Brief history, with scores and commentary, of French Warfare.

did a post search and did not find this particular topic…it might end up in the pit…
(I am not the original author, but admit to finding this humorous.)

Gallic Wars – Lost.
In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2,000 years of French history, France is conquered by, of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War –
Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who Inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare: “France’s armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman.”

Italian Wars – Lost.
France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion –
France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

Thirty Years War –
France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution – Tied.
Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War – Tied.

War of the Augsburg League / King William’s War / French and Indian War –
Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Francophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

War of the Spanish Succession – Lost.
The war also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

American Revolution –
In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as “de Gaulle Syndrome,” and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: “France only wins when America does most of the fighting.”

French Revolution –
Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars – Lost.
Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War – Lost.
Germany first plays the role of drunk frat boy to France’s ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

World War I –
Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it’s like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn’t call her “Fraulein.” Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II – Lost.
Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel song.

War in Indochina – Lost.
French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.

Algerian Rebellion – Lost.
Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: “We can always beat the French.” This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

War on Terrorism –
France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald’s. The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not
Be: “Can we count on the French?” but, rather, “How long until France collapses?”

Dumb and jingoistic. French troops were in Afghanistan. And to top it off, you ripped and posted the entirety of a piece you didn’t even write, with no attribution.


look at first two lines…

I did indeed state that it was NOT my piece.

BRAVO to you.

Yeah, I think I see the reason why no one had posted it before you.

And I’d bet on the Pit too, but probably not for the same reasons you were thinking of…

Should have posted it there first.

would a Mod kindly fling this into the pit?

What cracks me up is that even though the French got their asses kicked in WWII, they somehow still act like they won!

Read a little bit more about the First World War. France had more troops fighting than either the English or the tardy Americans.

Anglo-French forces would have won with or without the US, who never fought a major offensive by themselves.

The US contribution to the War was largly an economic one.

Also go do a bit of reading about the Free French and the French Resistance before you run down the French in WWII.

But the Free French and French Resistance couldn’t have just liberated France on their own.

I suggest you bone up on your history, as you obviously know nothing about what actually happened. Without U.S. troops, the allies would have been swept from the field by the influx of German troops from the eastern front after Russia bowed out of the war.

And I am quite confident the war would long have been over had France not fought it from 1914 on. Honestly, what a stupid comment. The French fought plenty hard in that war, and they did stop the Germans. The American contribution was nice, but hardly comparable to the French and Commonweath troops holding the Germans back for three frickin’ years. What do you think they were doing, playing euchre?

And am I the only one who remembers that the reason they named the Napoleonic Wars AFTER THE FRENCH COMMANDER is that France won most of those wars, and was beaten only after a decade of total dominance, by an alliance of all the rest of the military powers in Europe?

Considering France’s alleged incompetence, you do have to explain how it is that the country is still around. If they’re so dumb, why haven’t they gone the way of Prussia or the Austro-Hungarian Empire?

And by 1917, both sides were very close to collapse, the smart money was on Germany to triumph because they had fresh reserves of troops no longer needed to fight Russia while France and England were fully committed in the West. U.S. troops made the difference in blunting the impact of these troops and the collapse of Germany followed shortly. The question isn’t “What had gone before” it’s 'What happens without U.S. intervention at that point in the war?", and the answer is likely a German victory.

The German offensive of April 1918 failed, used up pretty much all of their remaining reserves and with it sealed their fate. All before any significant American presence in Europe.

You must be thinking of a different WWI than the rest of us. Nobody was “swept” anywhere during that war. Germany might have tipped the balance with the troops from the Eastern Front, but they were hardly fresh troops.

Interesting. Pull 4 words from a statement that says IF xxx happened, then xxx"swept from the field", and claim that the statement is wrong. Meaningless, but interesting.

France won the Thirty Years war and did so well that they continued to fight Spain ten years after the peace of Westphelia (1646). Most of the war was faught in Germany, not France. It was a massive defeat of the Spanish Habsburgs and the end of Spain as the dominant world power. - Won.

King Philip V was still king of Spain after the war, and that was what France was fighting for wasn’t it? Sure Marlborough handed them their arse for most of the war, but France rebounded in1712 with some victories after Marlborough was removed and faught the war to a stalemate. - Tie.

So I didn’t copy/paste your whole post, and that means I have no point? Okay.

My point, which you fail to address, is that WWI was defense-dominant. Offensives, even with marked numerical superiority, were almost all dismal failures. In 4 years of intense fighting, the amount of land that actually traded hands was virtually insignificant. Germany’s eastern troops were unlikely to have produced a war-winning offensive, for the same reason that the Battle of the Somme didn’t result in the German troops being “swept from the field.”


I’ll try once more, using small words.

I know nobody was “swept from the field” on the battlefields WWI, it was simply a poetic phrase for losing the war- or don’t you agree that the Treaty of Versailles “Swept Germany from the field of battle”?

Second, one side or the other was going to crack in 1918, neither had the resources to continue fighting much longer. American intervention ensured that it was Germany that cracked, not the allies. Fight the war over 10 times without it (U.S. intervention) and Germany wins 8 of them.

Actually, I’d guess that Germany wins 2 of them. The Allies win 1, and the other 7 end in a negotiated peace. Which, actually, would have been preferable to the Treaty of Versailles, given what we know now about the effects that had.

I’m tired right now and busy tomorrow. However if anyone insists, this entire silly list can be dissected piece by piece without great difficulty and I’d be happy to do so Monday or Tuesday. Needless to say it is mostly ahistorical exaggerations and half-truths.

However, I’m hoping nobody would take this kind of crap seriously in the first place.

  • Tamerlane

WWI was a war of attrition. America’s contribution to victory was simply joining the war, thereby making available millions of extra troops. Germany recognized this, and launched the spring 1918 offensive as a do-or-die effort to achieve victory before the US military could get significantly involved. They failed.