Why not Wellington? He defeated Napoleon. Surely he’s a better leader.
I think the concept arose considerably after WWII, after the French government refused to toe the line on U.S. military policy, pulling out of NATO, making planes fly around France to get to Libya, etc. I think post-WWII, Amero-French feelings were quite warm. It’s only when France began to assert itself as a sovereign state that certain quarters of American society started pulling the “you owe us gratitude line” which then led to the concept of cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
As for the surrender-monkey thing, I think it’s originally British. The monkey part probably refers to the legend of the Hartlepool Monkey, allegedly hanged as a French spy. And the surrender part comes from various British victories over the French, at Agincourt, and at Waterloo, and others.
Really? Come on - American high schools aren’t that bad. I can’t imagine anyone with a high school diploma being unaware that Napolean came to power by first collaborating with (and then betraying) the Revolution, had himself crowned Emperor of France, and cut a swathe through Europe. I mean, hell, this is one reason we had the War of 1812.
Really? What do they think he was? Corsican, or something?
They’re not entirely sure who or what he is, other than an extravagantly dressed short man with his hand stuck into his jacket. I’m sure some significant portion of people think he was a Roman emperor.
“The trouble with the French economy is that they don’t even have a word for 'entrepreneur” " - GWB (Not actually a real quote, but too spot-on funny not to repeat.)
I’m not sure how much european history Americans absorb in high school. The problem is that the French were steamrolled in 1940 - basically the old saw about always being ready to fight the last war, not the current one. The allies were glad to prop up de Gaulle and pretend that he was part of their group, but in reality the French were not 100% resistance fighters until after the liberation when suddenly everyone was. De Gaulle tried to ignore the humiliation and pretend that France was on par with the USA and Britain who had fought and become modern powers through WWII. Hence the touchiness about their military, which we saw in the Pacific atomic bomb tests and sinking the Greenpeace ship, and the overwhelming pretentiousness that does not befit a second-rate power. They thought more highly of themselves than others did. One joke was that when de Gaulle was presented with the plans for his tomb, he said “that’s a lot of money to spend for only 3 days…”
However, standing up to GWB and his steamroller diplomacy is what set off the recent round of Freedom Fries stupidity, mainly in the USA.
To be fair, it was the fault of the Soviet advisers, who told the Egyptians to use the strategy that always worked for them: draw the enemy deep into your own territory and wait for winter.
Just a minor correction but the French had plenty of time to mobilise, commencing in September 1939. Following a (very) minor advance into the Saar region, the French and British forces took a very cautious approach and stayed put through to May 1940. This ‘Sitzkrieg’ or ‘Phoney War’ was ended by the German invasion of Belgium and France with France falling in six weeks.
In relation to WW1, while I put the link in post #36 to clarify the French sacrifice, if we also consider the Italian combined military and civilian dead in WW1 . . . . it’s pretty extraordinary.
Well, I don’t have a historical reference, but…
Specifically referring to the movie quote, I believe “Cowboy” was making a common disparaging remark about the quality of American Marines vs. the ARVN soldiers. The belief being that Marines were better trained and more effective combat fighters than the enemy, no matter who the enemy was. So the Marines were better and quicker in an offensive maneuver such that the Marines would be able to ID the enemy faster and engage them with deadly force. The Marines were able to kill an ARVN soldier before he knew what hit them. Hence, their rifles were never fired and only dropped once when they were killed.
That’s all I’ve got. No facts, no historical reference, but I’m just looking at it from the “typical” high opinion that most American fighting members have about their abilities. There’s a lot of pride about being in the American military, but there’s a lot more pride about being a US Marine.
…And I don’t have any problem with that. 
Most of the Marines I trained with were pretty bad-ass mofos.
Uhhhhh . . . I hope there wasn’t a lot of this going on. The ARVN was who the U.S. was there to support. They do seem to have acquired the reputation for being battle shy, badly led, demoralized. But I hope the jarheads weren’t going quite that far in exasperation . . . .
The first time I heard the joke referenced in the OP, it was about Italian army rifles.
Here’s a pretty comprehensive debunking of broad slanders on French military prowess.
http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7061&IBLOCK_ID=35
The French have fought A LOT of wars over time and have won enough of them still to be around. Even today their military, line and elite forces, is among the strongest in the world.
The slander on Italian cowardice and military ineptitude is a lot easier to defend.
This took place in June, mind you. I’d imagine many of the missing men took, er, French leave.
Oh, I forgot to mention that Dienbienphu and Algeria didn’t help matters. Dienbienphu was the first time a traditional Western military power had lost to an insurgent force (I think), and it was little Asian guys in pajamas. Algeria was also asymmetric warfare (which frankly no one other than the Brits in Malaya seems to have a great answer to). And the French IIRC fought pretty hard (read, some would say, brutally) before bugging out there (they did bug out really quickly after Dienbienphu). Suffice to say that from June 1940 on the French military hasn’t engaged in any major operation that covered them in glory. Brits, Russians, Germans, Americans all have had at least one signal success in that time.
With his hand in his pocket.
Not counting the American Revolution? 
As it happens, I just read Richard Ketchum’s very good Victory at Yorktown, and he makes it clear that Washington couldn’t have won without French money, (temporary) naval superiority and land forces. The French fought hard alongside us then. We should still be grateful to them for helping us win our independence… but more recent memories of their scary-fast WWII collapse, Vichy France, Algeria, Dienbienphu, de Gaulle’s imperiousness, Gulf War II uncooperativeness, etc. have cancelled that out, and then some.
[QUOTE=Huerta88;12801961Uhhhhh . . . I hope there wasn’t a lot of this going on. The ARVN was who the U.S. was there to support. They do seem to have acquired the reputation for being battle shy, badly led, demoralized. But I hope the jarheads weren’t going quite that far in exasperation . . . .[/QUOTE]
Oops… I copied this wrong. I meant to say “they would kill an enemy…”
I got this wrong. But I hope I made my point. The Marines were just being Marines. Any hope the screenwriters got it wrong? Is that a blooper?