The French

Factual Questions
21

clairobscur quoted;
the UK has not exactly been considered as a significant military power during most of its history.
I wonder which history books you read?
Facts are much more important than quotes, whilst it was a combination of armies that defeated the german army in ww1 it was the british navy that controlled the sea.

Whilst I agree that using the napoleonic land wars was maybe not a good example, at sea well it was a different matter.
The original post which stated"Prior to WWI, the French were still considered the warrior race of Europe" my point was that I`m supprised anyone thought that.

You have to think about the times before and after napoleon

Do you agree with the points above, if not I will be happy to read facts (as oposed to quotes) to support your viewpoint.

Also why state "Apart from the rest of your jingoistic post "??
I`m not anti french or american, I just find in suprising that people generally seem to forget the influence that britain has had in the past, and is never likelly to have again.
Howard

22

As far as Waterloo is concerned, there is a fair argument based on the facts that what the Duke of Wellington did was hold off the French from early afternoon until early evening when the Prussians came in on the French flank and rear and pulled Wellington’s chestnuts out of the fire. Wellingtons army was largely made up of Belgian and Dutch and German troops. Wellington took up a defensive position and was nearly overrun by the French who chose to attack frontally because the approach of the Prussians did not allow enough time to maneuver. Spare me flag waiving about Wellington’s victory. Give Blucher a little credit.

Petain was caught in a terrible position after the Blitzkrieg of 1940. To his own lights he acted to save as much of France from German occupation as could be saved. One of his aids said that his problem was that he loved the French too much and France not enough. The poor old man was tried and convicted of treason and (I think) died in prison. Petain was made the scape goat for France’s humiliation. Laval was executed after the war for being the Nazi stooge he was. See also Quisling in Norway.

While the Napoleonic wars were bad news for the French navy, I know of no example of French cowardice and plenty of remarkable gallantry and resolution under the worst of circumstances-as the French captain who had both legs torn off by cannon fire at Trafalgar and who had his crew set him in a tub of brand so that he could remain on his quarter deck and fight his ship until he bled to death.

23

Quote:
Perhaps you enjoy the concept that the UK “beat the crap out of Napoleon”, but you’re living in your own imaginary world if you believe so.

I never said that, however now that you mentioned it did napoleon beat wellington or nelson?

Quote
And if said war has nothing to do with the master warrior race of Europe, then what has the respective sizes of the British and French Empires to do with this burning question?

The original thread stated that “Prior to WWI, the French were still considered the warrior race of Europe”
So pointing out the size of the respective empires is a great indicator as to should be considered “the warrior race of europe before ww1”
If you have a better way to compare both countries “warrior capabilities before ww1”…

However in todays world it is not that important and after all its only a viewpoint.
Howard
NB. P Coyote you can contrinue breathing now

24

Hmmm, odd stuff, here.

Did the hamsters swallow my post?

25

Provided that you don’t consider Spain and Portugal to be part of the European mainland, I suppose that’s right. Buonaparte had certainly lost his grip on the Iberian Peninsula long before his suicidal attack on Russia.

Regards,
Agback

26

Apparently.

OK, regarding the OP:

There are two aspects of the “French surrender” bit in American humor:

The first is that the joke indicates a willingness to surrender, without a claim of cowardice. I realize that this seems odd (and there may be persons who have come late to the joke who do consider it an accusation of cowardice), however, the joke is never told so that the French run away from a/the fight. It is always a one-liner that faced with aggression, (from Liechtenstein or a six-year-old with a slingshot), the French nation will surrender. So I suspect that there is not some broadly held belief among Americans that the French are cowards.

The second is that this seems to be a fairly recent joke. (In fact, I would be curious as to what movie or commedian got this one rolling.) When I was growing up and through most of my adult life, the references I heard to the 1940 surrender nearly all attributed it to treason or some other despicable act by a few members of the French government (with dark references to records sealed for 99 years and the abrupt collapse of the basically intact French army who many felt could have made a stand along the Marne and Seine despite the flanking of the Maginot line except that they were told to surrender). I never heard the one-liners in which France surrendered to border guards or small children until some time in the 1990s.

Other points:

The colonial army at Bunker Hill got their butts kicked. They put up a good show, but they lost. (In fact, the claims that they were driven out by a lack of ammunition seem to have been based on some self-serving reports by some of the officers present. The diaries and letters of the defenders speak of being overrun by well-trained troops with no mention of a lack of ammunition.)

It is good to see that we Yanks don’t have a monoploy on narcissistic views of history pushing out actual knowledge.

As noted, Wellington did not lead the British Army to triumph over the French. (I will give him all the credit he deserves for his victories, but all of his significant commands were of coalition forces, not some fierce British war machine.)

As to the comparison of empires: the British and French set quite different priorities in creating their respective empires; most of the British Empire was acquired as empire only in the 19th century; and much of the British empire was the result of parlaying small victories into major land grabs, especially in Canada, India, and Africa, rather than simply overwhelming the entire world with red uniforms. (I am not dismissing the accomplishment–only pointing out that it did not result from sheer military might.)

In addition, France always maintained a significant army on the continent, while Britain depended on the navy to make a large self-defense army unnecessary.

I would not have labeled the French the “warrior race” and I might have ended the period in 1870 instead of at WWI, but France certainly maintained the largest, best trained, best outfitted, and most effective army in Europe for many more than 200 years prior to their defeat in 1870–and they did not roll over in August 1914, either. (The loss of the Napoleanic adventures was against the combined might of every other European power, with their only single-army defeat against the coalition of Russian troops and Russian winter.)

27

Sure. That is was Wellington’s plan, and it worked. Wellington would not have put his chestnuts in the fire if the Prussians had not been available. He had been in contact with Blücher since Ligny/Quatre Bras, he knew the situation, and he knew his ally’s intentions. (Whereas Napoléon relied on fantasy for his intelligence, and blithely assumed that the Prussians had fled east in rout. Recall that he ordered Grouchy to go east, maintaining contact with the Prussians, though the Prussians were in fact to Grouchy’s north.)

Blücher did a fantastic job after the Prussians got mauled at Ligny. Buonaparte was convinced that they must run for the Rhine (as is shown by his fatal order of Grouchy). But Blücher, despite his age and obesity, and despite having been unhorsed and ridden over by a squadron of cavalry, managed to pull them away north rather than east, so that Wellington, by falling back from Quatre Bras to Waterloo, was able to keep in contact with his allies. And Blücher got the Prussians regrouped and back into the fight in amazingly quick time.

Anyway, the point is that you can’t judge the tactics in isolation, and treat strategic events as gods out of the box. The Prussians came on at the end of the day at Waterloo, not by an unforseen miracle, but as a result of Wellington’s strategically outmanoeuvring Buonaparte.

You are right, too, that the Dutch-Belgians beefed up the British troops at Waterloo. But on the other hand, the British didn’t have their whole army at Waterloo. The best field troops, including most of Wellington’s Peninsula veterans, were off fighting another war (and getting their arses kicked by Andrew Jackson).

Regards,
Agback

28

That’s not entirely clear. There was some strange stuff going on in France after the war, and the winners got to re-write the history of what happened in France during the war.

I suggest that you try to find and read the wartime memoirs of Laval’s son-in-law, Pierre de Chambrun (“Mission and Betrayal 1940-1945”, ISBN 0-233-98835-1). The account of Chambrun’s farcical prosecution for collaboration casts some doubt on Laval’s prosecution.

In a similar vein, I don’t think that Mikhailovich was necessarily the collaborator Tito convicted him of being, either.

Regards,
Agback

29

I do not recall ever hearing an American refer to the French as cowards. There are three other statements about France that I do hear:

[ul]The French are ungrateful .[/ul]
[ul]The French don’t like Americans[/ul]
[ul]The French are rude.[/ul]

I have found it more helpful in life to avoid thinking in generalities and stereotypes.

30

Well, the Simpsons episode (‘Round Springfield) where Groundskeeper Willie calls them "cheese-eatin’ surrender monkeys" first aired in April 1995. Can anyone pull a media reference prior to that time? Probably yes, but there’s a starting point for everyone.

-fh

31

Before The Simpsons, Married With Children also made frequent jokes about the French, frequently referring to cowardice.

32

Look, the fact that there even is a France is an amazing thing. It’s geographically protected only on two of its five-or-more sides, and its territory is some of the most contested (and best recorded) in the last two thousand years.

France didn’t remain France by rolling over for just anyone. In fact, the military history of the Western world resounds with the names of French or heavily French-influenced fighters and thinkers: Jomini, Ardant du Picq, Vauban, Turenne, and Napoleon.

These days, you don’t hear about such things as the fact that it took the entirety of Europe several tries and two full decades to bring down France after the Revolution. It’s rarely mentioned that in the Crimean War the Russians studiously concentrated their attacks against the British troops because the French were simply too disciplined and professional to tangle with.

We tend to forget that France shouldered a huge proportion of the fighting in the First World War, suffering over sixteen times the casualties of the United States. In the introduction of his book The Second World War, John Keegan suggests that the combination of the massive deaths suffered in the First World War along with the birth control techniques learned from Eastern Europe during the time of Napoleon may have been the two most important contributing factors which allowed Germany to finally field larger armies than the French prior to WWII–that’s a hard result of centuries of fighting.

Today France remains one of the few nations which insists on outfitting its armed forces almost exclusively with equipment of its own design and manufacture, and it’s very good. They have just about everything we have from nukes to spy sattelites to aircraft carriers and boomers.

These guys are creative, professional, and dedicated military students, and their borders have been in almost constant danger for a thousand years before the United States was a gleam in Tom Paine’s eye. They’re badasses of the first echelon, and pithy dismissals of their courage and ingenuity will just as likely as not lead to a severe lesson in humiliation. Forget that tradition at your peril, no matter who you are. I for one am glad they’re my friends, because they can be the most dangerous of enemies.

33

That summarises my own perception of this pretty well.

I can recall visiting American standups using the “French = surrenderers” line as far back as the early '90s, but they seemed to be the ones who didn’t have any good material and were looking for a cheap laugh from a British audience assuming it must be common ground. The same guys would repeat the tired “language difference” gags we’ve heard a million times, and “what is it with mind the gap thing on the tube?” etc. etc. If the audience were feeling charitable they’d laugh because it was the appropriate response, not because it was a commonly held view over here already.

It always surprises and disappoints me how much French-bashing goes on even on the SDMB, and it’s encouraging to read some opposing points of view in this thread.

I can’t give cites because they’re not the sort of comics that stick in the memory, or that have been recorded on the web. Unfortunately, I’ve even heard it from (younger) British comics too recently, but only those that don’t have any good material of their own.

34

I refered to the napoleonic wars because you were boasting about them and about the way the british apparently won them single-handedly, while actually they were a participant of second importance. And also, I must say, because I think the importance of Britain during these wars, and more generally during most of european history tends to be overrated not only by the Britons, which is quite logical, but also apparently by the american public who has a very UK-centered view of European history.

Depends on the period. Until the mid-XVII° century, the UK wasn’t a major naval power. During the second part of this century, the British navy was roughly on par with the Dutch and French navies. It’s not until the XVIII° century that it became the most powerful navy in Europe (The Dutch were ousted of the race for domination and the french, for obvious reasons had mlore interest in the army. The king Louis XIV in particular is reputated for his total lack of interest in it) . And even then, it was not an overwhelming domination. For instance, the british fleet couldn’t prevent the french fleet to opearate during the American Independance war. It’s only during the XIX° century that the UK “ruled the waves”.

And yes, sure, the UK’s navy reputation has been great during these 300 years. Which is quite logical given their situation. They needed fleets to protect their boundaries, not armies, contrarily to all the other european powers. But the reputation of the british army wasn’t that great during most of european history, and even until the XX° century and the two WW.

Who was considered as a “warrior race” was certainly dependant on the period considered. Maybe french have been considered that way at some point, possibly during/after the republic and napoleonic wars. During the XVIII° century, the Prussians were certainly considered as the “warrior race”, or at least as the most fierce and efficient soldiers. Their military achievments when facing dreadful odds were spectacular. During the first part of the XVI° century, the spanish “Tercios” were feared all over Europe. Etc…

I do. And in the grand scheme of things, the British army has not usually been considered as a mighty opponent, and actually has quite rarely be actively involved in european wars. The policy of the British kings was usually the famous “balance of powers”, and they were more prone to offer subsides, for instance, than to send troops overseas. The time of glory for the UK was essentially the XIX° century (and due to her industrial advance, her importance in trade, her empire and her navy, not to her army). Before that, the UK was an important player, but by no means a dominating one. And before the XVII° century, only a country of secondary importance. After the XIX° century, the UK was obviously eclipsed by the US.

I wasn’t refering to an anti french or anti-american stance, but to your shameless and misguided boasting about the greatness of the UK.

[quote]
I just find in suprising that people generally seem to forget the influence that britain has had in the past, and is never likelly to have again. [:QUOTE]

People usually don’t forget the influence britain had, and the american people in particular (since we’re on an american board) certainly don’t, at the contrary. But you, on the other hand, are clearly overrating it. Plus, nobody before your post belittled the UK. Your statements about the greatness of this country came out of nowhere and appeared to be, yes…very jingoistic.

35

Back to the OP i believe its just an American phenomenon. The stereotype i know is the “the french are rude” one.

36

The french army wasn’t intact at all. Most of it had been destroyed/captured/evacuated without armaments in Belgium and Dunkirk. The army in the east was surrounded and the rest was withdrawing everywhere.

Nope. After the destruction of the armies in the north, there was essentially nobody left to stop the germans along the Seine. What was briefly tried was to make a stand along the Loire, 100-150 kms to the south. But the Germans crossed the Loire even before a defensive line could be established.

Nope. When France surrendered there was absolutely no hope to continue fighting. The Germans had crossed the Loire river in the west, and were following the Rhone river toward the Meditteranean Sea in the east. It was only a matter of days before all the southern part of France would be occupied too. The army in the north-east, being surrounded were doomed too. The french government, in Bordeaux, was essentially waiting for the german army to roll in. Also, Italy had just declared war on France too (though they were unable to cross the Alps).The only part of the country which could possibly be defended was Britanny (with the idea of using it as a bridgehead for a future British attack). And even that was considered not really feasible by the newly named commander-in-chief (lucky guy…I guess he was happy to inherit such a mess)
The choice wasn’t between fighting in France and surrendering, but between surrendering and organizing a governement in exile which would have kept the french colonies and colonial troops, the fleet, and what was left of the air force. Churchill of course tried to convince the french government to choose the second solution, and even proposed to create a franco-british union. Some french officials (Monnet, De Gaulle) supported this idea, and apparently it received at first the agreement of the french prime minister Reynaud, but he resigned on the same day and was replaced by Petain who immediatly asked for an armistice.
I would point that choosing to stay involved in the war would have been a risky bet, since there was zero guarantee that the British wouldn’t seek peace sooner or later, and it was probably considered as the most likely outcome, given the situation. The British couldn’t do much in the way of fighting Germany at this point, but they still were in position to get an acceptable peace treaty.

37

Sorry, clair, I should have been more clear in my post (although it was already sufficiently wordy). The point was not the true history of the Spring of 1940, but the perception of many people I knew who held (some continue to hold) that France was not outfought but betrayed. They don’t have their facts correct–but they do not indulge in the “humor” that the French were prone to surrender (and certainly not that they were cowards).

38

I’ve only come across the “French are cowards” bit in humor. I don’t know that I’ve met anyone who seriously considers the French people cowardly. Of course, it’s not something that comes up in converstaion that often.

I have frequently come across the “French are rude and pretentious” attitude. The few French people I have met seem to be nice enough folks, though.

I think it is difficult to overstate the courage – not to mention the importance – of the French underground during WW2. They continued to resist the German occupation for its duration. If I were ever in that situation, I could only hope to have that sort of cojones.

My brother-in-law, having lived several years near Verdun as a child, certainly agrees with this position, as do I. Petain was in a nearly impossible position at the time.
RR

39

Jokes about French cowardice and quickness to surrender are widespread today (you can’t listen to Jim Rome’s sports talk show without hearing a dozen such jokes), but as others have pointed out, they’re fairly recent. I never heard such jokes in the 1970s. But by the mid-1980s, it was common to hear:

Q: Why are there so many trees in Paris?
A: The Germans like to march in the shade.

“This just in from the Olympics 100 meter dash: the German referee fired the starting gun, and the entire French team surrendered.”

Are such jokes fair, or based in reality? Obviously not. As others here have noted, France has, on the whole, a very proud military tradition.

So, why the sudden scorn for the French in the 1980s? I’m not sure that the jokes were aimed at the French in particular so much as they were at European peaceniks in general. Though there had ALWAYS been some tension between the U.S. and its post WW2 European allies (especially with France, which has long shown an obstinately independent streak), most Europeans seemed to regard the United States as a force for good, and most seemed genuinely grateful for all the U.S. had done to defeat Hitler and to rebuild Europe.

It was in the 1980s, during the Reagan administration, that we first saw Europeans openly and aggressively attacking American foreign policy. THAT was when we started hearing Europeans deriding Americans as trigger-happy, maniacal cowboys eager to start a nuclear war. I realize that not all Europeans subscribed to this view, but this view WAS widespread (and still is), and it angered many Americans, who started to wonder if maybe our “allies” were a bunch of ungrateful cowards.

And since France has long been the ally that gives the U.S. the most trouble (mostly in words, of course- when it matters most, the French have usually been very solidly in our corner), it’s only natural that American anger should focus on France. When the French suggested that the U.S. was needlessly antagonizing the USSR, many Americans couldn’t help sneering, “Without our fathers’s help, you Frogs would be speaking German. Don’t you losers DARE lecture US about foreign policy.”

40

This is slightly tangential, although it was mentioned above. I have quite recently heard this business about the French being ungrateful. The claim is we saved you in WWII, so you should back all our hare-brained foreign policy initiatives. Aside from the fact that it is a total non-sequitur, the fact is that most of the US couldn’t have cared less what happened to the French and Roosevelt was in considerable trouble in much of the US on account of the support he did give to the allies. And when the allies did liberate France (I seem to recall that the British might have had something to do with this, BTW), it was not for the purpose of freeing France even if that was as side-effect, but for the purpose of beating Germany, which, you may recall, had declared was on the US. On Dec. 8, 1941 IIRC. Or within a week of that anyway. If Hitler hadn’t declared war on the US and the USSR, Germany almost surely would have won the war in western Europe and the US would not have lifted a finger.

That said, the French surrender was stunning.