The Germans just went around the Line. The Line did put up some tough resistence in spots. Still, the most important factor in French defeat was the hangover from the huge losses in WW1 and the spector of further losses in 1940. The French were just plain worn out on a physical level (population has never really recovered from the WW1 losses) and on a morale level, not being able to face another prolonged fight. France, put really simply, shot it's bolt in WW1. -- Al

As this thread is staying active, I decided to review it. The above post #198 and my post #200 are almost identical to my post #10. This was completely unintentional on my part but I think points to my total belief in what I think about the French nation, meaning WW1 was an event that was a turning point in their history and one from which they have yet to recover. WW1, like WW2 for different reasons, is burned into the French psyche. WW1 is reason the French lost in 1940 and still echos in the way they have operated militarily since then, Dien Bien Phu being the most glaring example. I think that the discussion about the French military HAS to start with the sacrifice of WW1 and go from there. -- Al

 

[Rutledge]

As this thread is staying active, I decided to review it. The above post #198 and my post #200 are almost identical to my post #10. This was completely unintentional on my part but I think points to my total belief in what I think about the French nation, meaning WW1 was an event that was a turning point in their history and one from which they have yet to recover. WW1, like WW2 for different reasons, is burned into the French psyche. WW1 is reason the French lost in 1940 and still echos in the way they have operated militarily since then, Dien Bien Phu being the most glaring example. I think that the discussion about the French military HAS to start with the sacrifice of WW1 and go from there. -- Al

Curious - what was the proportion of american lives lost during the civil war, compared to the percent lost by the French in WWI?

 

[lancer]

Curious - what was the proportion of american lives lost during the civil war, compared to the percent lost by the French in WWI?

Depending on what figures one uses, I think US ACW total population was very close to WW1 French total population. Population in the North was about 22 million and in the South, 9 million including close to 4 million slaves. The 1860 census put the total population at 31+ millions. French population was 35 million. If I remember correctly, some 660,000 Americans died during the war, about one half total French KIA, which was 1.3 million. This makes the percentage of killed much higher in France. I'm not good enough at math to tell exact percentages.:redface2: -- Al

 

[Rutledge]

Depending on what figures one uses, I think US ACW total population was very close to WW1 French total population. Population in the North was about 22 million and in the South, 9 million including close to 4 million slaves. The 1860 census put the total population at 31+ millions. French population was 35 million. If I remember correctly, some 660,000 Americans died during the war, about one half total French KIA, which was 1.3 million. This makes the percentage of killed much higher in France. I'm not good enough at math to tell exact percentages.:redface2: -- Al

After asking the question, I tried to answer it myself. This is what I found after some very brief research:

"The Civil War was fought in 10,000 places, from Valverde, New Mexico, and Tullahoma, Tennessee, to St. Albans, Vermont, and Fernandina on the Florida coast. More than 3 million Americans fought in it, and over 600,000 men, 2 percent of the population, died in it."

At 2%, that would put total US population at about 30+ million.

 

[lancer]

After asking the question, I tried to answer it myself. This is what I found after some very brief research:

"The Civil War was fought in 10,000 places, from Valverde, New Mexico, and Tullahoma, Tennessee, to St. Albans, Vermont, and Fernandina on the Florida coast. More than 3 million Americans fought in it, and over 600,000 men, 2 percent of the population, died in it."

At 2%, that would put total US population at about 30+ million.

Pretty gruesome losses. Total French war dead approached 4.3% of total population, again depending on which figures one uses. As a brief comparison, UK losses were 2.2% and German losses were 3.82% of total populations. Only Serbia at 16.11% (!) and Romania at 9% suffered heavier losses in terms of total population than the French in WW1. The Ottoman Empire lost 13.72% but over 2/3 of this loss was civilian due to the nature of their war. -- Al

 

[Rutledge]

Pretty gruesome losses. Total French war dead approached 4.3% of total population, again depending on which figures one uses. As a brief comparison, UK losses were 2.2% and German losses were 3.82% of total populations. Only Serbia at 16.11% (!) and Romania at 9% suffered heavier losses in terms of total population than the French in WW1. The Ottoman Empire lost 13.72% but over 2/3 of this loss was civilian due to the nature of their war. -- Al

What about the Russians in WWII? Didnt they lose like 25 million? That percentage must be at least 10% of their population.

 

[lancer]

What about the Russians in WWII? Didnt they lose like 25 million? That percentage must be at least 10% of their population.

It would certainly be a very high percentage. Once again, depending on what figures one uses, and Russian loss figures vary widely, 20-25 million dead is about 1 in 7 or 8 of the 1939 population of 170-175 million people. That doesn't include wounded and maimed, just dead. Truly horrific. -- Al

 

[jules118]

...Also, since WWII, I would not say that France has distinguished itself in combat. Dien Ben Phu for example, and the 2008/7(?) debacle in which 10 of their soldiers were brutally killed in a taliban ambush in Afghanistan.

Not faulting any individual French soldiers. Just saying it is a reasonable position to have some doubt as to their overall military competence/preparedness.

I think that it's a little disingenuous to use a couple of examples to cast doubt over their overall military competence. It's analogous to somebody using the example of the US experience in Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and currently in Afghanistan as indicative of the American military competence in waging war. There were/are some bad tactical and strategic decisions made in all of those conflicts and some would argue that the same mistakes are being repeated. Does that mean that the fighting ability or competence of the Americans should be called into question. No it does not.

And, I think that we should not only note the statistics of the human loss suffered by the French in WW1, but it also needs to considered alongside other factors of the time. The fact that it was still fresh in living memory at the start of WW2. That's important to remember. Then there is the scale of physical and economic destruction that WW1 brought to France, plus of course the social and cultural values of the people and leadership of France. I make this last point because the value of individuals and human life was more highly regarded to the political leadership in France when compared to, for example, the Soviet Union. Human life has different value to different societies and political elites.

 

[Mitch]

can someone who states its down to losses in WW1 and political desire to keep losses down in future conflicts tell me where the french have really excelled in battle since WW1???

Many countries lost at most millions of troops etc in WW1 but, were not as poorly led or put up such a poor show in the second war. They had the largest army in western europe at the outbreak of WWII had better, and more tanks than the germans and, could have in the early days of WWII attacked and ended WWII really before it started when germany was occupied with the attack on poland.

It seems in relation to the french there was little military competance at any level and, absolutely zero will and desire to fight. I think of english, Aussie, Kiwi and a host of other commonwealth troops and the US and they all have tenacity and grit in their fighting ability and, give it all even in defeat but, they fight for me, its not something I associate with the french.

some nations live on reputation derived from past old conflicts. I have to say that the french are one of those for me and supported in everything I have read in terms of the history of warfare.
Mitch

 

[lancer]

can someone who states its down to losses in WW1 and political desire to keep losses down in future conflicts tell me where the french have really excelled in battle since WW1???

Many countries lost at most millions of troops etc in WW1 but, were not as poorly led or put up such a poor show in the second war. They had the largest army in western europe at the outbreak of WWII had better, and more tanks than the germans and, could have in the early days of WWII attacked and ended WWII really before it started when germany was occupied with the attack on poland.

It seems in relation to the french there was little military competance at any level and, absolutely zero will and desire to fight. I think of english, Aussie, Kiwi and a host of other commonwealth troops and the US and they all have tenacity and grit in their fighting ability and, give it all even in defeat but, they fight for me, its not something I associate with the french.

some nations live on reputation derived from past old conflicts. I have to say that the french are one of those for me and supported in everything I have read in terms of the history of warfare.
Mitch

Hi Mitch. I think your opening question about where have the French done well militarily since WW1 is kind of the crux of what I have been saying about what WW1 did to France. Given that the French military has not been real successful since WW1, the failures must be attributed to the cost of winning WW1, for France. WW1 was more of a disaster to France than, say, Germany or Great Britain, even though France was on the winning side. The reasons for this are many and complicated from population numbers (France's birth rate was much lower than either Germany or GB), destruction of property, destruction of industry (these last two in the occupied territories), the monetary cost (common to all belligerents). WW1 put France in the position of having to prevent another such war at all costs, thus her strategy to stand behind the Maginot Line and build alliances with countries to surround and contain Germany. We all know this strategy didn't work. France's allies, such as Poland, were isolated and would need offensive help from France in the event of a German attack, exactly the kind of help France could not give, to Poland or anyone else. French inter-war military tactical docturne was based on a defensive war, not offensive, thus even though France had a large army and good tanks, France's army was simply not the offensive weapon needed to help Poland when it came to crunch time. Same basic reason France stood by while Germany rearmed and re-occupied the Ruhr, the Rhineland, and so on. These are not offered as excuses but rather as reasons for the showing of 1940. There was no way France was prepared for or in a position to stop Germany anytime up to and including May 1940. -- Al

 

[marco55]

Brad,Here's this old thread to keep you occupied.
Mark

 

[lancer]

Brad,Here's this old thread to keep you occupied.
Mark

I had forgotten how extensive this thread had gotten. Going to take some time to review. -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

Mark,

I had my say on it so not much more to say on it, except Vive La France ^&cool

It's a great time to be there, with the Tour now going in full swing. Actually, any time is a great time to be there.

Brad

 

[marco55]

Ok Brad,
I have always respected the French.My favorite period is colonial America and Canada and they fought against terrific odds and did very well considering the small amount of manpower available to them.
Mark

 

[Poppo]

Mark,

I had my say on it so not much more to say on it, except Vive La France ^&cool

It's a great time to be there, with the Tour now going in full swing. Actually, any time is a great time to be there.

Brad

Paris has become just a huge,expensive,chaotic, polluted, crowded, open air museum;crowded with snobbish, hysterical, unfriendly people, nice to enjoy only when you are a tourist having your way back ticket in your pocket....It was still ok 15 years ago.

 

[Mitch]

Paris is a hole. always has been and always will be IMO. One redundant electric pylon at its centre and its somehow beautiful??? Many, many more capitals of Europe that are much, much better.
Mitch

Paris has become just a huge,expensive,chaotic, polluted, crowded, open air museum;crowded with snobbish, hysterical, unfriendly people, nice to enjoy only when you are a tourist having your way back ticket in your pocket....It was still ok 15 years ago.

 

[jazzeum]

Paris has become just a huge,expensive,chaotic, polluted, crowded, open air museum;crowded with snobbish, hysterical, unfriendly people, nice to enjoy only when you are a tourist having your way back ticket in your pocket....It was still ok 15 years ago.

That's too bad. Haven't been there in about six years.

Brad