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

[Mitch]

You may be talking napoleonic wars and, its your right to disagree and, I am surprised, though not fully, that we are defending the brits in a thread about the french, but, I think the thread not aimed at one battle solely. Noble forces, could have won, but for, are all excuses for being beaten which, sadly, the french have gained as a reputation in their military history hence, the thread.

Its always raised when the french are maligned that were the british part of the continent they would have lost. well, as its speculation and conjecture, IMO we would not as our forces were better and always have been thats why we are winners and do not have such a cloud over our troops and fighting abilities as the French have. Now, all this noble nonsense never really helped in final victory so, to me it makes no odds.
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::

 

[jules118]

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

Mate, of course I didn't mean to offend any of those that died, regardless of where they were from.

But seriously, do you really think that the RAF would even have been able to mount a defence, let alone win if there had not been the English channel to HALT the German advance? God knows that the RAF had done little to halt it up until then. Sorry mate, I think that you're wrong.

cheers

jules

 

[Rob]

But Jules that's a non question isn't it, Had Australia had been connected to Japan it would have been overun. The insult that comes across in your post and our French supporting friend is that it wasn't the RAF who beat the Luftwaffe but the channel, which is not only and insult to the men of the RAF who died but also totally wrong. France and the rest of Europe are only free today because of what we did over here, that's the facts , not 'what if's '.

Rob

Mate, of course I didn't mean to offend any of those that died, regardless of where they were from.

But seriously, do you really think that the RAF would even have been able to mount a defence, let alone win if there had not been the English channel to HALT the German advance? God knows that the RAF had done little to halt it up until then. Sorry mate, I think that you're wrong.

cheers

jules

 

[Mitch]

Did the RAF have four squadrons on the continent?? Some were also not full squadrons so, compared to the other allies a small force indeed. The RAF did what was necessary (BOB) and, blunted and turned the luftwaffe with its tail between its legs. The first defeat of Hitlers wars and, the turning point of WWII
Mitch

 

[Louis Badolato]

Rob and Jules,

You are both right. History tells us that during the fall of France, the RAF also fought bravely but its airfields were overrun, and it could not stop the combined German forces' advance. The English Channel gave it the opportunity to fight, enabling the Battle of Britain to be fought between the RAF and the Luftwaffe in the air, rather than combined forces on the air and the ground (a fight which, the evidence of the Battle of France tells us, the Germans were winning at that point).

The Channel afforded the RAF its opportunity for greatness, but it was the brave men of the RAF who, outnumbered, gave the Luftwaffe all they could handle and more.

Both the Channel and the RAF were necessary to save the free world. Without both the geography and the heroism, Europe is speaking German right now.

 

[VIRIATO]

Mitch and Rob have got a point, it wasn't just about the English Channel, it was about the famous RAF few and about the people under the leadership of Churchill, arguably the most important international figure of the 20th Century. Something that the French did utterly lack at the start of WWII. But it's also obvious that it's easier to invade by land than to assemble an invading fleet. And if you look back, it's very clear that the French had their moments of military glory (Napoleonic Wars and WWI for instance) as much as anybody else, and they have also had their moments of defeat and humiliation as much as anybody else. I personally would probably pay to have none and live peacefully...^&grin

Paulo

 

[Mitch]

What about one of the first true actions of german V Brit the battle of arras and the 7th tank Battalion with less than 74 tanks blunted and halted the advancing panzers of Rommell?? He had 218 tanks plenty of air cover and our boys stopped them dead. It was only every 88mm gun and heavy air support that won but, Von Runstedt said it was a nightmare and that his worry was his panzer divisions being cut off at a critical time.

Basil Hart eminent WWII historian said never had two battalions ever had such an effect in history.

Now had the french been more co-ordinated and better and had we had more forces on the continent its likely (or as likely as those who say we would have lost but for, the channel) that we would have beaten the germans.
Mitch

 

[uksubs]

Mate, of course I didn't mean to offend any of those that died, regardless of where they were from.

But seriously, do you really think that the RAF would even have been able to mount a defence, let alone win if there had not been the English channel to HALT the German advance? God knows that the RAF had done little to halt it up until then. Sorry mate, I think that you're wrong.

cheers

jules

You need to get your facts right for a start ,the RAF only sent small part of they fighters to France the reason being the rest to defend the Britain , when it came to the Battle Britain they proved they were more than a match to the Luftwaffe

 

[trooper]

With reference to the comment that Hitler could have invaded with ease. We should also not forget the Royal Navy and the hotch potch collection of barges available to the Germans. The Navy wouldn't even have had to fire their guns, the wash from their propellors would have been sufficient to capsize the barges. As for Napoleon we have heard every excuse in the book, he wasn't well, his generals were all incompetant, he really won the battle but the referee made the wrong call. History is history, Britain is not connected to Europe, Napoleon got his backside kicked and Hitler never invaded. End of story. Trooper

 

[uksubs]

With reference to the comment that Hitler could have invaded with ease. We should also not forget the Royal Navy and the hotch potch collection of barges available to the Germans. The Navy wouldn't even have had to fire their guns, the wash from their propellors would have been sufficient to capsize the barges. As for Napoleon we have heard every excuse in the book, he wasn't well, his generals were all incompetant, he really won the battle but the referee made the wrong call. History is history, Britain is not connected to Europe, Napoleon got his backside kicked and Hitler never invaded. End of story. Trooper

Well said Trooper :salute::

 

[Rob]

All excellent points/posts.

I think one of the things that perpetuates mistrust between Britain and France is the type of attitude towards the Brits shown earlier in the thread. They forget that it was the sacrifice and victory of the Battle of Britain that meant France only had four years of occupation and not many more, they forget how many of our troops died on their beaches helping to liberate their country, how many of our pilots died paving the way for the invasion , and also DeGualle's ant Brit stance despite the fact that when the chips were down he was in London quicker than he could say au revoir France. His attitude to British SOE agents who risked torture and death for his people showed what sort of person he really was.

I think Louis, Neil, Mitch and Pauolo have all made good well balanced points, they have obviously studied the BOB and know what happened and what hinged on it.

One final thing, someone earlier in this thread suggested that Americans have no knowledge or interest in any other history than their own. You only have to read any of Louis's / Brad's or many other US members to know that this is first class nonsense

Rob

Mitch and Rob have got a point, it wasn't just about the English Channel, it was about the famous RAF few and about the people under the leadership of Churchill, arguably the most important international figure of the 20th Century. Something that the French did utterly lack at the start of WWII. But it's also obvious that it's easier to invade by land than to assemble an invading fleet. And if you look back, it's very clear that the French had their moments of military glory (Napoleonic Wars and WWI for instance) as much as anybody else, and they have also had their moments of defeat and humiliation as much as anybody else. I personally would probably pay to have none and live peacefully...^&grin

Paulo

Rob and Jules,

You are both right. History tells us that during the fall of France, the RAF also fought bravely but its airfields were overrun, and it could not stop the combined German forces' advance. The English Channel gave it the opportunity to fight, enabling the Battle of Britain to be fought between the RAF and the Luftwaffe in the air, rather than combined forces on the air and the ground (a fight which, the evidence of the Battle of France tells us, the Germans were winning at that point).

The Channel afforded the RAF its opportunity for greatness, but it was the brave men of the RAF who, outnumbered, gave the Luftwaffe all they could handle and more.

Both the Channel and the RAF were necessary to save the free world. Without both the geography and the heroism, Europe is speaking German right now.

You need to get your facts right for a start ,the RAF only sent small part of they fighters to France the reason being the rest to defend the Britain , when it came to the Battle Britain they proved they were more than a match to the Luftwaffe

 

[marco55]

I hate to say this but I will ^&grin.Everytime Britain has actually been invaded the invaders won.Romans,Saxons and other Germans,Vikings,and finally the Normans.Now the British people are a brave and courageous people and are decended from all these groups but the facts are the facts.Just to let you know my ancesters came from Britain and before that France.I put this because in no way am I anti-British.I do feel the British would have fought to the bitter,bitter end before surrending to Hitler.I really think the French were still war weary fron 1914-18 and were afraid of the same thing happening.The French had much elan at the beginning of WWI but that was destroyed very quickly and I don't think the had recovered by 1939.
Mark

 

[Rutledge]

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. Mitch

I dont know Mitch. I suppose if Britain had lost the war our reaction might have been different. As I pointed out, its a long way across the Atlantic, and Germany wasnt really a direct threat. Imagine if we could have diverted all those resopurces against Japan. The Pacific campaign would likely have ended much sooner. Then we could have turned our full attention toward Germany, with an experienced and successful military. Might have actually worked out better for us, especially if we had had the threat of a nuclear bomb in our inventory.

The reason we were able to build a successful logistics platform is because....we did so. Britain did not help us build the machines and system. Sure, geographically they provided valuable insight, guidance and opportunity, which ultimately proved successful. But, while no one discounts the substantial British contributions and valor in the war, to say that our success was only made possible by it is a bit beyond the pale.

If you read that book I mentioned, it discusses the Africa campaign in detail. We did that in concert with the Brits, but also at your insistence that we enter the war in a material way. Britian absolutely needed US help against the Jerries much more than we needed British assistance, especially given the Germans never theatened american soild directly, dont you think?

Things always look clear in hindsight. While I do agree that appeasement under Neville Chamberlin seems foolish now, we often employ that same strategy in the world today and it isnt at all apparent what the result will be.

 

[uksubs]

All excellent points/posts.

I think one of the things that perpetuates mistrust between Britain and France is the type of attitude towards the Brits shown earlier in the thread. They forget that it was the sacrifice and victory of the Battle of Britain that meant France only had four years of occupation and not many more, they forget how many of our troops died on their beaches helping to liberate their country, how many of our pilots died paving the way for the invasion , and also DeGualle's ant Brit stance despite the fact that when the chips were down he was in London quicker than he could say au revoir France. His attitude to British SOE agents who risked torture and death for his people showed what sort of person he really was.

Well said Rob%^V

 

[Louis Badolato]

All excellent points/posts.

One final thing, someone earlier in this thread suggested that Americans have no knowledge or interest in any other history than their own. You only have to read any of Louis's / Brad's or many other US members to know that this is first class nonsense

Rob

Rob,

Thank you. However, almost none of what I have learned about history comes from my education here in the Untied States, if comes from reading books and studying history on my own. They don't teach "history" in American public schools, they teach "social studies" and WWI and WWII are covered in 10 page long chapters which basically taught there were bad Nazis and Japanese imperialists, and the United States and its ally Great Britain (who in the second chapter on the Revolution was our arch enemy) defeated them. There was almost no mention of the Soviet Union's part, or anything else relevant. That is why, when it comes to those Americans who do not take up an independent study of history as a hobby, the statement "Americans have no knowledge or interest in any other history than their own" is sadly true.

 

[Rob]

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

I hate to say this but I will ^&grin.Everytime Britain has actually been invaded the invaders won.Romans,Saxons and other Germans,Vikings,and finally the Normans.Now the British people are a brave and courageous people and are decended from all these groups but the facts are the facts.Just to let you know my ancesters came from Britain and before that France.I put this because in no way am I anti-British.I do feel the British would have fought to the bitter,bitter end before surrending to Hitler.I really think the French were still war weary fron 1914-18 and were afraid of the same thing happening.The French had much elan at the beginning of WWI but that was destroyed very quickly and I don't think the had recovered by 1939.
Mark

 

[Rob]

Hey Louis, yes my post was not really regarding your education system but more the fact that you do indeed educate yourselves as can be clearly seen in many of your posts and many many others from your country, which is of great credit to you. I thought that the original post was a gross generalisation.

Cheers

Rob

Rob,

Thank you. However, almost none of what I have learned about history comes from my education here in the Untied States, if comes from reading books and studying history on my own. They don't teach "history" in American public schools, they teach "social studies" and WWI and WWII are covered in 10 page long chapters which basically taught there were bad Nazis and Japanese imperialists, and the United States and its ally Great Britain (who in the second chapter on the Revolution was our arch enemy) defeated them. There was almost no mention of the Soviet Union's part, or anything else relevant. That is why, when it comes to those Americans who do not take up an independent study of history as a hobby, the statement "Americans have no knowledge or interest in any other history than their own" is sadly true.

 

[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

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

 

[Peter Reuss]

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.

 

[Scott]

"Americans have no knowledge or interest in any other history than their own" is sadly true.

I'll agree with that. In defense of grammar and high schools, they have to give the kids the basics and in the ideal, they'll study a subject in depth if they go on to college. I have remind myself that there are 50 more years of US history for my kids to learn. I was happy to see my HS age daughter getting basic Asian and South American history which I never did back in a time when the Soviet Union wasn't in one geography book!

There are occasional French bashing comments on a US Civil War forum I look at. There are other posters that have to remind such commenters that the US and CS armies marched, fought, and dressed to the French style based on successful French doctrine.

You can see the French influence in other countries up until the French defeat in 1871 when German military advisers came with the German weapons that countries purchased. For example look at the weapons and uniforms of modern Chilean dress uniforms. Chileans were wearing the French styles up until the War Of The Pacific.


Much modern French bashing here is against a caricature (strawman) easy to attack but made up of stereotypes. Much of this comes from modern politics looking to create boogie men.