Regarding the whole French “surrender monkeys” idiocy, that’s something that deserves a little reading of actual history.

World War II is of course the conflict that everyone thinks of when trotting out that stale canard, but who else surrendered in that war? Poland was first (if we don’t count how the British and Czechs backed down to Hitler without a shot), but ultimately what were the other countries that surrendered? Finland, Norway, Italy, several small Axis allies, Japan, and let’s not forget a champion surrenderer: Germany. (Germany surrendered twice in 27 years to abandon major wars; France surrendered once during the period, and then started fighting again. French forces made more than token contributions on the side of the US and the UK during WWII, but they initially refused to surrender to us in North Africa.)

And what about World War I? Who besides Germany surrendered? Russia and Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), and some smaller nations.

Returning to France, yes, they surrendered in World War II—after suffering close to twice the battle deaths in less than six weeks than the US did after in years in Vietnam—where we surrendered as well. (Okay, ours wasn’t a formal surrender, but in most ways it was more disgraceful because our population was far larger, our army wasn’t destroyed, and the country wasn’t on the verge of being destroyed; we just got tired, picked up our ball, and went home despite being points ahead.) And as in as much as several other countries also fought on the Republic of Vietnam’s side, it could be said that the Australians and the others also surrendered in that war. Plus, let’s not forget that the RVN surrendered formally—after we failed to honor our promises to them.

In Korea the US and other UN forces didn’t actually surrender, but we all said, “Okay, that’s enough; we’re going to stop trying to defeat the aggressors in this war”: not exactly worthy of parades down Broadway. The only difference between that and what happened in Vietnam was that we didn’t pull out, leaving South Korea to be overrun by the Communists.

More recently, the Soviet Union surrendered in Afghanistan, so that was twice in 72 years for Russians as compared with once for France during the period. If we include all of the twentieth century, Russia surrendered three times (first to Japan).

But what about Điện Biên Phủ, didn’t France surrender there? Yes, but that was a battle, not the war, and if we consider it a surrender, what about the Australians at Gallipoli, or the British at Dunkirk, or the US (again) in the Philippines, or the British (again) at Singapore, or countless other battles, big and small, that saw someone other than France surrendering? The Germans surrendered big time in North Africa and at Stalingrad in WWII. Individually, Russians, British, Italians, Germans, and other nationalities surrendered in droves during that conflict. The French did pull out of Vietnam—but in the same manner as virtually all the other colonial powers around the world. Those retreats were often in response to armed uprisings, and were at least de facto military surrenders as well.

Like it or not, the French got that rap for capitulating relatively quickly in the face of the German assault in 1940. Was it prudent? Probably. Does it justify decades of derision? Probably not. But them's the reasons, and life (and history) is not always fair.

They did give us a statue.

In all honesty they live on top of wildly contested land that has been fought over for centuries. We don’t so we have never really had that pleasure. All that aside, this is 2026 and the France of today would get their ass kicked by a strong wind.

They might not have deserved the pussy moniker in the past but they own it today.

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
Like it or not, the French got that rap for capitulating relatively quickly in the face of the German assault in 1940.

France held out for 6 weeks.


Poland surrended after 5 weeks.

Belgium surrendered after 18 days.

Yugoslavia surrendered after 11 days.

The Netherlands surrendered after 5 days.

Albania surrendered after 5 days.

And Denmark and Luxembourg each surrendered after just a few hours.

Yet none of these others retained a reputation for "quickly surrendering" like the French have.


The only Axis-conquered countries that held out longer than France were Norway at 2 months, partly due to the remote and hostile terrain in northern Norway, the Philippines at 5 months, mainly due to the final stubborn holdouts at Corregidor and Bataan, Ethiopia at 7 months, mostly due to Italian military ineptitude, and Greece at 7 months, again due to Italian military ineptitude.

France was also a much bigger country with a larger army than most of those others. You can debate all day long that it's not deserved, justified or fair, but it won't make the jokes stop.

Again with taking jokes literally and multi-paragraph spiels about how wrong they are. They're just jokes.

Putting aside the surrender jokes, how many military victories have they had since Napoleon ... who was a Corsican, not of the French mainland? (And even he was ultimately defeated.) Not zero, there may be a few random minor ones, but damn few.

I have no reason to defend the French in regards to anything, but there is a benefit to the Nation for the citizenry to understand a bit of history. And as for who would get their asses handed to them in a strong wind, that’s also something any responsible citizen should consider. It wouldn’t be only the French; how about the British, Germans, Italians, Spanish, and the small countries—and that’s just in Europe? Plus why would any country be declaring war on the French? Why not Luxemburg or Monaco or even the UK?

How about us? According to the poll results I could find with a brief search, anywhere from 20 to 41 percent of Americans say they would fight to defend the country. Although I didn’t find it now, it was reported some months ago that much of the percentage of those who wouldn’t fight are Democrat males.

The numbers I post at the bottom of my comments, 6 and 94, refer to the approximate number of current military veterans among American adults, and lest we forget, a lot of Vietnam era draftees who were forced into the armed forces are still among that 6%.

I admit that I was very surprised to see the surge in military recruitment after President Trump was reelected, and that made me reconsider my thoughts about how deep cultural rot had spread. But nevertheless if we don’t get our asses handed to us when the next serious war breaks out, it will be at least in part because a tiny percentage of a large number is more than a significant percentage of a small number.

And oh, yes: The usual “They’re only jokes” defense of the nonsense. Someone opens a thread about a serious topic and the jokesters who don’t have anything else to contribute must attract attention to themselves with a puerile joke. We’re supposed to criticize people who post nested quotes or quote long previous comments because of their effect on the flow and availability of useful information, but a dozen posts of absolute nonsense are okay because jokes are somehow superior to meaningful content.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
Putting aside the surrender jokes, how many military victories have they had since Napoleon ... who was a Corsican, not of the French mainland? (And even he was ultimately defeated.) Not zero, there may be a few random minor ones, but damn few.

Are we talking victorious battles, campaigns, or wars?

Since the Napoleonic Wars, they won the Franco-Austrian War and the Franco-Mexican War, and contributed alongside their allies to winning the Crimean War, WW1, and WW2.

They participated in a number of successful foreign interventions and colonial battles in the mid to late 1800s in places like Belgium, Spain, Greece, Mexico, China, and various places in Africa, including successfully conquering Algeria.

Post-WW2, they also participated in quite a few successful interventions in French colonies or former colonies in Africa fighting rebel groups or Islamic terrorist groups, as well as the Suez Crisis, and were a part of several UN deployments including the Korean War, the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, the UN intervention in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Even during the wars which they lost, like the Algerian War, Franco-Prussian War, and First Indochina War, there were military victories during some battles within them.

So if we're talking victorious battles specifically, there's a long list of victories chalked up since the early 1800s. Too long to list here. Well more than "a few random minor ones".

Even if we just look at successful wars/campaigns/interventions, there's more than one or two, and they won more than they lost.

France's military history is long, storied, and amounts to much more than just "mumble mumble 1940 German Blitzkrieg mumble mumble Dien Bien Phu".


Here's a good place to start. Scroll down to post-1815, and look for the bright green: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...14/1815%E2%80%931830)

The ruin of their reputation is overdone, agreed.

That said, the French sat on their butts facing a small fraction of the German Army while watching their Polish allies get overrun (Google "Sitzkreig" and/or 'Phoney War').

Then, despite having a larger army and more tanks than the Germans, after having sat around for months, then blundered epically in reacting (or, rather not reacting) to the German attacks in the Low Countries (feint, but strong feint) and then the major thrust through the Ardennes. After Dunkirk, the German second offensives didn't take long to wrap things up.

I don't have figures handy and I don't know this author but this link seems to show numbers that seem to fit my off-hand recollection:

"The French and German Armies in 1940: A Comparison of Strength and Strategy"

quote:

Comparison of Military Strengths
Infantry and Manpower
France: At the start of the German invasion in May 1940, France had approximately 2.2 million soldiers deployed in northeastern France and Belgium, with a total mobilization of nearly 5 million troops across the country. The French Army was supported by units from Britain and Belgium.

Germany: The German military had about 3.3 million soldiers available for the Western Front, with 141 divisions, of which 93 were committed to the French campaign. While Germany had fewer men on the ground in the initial stages, their forces were highly concentrated in key sectors and supported by an efficient reserve system.

Tanks and Armored Vehicles
France: The French Army had around 3,200 tanks, including the formidable Char B1 and Somua S35, both of which were superior in armor and firepower to most German tanks. However, many of these tanks were dispersed among infantry units rather than concentrated for offensive action.
Germany: The German Wehrmacht fielded approximately 2,500 tanks, including the Panzer I, II, III, and IV. While individually weaker than many French tanks, German armor was used in concentrated Panzer divisions to maximize mobility and firepower. The Germans also employed superior tactics that emphasized speed, coordination, and combined arms operations.

So...France 1940: 5M French troops, plus Belgium, Dutch, and English allies (much smaller armies) vs 3.3M Germans. 3200 French tanks vs 2500. A complex series of French fortifications along (part of) the border into the bargain. And yet, a few weeks later, after the second phase post Dunkirk there was no effective force stopping German troops from going wherever they wanted to, within their logistical limits, and so the French sued for peace.

Offhand, I'm hard pressed to come up with a similar example of complete military collapse of a major country's defense of their homeland in so short a timeframe, possessing a larger force at the start of the contest. Does anyone have any nominations?

They were (and are) way better than that...anyone can make a mistake. They blundered epically then - it cost them and they paid the price.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
Offhand, I'm hard pressed to come up with a similar example of complete military collapse of a major country's defense of their homeland in so short a timeframe, possessing a larger force at the start of the contest. Does anyone have any nominations?

Perhaps the collapse of the Afghan forces against the Taliban in 2021?

Or the collapse of South Vietnam in 1975? They had the 4th largest army in the world, at least on paper, but still utterly collapsed against the smaller PAVN/VC forces during their Spring Offensive that lasted just ~4 months.

Though neither are arguably "major countries".


If we focus on WW2, the Soviet Union in 1941 comes to mind first, though it's an imperfect comparison since it wasn't a complete collapse and they eventually prevailed.

Still a shocking collapse in the first 5 months or so before the onset of winter, with massive losses of men and territory.

But unlike France, the Soviets just had the benefit of much more territory they could afford to cede and men they could afford to lose, while they worked to regroup/rearm/rebuild further to the east.

They lost nearly 4 million men in 1941, almost the same amount as the size of the Axis force against them (and yet they still ended up fielding 11 million soldiers by the end of the following year).


On the smaller scale, while it didn't involve the collapse of a country's homeland, the Japanese conquest of Malaya and Singapore was a shocking victory in ~9 weeks against a much larger defending British Commonwealth force by a noticeably smaller Japanese force.

This is probably a fair(er) assessment: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pm...tingSurrenderMonkeys (Don't let the title fool you; it only refers to the trope. Also, the site is full of ads.)

After the WWII surrender, yes, the resistance fought bravely and many lost their lives, but the Germans found no shortage of collaborators, who actively participated in the Holocaust, either. And we did most of the heavy lifting liberating them. So forgive me if I don't give a popcorn fart in a tornado about what anyone thinks of the "pu-u-u-e-rile" jokes.

We are all on the same team. But in this case, not only are we not on the same page of the playbook, we aren't even using the same playbook.

Some years ago, it was my privilege to get to know a bona fide female member of the WWII French Underground. She had been there and done that. She showed me a small tattoo of the Cross of Lorraine she got after the war to remind her of her friends who were killed during the war. No surrender in her.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
After the WWII surrender ....

What? So perhaps the subject is worthy of serious insight and discussion rather than clueless stale jokes posted by the Internet equivalent of sixth-grade class clowns saying, “Look at me, look at me; I’m funny”?

Thank you. Perhaps there’s hope after all.

Without the French, there is no United States, or, it would have been very difficult to defeat the British.

One could say without the French, we'd be speaking the Kings English and a part of the British Empire.....


From the internet to keep it short:

France was essential to the American victory in the Revolutionary War, providing critical,, military and financial support. Without French assistance—including 12,000 soldiers, 32,000 sailors, significant funding, and weapons—it is doubtful the colonies could have defeated Britain. Key aid included the 1778 Alliance, crucial naval support, and expertise.

Key contributions included:

Military Aid: Over 12,000 troops and 32,000 sailors, along with crucial leadership (e.g., Lafayette).

Naval Power: The French Navy was critical, especially at the Battle of Yorktown, where they prevented British reinforcement.

Financial & Material Support: France provided roughly 1.3 billion livres in cash and credit, as well as essential weapons, gunpowder, and uniforms.

Diplomatic Recognition: The 1778 treaty recognized the U.S. as an independent nation, boosting legitimacy.

This intervention, aimed at weakening British global power, proved decisive to the American success

Absolutely. Also true is the United States has repaid that debt multiple times over.

Without the United States, there would be no France - twice in the same century.

I think part of the reason for the surrender jokes lasting generations is that they geared up to fight WW1 (i.e. trenchwarfare, maginot line, etc) not WW2, surrendered in 6-weeks, the Vichy, AND Charles de Gaulle's behavior both while in exile and after WW2.

The Vichy factor also plays a part in how many Nazi collaborators there were. The British cities (e.g. London) got the shit bombed out of them by the Nazis, but kept the stiff British upper lip and didn't give in to the Nazis. The French surrendered without Paris getting the shit bombed out of it and initially Petain's Vichy government was popular with the majority of the French people.

When thinking of how many generations this has lasted, I think you have to credit Charles de Gaulle's behavior drawing the ire of both the US and UK:

He acted like a spoiled, petulant child his 4 years in exile. Insisted on using French codes even though they were easily broken so we couldn't trust him with sensitive information. He wouldn't/couldn't behave like the JV player that he was so they refused to allow him to attend Yalta or Potsdam conferences.

His behavior in exile was so bad that the US and UK tried to get him replaced as the leader of France by Henri Giraud.

After WW2 de Gaulle continued to have resentment towards the US and his abrasive behavior continued in diplomatic circles the 14 years he was leader and often had absolute power in France.

He even withdrew from NATO to have more control over the nuclear arsenal we gave them. They made it clear so they could point the nukes towards other countries besides Russia.

De Gaulle wasn't liked by the Allies and the French kept electing him so it helped cement the stereotype even though other European countries collapsed faster than France in WW2.

---

Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Without the United States, there would be no France - twice in the same century.

In WW2, undoubtedly.

However, WW1 isn't so cut and dried. America's military contributions in WW1 certainly sped up the end of the war, and their economic contributions helped bolster the flagging Allies, but it wasn't so decisive as our WW2 intervention.

Realistically, by the time significant American military contributions began in mid-1918, France was very unlikely to be defeated anyway. Germany was utterly spent.

The factors that led to the Allied victory in WW1 were already present prior to American entry, just a bit less certain and on a slower time table. Germany was on its last legs already. (As were the Allies, but still in slightly better shape, comparatively.)

Keep in mind that while America joined the war in April 1917, American troops didn't arrive at the front in large numbers and begin to make significant contributions in battle until May 1918, just 6 months before the war ended. America in 1917 had a tiny military (only ~125,000 servicemen) that had to be bulked out with massive new mobilizations of millions of new troops, all these new troops had to be trained, and war production had to be spun up so they could be equipped, all before they could ever be shipped overseas and employed in the field. That took an entire year before American troops had arrived in enough numbers to begin to make significant contributions.

Germany had already expended the very last of their remaining strength in their failed 1918 Spring Offensive, which began months beforehand and only really involved American troops at the very tail end. Germany was outnumbered and exhausted (though occupying mainly decent defensive positions), their military and civilian morale had collapsed, their allies the Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians were collapsing (and realistically had been on shaky footing from the start needing to be propped up by Germany), and the German home front was exhausted and already in shambles due to starvation (both nutritional and economic) from the years-long Allied blockade, as well as dealing with the usual German struggles with lack of manpower, production capability, and raw materials for sustained fighting over multi-year engagements. (Also a major factor in WW2, after the initial quick victories of 1939-1941.)

Germany knew from before the start of WW1 that they were not going to be able to sustain a prolonged war, hence their gamble on their long-shot "Hail Mary" Schlieffen Plan with hopes for a quick and decisive victory over France, which ultimately wasn't successful in WW1 and only became a realistic proposal in WW2.

So even without American intervention in WW1, Germany would still have lost, or at least not won. By the time of American entry it no longer had the capability to defeat France and Britain. It just would have taken a year or so longer to conclude, as the stalemate dragged on between the two exhausted sides, with Germany sitting on the defensive for a bit longer and potentially ending up in a slightly better bargaining position for a negotiated peace, compared to their final near-rout and clear defeat that left them in no position to bargain for anything.


And funnily enough, without that clear defeat, its resulting harsh terms, and its effects on the political and economic situation in Germany over the subsequent 20 years, there very likely would not have been a WW2 in Europe... Thus if America had not entered WW1, and the war had ended in 1919 or 1920 with a more balanced negotiated peace, France wouldn't have needed the US to save them in WW2 either.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RogueJSK,

^^^^^ And then the little corporal from Austria showed his ass and the rest is history.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

...He even withdrew from NATO to have more control over the nuclear arsenal we gave them...

I'm certain the US took our nukes (allotted for use by NATO partners) when DeGaulle kicked us out.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Without the United States, there would be no France - twice in the same century.

In WW2, undoubtedly.

However, WW1 isn't so cut and dried.

...

A whole lot of coulda-shoulda-woulda... maybe... what if... etc. Nobody knows what might have happened, but history tells us what did happen.