The REAL Military Record of France.

[Midav]

THE WAY THINGS REALLY WORK: The REAL Military Record of France.


March 24, 2005: France's military reputation has taken a beating over the last three years due to their attitudes towards Iraq and American foreign policy. Part of the American reaction is to disparage French militatry ability. Whether or not this attitude towards France is deserved is up for debate. A famous website, set up as a “Google bomb,” so that when one searches for French military victories and hits the “I’m Feeling Lucky” button, takes potshots at France, particularly citing the twentieth century. But the REAL story is much different.

First of all, the Battle of the Virginia Capes, from September 5-9, 1781 was an unambiguous win for France. This is important for Americans to keep in mind – this was the battle that sealed the fate of the British garrison at Yorktown (and thus American independence). So, France has achieved victory at least once, and it mattered big time for the United States.

In the 20th Century, the French record is also much better than some people would lead a person to believe. In World War I, the French did not fold up. If anything, the French carried a lot of the burden of the ground war from 1914-1917, halting the German invasion at the Marne. The French also outfought the Germans at Verdun in 1916, holding the line against a vigorous German offensive.

In 1918, the French forces took part in major offensives in the Balkans and in France itself. Both of those were victories. This came after France played a major part in repelling the powerful 1918 offensive by Germany. In other words, the French did their fair share in World War I. Only natural, since France was where most of the fighting occurred. It was Marshal Ferdinand Foch (commanding French Forces in the Second Battle of Marne) who said, “My center is giving way, I cannot move. Situation excellent, I shall attack.”

Rest is here (http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTMURPH.HTM).

[Navy]

and? The whole world respects the french military, except for some loosers at mp.net.

[Midav]

and? The whole world respects the french military, except for some loosers at mp.net.

I've met a lot of people that had no respect for the French military. That's included folks in Europe as well heh

[CMEPTb]

I think Europe respects the French army because Napoleon conquered almost all of Europe, not because of their 20th century achievements

[Virus]

Everytime i make fun of France, its all in good fun for me, I love french language(dont know any of it though) and the country itself, and it has a very good military imho. Their like a rival sibling :D

[stateofequilibrium]

The French started losing military credibility when the Prussians steamrolled over them despite having "the best military in the world" that started the whole "zouave craze." Then in WWI, yes, they stopped the Germans at the 'Miracle of the Marne' but afterwards thousands of men refused to follow order thus severely underming the ability to use French troops in assaults. Then WWII happened. Then Vietnam and other colonial flare ups.

As said before, it's probably, more than likely not a reflection of the average French man's fighting spririt and abilities but probably the higher ups. For comparison the Union Army in the American Civil War took a beating again and again and again, but no one ever questioned the resolve and bravery of the boys in blue.

[SMGCat]

The Complete Military History of France

Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Norse Invasions: Lost. King Charles the Simple buys peace with the Norsemen by giving them Normandy.

Moorish Invasions: Lost. Charlemagne scoots behind the Pyrennes.

Third Crusade: Philip Augustus gets mad at Richard the Lion Heart and goes home.

Seventh Crusade: Lost. St. Louis' crusade to Eqypt resoundingly crushed.

Eighth Crusade: Lost. St. Louis goes to Tunis.

Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by 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.

St. Bartholomew Day Massacre: Won, because the opponent was also French.

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 Frogophiles 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.
This was part of a much larger worldwide war against the British, which the French lost since the Americans weren't participants.

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

Quasi-War: Tied. France, angry that the US normalized relations with the British, seizes US ships in the Caribbean and decrees war on American shipping worldwide. France conveniently ignores that the US and France have a treaty of alliance that effectively makes the US a subject state of France. American envoys in Paris are told that they must pay a $250,000 bribe to the French Foreign Minister and a $10,000,000 "loan" to France before the French will even consider negotiations (XYZ Affair). US refuses to pay, builds up a navy which promptly seizes 80 French ships, and continues to sue for peace. Delighted British offer aid to the US against the French. Ends when Napoleon seizes power in Paris and abandons North America. Napoleon also agrees to abrogate the unequal treaty of alliance, making the US truly independent for the first time. Produces the First Rule of American Diplomacy:
You'll regret making any alliance with the French.
The US makes no other treaties of alliance for nearly 150 years.

Haitian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a European army by African slaves, and produces the First Rule of African Warfare:
We can always beat the 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.

India: Lost, to the British.

Mexican Empire War: Lost. Napoleon III takes advantage of US Civil War to invade Mexico. Collapse of the Confederacy dashes plans to invade Louisiana. Saber-rattling by reunified US leads to hasty French withdrawal, leaving puppet Austrian "Emperor of Mexico" to face a Mexican firing squad.

The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on Saturday night.

Panama Jungles: Lost this time to vegetation and mosquitoes.

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 (first act): Lost to the Germans. Conquered French liberated, against their will, by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

World War II (second act): Lost to the Italians. True, the Germans already had France on the ropes, but nevertheless France is the first and only country to ever lose three wars when fighting Italians!

World War II (third act): Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French: its Jewish population. Vichy government consistently gives Germans more than the Germans ask when it comes to anti-Semitic policies.

World War II (fourth act): Lost, this time to the Americans in North Africa. Ostensibly independent collaborationist Vichy government immediately occupied by Hitler, putting to an end the myth of "unoccupied France." Vichy remains popular with the French people until it became clear that Germany was losing the war.

World War II (fifth act): Reminiscent of the American Revolution, France claims a win even though the British and Americans did all the work (remember the Second Rule!) of liberating France, and the British, Americans, and especially the Russians did all the work of defeating Germany. France demands (and, amazingly, gets) a spot as one of the victorious Allies; and even more amazingly gets a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu. The US, forgetting the First Rule of American Diplomacy, steps into the mess and spends the next 20 years getting out.

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, Haitians, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

Ivory Coast Conflict: On the way to losing (remember the First Rule of African Warfare!).

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. With fond memories of its World War II (third act) victories, forms new military alliance with Germany against the US.

60th Anniversary of D-Day: France repulses an invasion of elderly British veterans who seek to attend memorial ceremonies on the beaches of Normandy.

Today: The French government raises its terror alert level from run to hide. The only two higher levels in France are surrender and collaborate. The raise was precipitated by a recent fire which destroyed one of France's white flag factories, disabling their military.

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?

[PhillyMobster]

I can't help it.

rofl rofl rofl


That was a funny read.

That said, I've always liked the French Army. Its their government I have a problem with. Still, dislike of a governmental body shouldn't be taken out on the troops, so, despite the fact I crack the occasional 'surrender monkey' joke, I do have a lot of respect for the French armed forces. :P

[ridenrain]

I hate to say it but, although France has not done anything lately, they are one of the few countries who run their own carrier group, and have the ability to project power to their old colonies. It's easy to dump on them but they are among the top of the arms makers and dealers too.
They are **** disturbers on a global stage but they are a player in the game.

[stephane from Paris]

The French started losing military credibility when the Prussians steamrolled over them despite having "the best military in the world" that started the whole "zouave craze." Then in WWI, yes, they stopped the Germans at the 'Miracle of the Marne' but afterwards thousands of men refused to follow order thus severely underming the ability to use French troops in assaults. Then WWII happened. Then Vietnam and other colonial flare ups.

.


War against Prussian?
hard times in France since the end of Napoleonic period! France hadn't the right to build a big army and it's a revolutionnary period because our leaders (kings) were supported by europeans kingdoms against french people!
When prussians invaded, the people of Paris enter in revolt to remove the leaders. It was the "commune" revolt! It was the people who wanted defend the homeland!
14/18 war: France and UK were 25% less numerous than Germany (which count since 1970 , the east part of France= Alsace & Loraine).
germany was allied with Italy and the Austria/hungary empire!
1.3 millions of french soliers died, several millions were heavily wounded in a country of 27millions.
they were several soldiers revolts due to 4 years of the hardest fight in history where soldiers charged machine gun and received also gas (isn't in vietnam where several officers were killed by their boys? isn't americans who refused to go in Vietnam and now Irak?).

1939:
In France due to big politicals troubles (ultra righ wing faced socialists and communist since that in 1936 socialists won elections), and the fact that people are tired about wars, France choose a defensive way against germany! Bad option, Hitler used a modern way of war!
BTW who sacrified soldiers to let UK forces cross the Chanel?


Facts of big battles and wars (don't have time to check dates):

200BC: Brenn a gallic chief invade Italy and Rome has to pay for his safety!

BC: Cesar invade all Europe (including England and Germany), with the help of the internal conflicts between all Gallic/celtics tribs!

Clovis king of Francs win a battle and become the first Christian king!

Kingdom of Charlemagne: France+Belgium+ parts of Germany and Switzerland

Attila loose his firts battle in France, it's the beginning of end of Huns conquests!

Charles "Martel" stop the muslims near poitier, north of Europe will stay Christian!

The Viking are in front of Paris (none regular french troops in the city), the attacks several weeks the city but don't enter in! vikings had to put their boats on earth to pass the city!

King of France give the Normany to Rollon viking king's to end attacks!

near 100 years later, Guillaume duke of Normandy invade England and after defeating saxons at Hasting become the king of England!

100 years wars of middle age:
Due to marriages , king of England (who is french origin and speak french like all english lords) ask for the right on France kingdom!
He's allied with lot of French lord including the powerfull duke of Borgogne (1/3 of France+Flanders) who arrets Joan later.
Tons of battles where english bowmen prove their efficients by kill french cavalry before they front their english cavalry counterpart!
100 years of wars and at the end, all France inculding Bourgogne is under control of the France King!

Follow centuries of war with various results in Europe and in America.

1793 French revolution: the lords, supported by european kingdom tried to remove revolution, the people takes weapons and stopped kingdoms!

Napoleon, against all Europe he won tons of battle but made the error to follow the russian army too far! He loose against weather and food lacking+ russian counter-attacks.

Napolean escape his first prison island, rebuild a new army in several weeks and loose at waterloo against UK army but with the menace of the Austrian army that came at his right. If he had the time, the battle could change!

1970: Prussia invade France and save the east parts.
1918: Alsace and Loraine are back!
1939/1945: allready said, but i could add that Eisenhower said that without Resistance for informations and trains attacks, the DDay should be a disaster!

1945/1955 in Indochina: during several years, USA don't want France save this place, but after korea 's war they changed and tried to help by sendind planes! Too late, 100,000/150,000 soldiers to control North and south vietnam+Laos with a big border with communist China, impossible situation!

With 300,000 soldiers USA didn't control just south vietnam!

Algeria no battles loose but how save a country against his own people when insurgents uses same tactics as irakis insurgents (bombs against civilians, murders of french civilians or against algerian who were for France). the defeat was political, like vietnam!

CHECK HISTORY BOOKS BEFORE PUT STUPIDS COMMENTS!

[Para]

Lets face it they even fought against America in WW2 in North Africa, and it did not take them long to work out which side was winning and join them.

[Jani.R]

Lets face it they even fought against America in WW2 in North Africa, and it did not take them long to work out which side was winning and join them.

Ever heard about Vichy France? :bash:

[stephane from Paris]

Vichy: the part of anticommunists/righ wingers of France!
they though better Hittler than french socialists!
Work, family, religion, patriotism were their ideas!

if i heard most of Bush supporters, works, family, religion and patriotism are their ideas too!!!! ;)

[Digital Marine]

The Dutch War: Tied.




WTF? i didnt even know we had a war with the Frenchies :lol:

[Lobo]

I've seen several times that "The Complete Military History of France" posted. I've seen it even translated into Spanish by local "Go Bush!" warmongers.

I'm not French so my knowledge of France's history is quite limited. But despite all I find it such a piece of BS.

"Moorish Invasions: Lost. Charlemagne scoots behind the Pyrennes"
False! Have you never hear about the battle of Poitiers?

"War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since".
Lost? So, why we have a French dinast in Spain instead the Austrian way supported by England? And Marlobrough... Hey, I could tell you some funny stories about that war. Like that Spanish cavalry charge against English infantry. The English soldiers were got by surprised and drop their weapons and surrended without shooting. Did you hear the joke about "never used, dropped once"?

"French Revolution: Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French".
And what's about the absolutist kingdoms invading France and stopped by the "citizen's army"?

And bla, bla, bla... :bash:

[Yosy]

Like stateofequilibrium said, the french military started being laughed at and all due to the French-Prussian War. The French Army had an humilliating defeat, the french king was captured (I think) and the Prussian Army layed siege to Paris. This defeat was one of the main causes of World War 1 and originated revanchism: the feeling of revenge by lost territory, humiliation, etc.

[Eat a bullet]

The Dutch War: Tied.




WTF? i didnt even know we had a war with the Frenchies :lol:
Oh, yeah you've had a few, here and there :lol: ...and they invaded you.

You gonna take that? p-)

[ogukuo72]

I've seen several times that "The Complete Military History of France" posted. I've seen it even translated into Spanish by local "Go Bush!" warmongers.

I'm not French so my knowledge of France's history is quite limited. But despite all I find it such a piece of BS.

"Moorish Invasions: Lost. Charlemagne scoots behind the Pyrennes"
False! Have you never hear about the battle of Poitiers?

"War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since".
Lost? So, why we have a French dinast in Spain instead the Austrian way supported by England? And Marlobrough... Hey, I could tell you some funny stories about that war. Like that Spanish cavalry charge against English infantry. The English soldiers were got by surprised and drop their weapons and surrended without shooting. Did you hear the joke about "never used, dropped once"?

"French Revolution: Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French".
And what's about the absolutist kingdoms invading France and stopped by the "citizen's army"?

And bla, bla, bla... :bash:

I thought Charlemagne was German? Didn't know he's French.

[ogukuo72]

OK, went through a history book. First of all, it was Charles Martel that fought at Poitiers, not Charlemagne, who is his grandson.

Charles Martel is a Frank. Franks are descendants of the Germani tribed, described by Tacitus in the first century AD, as living in what is now Holland and eastern Germany around the lower Rhine. They migrated in large numbers into the nearby Gaul by the fifth century.

So there you go. I guess whether Charlemagne or Charles Martel is German or French is a toss up. They certainly aren't Gauls and originated geographically from Germany, but of course, they settled down in France, and could well be ancestors of the modern French.

[Jehuty]

I thought Charlemagne was German? Didn't know he's French.

The Germans wanted him to be German because he created the Holy Roman Germanic Empire and the French wanted him French for a question of prestige.
All i can tell you is that he and others Frankish kings have much more to do with France than Germany, where most of what they did was invading and converting people (the famous expeditions of Charlemagne in Saxe for exemple), but in the same time he has a cultural signifiance in both countries.



They certainly aren't Gauls and originated geographically from Germany, but of course, they settled down in France, and could well be ancestors of the modern French.

Common misconception about France. Gaul is not France, it was a bunch of disunited celtic tribes who lived on the current territory of France but obviously you have to study it and include it in the origins of France. And not all French have Gallic origins, far from it.

[ogukuo72]

I guess this will be of intense interest to those who wants to bash the French. :) Yet another foreigner (a German at that!) who saved the French from a foreign invader.

[Jehuty]

I guess this will be of intense interest to those who wants to bash the French. :) Yet another foreigner (a German at that!) who saved the French from a foreign invader.

Did you even read my post? :| Franks = French (do you see the similarity? and yes, that means we are partly germanic) and Charlemagne and others Frankish kings invaded Germans territories, not the opposite.
I'll blame my poor english for this misunderstanding kay?
;)

[Lokos]

For over two hundred years (~1650-1850) the French military machine was considered by many to be the world's best. That's a track record not to be scoffed at.

Lokos

[Kitsune]

stephane from paris wrote:
14/18 war: France and UK were 25% less numerous than Germany (which count since 1970 , the east part of France= Alsace & Loraine).



Wait a seond. A lot of the inhabitants of Imperial Germany were not Germans but other national groups. Poles, Tzecs, Slovens to name some. If you exclude them you will find that Germany had LESS inhabtiants than France and Britain combined. If you include them you should as well include the inhabitants of the respective colonial empires: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and so on in the British case, lots of African colonies in the french ones (and the French used lots of Black African soldiers to fight for them in the European trenches, that's a fact). And even if one includes the German colonial territories (from which the Germans could not get troops because these areas became inaccesible to them when the war started), again the combined manpower of the French and British controlled territories succeeds the one of the Germans by far.

[stephane from Paris]

OK, went through a history book. First of all, it was Charles Martel that fought at Poitiers, not Charlemagne, who is his grandson.

Charles Martel is a Frank. Franks are descendants of the Germani tribed, described by Tacitus in the first century AD, as living in what is now Holland and eastern Germany around the lower Rhine. They migrated in large numbers into the nearby Gaul by the fifth century.

So there you go. I guess whether Charlemagne or Charles Martel is German or French is a toss up. They certainly aren't Gauls and originated geographically from Germany, but of course, they settled down in France, and could well be ancestors of the modern French.

History:
Before 400AC Gaul is under roman rules like most of Europe!

409AC: Burgondes and Francs germanics tribs invades Gaul (France+Belgium+ switzerland). They takes the power in place of the Gallo-romans.

457 to 481: Childeric first franc king in Gaul

481-511: Clovis
in 498 Clovis win against the Alamans (germanic trib), and after the battle accept to be Christian like his wife!

732: Charles "martel" (the hammer") stop muslim invaders!

768-814: Charles (Charlemagne)
800 Charlemagne is emperor of the romans.

843: the empire of charlemagne is divided in 3 parts
Charles receive the west half of France
Lothaire receive the east half of France+Belgium+north Italy+switzerland+west of Germany
Louis the germanic receive rest of germany+austria+tchecoslovakia

Francs were from germany but during more than 300 years they where installed and ruled France+Belgium+switzerland+east of Germany

They did several wars against germanics tribs and at the time of Charlemagne from france to hungary it was the same empire!
So if France/Germany/Belgium... have a common history it's impossible to says that Charlemagne was germanic. He was far more French than german if you look today's maps.
French= gallics+francs+latins

[stephane from Paris]

stephane from paris wrote:
14/18 war: France and UK were 25% less numerous than Germany (which count since 1970 , the east part of France= Alsace & Loraine).



Wait a seond. A lot of the inhabitants of Imperial Germany were not Germans but other national groups. Poles, Tzecs, Slovens to name some. If you exclude them you will find that Germany had LESS inhabtiants than France and Britain combined. If you include them you should as well include the inhabitants of the respective colonial empires: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and so on in the British case, lots of African colonies in the french ones (and the French used lots of Black African soldiers to fight for them in the European trenches, that's a fact). And even if one includes the German colonial territories (from which the Germans could not get troops because these areas became inaccesible to them when the war started), again the combined manpower of the French and British controlled territories succeeds the one of the Germans by far.

Time to eat i'll be back tomorow

[Midav]

I'm glad this thread hasn;t gone completely down the gutter.

Just wanted to say that the French military is a good military. Has had its ups and downs like any military in the world.

[Sgt.Snatchgrabber]

France... :roll:

[ogukuo72]

I guess this will be of intense interest to those who wants to bash the French. :) Yet another foreigner (a German at that!) who saved the French from a foreign invader.

Did you even read my post? :| Franks = French (do you see the similarity? and yes, that means we are partly germanic) and Charlemagne and others Frankish kings invaded Germans territories, not the opposite.
I'll blame my poor english for this misunderstanding kay?
;)

No, no, I understand you perfectly. :)

I know that the word France came from the word Franks, and it will not be wrong to refer to rulers like Charles Martel and Charlemagne as ancestors of the French, even though it will be meaningless to call them French since there was France back then.

I believe that by the Crusades, the Muslims call the Crusaders the Franks, as many of them came from France. By then, it made sense to call them French as there was such an entity by then, and there was a French king with dominion over France.

French military history has been a mixed bag. France had gone through periods of its history when it was militarily the most formidable country in the world, such as under Napolean.

But then, Germany, widely recognised as a formidable military power, has also had a mixed military history as well. Prussia was on the blink of military defeat under Frederick II. Prussia was militarily defeated by Napolean at Jena, before bouncing back to fight beside the British at Waterloo. It only truly rose as a formidable power under Bismarck when it won a succession of victories in the 1860's and, of course, in the 1870 war against France, to become the modern Germany. It sort of went downhill after Bismarck was fired by Willy II. It became the only major power to be defeated twice in the two world wars (Japan was on the winning side on WW I and the losing side on WW II).

So, it seems terribly unfair that we always pick on the French, whereas the biggest loser in the 20C seemed to be Germany.

[Echo7]

France has an army???

[Echo7]

France has an army???

[stephane from Paris]

stephane from paris wrote:
14/18 war: France and UK were 25% less numerous than Germany (which count since 1970 , the east part of France= Alsace & Loraine).



Wait a seond. A lot of the inhabitants of Imperial Germany were not Germans but other national groups. Poles, Tzecs, Slovens to name some. If you exclude them you will find that Germany had LESS inhabtiants than France and Britain combined. If you include them you should as well include the inhabitants of the respective colonial empires: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and so on in the British case, lots of African colonies in the french ones (and the French used lots of Black African soldiers to fight for them in the European trenches, that's a fact). And even if one includes the German colonial territories (from which the Germans could not get troops because these areas became inaccesible to them when the war started), again the combined manpower of the French and British controlled territories succeeds the one of the Germans by far.

I spoke about each countries:
France= -25% than Germany
UK = -25% than Germany
not FRance+UK= -25% than Germany

Btw Germany was allied with the powerfull Austro/hungary empire!
These are just to understand why the WW1 was so terrible, long and deadly!

[stephane from Paris]

I guess this will be of intense interest to those who wants to bash the French. :) Yet another foreigner (a German at that!) who saved the French from a foreign invader.

Did you even read my post? :| Franks = French (do you see the similarity? and yes, that means we are partly germanic) and Charlemagne and others Frankish kings invaded Germans territories, not the opposite.
I'll blame my poor english for this misunderstanding kay?
;)

No, no, I understand you perfectly. :)

I know that the word France came from the word Franks, and it will not be wrong to refer to rulers like Charles Martel and Charlemagne as ancestors of the French, even though it will be meaningless to call them French since there was France back then.

I believe that by the Crusades, the Muslims call the Crusaders the Franks, as many of them came from France. By then, it made sense to call them French as there was such an entity by then, and there was a French king with dominion over France.

French military history has been a mixed bag. France had gone through periods of its history when it was militarily the most formidable country in the world, such as under Napolean.

But then, Germany, widely recognised as a formidable military power, has also had a mixed military history as well. Prussia was on the blink of military defeat under Frederick II. Prussia was militarily defeated by Napolean at Jena, before bouncing back to fight beside the British at Waterloo. It only truly rose as a formidable power under Bismarck when it won a succession of victories in the 1860's and, of course, in the 1870 war against France, to become the modern Germany. It sort of went downhill after Bismarck was fired by Willy II. It became the only major power to be defeated twice in the two world wars (Japan was on the winning side on WW I and the losing side on WW II).

So, it seems terribly unfair that we always pick on the French, whereas the biggest loser in the 20C seemed to be Germany.

The problem is that short minds don't understand History!
For example US righ wingers and France/Germany bashers like to says they won all wars! But have a look on History:
14-18: USA come in 1917 when Germany was under pressure and help to end the war quicky!
US didn't win the war alone, 90% of the job was done and paid by UK and France ...and Russia before communist revolution!

1939-1945: US enter the war only because japan attacked them en 1941.
During 2 years it's UK who supported the war!
Without the Russian front where germans loose so many good troops, i don't thinks DDay should be!
WW2: UK 25%, US 30%, USSR 43%, other forces like free polish/french/resistances from every country 2%

1965-1975: Vietnam Loose

1991: GW1 against a country equiped with 60's designed army, US did 80% of the job!
2003: GW2 against the same country which loose 70% of his 80's military power!

USA military is now from far the best one in the world but Germany/France basher should have a look on History before speak on our military records!

Since WW2, the US wars are against small countries, it's like Mike Tyson against a light weight boxer!

[<Gypsum Fantastic>]

^ Well said, but you're going to get so flamed!

[stateofequilibrium]

If I remember my history correctly Stephane, Germany actually had to carry it's allies, including the Austrians fighting a many front war in WWI.

Also, during WWI the French encountered mainy mutiny problems that almost effectively ended the ability for French troops to be used in offensive movements and relied almost entirely on the British until the US came in, and it was with US supplies and men that gave 'em the last hurrah.

In World War II I agree, if there wasn't the Russian and African fronts, DDay would've been extraordinarily difficult as the Russian front tied up many German soldiers. But hey, guess what? The African front and Italian front were manned by a great many US troops as well! What were the French doing? Oh right, fighting AGAINST us. And you know that Russian front? Ever heard of the lend-lease program? And who do you think fed the UK? Who island hopped all the way across the Pacific?

And whose territory was Vietnam's anyways?

[Yosy]

WW1 mutiny problems happened everywhere. But those weren't bad enough to disable France' fighting capabilities, specially after Petan took over.

WW2: ever heard of the French Resistance and De Gaulle's Free French Movement? Not to mention that the Free French fought in the Battle of Britain, North Africa campaigns, Italy and participated in D-Day. And they were the ones to liberate Paris (supported by the US, of course, but they did most of the fighting)

Indochina: guess the US didn't learn from France.

Bottom line: France's military is as good as british, german, us, etc.

[Operation Ivy]

USA military is now from far the best one in the world

ill disagree with that ;)


but as an American yea im pissed France didnt back us up during GW2, but i dont hate them or laugh at their military, US needs Europe and Europe needs US p-)

[roland]

American military is one of the worse in the world:

They didn't fought a real war since the secession war, and perhaps independence war, but that doesn't prevent them to give lessons to other and even treat them cowards.

In 1812 the got there @ss kicked by the Canadians, the Quebecquers and the Brits (How they managed to get the Quebecquers against them is beyond understanding: looks like there proverbial clumsiness is deeply rooted)
They had Washigton burned to the ground, only a French pirate wanted by the American justice, Jean Lafitte, saved there honnor and won there only battle in New Orlean. But that doesn't prevent them to claim victory ! That is what I call having a big mouth.

In WWI they started to be effective only in summer 1918. Before that they did all the mistakes the French and the Brits did before them.
In November 1918 they were 1.8 Million while French and Brits were 9 million each but that doesn't prevent them to say they saved our butt and won the war. big mouth again.

In WWII they got there @ss kicked by the Germans in Tunisia.
With all there hardware superiority they stayed stuck 6 months in front of Monte Cassino before the French came and puctured the Gustav Line.
In the battle of the Ardenne, they had there @ss kicked again and had the cheeck to ask the French army to retreat and leave Alsace and Strasboug in the hand of the enemy. Fortunately De Gaule refused and we had to defend Alsace with our own means.
85% of the Germans were on the East front, but that doesn't prevent them to say they won the war. big mouth again.

The American doctrine is to fight unfair battle: with a huge superiority in man and material, and destroy its enemy where it is the strongest. They can afford this doctrine thanks to there huge industrial superiority.

But they shoudn't call anybody coward, because each time they had to fight there enemy in equal conditions they didn't proven anything except a lack of flexibility and imagination.

Today, we can notice they don't know how to die with class.
They start there war, but after a while there population says "hey, we are ok for the war, but we didn't thought there is going to be some killing ! stop this, lets bring our boys back home !" Needless to say that when they speak of killing, they think only of there boy, the enemies soldiers of population they don't care.
Big mouth but little brain and little nerves.

[Eat a bullet]

Blah blah flippity blah
This thread is about France, deek.

Why don't you keep your bs to the assclown board.

[Navy]

Will be fun too see the american reaction. Payback is a bitch.

ps. i love america, but some guys on this forum needs to stfu ds

[Eat a bullet]

Will be fun too see the american reaction. Payback is a bitch.

ps. i love america, but some guys on this forum needs to stfu ds
Agreed.

All of the idiots and I don't care where they come from need to stfu.

They all spout the same ****e and they don't even know it.

[CG51]

:lol: roland, you no likey the USA?

[David Lehmann]

Concerning 1939-1940, there has been many myths, caricatures and distortions of the truth due to the German propaganda, then the Vichy propaganda and finally the Gaullist propaganda. Vichy used the army as a scapegoat and wanted to show that the previous regime and way of life was not a good one and the Gaullist wanted to appear like the single fighters whereas already several hundred thousands French soldiers had died or were wounded in a short time.

GERMAN AND ITALIAN LOSSES (whole western campaign until the end of the battle of France) :
- 156,492 losses (27,074 KIA, 111,034 WIA, 18,384 MIA). This first figure established on 25th June 1940 has been corrected later to 45,218 German KIA (with the MIAs) + 111,034 WIA.
- 6100 Italian losses in the French Alps in a few days (642 KIAs, 2691 WIAs, 2151 frozen men and 616 POWs)
- 1236 planes definitely destroyed (+ 323 damaged) (about 500-600 victories for the French air force).
- 839 tanks definitely destroyed (33% of the 2542 tanks engaged)

FRENCH LOSSES :
- 302,000 losses (90,000 - 100,000 KIA and about 212,000 - 202,000 WIA)
- 1,450,000 prisoners after the armistice
- 892 aircrafts (the big majority because of the Flak)
- no data for the AFVs ... 2000+ destroyed/abandoned or captured.

ALLIED LOSSES :
• Belgian losses in 19 days : 7,500 KIA, 15,850 WIA
• Luxembourg : no resistance
• Dutch losses in 6 days : 2,890 KIA, 6,889 WIA
• British losses in 26 days : 3,457 KIA, 13,602 WIA, 3,267 MIA
• French losses in 45 days : 100,000 KIA and about 202,000 WIA (other common sources indicate 120,000 "fallen for France" but this figure includes beside the KIA the POWs who died in German hospitals or camps as well as some civilians KIA – grossly about 90,000-100,000 French troops died during Fall Gelb).

The Swiss historian Eddy Bauer says also that the Germans lost much more men in the second part of the western campaign, in France the resistance was harder when time advanced.
156,492 German losses (KIA, MIA, WIA) in 45 days, that's 3477 losses per day but in fact the French resistance was all days harder : 2499 German losses per day between the 10th May and the 3rd June but 4762 German losses per day between the 5th and the 24th June. You can compare that to the 4506 German losses per day during operation Barbarossa from 22nd June to 10th December 1941. Once again the western campaign was much more deadly than the common myth admits it.

During the first part of the 1940 campaign, for each allied division there is statistically 450 German KIA + WIA. During the second part of the campaign, for the 67 remaining French divisions + 4 allied divisions, this number rises to 1344 German KIA + WIA.

During the phoney war if nothing was really done on the ground there were nevertheless already combats and losses on both sides.
The Sarre limited attack was launched on 7th September 1939, 4 days after France declared war to Germany. France needed 15 days to fully mobilize. If France was to have launched a full scale offensive 15 days after it declared war this would have been around 18th September 1939. This was 4 days after the Polish government had opened negotiations on the terms of its flight to Romania and the same day that it and its military High Command fled their own country and ordered all their forces to head for neutral borders. The rapid collapse of Poland left France in a very exposed position. It was facing a Germany with nearly twice its metropolitan population virtually alone. The British could put only 4-5 divisions into Europe in September 1939 and would take 2 years to field a continental-scale army. The French were very cautious in September 1939, but one can see why.

According to Karl Heinz Frieser, the Luftwaffe lost 1236 planes + 323 damaged ones during the western campaign (Fall Gelb). In his book from 1990, Jean-Gisclon studied the French fighter units. He indicates that the Germans lost between 10th May and 25th June a total of 1471 destroyed and 675 damaged aircrafts, these numbers are higher than the German ones. The German human losses in the Luftwaffe indicated in this book are 1355 KIAs, 1226 WIAs and 715 POWs. Often it is said that the French Air Force fighters destroyed about 800 aircrafts but modern studies indicate that this number is rather 500-600 (actually the fighter groups claim 996 victories, of those 733 "confirmed" in air combat. This last number is too high because several pilots share the same victory. The bomber / reconnaissance aircrafts defensive fire and the anti-aircraft fire from the ground are on their side estimated to be responsible for the loss of 200-300 more aircrafts. To these 700-900 lost aircrafts you can add those destroyed by the RAF in France and for example 250-300 transport aircrafts were lost in the Netherlands and in Belgium during the airborne operations. But already before these May/June losses, between September 1939 and April 1940, several 176 German aircrafts were lost for 82 British and 57 French ones (= 139 aircrafts for the allies). The German aircrafts shot down were later missing above London.
The French ace Edmond Marin-la-Meslée collected 20 victories (16 confirmed + 4 probable) in May/June 1940 with a Curtiss H-75A. He was pilot in the GC I/5 which obtained 111 air victories (84 confirmed and 27 probable). The German ace Werner Mölder had been shot down over France and made prisoner like 714 other aircraft crew members during the battle (on 17th June France had still about 400-500 Luftwaffe soldiers kept prisoner).

Regards,

David

[David Lehmann]

Concerning the French forces from 1941 on :

1) FFI (Forces Françaises de l'Intérieur - French Forces of the Interior) - up to about 200,000 men

Beside the more urban/propaganda/intelligence resistance, several major engagements can be reported for the French resistance :

LES GLIÈRES
In February 1944, on this plateau, 450 maquis members under the command of officers from the 27th "chasseurs alpins" battalion, were besieged by 2000 French militiamen and police. Although they suffered from starvation and frigid conditions, they collected three parachute drops consisting of about three hundred containers packed with small arms (Sten submachine guns, Enfield rifles, Bren light machine guns, Mills grenades) and explosives. The Maquis' major handicap for military action was its lack of heavy weapons : the plateau of Glières battalion had only several old machine guns and two 81 mm light mortars.
After a bloody skirmish with the Vichy forces, the attackers failed to seize the plateau. The Vichy government agreed that the Germans would step in if the Vichy forces had not quickly reduced the open rebellion at Glières. On 12th March 1944, after the largest Allied parachute drop, the Germans started to bomb the area with ground attack aircraft. The French Militia staged several attacks, but they ended in failure. On the 23th of March, three battalions from the 157th Reserve Division of the Wehrmacht and two German police battalions, composed of about 5000 men with HMG, 80 mm mortars, 75 mm mountain guns, 150 mm howitzers and armored cars, concentrated for the assault.
Reason told the maquisards to withdraw while they still had time. Reason but not honor. With a verbal duel for several weeks between two talented radio announcers - one for the BBC and the other for Radio Paris (occupied)- word had seeped out of France, Britain and America that a great and glorious uprising had taken place in southeast France. Clearly, Glières had become an important element in the psychological warfare. To honor the French Resistance, Capt. Anjot, an experienced, thoughtful and impassive officer, would fight in the face of defeat, but his aim was to save most of his men's lives.
Finally, on 26th March 1944, after another air raid and shelling, the Germans took the offensive. They split their attacking parties into three KG and designated to each one specific target. Reconnaissance was carried out by ski patrols dressed in white camouflage. One of the patrols with a Gebirgsjäger platoon made an attack on the main exit to the plateau and captured an advanced post in the rear. Sustaining the attack from about 50 German soldiers, 18 maquisards fought and resisted into the night, but were outnumbered and overwhelmed. At 10 o'clock, Capt. Anjot thought honor had been satisfied and ordered the Glières battalion to retreat. In the days that followed, Capt. Anjot and almost all his officers as well as 200 maquisards had been killed in battle or, if taken prisoner, had been tortured, shot or deported. For the Germans, the maquisards were not regulars but terrorists.

LE VERCORS
In June 1944, 4000 maquis members concentrated on this plateau in the foolish aim to held it like a fortified area. First a German Gebirgsdivision couldn't defeat them but then, end of July another assault with about 15,000 men, artillery support and the landing of gliders with Brandenburgers defeated the defenders who had no supply and no support.
The French resistants had lost the desperate battle but mobilized important German forces. More than 600 French were killed and a little more than 100 Germans too. In reprisal, several villages (573 houses) have been burned, 200 civilians killed and 40 deported.

LE MONT MOUCHET
On these mountains, 6000 maquisards delayed 2 German divisions supported by the Luftwaffe in June 1944. They were defeated (killed, captured or escaped) but the Germans lost about 1000 men and 10 Panzers. Once again the closest villages (Clavières , Auvers , Pinols , Dièges and Paulhac) have been destructed after the battle as a revenge.

SAINT MARCEL
In the night of 5th June 1944, 4 sticks of 4th SAS were dropped on north and south Brittany to prepare SAS bases ("Samwest", "Dingson", "Grog"), to take contact with local Resistance and established DZ and LZ for the Battalion. The mission of French SAS was to destroy all communication ways, to get ambushes and sabotages to prevent all enemies movements toward Normandy. These men were the first allied soldiers to come and fight in France for D-Day. This fact was a decision of General Montgomery. Immediately after his landing, a stick (Lt Marienne the commanding officer) was obliged to fight with a troop of Nazis (Ukrainians from Vlassov's army), and Corporal Bouétard was wounded and killed by a German NCO. It was the first allied soldier KIA in D-Day operation. One night after the D-Day, 18 French SAS teams known as "Cooney parties" were dropped on all parts of Brittany to accomplish sabotages on railways, roads etc.. in the way to cut all possibilities for enemy to go to Normandy beachhead. At this time in Brittany about 150,000 enemies (Infantry, Paratroopers, Engineers, Artillery etc...) are ready to go on Normandy landing areas... Night after night, sticks of French SAS -4th Battalion- and containers were dropped in the area of St-Marcel (Morbihan)-"Baleine DZ" to accomplish ambushes and sabotages and all actions were successful. They assembled about 10,000 French resistants to fight with them. The French SAS were never more than 450 men in that area. The 18th june in the villages of Saint-Marcel and Serent an epic fight was realized by 200 SAS, 4 armed jeeps and 2500 men of the French resistance (FFI) against more than 5000 Germans with 81mm mortars. Along the day, French resisted to the attacks helped in the afternoon by CAS provided by P47s from the USAF but at night they had to leave the battle area and get back in the maquis. During all July the SAS could realized many important missions in the way to stop and destroy the German forces. Several SAS jeeps raids took many prisoners.

STRASBOURG
In Alsace about 25% of the allied Forces are composed of French troops. And the now organized FFI (French Forces of the Interior) have been used as suppletive troops of the 1st French Army of General De Lattre. During Operation "Nordwind" an FFI battalion was almost destroyed but blocked the road of Strasbourg.

All these battle (except made of St Marcel and Strasbourg) were led in mountain areas, more easy to defend. These defeats would be transformed into a moral victory and give a boost to the French Resistance. Before and following the allied landings in June 1944, the French Resistance, developed into a strategic weapon, informed the Allies on the German defense, directed sabotage against war industries, supply depots, railroads, telecommunications, and delayed enemy road movements through guerrilla action.
However the German forces launched against the French resistant were second line troops (Osttruppen etc.) except some Waffen SS and Gebirgsjäger in the Glières. The actions of the FFI in the Normandy pockets has to be relativized because they had no heavy weapons, their task was mainly to occupy the liberated areas and retain German forces, the harbors of Lorient and St Nazaire for example surrendered only in 1945.
After the landings, the underground army of FFI (Forces Françaises de l'Intérieur - French Forces of the Interior) created on 1st February 1944 and made up with the different resistance organizations, numbered about 200,000 men. In June 1944, the French Resistance, developed into a strategic weapon, informed the Allies on the German defense, directed sabotage against war industries, supply depots, railroads, telecommunications, and delayed enemy road movements through guerrilla action and several times fought directly but with no heavy support. In august 1944, 80,000 of them had the task to reduce some pockets in Normandy and they captured 20,000 Germans. The French Forces of the Interior had "impressed Allied leaders as having made a substantial contribution to the defeat of the enemy" as recognized by De Gaulle, Churchill and Ike. The FFI participated to actively to the liberation of Paris and then integrated the forces to liberate France.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote: "Throughout France the Resistance had been of inestimable value in the campaign. Without their great assistance the liberation of France would have consumed a much longer time and meant greater losses to ourselves."


2) FFL (Forces Françaises Libres - Free French Forces) - about 500,000 men (560,000 men on 1st September 1944 and 1 million men end 1944)

Note :
The FFL denomination for "Forces Françaises Libres" is in fact only used for the French volunteers until the 31st july 1943. After that, the term "Armée Française" (French Army) is officially used. In fact, since the 14th july 1942, the general De Gaulle employed the denomination "France Combattante" (Fighting France) for all the French troops participating to the liberation effort, including the resistance which gave rise to the FFI.

• in the army
• in the navy (10000 men in the Royal navy and on FFL vessels)
• in French air force but also in allied air forces (about 3500 men in the RAF and in the soviet air force). In the RAF there were about 150 French aces (= at least 5 confirmed kills) : Pierre Clostermann (33 kills), Marcel Albert (23 kills), Jean Demozay (21 kills) etc. In the Soviet Air Force there was the GC.3 "Normandie Niémen" Squadron (with 38 fighters, 273 confirmed kills in 5240 sorties and 42 pilots KIA).

The French air force in 1943-1945 was composed of :

In UK :
- 4 fighter groups (Alsace -Sqn 341-, Ile-de-France -Sqn 340-, Cigognes -Sqn 329- and Berry -Sqn 345-)
- 3 bomber groups (Lorraine, Tunisie and Guyenne)
- 2 transport groups (Artois and Picardie)

In USSR :
- 1 fighter group (Normandie-Niemen -GC.3-)

Under USAF and RAF command in North Africa, Sicily, Corsica, France etc.
- 9 fighter groups (Nice -Sqn 326-, Corse -Sqn 327-, Provence -Sqn 328-, Travail, Roussillon, Champagne, Navarre, Lafayette, Dauphiné and Ardennes)
- 6 bomber groups (Bretagne, Maroc, Gascogne, Bourgogne, Sénégal and Franche-Comté)
- 2 reconnaissance groups (Belfort, Savoie)
- 1 transport group (Anjou)

446 Thunderbolts were delivered to the Free French air force based in North Africa. They equipped the following units :
- GC II/6 Travail
- GC II/5 Lafayette
- GC II/3 Dauphine
- GC I/4 Navarre
- GC I/5 Champagne
- GC III/3 Ardennes
- GC III/6 Roussillon

RAF French Spitfire squadrons :
Squadron ---- Spitfire Marks Flown ---- Squadron codes
N° 326 ---- V, VIII, IX ---- 91
N° 327 ---- V, VIII, IX ---- 7E
N° 328 ---- V, VIII, IX ---- S8
N° 329 ---- V, IX, XVI ---- 5A
N° 340 ---- II, V, IX, XVI ---- GW
N° 341 ---- V, IX, XVI ---- NL
N° 345 ---- V, IX, XVI ---- 2Y

French forces already fought on the allied side in 1940, and the battle of France is generally known only through the prism of caricatures, myths and generalization ... also often ignored the Free French involvements in 1941-1943.

On 18th June 1940, General Charles De Gaulle broadcasted an appeal on BBC radio for French men and women to join him and the British in the fight against Nazi Germany. But, by the end of July 1940 only 7000 people had volunteered to join the Free French forces. The attacks by the RAF on the French Navy at Mers-El-Kebir and Dakar caused bitterness in France and did not encourage former members of the French Army to escape to Britain.

Many combats in North Africa from 1941 to 1943. Free French forces fought Italian troops in Eritrea and Ethiopia and faced French troops loyal to Vichy France in Syria and Lebanon. In Eritrea, on 8th April 1941, the 13e DBLE took the port of Massawa from a garrison of 1400 Italian troops. Leclerc's column (ancestor of the 2e DB) took the Koufra oasis in Lybia to the Italians in 1941 and all the Fezzan area (SW Lybia) between March 1942 and January 1943. Leclerc’s force quickly crushed the Italian defense in southern Libya and marched 1500 miles north reaching Tripoli on 23rd January 1943 just as the British arrived from Egypt. Leclerc placed himself under the command of Field Marshal Montgomery and his corps played a major role in the advance of the 8th Army on Tunisia. He was promoted to General de Division on 5th May 1943 and ordered to Morocco to form the 2e DB (2nd Armored Division). Free French soldiers participated in allied campaigns in Egypt, Lybia and Tunisia. General Koenig and its 1st DFL did particularly well against Afrika Korps in Bir Hakeim in June 1942.

I am absolutely sure that without the French forces the strategic outcome would have been the same, but I still think they played an important role in specific areas and I feel they are often ignored unlike other allied troops. Speaking only for example about the assault on the "European fortress" : while the French SAS, French commando-marines and 2e DB arrived in Normandy I can hardly imagine the southern landing without French forces. They played also an important role in Italy with the other allies.

About 120,000 French soldiers fought in Italy in 1943/1944 in the French CEFI (Corps Expéditionnaire Français en Italie) under the command of general Juin.

The CEFI allowed to take Monte Cassino by piercing more south in the Monte Majo, a much more mountainous area but general Juin's Goumiers and their mule packs did it and broke the front where the Germans didn't expected them. They forced the Germans to evacuate Monte Cassino, they were forced to withdraw from the position on 17th May at the orders of Kesselring because the US generals finally allowed the French colonial corps to outflank the Cassino position. With this outflanking movement (something which was already proposed but rejected in January 1944) the position became untenable for the Germans and they had to withdraw. Monte Cassino could then be occupied after so many bloody fights of all the allies in front of it : US, Australian, Polish, French, British etc. The French expeditionary corps also opened the doors of Rome to the allied forces on 4th June 1944 after a series of battles : Garigliano, Pico ... In Italy they lost 7000 KIA, 30000 WIA and 42000 MIA.
About the CEFI, have a look at http://members.aol.com/Custermen85/Units/FrenchOrg.htm it is very interesting.

In mid 1944, the Free French forces numbered about 500,000 men. The French CEFI is used as basis to build the French 1st army under the command of general De Lattre De Tassigny. This army landed in Provence during Anvil/Dragoon. The French 1st Army liberated both of the large French Mediterranean harbors Toulon and Marseille. The French 1st Army participated in pushing the Germans out of France (liberation of Toulon, Marseille, Lyon, Villefranche and Autun etc.) and back to the Rhine and the Danube. This operation is generally not well known, probably because only 3 US divisions were involved in comparison to the 7-8 French divisions. The cities of Toulon and Marseille as it is the case for the Elba and Corsica islands were liberated by French troops.

In the case of Corsica island, In Corsica there were more than 10,000 partisans in the island and about 6,500 French regular troops that landed. The French general Martin took contact with the Italian general Magli as soon as he arrived on 17th September - he was in charge of coordinating the landed troops and organizing the cooperation between French and the Italian troops which switched side. An agreement is found on 21st September and division 'Cremona' participated to the combats for Porto-Vecchio, Sotta and Bonifacio (23rd and 24th September) and division 'Friulï' to the combats of the Teghime pass at the end of September. On 21st September general Giraud meets also officially the general Magli and French and Italian troops are cooperating.

Toulon and Marseille fell to the allies on 28 August. They were soon handling more supplies than all the Normandy ports combined, and proved a logistical life-saver for the continued allied advance across France. Patch's 7th army linked up with Patton's 3rd army near Dijon on 11th September. The French 1st and US 7th armies were organized into the 6th army group under US general Devers (15th September), and served on the southern flank of the allied armies, advancing through Alsace-Lorraine into Germany and Austria by VE-day.

During Anvil/Dragoon the French ground forces had a strength of 200,000 soldiers from the French 1st Army, including grossly 90,000 French Europeans and 110,000 natives from the French colonies (French department concerning Algeria) in North Africa.
The natives formed grossly 25% of the armored divisions, 30% of the artillery units, 40% of the engineer units and 66% of the infantry units. Natives represented 2% of the officers and 20% of the NCOs. In comparison, the 2nd French armored division who landed in Normandy had only one black soldier, this "whitening" was the result of an armored division completely based on the US model where blacks and whites were not mixed. Concerning the involvement of natives, I would say that it applies also to WW1 and WW2 British (Imperial/Commonwealth) troops with natives from West Indies, Africa and the Far East.


On the allied side during Anvil/Dragoon :

The Naval Western Task Force (Admiral Hewitt, USN) with 2120 ships including 359 combats and escort ships, 600 large transport ships and smaller vessels.
There were indeed only 34 French combats and escort ships including :
1x battleship : "Lorraine"
5x cruisers : "Duguay-Trouin", "Emile Bertin", "Fantasque", "Terrible" and "Malin"
5x torpedo boats

The MAAF (Mediterranean Allied Air Force) (General Ira Eaker, USAF) was composed of 19000 aircrafts.
The French air force participated only with :
6x fighter-bomber groups on P-47
4x bomber groups on B-26
1x reconnaissance group on P-38

The ground forces were composed of 3 US divisions (36th, 45th and 3rd infantry divisions + several small rangers and airborne units) and 7 divisions of the French 1st Army + not endivisionned units (Bataillon d'Afrique (commandos), Bataillon de Choc (commandos) etc.)

Several info can be found here :
http://www.multimanpublishing.com/pp/
http://www.stratisc.org/partenaires/ihcc/ihcc_44prov_tdm.html

The 1st French Army was organized in 2 corps :
• 1st corps under the command of general Béthouart
• 2nd corps under the command of general De Goislard de Monsabert

and they are composed of :
• 1e Division Française Libre (motorized infantry division)
• 2e division d'infanterie marocaine (infantry division)
• 3e division d'infanterie algérienne (infantry division)
• 4e division marocaine de montagne (mountain infantry division)
• 9e division d'infanterie coloniale (infantry division)
• 1e division blindée (armored division)
• 5e division blindée (armored division)
+ not endivisionned elements :
• Bataillon d'Afrique (commandos)
• Bataillon de Choc (commandos)
• Bataillon de France (commandos)
• Four GTM (groupements de tabors marocains) (infantry)
• 9e Régiment de Zouaves (infantry)
• 1e Régiment de Tirailleurs Algériens (infantry)
• Two Chasseurs d'Afrique regiments (RCA) (armored regiments)
• Three Spahis regiments (recon armored regiments with armored cars and Stuarts)
• One Régiment Colonial de Chasseurs de Chars (armored regiment with tank destroyers)
• 2e Régiment de Dragons (armored regiment)
• 64e, 65e and 66e RAA (Régiment d'Artillerie d'Afrique = African artillery regiment)
• Régiment d'artillerie coloniale d'Afrique occidentale française
• Régiment d'artillerie coloniale du Levant
• Four engineer regiments and one bridging battalion

----> During late war several other divisions joined this Army :
• 27e division alpine (mountain infantry division) who played a role in the Alps in 1944 (formed on the basis of the former 1e division alpine).
• 3e division blindée (armored division) (created sooner, disbanded September 1944 an rebuilt in 1945)
• 1e division d'infanterie
• 10e division d'infanterie
• 14e division d'infanterie
• 19e division d'infanterie
• 23e division d'infanterie
• 25e division d'infanterie
• 36e division d'infanterie
• 1e DCEO (Division Coloniale d'Extrême Orient)
• 2e DCEO (Division Coloniale d'Extrême Orient)

All the late infantry divisions for the most part comprised former FFI ("French Forces of the Interior") groups. These division served mostly in security, garrison and occupation roles. Except the alpine division which included many former "chasseurs alpins" and fought in the Alps in 1944/1945, the battle efficiency of new infantry divisions was rather low, the freshly enlisted men were not trained to the modern combined arms warfare and had to learn.
The French armored divisions were organized for combat like the US AD, in "combat commands" called GT (groupements tactiques) in French. The 2e DB was assigned to Patton’s American 3rd Army and landed in Normandy on July 23, 1944. The unit saw its first action in the effort to close the Falaise pocket and liberated Argentan on 12th August. The Free French 2e DB led the drive towards Alençon and Paris. The losses during the battle of Paris (with one US infantry division) where followings :

- Allied troops :
130 KIA, 319 WIA, 21 MIA
48 tanks, 4 guns

- German troops :
3200 KIA, 12600 POW
74 tanks, 64 guns, 350 various vehicles

The 2e DB made junction with the 1st French Army on 12th September 1944. French SAS were involved for D-Day already on 5th June and played an important role. The 177 French commando-marines (included in the British 4th Commando, formed in March 1941) participated also long before the Normandy landing like the French SAS. During D-day these French commandos (troops n°1 and n°8 of the 4th Commando) landed at Sword Beach in front of Ouistreham and the strongpoint "Riva Bella". The French Commando-marines were used later in other operations, especially in the Netherlands. At Walcheren for example, the first assault was led by the troops of the 4 Cdo with the French commando-marines. They landed in Vlissingen (uncle beach). 5 hours later the Royal Marines 41, 47, 48, a Dutch troop and a Norwegian troop landed at Westkapelle. After that came the battles in North East of France, especially in Alsace. Liberation of the Belfort area, and then in Alsace : Colmar pocket, liberation of Strasbourg and all the battles during operation Nordwind ... and then southern Germany and Austria. In the Vosges/Alsace battles (where about 25% of the allied forces were French) during 1944, French ground forces were the first reaching the Rhine (not crossing it) on 19th November 1944 and then they entered south Germany and Austria : Kehl, Karlsruhe, Neckar, Pforzheim, Tübingen, Stuttgart, Rottweil, Uberlingen, Sigmaringen, Bregenz, Bludenz ... They were also the first reaching and taking Berchtesgaden and the "Adler's nest" with the US 3rd ID. A battalion from the US 3rd ID was followed by the French 2nd Armored Division. The French were the first Allied troops into the Eagle's Nest at the top of Kehlstein mountain, followed by C/506th, and members of the 321st GFA battalion. There was no need for the late-arriving 101st airborne Easy company like in some movies. On 8th May 1945 the general De Lattre de Tassigny represented France during the capitulation of Germany.

Beside the French SAS and commando-marines there are other not well known French commandos who were active in the Pacific theater of operations during WW2. The CLI (corps léger d'intervention = light intervention corps) including 500-700 men at the creation in 1943 (in Algeria, under the command of colonel Huard) and 1600 men in 1945 was formed by various commandos called "Gaurs". They are the French equivalent of the "Chindits" and they were active in Burma and especially in Indochina from 1944 to 1946. The CLI was integrated in the 20th Indian division and was dropped behind the Japanese lines for guerrilla actions. They lost 120 KIA and 209 WIA. On 1st May 1945, in India, the unit becomes the 5e RIC including an airborne battalion and a SAS battalion (airborne and amphibious operations). The SAS battalion includes the marine commandos from capitaine de corvette Pierre Ponchardier also known as "commando Ponchardier" (or "tigers' commando" by the Viet-Minh). After WW2, operation in October 1945 around Saigon against the Viet-Minh, liberation of southern Indochina. Operation in Mytho, Vinh Long, Canthö, Tra Vinh etc. In 2 months the commandos free dozen of French people, 800 Christian annamists and liberates several areas. They are directly under the command of General Leclerc.

Therefore the French fought in Europe, in Africa, on the eastern front with the 'Normandie-Niemen' fighter group and in the Pacific theater of operations.

FRENCH LOSSES DURING WW2 :
1) French military losses : 253,000 KIA
• May / June 1940 : about 100,000
• Free French / French army 1942-1945 : about 60,000 (+ the losses in 1941-1942 like in Syria etc.)
• 45,000 POWs who died in camps
• several losses in the Vichy army
The 253,000 figure includes also probably losses on the axis side :
• 30,000 - 35,000 "malgré-nous" (enlisted by force)
• about 13,000 - 18,000 axis volunteers (LVF, Sturmbrigade Frankreich, SS Charlemagne etc.)
There are therefore about 203,000 KIA on the allied side (half of them in 1940) and 50,000 KIA on the axis side.

The USA for example suffered 292,132 military KIA for a much bigger country.

The official accounting of US war deaths during WWII is :
- US Army 234,874 battle dead and 83,400 nonbattle dead
- US Navy 36,950 battle dead and 24,664 nonbattle dead
- USMC 19,733 battle dead and 4,778 nonbattle dead
- USCG 574 battle dead and 1,343 nonbattle dead
Total 292,131 battle dead and 115,185 nonbattle dead
Total dead was 407,316

Note that battle dead includes all those killed-in-action, died-of-wounds and missing-in-action, declared dead and died while captured or interned due to battle injuries; nonbattle dead includes all those died-of-disease, died-of-nonbattle injury, and died while captured or interned due to non-battle injuries.

2) French civilian losses : about 390,000 people who died, including :
• about 24,000 FFI (French Forces of the Interior) who were KIA but listed as civilians
• about 25,000 various people listed as resistants/partisans
• 67,000 due to air bombings (about 55,000 due to allied bombings and 12,000 due to German bombings)
• all the people who were 'collateral damages' (example about 19,000 civilians in Normandy during the operations following D-Day), executed, deported, who died in German camps or factories etc.


Regards,

David

[Belial]

Nice post David.

[Ander320]

If I remember my history correctly Stephane, Germany actually had to carry it's allies, including the Austrians fighting a many front war in WWI."

As did the French...
The french Army was by far the major player in the west until the UK rise their level of troop in the end of 1915/ beginning1916.
The french also send troops in support to Italy.
The french Marine forced Greece gouvernement to join the war by stagging a "coup" and then ta full french army fight in the Balkan alongside the Serbs and Greek and manae to get advance in the AH and Bulgaria territory.

"Also, during WWI the French encountered mainy mutiny problems that almost effectively ended the ability for French troops to be used in offensive movements and relied almost entirely on the British until the US came in, and it was with US supplies and men that gave 'em the last hurrah."

Common uninformed bias. The french mutiny were a real crisis in 1917 but they were pass by the french army pretty quickly. The whole story involve 100 soldiers sentence to death for mutiny (50 were'nt executed).

The command also put some money and supplies in the soldiers level of life. Until that date the french soldiers have the worst level of supply, food and equipement and when they arrived to the Germen trench they saw that this trench were better protected and that the german have a better "standart of life" (sorry for the expression my english is poor). The same were they saw UK/commonwealth trench.
In 1917, if the problem of the french army were so bad some should question how the german didn't manage to break the line when the french hold a bit more than 50% of the front...

In 1918 the french Army did his job to repell the last german offensive and their advance during the summer show nothing like the "lack of offensive" you speak of (same in the balkans...)

"In World War II I agree, if there wasn't the Russian and African fronts, DDay would've been extraordinarily difficult as the Russian front tied up many German soldiers. But hey, guess what? The African front and Italian front were manned by a great many US troops as well! What were the French doing? Oh right, fighting AGAINST us. "

Vichy never fight in offensive action against the allies. They defend against allies and Free France action. They were a puppet regim of the Nazis and support them but never have enought political power over the french (and over their army)to dare made an offensive move against the allies.
In Morrocco and Algeria the fight were very short 'cause the breaking of the armistice treaty by the german in metropolitan France made the whole Vichy regime fall in North Africa.

The free French were fighting in Lybia before 12/42 and the French North African Army also fght in Tunisia and Italy.

"And you know that Russian front? Ever heard of the lend-lease program? And who do you think fed the UK? Who island hopped all the way across the Pacific?"

Nobody said the US didn't have a great part in Victory nor spit on US soldiers i think. Still USSR is the main contributor to the fall of the German III reich

"And whose territory was Vietnam's anyways"

When the US put their nose in that mess? It was an independante country. Before that it was part of the French Indochina wich was made of Vietnam (full North + South) Kampuchea and Laos.

[ash933]

Post 1: LOOK MY COUNTRY IS BETTER THAN YOURS BLAH BLAH BLAH
Post 2: BUT NO YOU SEE LOOK MY COUNTRY IS BETTER BLAH BLAH BLAH

Rinse.
Repeat.

[Ander320]

Post 1: LOOK MY COUNTRY IS BETTER THAN YOURS BLAH BLAH BLAH
Post 2: BUT NO YOU SEE LOOK MY COUNTRY IS BETTER BLAH BLAH BLAH

Rinse.
Repeat.

I asn' saying sth like that nor David from my poitn of view.

And it seems the original idea was "your country is ****" more than "my country is better".
The second posture i could understand, spitting on the deed of a nation i don't.

[Kitsune]

The problem of the French in the 20th century was not so much a lack of valor or skill of the soldiers but more that the highest military leadership made massive mistakes.

In WWI the French plan ("Plan XVII") was a massive attack on western Germany with about a million soldiers. Basic doctrine was "attaque a outrance" (attack to the utmost), relying heavily on the verve of the single French rifleman. The French leadership had neither introduced machine guns in great numbers ("these have never decided a war") nor heavy artillery ("this just slows us down"), also the French soldiers were easy to spot in their bright blue/red uniforms - the German Feldgrau camouflaging uniforms were despised as cowardly. If things had worked out as the French leadership imgained they would, the war would have taken place in the German Rhineland. But Plan XVII was an unmitigated desaster, the French were massacred and almost lost the war in 1914. They had to withdraw and only managed to stop the German troops after these had well advanced into French territory. (It was not only the astuteness of one French general but also the fact that the Germans had to transfer a lot of soldiers to the Eastern front to cope with the Russians that made it possible to prevent the Germans from gettinng to Paris). The French got better though: a bluish/grey field uniform was adopted, as well as machineguns and heavy artillery.
But if the German generals had made the same kind of mistakes that early in the war...WWI would not have lasted four years. Germany could not afford these kinds of mistakes.

In WWII, the basic French tactic was nearly the exact opposite of the one used in WWI. After the war in the trenches, the French generals had come to the conclusion that, with the weapons of the time, defense would be inherently superior to offense. Actually as the German troops moved to attack France in late spring 1940 (the French/British declaration of war had left Germany wedged in between the Western powers and a doubtful ally, the Soviet Union, which could decide to join France/Britains side anytime, so the Germans more or less had to attack), the French military leadership believed that victory was certain(...which was the reason for the French declaration of war against Germany in the first place). French generals had proved with mathematical precision that the only way France could loose this war was, if Germany attacked with a force that had three times the strength of the defender...but the attacking German force was even slightly inferior in numbers! The only concern had been that the French political leadership could have decided to attack Germany, but that fear was gone after Hitler decided to attack westward. The French generals saw this as an act of sheer desperation.
But to the complete and utter surprise of nearly all French and British generals and nearly every military expert in the world (and frankly, even some German ones), the French and British troops were crushed within six weeks, despite valiant fighting on their part. The Blitzkrieg-tactic proved the idea of the superiority of the defender wrong.
Had the German generals made a similiar gross mistake...the war would have ended on the battlefields of France.

In both WWs its similiar: the good job of the German generals combined with the bad job of the French lead to German successes which left the Germans good positioned.

[callous]

From Jason B.

Their losses in WW1 are irrelevant: They were defending their country, I'll file it under "The minimum standard or what could be expected" rule. Lets not even get into the first battle of Ypres, where they buckled and left the British surrounded.

World War 2, We had to kill more french"men" taking their country back than the Germans did taking the place. We LOST more men taking the country back than the french did defending it from the Germans.

Korea: I'm sure their 1,000 man contingent did banner service in 1952.
Africa: They did a tremendous amount of damage in Algeria and the rest of Northern Africa... look at Lebanon and Syria: Great Job... don't worry, we'll clean up your mess... again.

Vietnam: Nuff Said

They have been a force of political havoc throughout the world. Everything they touch turns to crap, and WE end up somehow being the bad guys while we clean up the messes they leave.

Persian Gulf War 1: That 1/2 regiment of armored cars came in handy... to someone, I'm sure. The "brigade" (I didn't know that 4 companies were a "Brigade") of Legionares did something or other too. Anyway, great job guys! I'd like to say that we couldn't have done it without you, but... well, that'd be lying. But hey, look on the bright side, you guys didn't retreat, and you stayed on your planned schedule of advance... even though everyone else (even the Saudis and Quattaris) exceeded the advance rate by something like 30x faster than was planned. So here's to mediocrity!

But here's the best one:

Quote:French forces recently carried out a brilliant operation in Cote d’Ivoire, in which aircraft, that had launched attacks on UN peacekeepers, were quickly and efficiently destroyed

Yes, brilliant indeed. The fact that the IVORY COAST AIR FORCE was able to launch an air strike against them says volumes. Then, the "Brilliant" part: They bombed the air field and destroyed the aircraft that participated in the attack. Lets get this straight... they didn't wipe the Ivory Coast Air Force (and I think the words "Ivory Coast Air Force" have more letters in them than the force has airworthy aircraft) off of the face of the planet. They destroyed the 3-4 aircraft that participated in the attack. They left a hostile force with warfighting capacity... they took deliberate steps to do it too!

They haven't been worth a damn since Napolean as a fighting force. As a stabilizing political force... dismal failure. Their "Blue Water Navy" is a complete joke.







WW2: ever heard of the French Resistance and De Gaulle's Free French Movement? Not to mention that the Free French fought in the Battle of Britain, North Africa campaigns, Italy and participated in D-Day. And they were the ones to liberate Paris (supported by the US, of course, but they did most of the fighting)

Indochina: guess the US didn't learn from France.

Bottom line: France's military is as good as british, german, us, etc.

The German garrison in Paris Surrendered. General Isenhower the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe let De Gaule 'Liberate Paris' from a few left over snipers.

[roland]

^^ LOL
You're not smart but you learn your lesson well. Have a coocky.

[David Lehmann]

The German garrison in Paris Surrendered. General Isenhower the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe let De Gaule 'Liberate Paris' from a few left over snipers.

The French 2nd armored led the drive towards Alençon and Paris. The losses during the battle of Paris (with one US infantry division) where followings :

- Allied troops :
130 KIA, 319 WIA, 21 MIA
48 tanks, 4 guns

- German troops :
3200 KIA, 12600 POW
74 tanks, 64 guns, 350 various vehicles

Even if the battle was rather "easy" that makes a lot of snipers apparently ...

David

[Pandy]

And they were the ones to liberate Paris (supported by the US, of course, but they did most of the fighting)

To my understanding, it was a US Recon Battalion from the American Division supporting the French 2nd Armor, entered Paris first. From what I read from the history channel (message board thingly, a year ago.) The US Recon Battalion stopped less then hundred yards into the city, and had French Armor enter downtown Paris.

That's to my understanding. US Forces were first to enter Paris, French Forces liberated Paris.

[ogukuo72]

There's no denying French soldiers fought well and bravely in the recent wars. But they seemed to have been consistently let down by their leadership, both military and civilian.

In WW I, Generals like Joffre and Nevain seemed to have spent the lives of their soldiers too freely and ineffectually, and the French soldiers, quite reasonably, refused to be treated as cannon fodder. I am sure that they were willing to down their lives for country (as demonstrated by the epic defence of Verdun), but to be thrown away so casually for little or no gain was too much for the soldiers.

In any case, the mutinies seemed less like a full-scale revolution like that in Russia, and more like an industrial action (which the French is still very fond of nowadays ... sorry, just couldn't resist it! :)) In the hundred days leading up to the Armstice, the French Army was effective enough in the pursuit of the German Army. And if the war had lasted into 1919 as many had expected, I am sure the French would have been able to reconstitute their forces into a fully effective Army again.

I am not very familiar with the events that led up to the armstice in WW II. From what I know, it seemed that the French government basically lost their nerves when less than half the country has been over-run and substantial military reserves remained (especially in the colonies). The navy was still intact and could have played a role in bringing in reinforcements from the colonies. The air force also remained a viable fighting force, even if the Luftwaffe had obtained air superiority (although not air supremacy).

The Army could have fought on, and the Germans were having severe logistical difficulties because most of the German armies still depended on horse drawn carts. The Germans had also attacked through the Ardennes, which, as events in 1944 was to show, was a terrible route in logistical terms (the Germans were luckier in 1940). The Germans were also having problems mopping up pockets of resistance bypassed by the panzers because the infantry needed to do that were marching in on foot, far behind the tanks.

All in all, even without the British, I thought that the French armed forces could have held out agains the German invasion.

[Navy]

One of the biggest problems that french army has faced the last 100 years is the equipment.

Lets face it: the french army equipment in the spring of 1940 was outdated. They had nothing to compare with the germans mg34 or mp40. The french lmg and smg was not even half as good. Their latest service rifle m.39 was not as good as the mauser.

We shouldent even mention their tanks. the h 35 and h 39 were ****. Almost the only lesson they had learned from ww1 was to change the color of their uniform from blue and red to brown. Thier helmet was the same (as the british) and the web gear was ****.

nowadays the situation is better. they have 2 general camo patterns. and their famas is better then the british s80. they have great mortars and good planes. they lack however attack helos and good boots and comm.

well that was about it. but an comparsion with the us is unfair. compare eu with the us instead and see who is the strongest.
p-)

[Ander320]

I am not very familiar with the events that led up to the armstice in WW II. From what I know, it seemed that the French government basically lost their nerves when less than half the country has been over-run and substantial military reserves remained (especially in the colonies). The navy was still intact and could have played a role in bringing in reinforcements from the colonies. The air force also remained a viable fighting force, even if the Luftwaffe had obtained air superiority (although not air supremacy).

The Army could have fought on, and the Germans were having severe logistical difficulties because most of the German armies still depended on horse drawn carts. The Germans had also attacked through the Ardennes, which, as events in 1944 was to show, was a terrible route in logistical terms (the Germans were luckier in 1940). The Germans were also having problems mopping up pockets of resistance bypassed by the panzers because the infantry needed to do that were marching in on foot, far behind the tanks.

All in all, even without the British, I thought that the French armed forces could have held out agains the German invasion.

After Dunkirk french force would have been unable to stand against the german in the long run. And the armistice on the metropolitan France was not a lost of nerve it was being realistic. You're army is defeated, your unable too put up a coherent front and have no hope to save the unit trap in the pocket why would you made more people dieing in a useless action?
BTW on the 20th of june the german Army is at the gate of the Alpes wich is much more than 50% of the territory lost and the huge part of France industrial and human capacity under German hand.

About the idea to follow the fight in the colony: It would have been possible but the french colony weren't a great "renforcement" in manpower.
I think Churchill said the UK would support France abroad but after some misconception about Dunkirk on both side the french governement didn't have a lot of trust in Churchill and they let Petain and the ultra-right behind him took over the responsabilities.

About french leadership i agrea totally. In WWI they didn't even thought about a agression on Belgium, stick to the "Plan XVII" in 1914.
In WWII, i think the german army was clearly superior to any other army in the world. Not only in their leadership but also doctrine, organistation, training and initiative.
The french army could have perform much better if the HQ have keep dsome reserves so to stop the german manoeuver in the back of the troops in Belgium but i think on the long run without a strong involvement of the British or a second front on Germany France was doom wathever the reaction to the Ardennes offensive.
Germany was the first European industrial and technical power, they have a much wider population...
I can't see France able to resist until the allied blocus and the UK commitment goes stronger espescially with a second front to be open by Mussollini in the south.

[M1A2U2]

American military is one of the worse in the world:

They didn't fought a real war since the secession war, and perhaps independence war, but that doesn't prevent them to give lessons to other and even treat them cowards.

In 1812 the got there @ss kicked by the Canadians, the Quebecquers and the Brits (How they managed to get the Quebecquers against them is beyond understanding: looks like there proverbial clumsiness is deeply rooted)
They had Washigton burned to the ground, only a French pirate wanted by the American justice, Jean Lafitte, saved there honnor and won there only battle in New Orlean. But that doesn't prevent them to claim victory ! That is what I call having a big mouth.

In WWI they started to be effective only in summer 1918. Before that they did all the mistakes the French and the Brits did before them.
In November 1918 they were 1.8 Million while French and Brits were 9 million each but that doesn't prevent them to say they saved our butt and won the war. big mouth again.

In WWII they got there @ss kicked by the Germans in Tunisia.
With all there hardware superiority they stayed stuck 6 months in front of Monte Cassino before the French came and puctured the Gustav Line.
In the battle of the Ardenne, they had there @ss kicked again and had the cheeck to ask the French army to retreat and leave Alsace and Strasboug in the hand of the enemy. Fortunately De Gaule refused and we had to defend Alsace with our own means.
85% of the Germans were on the East front, but that doesn't prevent them to say they won the war. big mouth again.

The American doctrine is to fight unfair battle: with a huge superiority in man and material, and destroy its enemy where it is the strongest. They can afford this doctrine thanks to there huge industrial superiority.

But they shoudn't call anybody coward, because each time they had to fight there enemy in equal conditions they didn't proven anything except a lack of flexibility and imagination.

Today, we can notice they don't know how to die with class.
They start there war, but after a while there population says "hey, we are ok for the war, but we didn't thought there is going to be some killing ! stop this, lets bring our boys back home !" Needless to say that when they speak of killing, they think only of there boy, the enemies soldiers of population they don't care.
Big mouth but little brain and little nerves.

Lets analyze this statement shall we?


They didn't fought a real war since the secession war, and perhaps independence war, but that doesn't prevent them to give lessons to other and even treat them cowards.
Interesting statement...what would your definition of a "real war"? You have convienently left out some wars that disprove your arguement.

Barbary Pirates
Mexican American War
Spanish American War
Korean War


In 1812 the got there @ss kicked by the Canadians, the Quebecquers and the Brits (How they managed to get the Quebecquers against them is beyond understanding: looks like there proverbial clumsiness is deeply rooted)
They had Washigton burned to the ground, only a French pirate wanted by the American justice, Jean Lafitte, saved there honnor and won there only battle in New Orlean. But that doesn't prevent them to claim victory ! That is what I call having a big mouth.
Maybe you should get a factual history of this war. The US was invaded by the most powerful military in the war after only being a country for about 30 years. Their peacetime military consisted of about 2,500 men give or take a few hundred more militia. Of course an army of this size would be destroyed, as it was, and its capital burned. What you failed to include, to better prove your argument, was that the US defeated the entire british army at New Orleans. Led by Andrew Jackson, American defenders slaughtered the oncoming british onslaught and ended up killing 700 brits and wounding 1,400. Americans lost 8 men and 13 wounded. Way to leave that out. If you think this battle was irrelevant than one could argue that according to your logic the US won the vietnam war. Britain burned the capital then left the country and signed a peace treaty. The US was attacked and it sucsessfully defended its country by stopping the british from reoccupying the country.


In WWI they started to be effective only in summer 1918. Before that they did all the mistakes the French and the Brits did before them.
In November 1918 they were 1.8 Million while French and Brits were 9 million each but that doesn't prevent them to say they saved our butt and won the war. big mouth again.
Any sane person knows that france and England would have lost the war if the US did not intervene. Furthermore, france would have lost much earlier if England did not come to her aid.


In WWII they got there @ss kicked by the Germans in Tunisia.
With all there hardware superiority they stayed stuck 6 months in front of Monte Cassino before the French came and puctured the Gustav Line.
In the battle of the Ardenne, they had there @ss kicked again and had the cheeck to ask the French army to retreat and leave Alsace and Strasboug in the hand of the enemy. Fortunately De Gaule refused and we had to defend Alsace with our own means.
85% of the Germans were on the East front, but that doesn't prevent them to say they won the war. big mouth again.
Thanks for convienently leaving out the some more info. You think maybe the fact that we were fighting the entire Japanese army is a factor???? NAAHHH LETS LEAVE THAT OUT
As for Tunisia, the only people that got their asses kciked were the germans...thats why they lost. Ever heard of the Battle of Kasereen Pass? of course not. Frances contribution to the war, no including their assistance to the germans, was token at best with a small acception to Leclerc's forces in North Africa. Anyone who has studied history knows that we did win WW2.


The American doctrine is to fight unfair battle: with a huge superiority in man and material, and destroy its enemy where it is the strongest. They can afford this doctrine thanks to there huge industrial superiority. As oppose to France's doctrine which is to willingly open fire on unarmed civilians in the Ivory Coast? Youre right we should fight a fair battle even though more of our men would die. I dont think you understand the concept of war. It is to make the enemy LOSE.


But they shoudn't call anybody coward, because each time they had to fight there enemy in equal conditions they didn't proven anything except a lack of flexibility and imagination.
WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF THIS?


American military is one of the worse in the world
This is my favorite statement of all. It pretty much devalidates your entire post but i ignored it anyway.
How many times has the American Military signed surreneder papers?

[ronin2172]

^^ LOL
You're not smart but you learn your lesson well. Have a coocky.
it's cookie numbnuts....u r just as bad as those whom u ridicule...plese read before you post....m1a2u2 was able to prove how much of a moron you are....

[roland]

Lets analyze this statement shall we?


that is good M1A2U2 you surprise me here :)




They didn't fought a real war since the secession war, and perhaps independence war, but that doesn't prevent them to give lessons to other and even treat them cowards.
Interesting statement...what would your definition of a "real war"? You have convienently left out some wars that disprove your arguement.

Barbary Pirates
Mexican American War
Spanish American War
Korean War


I was speaking of wars where you country is devastated and a big share of a whole generation of male killed or wounded. Something like secession war. See what I mean ?




In 1812 the got there @ss kicked by the Canadians, the Quebecquers and the Brits (How they managed to get the Quebecquers against them is beyond understanding: looks like there proverbial clumsiness is deeply rooted)
They had Washigton burned to the ground, only a French pirate wanted by the American justice, Jean Lafitte, saved there honnor and won there only battle in New Orlean. But that doesn't prevent them to claim victory ! That is what I call having a big mouth.
Maybe you should get a factual history of this war. The US was invaded by the most powerful military in the war after only being a country for about 30 years. Their peacetime military consisted of about 2,500 men give or take a few hundred more militia. Of course an army of this size would be destroyed, as it was, and its capital burned.

So tell me why the US attacked in the first place ? and Britain was more than busy with Napoleon in Europe. In fact the Canadian defended themselves and the British army that invaded the USA was the minimum the Brits could let in the colony.



What you failed to include, to better prove your argument, was that the US defeated the entire british army at New Orleans. Led by Andrew Jackson, American defenders slaughtered the oncoming british onslaught and ended up killing 700 brits and wounding 1,400. Americans lost 8 men and 13 wounded.

What you fail to say is that it is thanks to Jean Lafitte that the Americans won in New Orlean, a French pirate wanted by the American justice.




In WWI they started to be effective only in summer 1918. Before that they did all the mistakes the French and the Brits did before them.
In November 1918 they were 1.8 Million while French and Brits were 9 million each but that doesn't prevent them to say they saved our butt and won the war. big mouth again.
Any sane person knows that france and England would have lost the war if the US did not intervene.

see http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=41494
The fact is that the Americans were great help but at the end your president, Wilson, with the best will of the world, ****ed our victory. And no, France and Britain would NOT have lost the war without The USA but that is a sterile discussion.



Furthermore, france would have lost much earlier if England did not come to her aid.

That doesn't make sense. France and Britain were allied and of course the battle was in French ground. Where else ? on the Channel ?
Thinking that Britain would have fought for French's nice eyes is laughable and no serious Briton would pretend that: Britain never accepted to have a superpower on the continent. God know how they pissed France off because of that for 1000 years and most notably during Napoleon time. In WWI and WWII that was at our advantage. That is geostrategy as Britain is an island, that's geography. This being said, I think we really started to appreciate the Brits too because of there help but hush that is one of the best kept secret. ;)




In WWII they got there @ss kicked by the Germans in Tunisia.
With all there hardware superiority they stayed stuck 6 months in front of Monte Cassino before the French came and puctured the Gustav Line.
In the battle of the Ardenne, they had there @ss kicked again and had the cheeck to ask the French army to retreat and leave Alsace and Strasboug in the hand of the enemy. Fortunately De Gaule refused and we had to defend Alsace with our own means.
85% of the Germans were on the East front, but that doesn't prevent them to say they won the war. big mouth again.
Thanks for convienently leaving out the some more info. You think maybe the fact that we were fighting the entire Japanese army is a factor???? NAAHHH LETS LEAVE THAT OUT
As for Tunisia, the only people that got their asses kciked were the germans...thats why they lost. Ever heard of the Battle of Kasereen Pass? of course not. Frances contribution to the war, no including their assistance to the germans, was token at best with a small acception to Leclerc's forces in North Africa. Anyone who has studied history knows that we did win WW2.

check, all what I've said is true. About French contribution, I think you didn't studied history well enough, notably you can read David Lehmann's posts in this thread.




The American doctrine is to fight unfair battle: with a huge superiority in man and material, and destroy its enemy where it is the strongest. They can afford this doctrine thanks to there huge industrial superiority. As oppose to France's doctrine which is to willingly open fire on unarmed civilians in the Ivory Coast? Youre right we should fight a fair battle even though more of our men would die. I dont think you understand the concept of war. It is to make the enemy LOSE.

I've never said it's a bad doctrine. It fits perfectly well for the USA. But a country that never have to fight any war on equal terms in modern history, should prevent itself from judging those who had to fight in most difficult conditions on there soil.

[roland]

^^ LOL
You're not smart but you learn your lesson well. Have a coocky.
it's cookie numbnuts....u r just as bad as those whom u ridicule...plese read before you post....m1a2u2 was able to prove how much of a moron you are....

thanks for your great contribution: I know now how to write cookie :roll:

[M4ko]

^^ LOL
You're not smart but you learn your lesson well. Have a coocky.
it's cookie numbnuts....u r just as bad as those whom u ridicule...plese read before you post....m1a2u2 was able to prove how much of a moron you are....

Roland speaks atleast 2 languages how many do you speak? besides japanese manga words.

[M1A2U2]

I was speaking of wars where you country is devastated and a big share of a whole generation of male killed or wounded. Something like secession war. See what I mean ?
You mean the Civil War? you left out that one too.
Sorry if the American military is strong enough not to let other countries invade us.


So tell me why the US attacked in the first place ? and Britain was more than busy with Napoleon in Europe. In fact the Canadian defended themselves and the British army that invaded the USA was the minimum the Brits could let in the colony.
The US didnt attack first the British did because they were blockading our ports and fired on a ship. "Canadians" were non existant...it was called the British Army.


check, all what I've said is true. About French contribution, I think you didn't studied history well enough, notably you can read David Lehmann's posts in this thread
You fail to accept that French forces were defeated by the Germans and surrendered and then collaberated. They were not outnumbered 10 to one, the Germans were the ones outnumbered. And this idea that if the odds are against someone in a war or if they have insuperior tactics and they lose that they get a pass is just idiotic. Acording to that Logic the Iraqis didnt lose either war.


I've never said it's a bad doctrine. It fits perfectly well for the USA. But a country that never have to fight any war on equal terms in modern history, should prevent itself from judging those who had to fight in most difficult conditions on there soil.
Fair statement but again, there are reasons why we havent fought wars on our homeland one of them being that we are protected on both sides by an ocean but also because we keep our military strong so that we dont have to face that. The maginot line france built gave them a massive advantage over the germans but the germans were smarter and were able to find ways to overcome that.

[Midav]

This thread has gone off course from where I had intended it to go.

If it's proven anything, then it just shows that ignorism lies on both sides of the Atlantic.

And yes, you know who you are.

[ronin2172]

^^ LOL
You're not smart but you learn your lesson well. Have a coocky.
it's cookie numbnuts....u r just as bad as those whom u ridicule...plese read before you post....m1a2u2 was able to prove how much of a moron you are....

Roland speaks atleast 2 languages how many do you speak? besides japanese manga words.
wow....that was soooo funny...i mean really...you are such a card... dave chapelle move over.

Now are u his resident cheerleader or something? I don't care if he can translate for the entire UN he is still a moron. Oh and as your reward for such a passionate and wittty attack...here's a coocky..

[Midav]

What you fail to say is that it is thanks to Jean Lafitte that the Americans won in New Orlean, a French pirate wanted by the American justice.

There are many things I disagree to, with this being the most prominent point.

Yes, Jean Lafitte helped a lot.

But, what is also not mentioned by you, the British lost two generals KIA in that battle, one being Major General Pakenham, putting them at a distinctive disadvantage.

Just how wars go.

The Hessian troops had the plans for Washington's attack during the Revolutionary war.

The British received ultra during WW II.

etc...

Anyway, this thread is about the French military and how well they have actually done in the past, Roland.

I am trying to show people that the French have had a good military. I am trying to show this to the less educated and the bigots.

Do you comprehend that?

Now, I don't need your anti American bigotry in here, because you are not helping in the least. You are acting just as foolish as those you dislike.

Now, help out.

[M1A2U2]

I don't care if he can translate for the entire UN he is still a moron.
rofl rofl rofl

[sp2c]

apparantly the French did relatively well during Desert Storm, ask m1a2u2, he was right there with them!

[-Max2-]

apparantly the French did relatively well during Desert Storm, ask m1a2u2, he was right there with them!

rofl

[roland]

@Midav: of course you're right :oops:

I'm affraid I felt in the trap of those hater that want to rotten the atmosphere between us. How I hate the American politicians that played the hate card for there little agenda....

But now lets finish the job.
I'm not going to do the same mistake with ronin that obviously is looking for trouble here.



Sorry if the American military is strong enough not to let other countries invade us.


yeah, but with all the respect I have for Canada and Mexico, I think its hard to compare them with those bad ass of Britain and Germany don't you think so ? Can you imagine more pain in the ass neigbour than Britain or Germany ? (j/k I know they think the same of France ;) )





So tell me why the US attacked in the first place ? and Britain was more than busy with Napoleon in Europe. In fact the Canadian defended themselves and the British army that invaded the USA was the minimum the Brits could let in the colony.


The US didnt attack first the British did because they were blockading our ports and fired on a ship.


LOL. sorry but this is history to make childrens sleep well. Have a look on some real British or Canadian sites about this war, you would be surprised ..






check, all what I've said is true. About French contribution, I think you didn't studied history well enough, notably you can read David Lehmann's posts in this thread


You fail to accept that French forces were defeated by the Germans and surrendered and then collaberated. They were not outnumbered 10 to one, the Germans were the ones outnumbered. And this idea that if the odds are against someone in a war or if they have insuperior tactics and they lose that they get a pass is just idiotic. Acording to that Logic the Iraqis didnt lose either war.

man how is it possible to deny we had been beaten and well ?
Read those f*** post about the French defeat in the first battle of France and explain me how we would have defended Paris with all the army trapped in the north and Belgium with just a bunch of cops to defend the town. We probably could have done better for sure but we have no lesson from anybody to recieve about courage or art of war.






I've never said it's a bad doctrine. It fits perfectly well for the USA. But a country that never have to fight any war on equal terms in modern history, should prevent itself from judging those who had to fight in most difficult conditions on there soil.

Fair statement but again, there are reasons why we havent fought wars on our homeland one of them being that we are protected on both sides by an ocean but also because we keep our military strong so that we dont have to face that. The maginot line france built gave them a massive advantage over the germans but the germans were smarter and were able to find ways to overcome that.

fair enough too, you're an honest man.

I'm out of the discussion, I apologise for the troubles on this thread.

[ronin2172]

I'm not going to do the same mistake with ronin that obviously is looking for trouble here
rofl ...this is coming from the person who repeatedly trashes the US on this forum!



But they shoudn't call anybody coward, because each time they had to fight there enemy in equal conditions they didn't proven anything except a lack of flexibility and imagination.



American military is one of the worse in the world

look familiar?

hmmm i never said anything bad about France...in fact if i ever made a comment about the french military it was usually positive, anywho all I did was point out how rude you are and responded in kind.

[1Cie GevGn]

you're an honest man.

Bwahahaha rofl

[roland]

@ronin

It's obvious that my point was to prove that it's easy to bias history a disturbing way even for the big brave and mighty America.
Now it's not completly false. That's what makes it more disturbing I guess .. p-)



Bwahahaha rofl

If all your post were this quality, you probably didn't forced much to reach the score of 1078 posts. Good point .... err your point is ?

[M1A2U2]

@ronin

It's obvious that my point was to prove that it's easy to bias history a disturbing way even for the big brave and mighty America.
Now it's not completly false. That's what makes it more disturbing I guess .. p-)



Bwahahaha rofl

If all your post were this quality, you probably didn't forced much to reach the score of 1078 posts. Good point .... err your point is ?

ignore him hes just a flamer

[mi35d]

ANd of course, right after French bashing comes Italian bashing. The first long list of French defeats always includes this assinine line:

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

Except for, England, Spain, various parts of Germany, Egypt, Greece, Turkey, etc. etc. etc.

If you're going to roll back and check history why not include that minor thing, The Roman Empire?

[Midav]

If you people can't keep this thread sensible and on topic, I'm going to ask a mod to lock it.

As simple as that.

[M1A2U2]

France has lost a good amount of wars. What is there to discuss?

[callous]

I'm affraid I felt in the trap of those hater that want to rotten the atmosphere between us. How I hate the American politicians that played the hate card for there little agenda.....

I'm not sure if you remember. When President Bush was trying to gain the UN security councils okay to invade Iraq. France sent it's Foriegn Minister to some countries on the security council in a effort to convince them to vote against the US. The problem wasn't France didn't support the US. It was that they were actively campaigning against the US. I think you will find this is what soured Americans against the French government.


man how is it possible to deny we had been beaten and well ?
Read those f*** post about the French defeat in the first battle of France and explain me how we would have defended Paris with all the army trapped in the north and Belgium with just a bunch of cops to defend the town. We probably could have done better for sure but we have no lesson from anybody to recieve about courage or art of war.

Could France not survive with out Paris? In the American Revolution and the War of1812. Americans lost thier capital, but didn't surrender. I do not doubt the courage of French soldiers. It's thier goverment and politicians that I think are spineless.




I've never said it's a bad doctrine. It fits perfectly well for the USA. But a country that never have to fight any war on equal terms in modern history, should prevent itself from judging those who had to fight in most difficult conditions on there soil.

So you think it's harder to fight a war on your own soil? Factories and supplies are close. The population supports you. Your soldiers know the terrain. The enemies supply lines are stretched thin and their troops are tired.

Fighting a war a thousands of miles away from your home country is so much easier? Shipping everything fuel, guns, ammo, troops, Food, aircraft, armor and more. Then attacking an enemy either on land they've occupied and fortified or on thier home territory. Yep dosent sound difficult at all.

[roland]

I'm affraid I felt in the trap of those hater that want to rotten the atmosphere between us. How I hate the American politicians that played the hate card for there little agenda.....

I'm not sure if you remember. When President Bush was trying to gain the UN security councils okay to invade Iraq. France sent it's Foriegn Minister to some countries on the security council in a effort to convince them to vote against the US. The problem wasn't France didn't support the US. It was that they were actively campaigning against the US. I think you will find this is what soured Americans against the French government.

So what ? We though invading Iraq that way wasn't our interest so we fought against this with the diplomatic means available. Now you're not going to say we forced Mexico and Canada, your two neigbours, to vote against you in the UN okay ? Bush and Powell had been outfoxed by Chirac and Villepin, simple like that. Perhaps it's becaue we don't vote for blessed @ss. We vote for b@stard politicians that are not going to be outmaneuvred by the first dictator they meet.




man how is it possible to deny we had been beaten and well ?
Read those f*** post about the French defeat in the first battle of France and explain me how we would have defended Paris with all the army trapped in the north and Belgium with just a bunch of cops to defend the town. We probably could have done better for sure but we have no lesson from anybody to recieve about courage or art of war.

Could France not survive with out Paris? In the American Revolution and the War of1812. Americans lost thier capital, but didn't surrender. I do not doubt the courage of French soldiers. It's thier goverment and politicians that I think are spineless.

arrh read the thread. The possibility of continuing the fight from the colony was studied, that was what De Gaule wanted and that would have been the right choice. Easier to say now. Speaking with my Grand Father (RIP), he told me he was sure Petain was asking for a break, the time to reorganize and resume the fight later. Most of the people thought that would be that way and there is some sign that show it could be true. There is some proof of arms hidding and the Military intelligence continued to hunt the German spy. Petain regime was ambiguous.
Vichy France was neutral as far as the war is concerned. After the German broke the armistice treaty in november 1942 and invaded south of France, that was an other story: there was no doubt anymore: the Vichy regime was a puppet and traitor regime.
all in all:
- the collaborators were a tiny minority that stayed tiny despite heavy propaganda and material interests,
- the resistants were a tiny minority that kept growing and growing despite the risks, until it became a sizeable force,
- the huge majority was busy to survive and feed there family but would have turned blind eyes on resistants or jews if only to avoid the trouble, but also because they deeply hated the German.





I've never said it's a bad doctrine. It fits perfectly well for the USA. But a country that never have to fight any war on equal terms in modern history, should prevent itself from judging those who had to fight in most difficult conditions on there soil.

So you think it's harder to fight a war on your own soil? Factories and supplies are close. The population supports you. Your soldiers know the terrain. The enemies supply lines are stretched thin and their troops are tired.

Fighting a war a thousands of miles away from your home country is so much easier? Shipping everything fuel, guns, ammo, troops, Food, aircraft, armor and more. Then attacking an enemy either on land they've occupied and fortified or on thier home territory. Yep dosent sound difficult at all.

YES: It's easier to fight a war when you want, how you want, where you want, without the risk of being invaded, and an industry that has the time to switch in _TOTAL_WAR_MOD.

[ogukuo72]

There's several questions we can ask ourselves:

first, how much reserves does the French still have?

second, are these reserves a coherent fighting force?

third, is there still a will to fight amongst these forces?

fourth, is there competent military leadership able to lead that force on an effective defence?

fifth, is there a political will to continue fighting?

Is there any one familiar with the history of the Fall of France who could answer these questions?

The impression I have is that the French Army still had military reserves in Metro France itself, with substantial military forces remaining under leaders such as De Gaulle who has the will to fight on (but I hesitate to call him a competent military leader because all I've read about him is on his political leadership, and not his military abilities).

Not to mention the troops in the colonies, which is just across the Med, a sea which is dominated by the Royal Navy and the still powerful French fleet. It would have been possible for these reserves to be brought into France, if there's the will to do so, and the competency to organise the reinforcement.

Remember, much of the Free French forces (and in 1944 those forces that prove to be most competent and effective) would come from those forces in the colonies, and good military leaders such as GEN Leclerc &lt;sic?> were also in the colonies. Not inconsequentially, some of these forces also played a decisive role in the defence of El Alamein in Aug 1942 to enable the British Army to reinforce and rebuild for the decisive battles in Oct 1942.

The more I read, the more I am convinced that the weak French government at that time, dominated, not inconsequentially, by socialists, was to blame for a collective loss of nerves. The battle could have been fought for another few weeks at least, at which time the German Army might well find itself in serious logistical problems.

It might be that the Dunkirk evacuation played a role in this, as the withdrawal of the BEF from the mainland seemed to the government to be a British abandonment of France, no matter how necessary it was militarily.

While the evacuation might not be an abandonment of the French by the British, the hard truth is that after the evacuation, with the loss of all the equipment and coherence in military forces, the BEF had ceased to be a factor in the Battle for France, and the French were in effect alone in that battle.

An interesting "what if" that historians haven't really pondered is if the British had stood firm in Dunkirk, despite being surrounded, and reinforced across the Channel (the distance between Dunkirk and UK is actually shorter than the distance between the UK and Normandy). The conventional wisdom is that this could not have been done, but still...

Dunkirk would play a role that is similar to Tobruk a year later in North Africa, a torn in the side of the German forces, forever endangering their flank, which they had to waste forces to contain and try to eliminate.

And Dunkirk is within the range of RAF fighters, especially the superb Spitfire squadrons that were held back from France. The Battle of Britain might have been brought forward by three months as the Battle of Dunkirk, and if the RAF can wrestle air superiority over Dunkirk from the Germans, the German Army might find itself in even more trouble.

To stretch the imagination even further, if Dunkirk had been held strongly, it might even become a Stalingrad two years early, grinding away German forces that might have been used in the rest of France, allowing the French Army to retreat, reorganise and re-enter the battle.

[roland]

Interesting..


There's several questions we can ask ourselves:

first, how much reserves does the French still have?


0
yes you read well: 0
When he learnt that Churchill was astonished.
The French threw all the forces they had in Belgium and nothern France. Where the Magino line wasn't built we wanted to fight the war, that was supposed to be deffensive like WWI, the most close to the frontier, if possible in Belgium, to avoid all the destruction we had in WWI.
That makes a lot of the questions irrelevant..



(...)
Not to mention the troops in the colonies, which is just across the Med, a sea which is dominated by the Royal Navy and the still powerful French fleet. It would have been possible for these reserves to be brought into France, if there's the will to do so, and the competency to organise the reinforcement.
Remember, much of the Free French forces (and in 1944 those forces that prove to be most competent and effective) would come from those forces in the colonies, and good military leaders such as GEN Leclerc &lt;sic?> were also in the colonies. Not inconsequentially, some of these forces also played a decisive role in the defence of El Alamein in Aug 1942 to enable the British Army to reinforce and rebuild for the decisive battles in Oct 1942.

The more I read, the more I am convinced that the weak French government at that time, dominated, not inconsequentially, by socialists, was to blame for a collective loss of nerves. The battle could have been fought for another few weeks at least, at which time the German Army might well find itself in serious logistical problems.

Continuing of the fight from the colony wasn't an alternative like you think it could have been: modern wars need a strong industrial base. Our colony weren't industrial.
We would have needed complete supply from our allie, Britain, who was unable to do so at this time. But still that would had been much better than having a neutral France.

[ogukuo72]

Thanks Roland. I guess it's just impossible to save French military honour from the debacle 1940. The historical facts just wouldn't allow it.

[oldsoak]

An underfunded, ill equipped military cannot achieve miracles against a modern, well equipped and well led enemy. Its been true ever since we started throwing rocks at each other. Had the French military been as well funded as it should have been, 1940 could have had a very different ending. The French soldier was as capable as any - we only got off the beaches at Dunkirk because the French held the perimeter enabling some 220,000 British and 120,000 French and Belgian troops to get out. Any serious critic of the French military needs to study not just the win vs lost column, but understand the events and the factors involved.

[Kitsune]

oldsoak wrote:
An underfunded, ill equipped military cannot achieve miracles against a modern, well equipped and well led enemy. Its been true ever since we started throwing rocks at each other. Had the French military been as well funded as it should have been, 1940 could have had a very different ending. The French soldier was as capable as any - we only got off the beaches at Dunkirk because the French held the perimeter enabling some 220,000 British and 120,000 French and Belgian troops to get out. Any serious critic of the French military needs to study not just the win vs lost column, but understand the events and the factors involved.
The french did not saw there military as underequipped or underfunded. Actually there military spending was even a bit higher than the German one.


ogukuo72 wrote:

An interesting "what if" that historians haven't really pondered is if the British had stood firm in Dunkirk, despite being surrounded, and reinforced across the Channel (the distance between Dunkirk and UK is actually shorter than the distance between the UK and Normandy). The conventional wisdom is that this could not have been done, but still...

Dunkirk would play a role that is similar to Tobruk a year later in North Africa, a torn in the side of the German forces, forever endangering their flank, which they had to waste forces to contain and try to eliminate.

And Dunkirk is within the range of RAF fighters, especially the superb Spitfire squadrons that were held back from France. The Battle of Britain might have been brought forward by three months as the Battle of Dunkirk, and if the RAF can wrestle air superiority over Dunkirk from the Germans, the German Army might find itself in even more trouble.

To stretch the imagination even further, if Dunkirk had been held strongly, it might even become a Stalingrad two years early, grinding away German forces that might have been used in the rest of France, allowing the French Army to retreat, reorganise and re-enter the battle.

Where should I begin here?

1) The Spitfire. While being a superb fighter it actually wasn't so much better than the Me 109. The higher losses of the Germans during the Battle of Britain were mainly becuase of the advantages the British had by fighting over there own territory: short flight times to apporach the enemy, much better ability to concentrate their forces. Exactly these advantages would not have been there if one would have battled the Luftwaffe over Dunkirk. Most proabably the British losses would even have been higher than the German ones. And even if they were the same...the British could not afford that: their fleet might have been much larger, but there Air Force was smaller. The most likely outcome would have been that the RAF would have bled white in an futile attempt to conquer air superiority over Dunkirk.

2) Let's look at the sea. Well, here the British ruled, their fleet was the largest in the world. But did this mean that they could supply a more than 300.000 men strong army over the channel? German Luftwaffe could attack the supply ships, submarines could prey on them...hell even ground artillery could hit them. Remember: the British weren't able to prevent the German actions in Norway a few months earlier. So it seems to be quite unlikely that a supply line over the channel could have been worked...not without very high losses for the Brits at least.

3) As far as the army is concerned...there wan't very much what the British had to strenghten there forces in Dunkirk. What they had was largely there. Could an succesful "firm stand" have been made? There is no 100% certainty, miracles can always happen. But the Germans had the advantage in quantity. That's bad. But that's only part of the problem. Let's face it, the Wehrmacht had also the edge in quality....as the war in our reality showed. In France, in Greece, on Crete, in Africa...even if the German forces were outnumbered or had significantly less equipment at their disposal, they did well against the British. (Take Afrika for example: usually the Commonwealth forces had about double as many tanks, double as many guns, 4 times as many armored vehicles as the German Afrika Korps, had mor trucks, more fuel, more ammo...and still had their problems, sometimes got downright chased through Africa).

I don't think that I am very far from the mark if I say that a an attempt to stand firm at Dunkirk would just have give the Germans the chance to destroy the British army once and for all. The decision to retreat was a prudent one.

[oldsoak]

The French military had colonies to defend as well as France unlike Germany. Considering the expansion of the Wehrmacht in the 30's, I'd argue the German spent more, and that French forces were not equipped or trained to the level of their German counterparts. Certainly in AT and AA guns, the French were markedly inferior - and considering the strengths of the Germans lay in combining the two, this would disadvantage the French in defensive warfare. The French did better the Germans in battle in 1940 - De Gaulle was able to launch successful counter attacks, but he never had the resources to exploit or maintain them.

[roland]

Thanks Roland. I guess it's just impossible to save French military honour from the debacle 1940. The historical facts just wouldn't allow it.

What you mean ? If we would have stopped the fight with some reserve and any hope left that would had been contrary to honor, but here ?
Perhaps it would be more fair to say that nothing could save the French generals's to be considered as stupid. May be. But even, it is easier to say how the French should have done now than then. If it had worked we would have cried fo genius. But it didn't. That was a risky gamble and was even badly implemented. :(

[Ander320]

oldsoak wrote:[quote]An underfunded, ill equipped military cannot achieve miracles against a modern, well equipped and well led enemy. Its been true ever since we started throwing rocks at each other. Had the French military been as well funded as it should have been, 1940 could have had a very different ending. The French soldier was as capable as any - we only got off the beaches at Dunkirk because the French held the perimeter enabling some 220,000 British and 120,000 French and Belgian troops to get out. Any serious critic of the French military needs to study not just the win vs lost column, but understand the events and the factors involved.

The french did not saw there military as underequipped or underfunded. Actually there military spending was even a bit higher than the German one.

Actually the french military leadership in the 30's (and also before WWi but that's another story) was very aware of the weakness of France in front of Germany:

Less populated, less industrial (still mostly rural country), less technical than his neighbourg. The colony were saw for what they were very usefull ressource poll and possibility to draw some troops from there (but it was by no way like "mobilisation" of the peope only professionnal troops).
The french military command when ask about the reaction to the Rhinland rearm's by hitler said to the politic that mobilistaion and the support of the UK.

The whole Maginot line was to protect the East of France and to "force" the war to be done north in Belgium and or the Rhineland.

The doctrine was not "totally" defensive but very inspired of the action in the end of the world war one (numerous light tank in support of infantery) and ignored totally the possibility for a war to be win on a quick offensive much more like systematique and progressive advance. Spanish civil war didn't counter this analysis. Like in the end of WWi their was some offensive possibility but nothing like the "manoeuvre warfare" of the XIX century with the possibility of quick decisive victory.

Given the card in the hand of France : Ressource in the colony, good possibility to made a blocus by the Royal Navy and Marine bloking the access to ressource to Germany , a defensive stance allocating time for the Uk to have a full continental army potential mobilised and let Germany beginning to have ressource access problem was judge as the best chance of success.

One thing that first doom this plan even before any bullet was fired was the molentov-Ribbentrop pact. The idea Hitler and Stalin which were stongly opposed ideologically and have fight indirectally in Spain until the beginning of 39 (one supporting Franco the other Spannish communist) could made a "friendly" pact wasn't took in account by the allies. At worst a nervous neutrality but with this pact Germany could no more be streched on natural ressource (USSR has plenty of it to trade).
Combined with the idea of Franco taking power a few month ago and Mussollini more and more friendly toward germany the dream of a possible two front war for Germany was changed in the possible nightmare for France to fight on 3 fronts.


2° point the french leadership totally miss:

The french HQ thought that Poland even given the dissimetric level of power between Poland and Germany could hold 3 month at least. That gave them the idea that a quick opening in the west could destabilized Germany and made some gain in the rich German Sarre and Rhineland. But as David said and at the surprised of the French leader Poland fall bmuch shorter. The french leadership then stick to his plan to fight the German in Belgium and made a stance their until the superior ressource and Industrial output of France+UK made the game.

The "phony war" was the time for very strong change in the military. At the eyes of Poland fall the french leadership look for AT, Tank unit organisation (3 armor divisions were raised and their arganisation refit), infantery equipement and modernizing the airforce at a great pace. The french industrial output during the september39/Mai 40 period was very strong . France put the economy in war mod very quickly when Hitler let the german econom work cooler (may be for political reason).

So i don't think the french military was underfunded for the 38-39 timeline. Before that date may be a bit but i would like to have the GDP figure.

But in all mean the most important factor was the french leadership didn't saw the coming of a new standart of warfare were, dispite the huge firepower of modern army, tank combined with airpower and mobile infantery + initiative of divisionnal commander and good operationnal awareness for the commander could break the barrier of Firepower and lead to manoeuveral victory.

Were they stupid to didn't see it coming? Easy to said that in 1945 much less at the time. As i said Spanish civil war doesn't gave that' much tactical advice that such combined tactic could be so effective. At the time the shock and surprise were in all the military circle. Even the russian with 1 years to prepare were surprised by the organisation and efficiency of the whermacht and suffer huge loss of troops and territory.

And in the end, WWII was still won as a "usure" war like the french leadership thought it would be. But a war in wich France given his strategic capacity in 39 (Face Germany with potential threat on your south border, no coordination with the belges and a USSR friendly to Germany) wasn't able to win even if tactically the french command should have done much better (no strategic reserve to cover the back of a full army is even more than dumb!) and France stand a bit more : 1 month, 3 month? that's what if and it doesn't make real sens.

[M1A2U2]

When a country losses a war it has only itself to blame. Every excuse you give for why france lost were factors that should have been dealt with by the french.
If you argue the germans has a bigger military...thats your fault
If you argue that the french technology wasnt as good...thats your fault.

Americans didnt lose a single battle in the vietnam war yet we accept the fact that we lost the war. you dont hear us bitching and giving excuses about how we really won or how the war was unfair. War is supposed to be unfair

[Jani.R]

Americans didnt lose a single battle in the vietnam war yet we accept the fact that we lost the war. you dont hear us bitching and giving excuses about how we really won or how the war was unfair. War is supposed to be unfair

Are you sure about that, my polish-italian-gw-vet? rofl

[stephane from Paris]

When a country losses a war it has only itself to blame. Every excuse you give for why france lost were factors that should have been dealt with by the french.
If you argue the germans has a bigger military...thats your fault
If you argue that the french technology wasnt as good...thats your fault.

Americans didnt lose a single battle in the vietnam war yet we accept the fact that we lost the war. you dont hear us bitching and giving excuses about how we really won or how the war was unfair. War is supposed to be unfair

Battles loose?heard about Korea and the beginning of pacific war?
What should gone if Japan had a common border with US??
By the way , in vietnam US ground forces loose many ground battle and were only save by air support or often by B52 destruction of leaving zone!
Without B52 , Khe san was loose in the ground!
It's the total air and equipments supperiorities who saved US infantry in so many places not the value of the men.

[stephane from Paris]

The more I read, the more I am convinced that the weak French government at that time, dominated, not inconsequentially, by socialists, was to blame for a collective loss of nerves. The battle could have been fought for another few weeks at least, at which time the German Army might well find itself in serious logistical problems.
.

You must thinks with the 30's context:
1929: terrible economic crisis! This crisis gave 2 facts that totally explain the 1940 defeat!
In Germany, people were angry against the cost of WW1 damages pay to allieds, with the crisis, it is the rise of nationnalism and revenge ideas!
Hitler wins elections and all the country was put on the road for war!
In France, the crisis put in place the socialists (with commies party friend) in 1936! The priority was peace and works for everybody! "Never again" a war like WW1 was the main ideas.
During the same period, France is in political troubles since a strong ultra right wing (where Vichy will find it's forces) appear for opposite socialists.
During 4/5 years, Germany has one goal and just one goal when France is victim of internal troubles.
All the industry of germany prepare the war, but in France socialists though that germans will not want another WW1, so defence industries were activated too late.
Politicals didn't changed the defensive option and military officers who for most hated socialists waited the time that they will take again the joystick!
The problem is that Hitler with good tactic didn't give them that time!

[callous]

When a country losses a war it has only itself to blame. Every excuse you give for why france lost were factors that should have been dealt with by the french.
If you argue the germans has a bigger military...thats your fault
If you argue that the french technology wasnt as good...thats your fault.

Americans didnt lose a single battle in the vietnam war yet we accept the fact that we lost the war. you dont hear us bitching and giving excuses about how we really won or how the war was unfair. War is supposed to be unfair

Battles loose?heard about Korea and the beginning of pacific war?
What should gone if Japan had a common border with US??
By the way , in vietnam US ground forces loose many ground battle and were only save by air support or often by B52 destruction of leaving zone!
Without B52 , Khe san was loose in the ground!
It's the total air and equipments supperiorities who saved US infantry in so many places not the value of the men.

Well the US didn't loose the Korean war. The Korean and UN forces fought back the NK and Chinese armies. So the war ended where it began. In the begining of the War in the Pacific. We took some loses. Together with other Allied armies we prevailed. In Vietnam we used air superiorty to our advantage. Why wouldn't we use all availible assests. It would've been stupid not to. The value of the US infantry in Vietnam is very high in my book. I don't dispute the honor or courage of french soldiers. it's your government that at times seems a bit weak.

[stephane from Paris]

Well the US didn't loose the Korean war. The Korean and UN forces fought back the NK and Chinese armies. So the war ended where it began. In the begining of the War in the Pacific. We took some loses. Together with other Allied armies we prevailed. In Vietnam we used air superiorty to our advantage. Why wouldn't we use all availible assests. It would've been stupid not to. The value of the US infantry in Vietnam is very high in my book. I don't dispute the honor or courage of french soldiers. it's your government that at times seems a bit weak.

Lot of yours here dispute the honor of french soldiers !
I didn't speak about loosing wars but battles!
When i see the list of "wars that Frances loose", i see mostly battles not wars!
For example we loose Crecy and Azincourt due to english bowmen but we won the 100 years war since at the end all France ,including the french lords allieds to england, was under the king's rules.
For Vietnam, i knows that US infantrymen were good (not more not less than every men in the world), and it's quite evident that not using air support should be very stupid!

What i try to explain, is that when some here thinks US have the best soldiers and won every battles and wars it's a stupid statement!
Since WW2 (where russians did most of the job in europe) USA didn't have to face a serious opponent!
When i read that M1A1/A2 are the best MBT because it was combat proven, i says that even old M60's should win againts Iraki's T55 and T72 with a so fantastic air support . In same way it's impossible to compare an OIF US infantryman and an iraki. One is over protected (helmet and flak jacket gear) , well supported by air/ground and ground/ground weapons when the other has only his hearts and an AK!!!
Is US infantryman better soldier than insurgent or just a more efficient one?

From far the main reason of US military power is money, money, money!
When France spend 1$, UK spend 1.2$ but USA spend 13$!! US can and do this spending, it's right.

France, Israel, Russia, Germany, UK have from far enough brains to do military equipements as good as USA ones but we'll never have money!
It's the same for military forces, it's ridiculous to compare.

For politicals France/USA ways i have just one thing to say:
I thinks that Chirac went too far , but he was right on OIF!
-This war was not necessary and gives more power to islamists integrists, the result will be show in 10 years!
-This war started on wrong (and now proved) facts: another help for integrists voice!
-Ok for freedom, but what freedom for people of Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi ? Allieds but none serious and true democracies. Strangely the neocon never ask for free these countries :) Muslims in the world see that freedom is just for countries who have oil in the Bush point of view!
-US republicans have a collonial view of the world! Now , more than never , USA acts only for it's own interrest and don't care of his allieds who will paid the price in the future (France , UK, Italy, germany) since it's us who have big muslims minorities!

[M1A2U2]

When a country losses a war it has only itself to blame. Every excuse you give for why france lost were factors that should have been dealt with by the french.
If you argue the germans has a bigger military...thats your fault
If you argue that the french technology wasnt as good...thats your fault.

Americans didnt lose a single battle in the vietnam war yet we accept the fact that we lost the war. you dont hear us bitching and giving excuses about how we really won or how the war was unfair. War is supposed to be unfair

Battles loose?heard about Korea and the beginning of pacific war?
What should gone if Japan had a common border with US??
By the way , in vietnam US ground forces loose many ground battle and were only save by air support or often by B52 destruction of leaving zone!
Without B52 , Khe san was loose in the ground!
It's the total air and equipments supperiorities who saved US infantry in so many places not the value of the men.

Is that a joke?


in vietnam US ground forces loose many ground battle and were only save by air support or often by B52 destruction of leaving zone!
Without B52 , Khe san was loose in the ground!
Ok so we didnt lose any battles. Were not gonna use your stupid little rules like "if they didnt have B52s you would have lost" well we did have B52s so your point is idiotic. We can sit here all day playing what ifs. The point is we never lost a battle. Bombing the **** out of the enemy counts as winning a battle.n This is the exact same point i was arguing before

[M1A2U2]

Well the US didn't loose the Korean war. The Korean and UN forces fought back the NK and Chinese armies. So the war ended where it began. In the begining of the War in the Pacific. We took some loses. Together with other Allied armies we prevailed. In Vietnam we used air superiorty to our advantage. Why wouldn't we use all availible assests. It would've been stupid not to. The value of the US infantry in Vietnam is very high in my book. I don't dispute the honor or courage of french soldiers. it's your government that at times seems a bit weak.

Lot of yours here dispute the honor of french soldiers !
I didn't speak about loosing wars but battles!
When i see the list of "wars that Frances loose", i see mostly battles not wars!
For example we loose Crecy and Azincourt due to english bowmen but we won the 100 years war since at the end all France ,including the french lords allieds to england, was under the king's rules.
For Vietnam, i knows that US infantrymen were good (not more not less than every men in the world), and it's quite evident that not using air support should be very stupid!

What i try to explain, is that when some here thinks US have the best soldiers and won every battles and wars it's a stupid statement!
Since WW2 (where russians did most of the job in europe) USA didn't have to face a serious opponent!
When i read that M1A1/A2 are the best MBT because it was combat proven, i says that even old M60's should win againts Iraki's T55 and T72 with a so fantastic air support . In same way it's impossible to compare an OIF US infantryman and an iraki. One is over protected (helmet and flak jacket gear) , well supported by air/ground and ground/ground weapons when the other has only his hearts and an AK!!!
Is US infantryman better soldier than insurgent or just a more efficient one?

From far the main reason of US military power is money, money, money!
When France spend 1$, UK spend 1.2$ but USA spend 13$!! US can and do this spending, it's right.

France, Israel, Russia, Germany, UK have from far enough brains to do military equipements as good as USA ones but we'll never have money!
It's the same for military forces, it's ridiculous to compare.

For politicals France/USA ways i have just one thing to say:
I thinks that Chirac went too far , but he was right on OIF!
-This war was not necessary and gives more power to islamists integrists, the result will be show in 10 years!
-This war started on wrong (and now proved) facts: another help for integrists voice!
-Ok for freedom, but what freedom for people of Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi ? Allieds but none serious and true democracies. Strangely the neocon never ask for free these countries :) Muslims in the world see that freedom is just for countries who have oil in the Bush point of view!
-US republicans have a collonial view of the world! Now , more than never , USA acts only for it's own interrest and don't care of his allieds who will paid the price in the future (France , UK, Italy, germany) since it's us who have big muslims minorities!
Kind of like France acts for its own interests by going into africa and opening fire on unarmed civilians. That is my definition of a colonial power...
PS France and German are not US allies anymore.

[Roger Rabbit]

Kind of like France acts for its own interests by going into africa and opening fire on unarmed civilians. That is my definition of a colonial power...
PS France and German are not US allies anymore.
Well you would know all about how the French military operates having served with them in Gulf War 1 wouldn't you?

[stephane from Paris]

[
Kind of like France acts for its own interests by going into africa and opening fire on unarmed civilians. That is my definition of a colonial power...
PS France and German are not US allies anymore.

First it's current Ivory coast government who asked for french help when rebels were just near Abidjan.
Second there's 2 video of the hotel affairs. One is from the side of ivorians but the other taken by ivorian TV is inside the hotel area!
You see french officer talking with ivorian officer who says several time that the situation is dangerous and that he counts on ivorians gendarmes (military police) to secure the area.
The cameraman shows several hundreds unarmed but very very hostile guys 2 METTERS in front of 2/3 dozens of french soldiers. The ivorians gendarmes aren't abble to stop the mob!
The cameraman shows the ivorian journalist with the french officer when a firegun (perhaps fired by one of our soldier who fears the menace, we'll never know) was hearing!!
If french soldiers really fired on the mob, at 2 metters with 50.cal of the VAB and famas, there shoud be several hundreds deads since several thousands of Ivorians were in the area! Some bullets touched ivorians , right , it's a gun shoot during a riot !
BTW i remember seeing US forces fired on unarmed irakis who asked for their money several weeks after the fall of bagdad!
In the same way , in Kosovo the riot against Kfor should gave the same result if there weren't in place some specialists of the order maintains in place of normals soldiers!

To be a colonial power, is for example to take the control of the economy of a country, understand what i means?

France and Germany aren't allieds of USA???
Well which USA are you speaking about?
The country of freedom or the country lead by a ultra right winger supported by religious extremists?
Even in the USA allieds in Irak, a large percentage of people were against the Bush view of the planet!
USA now acts like Rome did!
Take this in mind we're not your slaves.
Is a real allied do that:
- politically supporting Vietmihn in the late 40's against France!
- acting against UK, France, Israel during Suez campaign!
- Trying to stop France who wanted his own nuke!
- Trying to cut France power in Africa (Rwanda events begun when Tutsis rebels , supported by US advisors,invaded the home land).
- take the control (with CIA muppets financials companies) of europeans high technology firms! Since the "gemplus" affairs we prepares a law (similar to the existing one in US) to stop foreign control over risked companies!
- Downing the dollar which attacks european's economy!

Who wants to be the allied of who?

[Ander320]

When a country losses a war it has only itself to blame. Every excuse you give for why france lost were factors that should have been dealt with by the french.
If you argue the germans has a bigger military...thats your fault
If you argue that the french technology wasnt as good...thats your fault.



Ok you don't want to look at history that's your fault.
I don't gave excuse i was looking at the reason wich lead to the french leadership bad doctrine and why they failed.
About the fact that we lost the war nobody question this. The whole point is that we won't accept some bastard insulting our fallen and saying the french didn't fight.
We fight, we lost.
Just like you fight vietnam you lost, you fight somalia you lost.

[callous]

Hold on thier partner. We didn't loose in Somalia. That was a UN intervention. The US just hepled out. If your talkin' bout the raid in Mogadishu. The objective of the raid was accomplished(capturing 2 of Adid's top men) we lost 19 brave men but the Somalis lost 1,000. After that mission the TFR was recalled but other US troops stayed for some time.



Thursday, March 2, 1995, 5:30 p.m.

Briefer: The good news is: everybody's out. As of 1659 Eastern Time, or one minute before 1 a.m. in Somalia, tomorrow, the last amphib departed the beach -- the AAV with the last Marines aboard -- so we no longer have any presence in Somalia.
I thought what I might do... Just so you have the pieces... I know your folks over there are reporting a lot of this, but I might just run through some of the details of the last 24 hours and give that to you in terms of the withdrawal operation. And then cover a couple of other points with you, and then we'll see if you have any questions

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar1995/x030395_x0302som.html

[M1A2U2]

[
Kind of like France acts for its own interests by going into africa and opening fire on unarmed civilians. That is my definition of a colonial power...
PS France and German are not US allies anymore.

First it's current Ivory coast government who asked for french help when rebels were just near Abidjan.
Second there's 2 video of the hotel affairs. One is from the side of ivorians but the other taken by ivorian TV is inside the hotel area!
You see french officer talking with ivorian officer who says several time that the situation is dangerous and that he counts on ivorians gendarmes (military police) to secure the area.
The cameraman shows several hundreds unarmed but very very hostile guys 2 METTERS in front of 2/3 dozens of french soldiers. The ivorians gendarmes aren't abble to stop the mob!
The cameraman shows the ivorian journalist with the french officer when a firegun (perhaps fired by one of our soldier who fears the menace, we'll never know) was hearing!!
If french soldiers really fired on the mob, at 2 metters with 50.cal of the VAB and famas, there shoud be several hundreds deads since several thousands of Ivorians were in the area! Some bullets touched ivorians , right , it's a gun shoot during a riot !
BTW i remember seeing US forces fired on unarmed irakis who asked for their money several weeks after the fall of bagdad!
In the same way , in Kosovo the riot against Kfor should gave the same result if there weren't in place some specialists of the order maintains in place of normals soldiers!

To be a colonial power, is for example to take the control of the economy of a country, understand what i means?

France and Germany aren't allieds of USA???
Well which USA are you speaking about?
The country of freedom or the country lead by a ultra right winger supported by religious extremists?
Even in the USA allieds in Irak, a large percentage of people were against the Bush view of the planet!
USA now acts like Rome did!
Take this in mind we're not your slaves.
Is a real allied do that:
- politically supporting Vietmihn in the late 40's against France!
- acting against UK, France, Israel during Suez campaign!
- Trying to stop France who wanted his own nuke!
- Trying to cut France power in Africa (Rwanda events begun when Tutsis rebels , supported by US advisors,invaded the home land).
- take the control (with CIA muppets financials companies) of europeans high technology firms! Since the "gemplus" affairs we prepares a law (similar to the existing one in US) to stop foreign control over risked companies!
- Downing the dollar which attacks european's economy!

Who wants to be the allied of who?

You mean the puppet of France the Ivory Coast government? If you think that was justified then fine. What about when you murdered green peace protestors in the Pacific? your a fcucking hypocrite to denounce american foreign policy. France has a more a stangle hold on west africa than than any other country in Europe. Dont open your mouth about the US in the middle east till you accept the fact that your country stil colonizes Africa.

As for supporting the viet mihn you are dead wrong. We supported the Viet Mihn against the Japanese not the french you moron. We supported you against the viet mihn and gave you billions of dollars which you squandered and still lost...bravo.

I saw the videos of the dead africas with their heads blown off and bleeding to death. You dont fire on an unarmed riot with real bullets in order to kill people. Maybe they should have used rubber bullets or tear gas. Why dont you let the the africans have free elections where they can elect who they want. BUt that will nevr happen because if it did they would make the french leave.

PS if we lost somalia so did france. Your troops were there also. Good job genious

[roland]

You mean the puppet of France the Ivory Coast government?

:cantbeli: aren't you tired of saying stupidities. If the racist Gbagbo government was a puppet of France, do you think he would have bombed our soldiers, and executed pogroms on the whites there, specially the French ?
Start thinking with your own brain instead of repeating like a parrot all the crap your media served to you for years. And try to be logic at least: logic never lie.
Ah, and btw Gbagbo's wife, who is the real "theorician" of this regime and control the death scadrons, is supported by ultra religious American evangelists linked with Israelian religious extremists. That is probably why a lot want you to be so mad about this Ivory coast affaire.
That stinks, a lot of whites get beaten if not worse, there house burned and lost everything there. Why can 60000 Ivorians immigrate in France but not 20000 French in Ivory Coast ?

[callous]

That's because white people are evil :-*$ Don't you know that Roland :lol:

[Ander320]

PS if we lost somalia so did france. Your troops were there also. Good job genious

So you put allies in your high level historical analys now?
I thought the US single hanly won WWII but anyway:

Yes WE fight Somalia WE lost. (We fight Gulf War I we win???)

[stephane from Paris]

You mean the puppet of France the Ivory Coast government? If you think that was justified then fine. What about when you murdered green peace protestors in the Pacific? your a fcucking hypocrite to denounce american foreign policy. France has a more a stangle hold on west africa than than any other country in Europe. Dont open your mouth about the US in the middle east till you accept the fact that your country stil colonizes Africa.

As for supporting the viet mihn you are dead wrong. We supported the Viet Mihn against the Japanese not the french you moron. We supported you against the viet mihn and gave you billions of dollars which you squandered and still lost...bravo.

I saw the videos of the dead africas with their heads blown off and bleeding to death. You dont fire on an unarmed riot with real bullets in order to kill people. Maybe they should have used rubber bullets or tear gas. Why dont you let the the africans have free elections where they can elect who they want. BUt that will nevr happen because if it did they would make the french leave.

PS if we lost somalia so did france. Your troops were there also. Good job genious

Before troubles, Bagbo changed democracy laws to exclude Alasan Ouatara (due to his "foreign" origin) his political oponent!
A general took the power and a rebel movement (mainly ouatara supporters) was near the capital Abidjan.
Bagbo who was quickly elected ask Paris for help since we have defense agrements! We save his ass and the life of thousands of french/US/UK/Libaneses/Italians...

The Marcoussis agreement should had stop the civil war but Bagbo who bought new weapons wanted to take advantages of his new army!
His surprise is that France wanted that he respect the agreement he signed to save the Ivory coast from a hard civil war (north = mainly muslims, rich south= christian) .
You speak about democracy????
Ask yourself why all African countries including ex english colonies supported France!
For the video, i'm not supprise that you never see the other one on your Murdock's medias!


Rainbow warrior?
The boat was destroyed but the death of a guy was an accident!
This pathetic affair should enlighting a little:
The current defense minister at this time was a socialist (Charles Hernu)that militaries and secrets services thought to be a KGB muppets!
This operation was do in his back and strangely it was totally BS!
As minister, the guy leave government after the failed and thats all for you!
But:

1-What's the interrest of this operation since Navy was from far abble to arrest the Rainbow warrior if he goes in our waters????
2- This defence minister was very hard with generals, for example he went by surprise in their office to see if they worked! Military heads hated him!
The question is: is this operation a way to remove this guy?
It was prove after that if he meeted some commies in the past, he had no ties with KGB!

You speak about France sad records?
Will you speak on Chili, Argentina, central america.... where CIA put in place tyrans? tell that to women who still waits news from their men!
Have a look on Ivory coast, senegal, cameroun(ex french colonies)... and compare with Liberia, nigeria ....

For Indochina i'm again affraid for you that you lack referencies!!!!
1946 to 1950 USA was opponent of the return of France. UK was our support this time!
After 1950 and the Korea/commies menace, USA changed his horse!

Good friend, man , good friend!

[Eryx]

1793 French revolution: the lords, supported by european kingdom tried to remove revolution, the people takes weapons and stopped kingdoms!


That's an underestimation. France alone, while fighting a civil war beat the sh!t out of England, prussia, Austria, Russia, Naple, Sardinia, Spain and the Germans states. The whole of Belgium and netherland were annexed. Prussia and Austria were forced to sign a peace treaty. The war of the first coalition was won. The old republic is victorious All that while fighting a civil war. tell another nation who has such an achievement. not those fat @ss american who always arrived late when the enemy forces are depleted.

[Eryx]

For the people of the maggot race, let put forward the military achievement of France, since we are smarter than them.


Pre-France
Brennus the Gaul Invaded rome, the naked army crushed a well equipped roman army, sacked rome and demand a tribute to be paid.

Franks, the Germanic line from which northern French came from invaded Gaul, defeated the roman thouroughly. The Franks set there capital in Tours. The seed of France is sown.

456 Unification of all tribes of France by Clovis, capital of the Frank empire move from Tour to in Paris. THe almanni and saxon are thouroughly defeated and are annexed to the mightyt Frankish empire.

732 Battle of Tour, Martel stopped a muslim France basically saving europe from the muslim

758- Charlemagne defeated the savage and inferior saxons and annexed most of Germany and italy. Frankish empire rivalled the defunct roman empire.

1066- French normans, Franks and Breton invaded England. The anglo-saxons are defeated. The normans who spoke french only created a system of apartheid and the less civilised anglo-saxons Lord are disposed. The english language basically became a crude french, nearly all 2 all words of english was of french origin. The french lords rules England for hundreds of years. Basically bringing civilisation to a backward people

1200- Capetian wars, Philip Augustus of France triumph at Bouvine against the Angevin empire, France is unified.

1300-1500- Hundreds years. England still under control of king of french origin claimed possession of french territory. Initially it was more like a civil war a Franco-anglo burngundian forces vs the ile de france (proper France) french. at the end of the war the english become increasinly isolated. At battle of Formigny, french forces annilate the English army for a loss of 5 :D . Similar situation at pattay. At the end of the war France became the most powerful nation in Europe and totally united.

Louis XIV, the sun king- so many wars won, that it is impossible to list them here. france even hammered a combined anglo-dutch naval forces at beachy head. France even own the seas in those days.

1793+: War of the 1st and 2nd coalitions: defeated the entire europe while fighting a civil war. No other nation has been capable of doing that in history.

Napoleonic wars: we all knows what napoleon achieved the entire europe became the b!tch of France.

1856: Franco-austrian war, we again defeated the austrian in yet another war.

1881: Sino-french war, conquest of indochina and defeat of the chinese with a french force 10 time less.

1914: WW1, France mightiest of the ally fighting force singlehanded with a small negligible british force stop the german at marne. THe french proved the mightiest at verdun by defeating the german in the greatest battle of the war. The am,eroican came in when the german were starving and imposed an armistice that would let the devil arose again. France should should have gone with Clemenceau plan and annexed germany enture rhine. Again the cowardly american promising to help France in germany attacked her in the future didn't come to France help during WW2. they had to wait until the Jap shoved it up their fat @ss to do something.

there are many other wars where France ditinguish herself militarily like Algeria, militarily won the war but lose politically. Libya France protected chad and help decimating the invading Libyan army. Suez crisis, french paratroopers proved superior to the British equivalent and secured all objective. Again the maggot people have to interefere.

[Eryx]

I thought Charlemagne was German? Didn't know he's French

Only a stupid american. Charlemagne is as french as it can get, born in the french city of Thionville. The Frank is the germanic line from which northern french come from. French isn't a race ignorant man. There are actually 3 lines from which the french come

1. the Celts
2. the Franks, they weren't truely germans since they had contact with the romans and they came from the da**** originally

3. In minority the romans.

So someone saying the romans defeating France is braindead, because without the romans there is no France or french language.

[L'EnkUleurdeK1ri]

France has an army???


Hahha a south african making fun of my country men.

Now the question is : how south africa would do against Nazi Germany ?

a few fact:

1) Half of the people in your country are infected by AIDS, if no treatment is found against this disease by western countries within the next 10 years, in 100 years the world will only remember SA for Apartheid and as the first country ever being wiped out from earth surface by an epidemy.

2) in your country, each year, hundreds of 4 year old girls are raped by infected men because some witch told them that taking the virginity of young girls was the only remedy against AIDS.

3) In your country each year, people from tribe A kill hundreds of people from tribe B, because tribe A doesnt like tribe B or something like that.


Hopefully this is a virtual scenario and hopefully you dont share any border with angry germans because unless germans are afraid from elephants :lol: , it would be an onslaught.

[L'EnkUleurdeK1ri]

jesus christ, a lot of amerikis think charlemagne was german.

what can i say : go back into history class. Anyway, this has no importance, everybody knows (in europe) that americans are bad at math, history, geography... :bash:

[Eryx]

Well said brother. The impure bloods have no notion of history and in their insanity only managed to make themselves look like fools in the eyes of real historians.

[oldsoak]

Ist battle of the Marne - we lost 12733 men - glad to know you think our contribution negligible.. come, give credit where its due.

[gaz]

Again the cowardly american promising to help France in germany attacked her in the future didn't come to France help during WW2. they had to wait until the Jap shoved it up their fat @ss to do something.

But why would you want the help of the "maggot people"? You just took great pains to point out that the French are hard as nails so why would you need help?

It's one way or the other but you don't get both....

[roland]

LOL welcome Erix :lol:
looks like you chose to use the heavy artillery without fear of collateral damage woot
Debatable imho
Don't be banned too fast: we always need heavy artillery to disperse the wanker.
For the moron, I would recommend a more personalized treatment personally. But well It's just me. Have fun ;)

[stephane from Paris]

No need to be so agressive men!
Respect our allies (UK, US) for what they did and fire (with facts) on internet yougsters who knows nothing about History!

I knows it's hard to resist with all the **** that we read on France from US since 3 years but stay gentlemen!
Salutations identitaires
Stephane

ps:Bluezob, black rain and DGPLAW are special gremlins!

[Midav]

*sigh*

Is it computer hour for the kindergarten again? Haven't read so many intelligent posts since mustamato's ToF thread...

[Midav]

not those fat @ss american who always arrived late when the enemy forces are depleted.

rofl

btw, from one fat assed american to one frog eating surrender monkey frenchy, You're welcome!

[M1A2U2]

Americans hate france and French hate americans...only a middle ground country like swizterland can solve this debate.

[Belial]

Americans hate france and French hate americans...
to be fair it would be :
Americans hate France and French hate America...
but even that would be false as there's no real hate unlike some people out there would like to make us believe.

[L'EnkUleurdeK1ri]

Americans hate france and French hate americans...only a middle ground country like swizterland can solve this debate.

thats completly false, i am deeply offended, i was born to love america !

*crowd cheers* USA!! USA !! USA !! *crowd cheers*

speaker:
THE US OF A, THE LAND OF THE FREE, THE LAND OF THE BRAVE
GOD BLESS AMERICA, GOD BLESS US BUT NOT OUR ENEMIES BECAUSE WE ARE THE PROUD, THE FEW, THE JUST, THE GOOD
IF YOU ARE NOT WITH US, SO YOU ARE AGAINST US, AND GOD DOESNT BLESS YOU CUZ HES ON OUR SIDE
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, THE LAND WHERE IF YOU DONT SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ, YOU DONT SUPPORT THE TROOPS AND YOU ARE A SISSY,
WHAT THERES OIL IN IRAQ ?11!?! THIS IS JUST A COINCIDENCE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IF YOU DONT HAVE A GUN YOU ARE A HOMO
THE REAL MEN ARE AMERICANS, WE ARE ALWAYS TRUE, AND WE NEVER LIE
WE MUST LEAD THE WORLD

YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW


*crowd cheers* USA!! USA !! USA !! *crowd cheers*

[Belial]

This kind of atitude is as despisable as the one you say you're the victim of.
Your member name is a disgrace just like your continuous whining since you started posting here.
I guess I speak on behalf of all those more reasonable french members sticking around. You're as ridiculous as the ones you denounce with such a behavior.
Sure there are a few subjects causing unrest in Franco-American relationships, there have been a few baseless claims and attacks towards both nations by a bunch of extremists on each side but what the **** is going on ? why can't we all just get along ????

[Eryx]

Listen don't fool yourself, there is no love loss btw the enlighten ones and the fatsos. Only the hippies will try to calm the game.

[Eryx]

LOL welcome Erix :lol:
looks like you chose to use the heavy artillery without fear of collateral damage woot
Debatable imho
Don't be banned too fast: we always need heavy artillery to disperse the wanker.
For the moron, I would recommend a more personalized treatment personally. But well It's just me. Have fun ;)

Roland how are you doing mate. I've been following that forum for rather a long time (picture secton awesome), but didn't bother to post here, you know me, I got an attitude problem. But common french bashing is going rampant here, and the mods don't seem to be doing anything about it. Well, someone have to put those nerdy yanky midgets in their rightful place. ;) .

Anyway have a good day, mate.

[Kilgor]

For the people of the maggot race, let put forward the military achievement of France, since we are smarter than them.

[/b]

Indeed, you spent billions atthe time of the maginot line to build a fortification that could be easily flown over and flanked around by tanks.
France was building defences like it was 1914 and not 1940, and was taught a very harsh lession by the germans.

Now thats the genious race.

rofl

[callous]

Eryx you do have an attitude problem. I refer to it as 'Lil Bigman Syndrome". Kinda like a lil' phrench poodle yapping away. Thinking it's a guard dog, but it's more like a lap dog. It's annoying, but not a threat to anyone. :petting:

I wish we Americans were as pure blooded as you phrench. Oh wait we are! Considering that phrench whores..er.. women have spread thier legs for every army that wanders through your country. I'd say you're as 'maggoty' as us. ;)

Don't worry us Americans know our place. It's sitting here waiting to save your nation again. You know like when one of your nieghbors gets tired of your yapping and has to smack you down. I'm sure we'll come and rescue you ...again. :cantbeli:

[Eryx]

Eryx you do have an attitude problem. I refer to it as 'Lil Bigman Syndrome". Kinda like a lil' phrench poodle yapping away. Thinking it's a guard dog, but it's more like a lap dog. It's annoying, but not a threat to anyone. :petting:

I wish we Americans were as pure blooded as you phrench. Oh wait we are! Considering that phrench whores..er.. women have spread thier legs for every army that wanders through your country. I'd say you're as 'maggoty' as us. ;)

Don't worry us Americans know our place. It's sitting here waiting to save your nation again. You know like when one of your nieghbors gets tired of your yapping and has to smack you down. I'm sure we'll come and rescue you ...again. :cantbeli:

After 3 paragraphs of nonsense, you must be pretty hungry here, aren't you. Why don't you go to your local McDonald.

LoL, an american talking about french women. To start with, you yank men are so fat that that you spend the majority of your life time without seeing your d!cks. You are not in a position to talk about women.

What the difference btw a mosquito and an american woman?
The mosquito stops sucking when given a tap on the head. rofl

[Eryx]

For the people of the maggot race, let put forward the military achievement of France, since we are smarter than them.

[/b]

Indeed, you spent billions atthe time of the maginot line to build a fortification that could be easily flown over and flanked around by tanks.
France was building defences like it was 1914 and not 1940, and was taught a very harsh lession by the germans.

Now thats the genious race.

rofl

Again, what about you open a history book. i guess the junk food is rotting your brain.

The maginot line was never attacked frontally by the germans. In fact the line wasn't complete, and that was due to the economic crisis in France at the period. if the line was completed to to the channel, no way any barbarian would have got through without them paying a heavy toll. The fault wasn't about the line itself it was about line not being complete.

[Midav]

Eryx-- The only thing you are proving is that idiots live on both sides of the Atlantic.

Before complaining about the posters here, you need to have a good hard look at yourself, friend.

In either case, I am asking for this thread to be locked, because people as yourself can't contribute anything worthy.

[Eryx]

Eryx-- The only thing you are proving is that idiots live on both sides of the Atlantic.

Before complaining about the posters here, you need to have a good hard look at yourself, friend.

In either case, I am asking for this thread to be locked, because people as yourself can't contribute anything worthy.

And whining about me not contributing to the forum is very constructive. To start with they should ban all french bashers, then they can ban me. Otherwise I should be allowed to express my honest opinion as long as these bigots are on the forum. You aren't the moderator so please shut up. By the way i've been follwing this forum longer than you think, and passively. It just get me p!ss that everytime some retarded fat @ss american nerds ruining my viewing pleasure with his french bashing.

[Midav]

Eryx-- The only thing you are proving is that idiots live on both sides of the Atlantic.

Before complaining about the posters here, you need to have a good hard look at yourself, friend.

In either case, I am asking for this thread to be locked, because people as yourself can't contribute anything worthy.

And whining about me not contributing to the forum is very constructive. To start with they should ban all french bashers, then they can ban me. Otherwise I should be allowed to express my honest opinion as long as these bigots are on the forum. You aren't the moderator so please shut up.

Flaming and being a bigot is constructive?

You're acting as bad as the anti French people then whine about it when someone says something?

Listen to yourself.

[hood]

You know what this thread is? A honey pot. It's a term that's been used lately on the internet where you setup a site (or in this case, thread) where you expect abuse to occur specifically to route out the bad guys. I think we've been successful in doing that here. :)