Why do Yanks always bag the fighting ability of the French? (3 Viewers)

[VIRIATO]

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

I was going to post about this but you took the words out of my mouth. In the beginning the French and Canadiens really gave the British a beating and ultimately lack of enough resources (or wrong allocation policy) compared with what the British were able to bring to North America decided the logical outcome (all this from what I have read mind you:wink2.

Paulo

 

[marco55]

Me too Paulo as I wasn't born until a couple of years after it was over.^&grin
Mark

 

[Rutledge]

Rutledge...

The book is very interesting but, what does that say about the Kaserine pass. surely, that was underprepared. I always found it remarkable that the two greatest industrial powers the US and USSR were so whofully prepared for the hostilities of 39-45
Mitch

Absolutely the US was unprepared for WWII. A major reason, I suspect, was we has really only fought one major conflict away from our own shores (WWI) and it didnt seem likely there would be another ("The War to End all Wars"). Yes, while we might have "adventures" abroad, a full scale effort in foreign lands was not seen as likely. US natural geography also made it so that we dont have to spend a lot of money defending our land borders -- after all, Mexico and Canada were not remotely hostile.

Thus, we believed we didnt need to maintain a large, well trained fighting force. WWI, as brutal as it was, never touched american soil. Also, as we were going through the Great Depression, surely resources that might have been spent on the military were diverted elsewhere.

WWII was a big wake-up call. It told us, hey, the world is shrinking. Just because our enemies will have a hard time getting to us directly doesnt mean they cant (Pearl Harbor), or that they cant do us harm via our external interests such as our allies and through attacking economic resources (such as oil).

As Goring said, we knew how to build refrigerators but not war machines. WWII changed that pretty dramatically, obviously.

I dont think anyone would ever argue that a defeat in battle means a country has a lousy military. Everyone suffers losses. The Germans and Japanese had very strong militaries, after all, but they still ended up as losers.

In the US the French are viewed as too passive when it comes to military affairs. They didnt just lose a battle in WWII, after all, they lost the entire war -- and didnt put up a huge fight, it seemed to us. While the US has lost battles and will no doubt do so again, its never been because our military couldnt handle the OVERALL task. I used to know a former US Marine who fought in the Tet offensive. He remarked to me how the Marines were completely victorious everywhere in that struggle -- except in the eyes and words of the US media.

One thing that people always seem to overlook is the difference in what the US had to do to fight the war in Europe vs "the locals". Our men and equipment had to travel thousands of miles by sea and land just to GET TO the battlefront. Russians, sometimes literally, could step out their front door and attack the enemy. The amount of resources, planning, coordination and effort that goes into fighting a conflict far, far, far away from home is considerable and adds enormous cost and complexity. Not only did we have to build the war machines, we had to build an entire system of machines, equipment and logistical corp so that the war machines, supplies and fighters could get to their destinations and have what they need to sustain a successful campaign. A momentous undertaking and often totally overlooked and grossly underappreciated.

 

[VIRIATO]

This nationalities prejudice thing obviously leads us nowhere. If you consider WWI and WWII, just remember that the French had a land border with Germany, and that they were initially overrun by the Germans like all of the European nations that had a land border with Germany. It's very different to have an ocean or part of it separating you from the German Army... Also, remember WWI Verdun or the Marne: things hardly got tougher anywhere anytime than here, and the French ultimately won those mammoth battles. Take a look if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_the_Marne;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verdun

Just take a look at the number of casualties in these battles and sober up.Fortunately none of us and probably nobody in the last 2 or 3 generations has been through anything like that.
And then a case can always be made that the Soviets and not the British or the Americans took most of the brunt for defeating Nazi Germany-the Eastern front really was a massively different ball game all together when compared with the Western one. Does this mean the ex-Soviets should make jokes about the American or British fighting abilities? I also wonder what our French friends at this forum have to say...

Paulo

 

[jules118]

I think that the French are always (unfairly) bagged for their martial abilities for a few reasons. It starts with an over simplification or complete ignorance about the underlying causes of events and the reasons for decisions/outcomes. Ignore the reasons but focus solely on the final result, then shape a catchy soundbyte slogan or reason for the outcome and create a stereotype of the kind of traits that lead to this. State it often and loud enough and people will eventually believe it to be true.

I don't know if that is a trait that is more common in the English speaking world, but I suspect not. I mean, honestly if we applied the same to our own performance, I don't think that the US, UK or Australia can lay much claim to military prowess either. Since 1945 we've been engaged in military conflict for most of the intervening period. How many wars have we actually won? Maybe the Falklands and Gulf War 1 (although it was hardly an evenly balanced contest).

We can put all the spin on it that we like, but we've actually lost most of our wars, or at best reached an uneasy truce with few if any of the stated aims for going to war being achieved. Does that mean we should be viewed the same way as we view the French?

And to say something like well the French surrendered to the Germans in WW2 but the Brits didn't which makes them better militarily ignores one thing that saved the British from going the same way very shortly thereafter... not military prowess but a small stretch of water known as the English channel.

 

[Nooooo9]

All of the allies suffered major defeats at the beginning of WWII. The British lost Hong Kong and Singapore, the Americans lost the Philipines and other Islands, and the Soviet Union lost everything west of the Moscow suburbs. But the French lost their country. There are reasons for this that have nothing to do with fighting ability, the loss of the best of the nation's men a generation earlier is a primary factor. As is the fact that there is no channel or ocean between France and Germany to stop an advance. I try not to make jokes along the lines of the "Used French Army Rifle for Sale- Only dropped once" variety. But, I'll repeat them. Franco-American relations have always been complicated. Those of us with Anglo-Saxon backgrounds tend to view the French as the traditional enemy. It is in the cultural DNA from Crecy to Louisbourg. We have at times been allies but there has always been distrust and resentment. There are schools and parks and streets named after Lafayette in the USA. I have never seen any sort of monument over here to DeGaulle.

 

[Napoleon1er]

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.

For the record-the brave men and women of the Legion Etranger are French-just not from birth. These people are fighting for the nation that gave them a home in their hour of need, and that gave them the respect to call them its own. So not to be a jerk, but one's nationality is not defined by blood, but by who you would give that blood for.
One major rip that always bugs my is the whole "French surrendering" thing. Did you know that the white flag used for surrender did indeed come from the French come from the Bourbon white ensign w/fleur des lilles! This is because people used to hoist the colours of the person they were surrendering to, and people just ended up surrendering to the French a lot. So yeah:salute::!
The French have a long history of victories, and great generals. I would say at least 60-75% of the worlds best generals have come from France.
Check out this link:
http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp
Thanks,

VIVE LA FRANCE
VIVE L'EMPEREUR
VIVE NAPOLEON​

:salute:::salute:::salute::

 

[jazzeum]

Interesting link mon empereur. One of the most significant battles on that list is the Battle of Tours, the high point of Moorish incursion into Europe (or at least Northwestern Europe). Who knows what Europe would look like today had that victory not taken place. Shortly thereafter, La Reconquista would start, culminating in the expulsion of the Moors from Spain in 1492.

 

[Rob]

Jules mate You make some good points there and God knows my country had some serious reverses in both Wars. But I have to disagree with you re the English Channel. It was not the Channel that saved my country from being occupied but the skill, bravery and sacrifice of the men of the RAF who fought off the Luftwaffe. If there had been no RAF the Germans could have sailed across on day one. I'm sure you didn't mean to offend the memory of all those who died in the Battle but it was their giving up of their lives for us that ensured we speak our mother Tongue and not German and that this country became the vital springboard for the liberation of Europe^&cool:salute:::salute::

Cheers

Rob

I think that the French are always (unfairly) bagged for their martial abilities for a few reasons. It starts with an over simplification or complete ignorance about the underlying causes of events and the reasons for decisions/outcomes. Ignore the reasons but focus solely on the final result, then shape a catchy soundbyte slogan or reason for the outcome and create a stereotype of the kind of traits that lead to this. State it often and loud enough and people will eventually believe it to be true.

I don't know if that is a trait that is more common in the English speaking world, but I suspect not. I mean, honestly if we applied the same to our own performance, I don't think that the US, UK or Australia can lay much claim to military prowess either. Since 1945 we've been engaged in military conflict for most of the intervening period. How many wars have we actually won? Maybe the Falklands and Gulf War 1 (although it was hardly an evenly balanced contest).

We can put all the spin on it that we like, but we've actually lost most of our wars, or at best reached an uneasy truce with few if any of the stated aims for going to war being achieved. Does that mean we should be viewed the same way as we view the French?

And to say something like well the French surrendered to the Germans in WW2 but the Brits didn't which makes them better militarily ignores one thing that saved the British from going the same way very shortly thereafter... not military prowess but a small stretch of water known as the English channel.

 

[Rob]

No offence taken this end mate:smile2:. This thread is very enjoyable in that we are openly discussing all nations and the victories and defeats they all suffered, it's very interesting and a nice change from some of the recent arguing and deletions, one of which last week was a truly offensive post about English people and the British Empire a shockingly ignorant generalisation of the type not seen here.^&cool

Rob

Since I am somewhat to blame for this veering off, what I was trying to do was point out that both Britain and France suffered reverses in WW I and WW II but Americans have different attitudes about them. Why is that? I posited (and believe this to be the case) that it has less to do with military prowess and more to do about how Americans feel about France and French people in general, not to mention that our heritage derives much more from Anglo-Saxon heritage than Gallic culture.

Again, apologies for causing any offense to British colleagues. That was not the intent.

 

[Mitch]

Rutledge...

Your last paragraph is interesting as the geographical logistics of the US entering the european conflict were made only possible by the determination, resolve and fight of the british. Without our dogged fight against hitler kicking his backside so resoundingly in the BOB its very unlikely the US with all its economic weight would have entered this conflict. The only other real possibility was a landing in Africa and it would have been almost impossible to have achieved without what the 8th Army had done against Rommel. I think thats often also overlooked when discussing WWII.

I think its a shame that so many believed there would not be another war the signs were very obvious it was coming perhaps the carnage of the first made people place their heads in the sand with fingers crossed hoping we could avoid it.

Jules118...

You are right the falklands was an uneven fight a small force of british troops and naval forces took on a huge military dictator, on their own doorstep, and through, that very military prowess you speak off, and the dogged grit and determination of some of the best ground units in the world, won the war. Its these qualities that make our armed forces the envy of the world.
Mitch

Absolutely the US was unprepared for WWII. A major reason, I suspect, was we has really only fought one major conflict away from our own shores (WWI) and it didnt seem likely there would be another ("The War to End all Wars"). Yes, while we might have "adventures" abroad, a full scale effort in foreign lands was not seen as likely. US natural geography also made it so that we dont have to spend a lot of money defending our land borders -- after all, Mexico and Canada were not remotely hostile.

Thus, we believed we didnt need to maintain a large, well trained fighting force. WWI, as brutal as it was, never touched american soil. Also, as we were going through the Great Depression, surely resources that might have been spent on the military were diverted elsewhere.

WWII was a big wake-up call. It told us, hey, the world is shrinking. Just because our enemies will have a hard time getting to us directly doesnt mean they cant (Pearl Harbor), or that they cant do us harm via our external interests such as our allies and through attacking economic resources (such as oil).

As Goring said, we knew how to build refrigerators but not war machines. WWII changed that pretty dramatically, obviously.

I dont think anyone would ever argue that a defeat in battle means a country has a lousy military. Everyone suffers losses. The Germans and Japanese had very strong militaries, after all, but they still ended up as losers.

In the US the French are viewed as too passive when it comes to military affairs. They didnt just lose a battle in WWII, after all, they lost the entire war -- and didnt put up a huge fight, it seemed to us. While the US has lost battles and will no doubt do so again, its never been because our military couldnt handle the OVERALL task. I used to know a former US Marine who fought in the Tet offensive. He remarked to me how the Marines were completely victorious everywhere in that struggle -- except in the eyes and words of the US media.

One thing that people always seem to overlook is the difference in what the US had to do to fight the war in Europe vs "the locals". Our men and equipment had to travel thousands of miles by sea and land just to GET TO the battlefront. Russians, sometimes literally, could step out their front door and attack the enemy. The amount of resources, planning, coordination and effort that goes into fighting a conflict far, far, far away from home is considerable and adds enormous cost and complexity. Not only did we have to build the war machines, we had to build an entire system of machines, equipment and logistical corp so that the war machines, supplies and fighters could get to their destinations and have what they need to sustain a successful campaign. A momentous undertaking and often totally overlooked and grossly underappreciated.

 

[VIRIATO]

Me too Paulo as I wasn't born until a couple of years after it was over.^&grin
Mark

Well Mark, I wasn't there but I was already born, I was making a living in Transylvania...^&grin^&grin. Tiring stuff through the ages^&grin^&grin^&grin...

Paulo (AKA Count Dracul...)

 

[Napoleon1er]

I, for one, really enjoy hearing these opinions. It seems that in my school, the French are being constantly ripped on, and people have no knowledge whatsoever to back up their claims. Napoleon lost only a fraction of his battles, and it could be pointed out that he was outnumbered more than 2-1, and had mostly fresh recruits during the Waterloo campaign. In WWI and WWII, as has been said, there was this little thing called the English channel... same thing that stopped Napoleon, I believe.
Thanks for the great opinions,
Sandor

 

[Rob]

I, for one, really enjoy hearing these opinions. It seems that in my school, the French are being constantly ripped on, and people have no knowledge whatsoever to back up their claims. Napoleon lost only a fraction of his battles, and it could be pointed out that he was outnumbered more than 2-1, and had mostly fresh recruits during the Waterloo campaign. In WWI and WWII, as has been said, there was this little thing called the English channel... same thing that stopped Napoleon, I believe.
Thanks for the great opinions,
Sandor

Nope!^&grin It was a little thing called determination not to be beaten was the reason we wern't invaded, as a nation we just were not ready to surrender:salute::

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Well said Rob!!!

Any general even Napoleon could have came across the channel if there had been no resistance, same with Hitler, but, they have tried and got their noses bloodied by better troops.

The french (as this was what this thread was about not the english!!!) IMO just have never had the grit and determination that we have had and thats one of the reason why so much derogatory comments and mickey taking occurs about the lack of resistance they have. Its derived from two world wars not what the little corporal did and, he, however, ones sees him as succesful was still beaten. The largest army on european soil, the french were totally outclassed in all areas.
Mitch

 

[Rob]

Spot on Mitch, it was not the channel that stopped Napoleon but the little thing of Nelson destroying his fleet at Trafalgar! .

And does anyone honestly think if there had been no RAF Hitler would have hesitated crossing 18 miles of water??!. William the conqueror crossed it in 1066 for gods sake! ^&grin

I mean no offence to the French, perhaps they were worn out by fighting, but we were not ready to jack it in, and with Churchill as our voice found the determination to go on and win, thank God.

Rob



QUOTE=Mitch;369853]Well said Rob!!!

Any general even Napoleon could have came across the channel if there had been no resistance, same with Hitler, but, they have tried and got their noses bloodied by better troops.

The french (as this was what this thread was about not the english!!!) IMO just have never had the grit and determination that we have had and thats one of the reason why so much derogatory comments and mickey taking occurs about the lack of resistance they have. Its derived from two world wars not what the little corporal did and, he, however, ones sees him as succesful was still beaten. The largest army on european soil, the french were totally outclassed in all areas.
Mitch[/QUOTE]

 

[marco55]

The French were outclassed because of military doctrine and strategy not the fighting soldier.
Mark

 

[Napoleon1er]

The french (as this was what this thread was about not the english!!!) IMO just have never had the grit and determination that we have had and thats one of the reason why so much derogatory comments and mickey taking occurs about the lack of resistance they have. Its derived from two world wars not what the little corporal did and, he, however, ones sees him as succesful was still beaten. The largest army on european soil, the french were totally outclassed in all areas.
Mitch

I have to disagree:salute::! The French army was not made up of criminals with no other options as the English army was, and was also not well trained (we are talking about Napoleonic Wars here). Napoleon was not responsible for Waterloo; he could have won if not for his marshals. Now about the World Wars. It is most certainly about the water. If England was part of the continent, it would have been taken in WWII. In WWI, the French did pull through in the end. As Sir Arther Connan Doyel said, the English army is all beef, but the French army is truly a noble force. There IS something to be said for the spirit.
Respects,
Sandor:salute::

 

[aujj65]

All very interesting who can’t fight, who won or lost what and why, but at the end of the day the French invented perfume…go figure! :rolleyes2:^&grin^&grin

Au Revoir. :salute::

Jeff

 

[Rob]

^&grin^&grin

' it wasn't Napoleons fault it was his general's ' who cares, he got his arse kicked didn't he, maybe he should have found better generals then!. So whose fault was it at Trafalgar then???. You had the Spanish on your side there and still you got beat.

You're very happy to run down the British, but you were not complaining when they came back in 44 and freed France were you?.

Facts is facts, you surrendered, your choice, we did not.

Rob

I have to disagree:salute::! The French army was not made up of criminals with no other options as the English army was, and was also not well trained (we are talking about Napoleonic Wars here). Napoleon was not responsible for Waterloo; he could have won if not for his marshals. Now about the World Wars. It is most certainly about the water. If England was part of the continent, it would have been taken in WWII. In WWI, the French did pull through in the end. As Sir Arther Connan Doyel said, the English army is all beef, but the French army is truly a noble force. There IS something to be said for the spirit.
Respects,
Sandor:salute::