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

[lancer]

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

Nice that you acknowledge US help in winning the war for the Atlantic. The capture of Enigma helped with victory, but even without it the Allies were going to win the Battle for the Atlantic because of US participation. Arguing about which country contributed the most to victory is useless. Without the US and GB working together, the Germans win. -- Al

 

[Scott]

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

Let me clarify Mitch. I wanted to ask if the original post was about American "buffs" meaning "students" of history or just Americans in general "bag(ging") the French. "Buffs" was meant to include we hobbyists as opposed to professional historians. I took the British term "bag" as similar to "bash" rather than a documented criticism. I am enjoying the discussions about military history from folks that appear to read about the subject.

 

[Mitch]

Al...

We have had quite a few enjoyable what if conversations and, I think the war in the atlantic without our acquisition of the enigma device would not be as certain for me, as you pose. Technological advances in combating the U-boats was moving forward but, so was german submarine technology and underwater armaments. Pivotal was the foresight of where and how many u-boats were in the atlantic or were going to be for without that we would have had to spend far more in terms of resources playing the waiting game for an attack to then use these advanced systems.

I certainly don't think I have said we could have won the war without all the allies help just as a proud englishman mentioning the very large part we played and also taking pride in the fact that we were the first to bloody Hitlers nose and shake his armed forces confidence.

Scott...

Slight cross wires with the meaning of your post
Mitch

Nice that you acknowledge US help in winning the war for the Atlantic. The capture of Enigma helped with victory, but even without it the Allies were going to win the Battle for the Atlantic because of US participation. Arguing about which country contributed the most to victory is useless. Without the US and GB working together, the Germans win. -- Al

 

[marco55]

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

Rob

The tone of the discussion at the time was the French being occupied and some people insinuated that the British was only saved by the English Channel.Whereas it came across that some felt that even if Britain was part of the continent they wouldn't be conquered.That's JMO on the discussion.I honestly feel that Hitler probably would have won had he not attacked Russia.As for what would have become of Britain ,thankfully that scenario didn't play
Mark

 

[Mitch]

As Churchill said we would rather die than allow the germans to occupy us and, that would have been the state of play even had Hitler not attacked Russia. War between the two was inevitable and had germany not attacked its likely that Russia would have sorted out their military affairs and possibly attacked Germany.

We would have gone on bombing germany as we did until there was either nothing left or they gave up. They would have never beaten us. Obviously, thats my opinion but, we had a country at that time where everyone believed that and did their bit to ensure it happened.

Having not beaten the RAF in 1940 I am unsure what you can say that another attempt would have prevailed as the RAF was substantially stronger and, he could not do it all the way upto the summer of 41 what wonder weapons were he going to call upon to defeat the british isles?? we also had arguably the strongest navy afloat and sailed freely. We would have been a rather large and serious thorn in Hitlers side, as we were, until victory.
Mitch

 

[lancer]

Al...

We have had quite a few enjoyable what if conversations and, I think the war in the atlantic without our acquisition of the enigma device would not be as certain for me, as you pose. Technological advances in combating the U-boats was moving forward but, so was german submarine technology and underwater armaments. Pivotal was the foresight of where and how many u-boats were in the atlantic or were going to be for without that we would have had to spend far more in terms of resources playing the waiting game for an attack to then use these advanced systems.

I certainly don't think I have said we could have won the war without all the allies help just as a proud englishman mentioning the very large part we played and also taking pride in the fact that we were the first to bloody Hitlers nose and shake his armed forces confidence.

Scott...

Slight cross wires with the meaning of your post
Mitch

I also believe that the Enigma coup was one of the turning points, but I believe that the Atlantic was a won deal once the convoy system was perfected and, more importantly, once air cover was extended to total coverage. There was simply no place to hide for the U-boats once anti-sub hunting was made effective through the air and sea. Enigma, of course, was very instrumental in the U-boat defeat but I just don't think it was the most important factor. One factor I think is often overlooked is the fortitude of all the merchant sailors that continued doing their job even when the U-boats were at their most effective. Unsung heroes, all. -- Al

 

[Rob]

The tone of the discussion at the time was the French being occupied and some people insinuated that the British was only saved by the English Channel.Whereas it came across that some felt that even if Britain was part of the continent they wouldn't be conquered.That's JMO on the discussion.I honestly feel that Hitler probably would have won had he not attacked Russia.As for what would have become of Britain ,thankfully that scenario didn't play
Mark

I think its best we let this go, because you said some of us thought Britain had not been invaded in the past so you brought up for some reason the Romans and Vikings etc, I say again, none of us have ever said Britain was not invaded.Why you should say such a thing I don't know. As I say, best move on

As Churchill said we would rather die than allow the germans to occupy us and, that would have been the state of play even had Hitler not attacked Russia. War between the two was inevitable and had germany not attacked its likely that Russia would have sorted out their military affairs and possibly attacked Germany.

We would have gone on bombing germany as we did until there was either nothing left or they gave up. They would have never beaten us. Obviously, thats my opinion but, we had a country at that time where everyone believed that and did their bit to ensure it happened.

Having not beaten the RAF in 1940 I am unsure what you can say that another attempt would have prevailed as the RAF was substantially stronger and, he could not do it all the way upto the summer of 41 what wonder weapons were he going to call upon to defeat the british isles?? we also had arguably the strongest navy afloat and sailed freely. We would have been a rather large and serious thorn in Hitlers side, as we were, until victory.
Mitch

Spot on Mitch. I can't answer for the French, and to be honest I couldn't care less right now, but I can speak for our country. The British still had determination, resilence and most of all defiance, most students of History fully accept the RAF won the Battle of Britain, like it or not facts is facts. As for what would have happened if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, I think you will find with the British producing aircraft at an increasing rate and the Germans losing far more aircraft and more importantly experienced crew it is by no means certain they would have beaten us, I know the determination this country had to win that Battle and win it we did. The fact that some may not like the reality is neither here nor there.

I remember jus recently I read a quote from a high ranking German officer after the War. Asked if Stalingrad was the beggining of the end for the Third Reich he replied 'No, the Battle of Britain was'. It was the first loss inflicted on Germany and the RAF did it.

Rob

 

[lancer]

I think its best we let this go, because you said some of us thought Britain had not been invaded in the past so you brought up for some reason the Romans and Vikings etc, I say again, none of us have ever said Britain was not invaded.Why you should say such a thing I don't know. As I say, best move on



Spot on Mitch. I can't answer for the French, and to be honest I couldn't care less right now, but I can speak for our country. The British still had determination, resilence and most of all defiance, most students of History fully accept the RAF won the Battle of Britain, like it or not facts is facts. As for what would have happened if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, I think you will find with the British producing aircraft at an increasing rate and the Germans losing far more aircraft and more importantly experienced crew it is by no means certain they would have beaten us, I know the determination this country had to win that Battle and win it we did. The fact that some may not like the reality is neither here nor there.

I remember jus recently I read a quote from a high ranking German officer after the War. Asked if Stalingrad was the beggining of the end for the Third Reich he replied 'No, the Battle of Britain was'. It was the first loss inflicted on Germany and the RAF did it.

Rob

Gee Rob, won't you at least concede that some of the other Allies might have assisted the RAF in winning the war?^&grin -- Al

 

[Rob]

Gee Rob, won't you at least concede that some of the other Allies might have assisted the RAF in winning the war?^&grin -- Al

Al my friend, please tell me that was a joke!^&grin

The war could not have been won without all the Allied Nations fighting together all over this world for final total victory. Our US friends and Allies Air force punched deep and hard into Germany day after day after day, they were superb.:salute:::salute:::salute:::salute:::salute::

Its just when it comes to the BOB it was the RAF's finest hour and any watering down of it is offensive to their memory and some of us over here are getting a little weary of it....rant over:wink2:^&grin:salute::

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Al...
I just think it may have taken a lot longer and cost more lives and material knowing where they were going to be was wider ranging than any sonar on ship or aircraft. I agree it must have taken some courage to have been on an oil tanker of ammunition ship travelling slow and knowing even if you survived the attack nobody may be able to pick you up.
Mitch

I also believe that the Enigma coup was one of the turning points, but I believe that the Atlantic was a won deal once the convoy system was perfected and, more importantly, once air cover was extended to total coverage. There was simply no place to hide for the U-boats once anti-sub hunting was made effective through the air and sea. Enigma, of course, was very instrumental in the U-boat defeat but I just don't think it was the most important factor. One factor I think is often overlooked is the fortitude of all the merchant sailors that continued doing their job even when the U-boats were at their most effective. Unsung heroes, all. -- Al

 

[Rutledge]

"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.

No doubt the French military has historically been among the top ranked when it comes to...fashion. They sure knew how to put a uniform together. Now whether that translates into being effective fighters....

Stereotypes exist because there is AT LEAST a kernal (or more) of truth in them. Modern politics is not really different at all than the politics of yore, it just may seem like it on the surface. Read some Johnathan Swift, for example. In any competition where there is a winner and a loser, people will do what they have to do.

Kids dont have the time or capacity to study a detailed hisory of the entire planet. There are approx. 170 countries today going back thousands of years. Somebody and/or some culture is going to be short-shifted. If we have to choose, Id say knowing our own US history is number one priority.

 

[lancer]

Al my friend, please tell me that was a joke!^&grin

The war could not have been won without all the Allied Nations fighting together all over this world for final total victory. Our US friends and Allies Air force punched deep and hard into Germany day after day after day, they were superb.:salute:::salute:::salute:::salute:::salute::

Its just when it comes to the BOB it was the RAF's finest hour and any watering down of it is offensive to their memory and some of us over here are getting a little weary of it....rant over:wink2:^&grin:salute::

Rob

Joke it was, I was just poking you in the ribs. Taking pride in the BoB victory should be required of all Brits.:salute:: It was the first stepping stone to final victory and deserves it's place at the top in the history of turning points. -- Al

 

[Rob]

Joke it was, I was just poking you in the ribs. Taking pride in the BoB victory should be required of all Brits.:salute:: It was the first stepping stone to final victory and deserves it's place at the top in the history of turning points. -- Al

Thank you Al, that is appreciated.Been a pleasure talking with you in recent days about this and WW1.

Rob

 

[lancer]

Al...
I just think it may have taken a lot longer and cost more lives and material knowing where they were going to be was wider ranging than any sonar on ship or aircraft. I agree it must have taken some courage to have been on an oil tanker of ammunition ship travelling slow and knowing even if you survived the attack nobody may be able to pick you up.
Mitch

Agreed, Mitch. I just love to get involved in the "what if" discussions that occur on this forum. It keeps my brain active.^&grin -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

I'll have to disagree with the statement just made by Rutledge: "If we have to choose, Id say knowing our own US history is number one priority."

The sign of a well rounded individual is knowing about many things and not just those about your own country. Perhaps my perspective is a little different than most as I was raised overseas and exposed to many and different things while I was growing up. Of course, to each his own, but I feel otherwise. In fact, that may be part of my trouble because I'm always looking for new and different things to read, which sometimes means that I could be reading about four or different topics at once.

 

[Rutledge]

I'll have to disagree with the statement just made by Rutledge: "If we have to choose, Id say knowing our own US history is number one priority."

The sign of a well rounded individual is knowing about many things and not just those about your own country. Perhaps my perspective is a little different than most as I was raised overseas and exposed to many and different things while I was growing up. Of course, to each his own, but I feel otherwise. In fact, that may be part of my trouble because I'm always looking for new and different things to read, which sometimes means that I could be reading about four or different topics at once.

I didnt say the rest of the world should be ignored. However I would expect every person in the world would be best served knowing the history of their OWN country above all others, and we in the US are no different. The same way I know the history of my family better than any other family. Its not arrogance or provincialism, its just common sense.

 

[lancer]

No doubt the French military has historically been among the top ranked when it comes to...fashion. They sure knew how to put a uniform together. Now whether that translates into being effective fighters....

Stereotypes exist because there is AT LEAST a kernal (or more) of truth in them. Modern politics is not really different at all than the politics of yore, it just may seem like it on the surface. Read some Johnathan Swift, for example. In any competition where there is a winner and a loser, people will do what they have to do.

Kids dont have the time or capacity to study a detailed hisory of the entire planet. There are approx. 170 countries today going back thousands of years. Somebody and/or some culture is going to be short-shifted. If we have to choose, Id say knowing our own US history is number one priority.

Ah, yes. The French and their uniforms. Take WW1 for example. The fashionable French went to war in uniforms more appropriate to the mid 19th century. Now, someone in the French military had realized that the blue and red uniforms were obsolete and the process of replacing the unis with something more appropriate had been going on for years, but because of politics, had made little headway. Different uniforms, some in green, others in grayish blue, had been tested and rejected for various reasons, including not looking French enough. The last uniform tested had been accepted, a weave of blue, white, and red thread. All was set to go into production when it was realized that the red thread was dyed with red color only available from Germany! Back to the drawing board, but war broke out and off went the French Army in their red pants, which according to some politicians, was essential to the spirit of the French Army. When the French finally got around to producing the famous Horizon Blue, it was essentially the same uniform that had been ok'd right prior to the war, but without the red thread. Even their Adrian helmet was designed with the French spirit in mind, as evidenced by the seperate crown that was added to the helmet. Ah, fashion. Gotta love it. -- Al

 

[jules118]

IMHO you read more into the posts than was intended.

I agree.

If Rob or anybody else thinks that because I suggested the English channel stopped the German advance it somehow diminished the valor and sacrifice made by the RAF then they're simply wrong.

But, Rob do you seriously believe that the English channel played no part in halting the advance, giving vital breathing space and preventing the airfields in Britain from being over run so that the RAF could perform as they did? If a ground war was being waged in Britain at the same time it would have been a different ball game altogether. The thing that stopped the continuing advance up until that point was the channel, not the RAF nor the British army. It was a large body of water.

But obviously something that we're going to have to agree to disagree on.

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

In response to the original question about France's fighting ability, I would have to agree with some of the points raised on the French military's leadership in WWI and WWII that lead to their defeat. However in response to recent conflicts, I would have to say I have absolutely no respect for their fighting capacity JMO. Now this may just sound like French "bashing", however it is based on my family's personal dealings with the French military during war. This would be my father who was a member of the 82nd Airborne Division and participated in Operation Just Cause (Invasion of Panama 1989) and Operations' Desert Shield and Desert Storm. During the Ground War in 1991, the 82nd Airborne Division, which is a light infantry division, was assigned to the French 10th Amored Division, the plan was to have the armor spearhead first and have the light infantry peform "mop up" operations of Iraqi Army left-overs. However, in the end the French decided it would be better for the infantry to go first against the Iraqi armor, this in my opinion shows little to no combat agressiveness/initiative, and IMO could have cost many American casualties had the war turned out differently. Once again, JMO and sorry for the long post!

Cheers!
Jake:salute::

 

[marco55]

Rob,
I have to agree with the others that nobody is downplaying what the RAF did.
Mark