The new big thing on the web is all these sites with names like "I Hate France," with supposed datelines of French military history, supposedly proving how the French are total cowards. If you want to see a sample of this dumbass Frog bashing, try this:
www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
Well, I'm going to tell you guys something you probably don't want to hear: these sites are total bull****, the notion that the French are cowards is total bull****, and anybody who knows anything about European military history knows damn well that over the past thousand years, the French have the most glorious military history in Europe, maybe the world.
Before you send me more of those death threats, let me finish. I hate Chirac too, and his disco foreign minister with the blow-dry 'do and the snotty smile. But there are two things I hate more than I hate the French: ignorant fake war buffs, and people who are ungrateful. And when an American mouths off about French military history, he's not just being ignorant, he's being ungrateful. I was raised to think ungrateful people were trash.
When I say ungrateful, I'm talking about the American Revolution. If you're a true American patriot, then this is the war that matters. Hell, most of you probably couldn't name three major battles from it, but try going back to when you read Johnny Tremaine in fourth grade and you might recall a little place called Yorktown, Virginia, where we bottled up Cornwallis's army, forced the Brits' surrender and pretty much won the war.
Well, news flash: "we" didn't win that battle, any more than the Northern Alliance conquered the Taliban. The French army and navy won Yorktown for us. Americans didn't have the materiel or the training to mount a combined operation like that, with naval blockade and land siege. It was the French artillery forces and military engineers who ran the siege, and at sea it was a French admiral, de Grasse, who kicked the **** out of the British navy when they tried to break the siege.
Long before that, in fact as soon as we showed the Brits at Saratoga that we could win once in a while, they started pouring in huge shipments of everything from cannon to uniforms. We'd never have got near Yorktown if it wasn't for massive French aid.
So how come you bastards don't mention Yorktown in your cheap webpages? I'll tell you why: because you're too ignorant to know about it and too dishonest to mention it if you did.
The thing that gets to me is why Americans hate the French so much when they only did us good and never did us any harm. Like, why not hate the Brits? They're the ones who killed thousands of Americans in the Revolution, and thirty years later they came back and attacked us again. That time around they managed to burn Washington DC to the ground while they were at it. How come you web jerks never mention that?
Sure, the easy answer is because the Brits are with us now, and the French aren't. But being a war buff means knowing your history and respecting it.
Well, so much for ungrateful. Now let's talk about ignorant. And that's what you are if you think the French can't fight: just plain ignorant. Appreciation of the French martial spirit is just about the most basic way you can distinguish real war nerds from fake little teachers'pets.
Let's take the toughest case first: the German invasion, 1940, when the French Army supposedly disgraced itself against the Wehrmacht. This is the only real evidence you'll find to call the French cowards, and the more you know about it, the less it proves. Yeah, the French were scared of Hitler. Who wasn't? Chamberlain, the British prime minister, all but licked the Fuhrer's goosesteppers, basically let him have all of Central Europe, because Britain was terrified of war with Germany. Hell, Stalin signed a sweetheart deal with Hitler out of sheer terror, and Stalin wasn't a man who scared easy.
The French were scared, all right. But they had reason to be. For starters, they'd barely begun to recover from their last little scrap with the Germans: a little squabble you might've heard of, called WW I.
WW I was the worst war in history to be a soldier in. WW II was worse if you were a civilian, but the trenches of WW I were five years of Hell like General Sherman never dreamed of. At the end of it a big chunk of northern France looked like the surface of the moon, only bloodier, nothing but craters and rats and entrails.
Verdun. Just that name was enough to make Frenchmen and Germans, the few who survived it, wake up yelling for years afterward. The French lost 1.5 million men out of a total population of 40 million fighting the Germans from 1914-1918. A lot of those guys died charging German machine-gun nests with bayonets. I'd really like to see one of you office smartasses joke about "surrender monkeys" with a French soldier, 1914 vintage. You'd piss your dockers.
****, we strut around like we're so tough and we can't even handle a few uppity Iraqi villages. These guys faced the Germans head on for five years, and we call them cowards? And at the end, it was the Germans, not the French, who said "calf rope."
When the sequel war came, the French relied on their frontier fortifications and used their tanks (which were better than the Germans', one on one) defensively. The Germans had a newer, better offensive strategy. So they won. And the French surrendered. Which was damn sensible of them.
This was the WEHRMACHT. In two years, they conquered all of Western Europe and lost only 30,000 troops in the process. That's less than the casualties of Gettysburg. You get the picture? Nobody, no army on earth, could've held off the Germans under the conditions that the French faced them. The French lost because they had a long land border with Germany. The English survived because they had the English Channel between them and the Wehrmacht. When the English Army faced the Wermacht at Dunkirk, well, thanks to spin the tuck-tail-and-flee result got turned into some heroic tale of a brilliant British retreat. The fact is, even the Brits behaved like cowards in the face of the Wermacht, abandoning the French. It's that simple.
Here's a quick sampler of some of my favorite French victories, like an antidote to those ignorant websites. We'll start way back and move up to the 20th century.
Tours, 732 AD: The Muslims had already taken Spain and were well on their way to taking the rest of Europe. The only power with a chance of stopping them was the French army under Charles "the Hammer" Martel, King of the Franks (French), who answered to the really cool nickname "the Hammer of God." It was the French who saved the continent's ass. All the smart money was on the Muslims: there were 60,000 of them, crazy Jihadis whose cavalry was faster and deadlier than any in Europe. The French army was heavily outnumbered and had no cavalry. Fighting in phalanxes, they held against dozens of cavalry charges and after at least two days of hand-to-hand combat, finally managed to hack their way to the Muslim center and kill their commander. The Muslims retreated to Spain, and Europe developed as an independent civilization.
Orleans, May 1429: Joan of Arc: is she the most insanely cool military commander in history or what? This French peasant girl gets instructions from her favorite saints to help out the French against the English invaders. She goes to the King (well, the Dauphin, but close enough) and tells him to give her the army and she'll take it from there. And somehow she convinces him. She takes the army, which has lost every battle it's been in lately, to Orleans, which is under English siege. Now Joan is a nice girl, so she tries to settle things peaceably. She explains in a letter to the enemy commanders that everything can still be cool, "...provided you give up France...and go back to your own countries, for God's sake. And if you do not, wait for the Maid, who will visit you briefly to your great sorrow." The next day she put on armor, mounted a charger, and prepared to lead the attack on the besiegers' fortifications. She ordered the gates opened, but the Mayor refused until Joan explained that she, personally, would cut off his head. The gates went up, the French sallied out, and Joan led the first successful attack they'd made in years. The English strongpoints were taken, the siege was broken, and Joan's career in the cow-milking trade was over.
Braddock's Defeat (aka Battle of Monongahela) July 1755: Next time you're driving through the Ohio Valley, remember you're passing near the site of a great French victory over an Anglo-American force twice its size. General Edward Braddock marched west from Virginia with 1,500 men -- a very large army in 18th-c. America. His orders were to seize French land and forts in the Valley -- your basic undeclared land-grab invasion. The French joined the local tribes to resist, and then set up a classic ambush. It was a slaughter. More than half of Braddock's force -- 880 men -- were killed or wounded. The only Anglo officer to escape unhurt was this guy called George Washington, and even he had two horses shot out from under him. After a few minutes of non-stop fire from French and Indians hidden in the woods, Braddock's command came apart like something out of Nam, post-Tet. Braddock was hit and wounded, but none of his troops would risk getting shot to rescue him.
Austerlitz, Dec. 1805: You always hear about Austerlitz as "Napoleon's Greatest Victory," like the little guy personally went out and wiped out the combined Russian and Austrian armies. The fact is, ever since the Revolution in 1789, French armies had been kicking ass against everybody. They were free citizens fighting against scared peasant and degenerate mercenaries, and it was no contest. At Austerlitz, 65,000 French troops took on 90,000 Russians and Austrians and destroyed them. Absolutely annihilated them. The French lost only 8,000, compared to 29,000 of the enemy. The tactics Bonaparte used were very risky, and would only have worked with superb troops: he encouraged the enemy to attack a weak line, then brought up reinforcements who'd been held out of sight. That kind of tactical plan takes iron discipline and perfect timing -- and the French had it.
Jena, Oct. 1806: just a quick reminder for anybody who thinks the Germans always beat the French. Napoleon takes on the Prussian army and destroys it. 27,000 Prussian casualties vs. 5,000 French. Prussian army routed, pursued for miles by French cavalry.
You eXile guys might want to remember that the French under Napoleon are still the only army ever to have taken all of continental Europe, from Moscow to Madrid. I could keep listing French victories till I had a book. In fact, it's not a bad idea. A nice big hardback, so you could take it to the *******s running all the anti-French-military sites and bash their heads in with it.
You're a retard. Why would you make this post. Nobody on this forum ever brings up the French military defeats pages. You make a point of talking about World War One and how the French charged the German lines and then mention how 25 years later the British were the ones who cowardly because they abandoned the French at Dunkirk, despite the fact they took as many French across the Channel as possible, recruited French servicemen into the British military and supplied them with clandestine support and weapons all through the occupation. It was also the RAF who defended against the Luftwaffe a few months later and the British Army who fought alongside the French in WWI and defeated the DAK in North Africa in WWII. The way you talk about war really doesn't give you the right to talk about this subject at all, dismissing the actions of non French soldiers as ignoble. You seem more concerned with explaining the military defeats as a result of bad doctrine and describing the French tanks as better "one on one" while failing to recognize the fact that it is becuase the French had far worse tactics in 1940, and because the French could not defeat the smaller German army, that everyone lambasts their history. Furthermore you insult Chamberlain and sympathise with Lebrun even though he is just as guilty of the appeasment of Hitlers policies.
Foxtroot STFU, you emotional girly man. He didn't write the article for a starter. Why are you attacking him? And the article is correct on many points.
--------------------------------------------
Impossible is not French- Napoleon
What are you talking about, of course he wrote it, and it may be "right in many places", but not when he goes against history and begins to call the British Army cowardly. I'm not the only one being emotional. How can you say that when my response was to this,
"The thing that gets to me is why Americans hate the French so much when they only did us good and never did us any harm. Like, why not hate the Brits?"? His article is alot more emotional than mine.
This message has been edited by Foxtrot_Red on Sep 3, 2006 10:28 AM
Btw i gave up reading(& started laughing), right about here:
"and anybody who knows anything about European military history knows damn well that over the past thousand years, the French have the most glorious military history in Europe, maybe the world."
1453 Btw i gave up reading(& started laughing), right about here:
"and anybody who knows anything about European military history knows damn well that over the past thousand years, the French have the most glorious military history in Europe, maybe the world."
and according to you where is it so wrong apart a confusing feeling you got from your Yankee master's propaganda ?
This message has been edited by ultrarep on Sep 3, 2006 3:42 PM
"and anybody who knows anything about European military history knows damn well that over the past thousand years, the French have the most glorious military history in Europe, maybe the world."
It's just the last 70-80 years when they have stunk up the worlds stage with their endless defeats!
Quote:The thing that gets to me is why Americans hate the French so much when they only did us good and never did us any harm. Like, why not hate the Brits? They're the ones who killed thousands of Americans in the Revolution, and thirty years later they came back and attacked us again. That time around they managed to burn Washington DC to the ground while they were at it. How come you web jerks never mention that?
They probably never mention it because it never happened. I hate to upset your little rant but i'm afraid "30 years later they came back and attacked us again" is total bollocks. If you'd said "30 years later we invaded Canada in an attempt to snatch it while Britain was occupied in Europe and Britain attacked us as a result" you would be alot closer to the truth.
Yeah thx.
Didnt have to laugh like this since a long time.
''and anybody who knows anything about European military history knows damn well that over the past thousand years, the French have the most glorious military history in Europe, maybe the world''
How can you possibly think that?Has France ever expanded its borders for more than 2-3 years?
Germany,Austria,Poland,etc.. ,they all expanded their borders,century for century.
Also in terms of colonies the French cant keep up with the UK.
The france always made it to defend their country,but not more...
Spitfirebloom How can you possibly think that?Has France ever expanded its borders for more than 2-3 years?
Germany,Austria,Poland,etc.. ,they all expanded their borders,century for century.
Also in terms of colonies the French cant keep up with the UK.
The france always made it to defend their country,but not more...
I don't see it nice if the young krauts are as ignorant morons like the Rosbifs or the fatsos.
Here is France and Germany when they splitted after Charlemagne (Karl the Gross) death:
See the green ? its France.
Since then there was a race between France and the German Empire to swallow the Lotharingia (in yellow)
Guess who won the race you retard
"and anybody who knows anything about European military history knows damn well that over the past thousand years, the French have the most glorious military history in Europe, maybe the world."
Quote:Franco-Prussian war! How many wars has France won exactly?
Hmm
1. First Capetian war
2. Second Capetian war
3. Hundred years war
4. Nine years war
5. War Spanish succession
6. Second franco-Austrian war
7. War of first coalition
8. War of the second Coalition
9. all Napoleonic wars except the last one
10.Sino-French war
11. WW1
As Roland said Prussia and allies weren't Germany.
France (West Francia) at the start
The Sun barely set on France, can you say the same about Germany
Biggest of western Europe. not only Biggest, but most fertile and dramatically more beautiful. We earn the right to this land, because we are better than anyone else.
Who is the idiot who said Austria acquired more territory. Austria lost an empire is now barely larger than French Guyana. Germany is a joke, 82 million people living in country smaller than France. To losers overpopulation.
The way France expanded is a clear indication of who the German or the French were superior. France expanded at the expense of HRE. germany was forced to expand East because they couldn't expand west.
--------------------------------------------
Impossible is not French- Napoleon
This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Sep 4, 2006 12:56 AM This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Sep 4, 2006 12:52 AM
"I'm speaking of Germany not Prussia. Learn to read thick Kraut."
Ooooo Kraut! How very original! Glad you could think of something on you're own!
Right to the land because the French are "better"? In what ways do you define "better"? Please I'm very eager to hear this great revelation! As is everyone else!
Napoleon is one of the world top 3 general he rank between the gay dude and the mongol guy. I have to write 5 pages on him! Because my professor like him
Imo, Napoleon is vastly overrated: twice he faced a decent adversary and twice he lost. Not to mention his failed intervention in Egypt or Russia (well the latter is excusable)
Don't try this at home lads
"The enemy dies relaxed," observed a Lockheed Martin manager.
Yeah, right: most military historians and experts still say he's among the greatest if not the greatest, Karl von Clausewitz called him "the god of war", and who's calling him overrated?
Par St Michel vivent les Paras,
Pour que toujours vive la France...
Et pour qu'au nom de Dieu vive la Coloniale!
"Le fantassin se doit de calquer en tout son attitude sur le morpion, cet animal sublime qui meurt mais ne décroche jamais" (Maréchal Joffre)
'' don't see it nice if the young krauts are as ignorant morons like the Rosbifs or the fatsos.
Here is France and Germany when they splitted after Charlemagne (Karl the Gross) death:
See the green ? its France.
Since then there was a race between France and the German Empire to swallow the Lotharingia (in yellow)
Guess who won the race you retard
Germany NEVER won a war, you'd better STFU
''
HAHA as far as i know France is still dreaming of a Franco/German Border at the Rhine.
Everytime they tried to expand into mighty Germany they failed,they couldnt even win the spanish war of sucession.Lucky you you were saved in WW1 and 2.
Oh yeah and btw,I would preffer a 80mil people country,than a totally deserted land with over a courter of its population living in one metropolian area.
Quote:
Imo, Napoleon is vastly overrated: twice he faced a decent adversary and twice he lost. Not to mention his failed intervention in Egypt or Russia (well the latter is excusable)
Over rated perhaps but vastly over rated i don't think so.
To my mind he's incredible in his abilities as a campaign and battlefield commander. However there is a tendency amongst military historians to see Napoleon as the perfect commander who only made mistakes when feeling unwell and i think this is a mistake.
Napoleon was certainly one of the great military commanders of history, with an exceptional ability to maneouver his armies strategically as well as a gift for deploying and fighting his armies tactically but he made mistakes like all other able commanders and for the same reasons (under-estimating opponents, over-estimating his troops moral, mis-reading the ground etc etc).
He wasn't perfect but he was pretty close compared to most other commanders.
Spitfirebloom HAHA as far as i know France is still dreaming of a Franco/German Border at the Rhine.
Everytime they tried to expand into mighty Germany they failed,..
you don't know to read a map man. I thought the one I posted as well as Eryx's one were clear enough.
I'm not surprised, Germans don't know how to read maps, specially the eastern savage Germans.
If you knew to read map you would know that Germany's geographic position sucks and you ubber alles race of the lord wouldn't have started two unwinable world war.
The only German hope is in association with France. We are waiting that the civilized Germans from the West reeducate you bunch of retarded easteners lobotomized by commies and evangelists.
..they couldnt even win the spanish war of sucession.
ROFL, wanting to make us believe you have an education aren't we ?
Lucky you you were saved in WW1 and 2.
lucky you were saved by the Yanks 1918.
Oh yeah and btw,I would preffer a 80mil people country,than a totally deserted land with over a courter of its population living in one metropolian area.
"I'm speaking of Germany not Prussia. Learn to read thick Kraut."
In 1870 Prussia consisted of lands inside and outside the current Germany. Saying that Prussia its the German allies weren't "Germany" (in those days). Is like saying that the French Empire is not France since France is a republic today. Equally absurd.
''you don't know to read a map man. I thought the one I posted as well as Eryx's one were clear enough.
I'm not surprised, Germans don't know how to read maps, specially the eastern savage Germans.
If you knew to read map you would know that Germany's geographic position sucks and you ubber alles race of the lord wouldn't have started two unwinable world war.
The only German hope is in association with France. We are waiting that the civilized Germans from the West reeducate you bunch of retarded easteners lobotomized by commies and evangelists.''
So you wanna blame me because of im from east germany(which im btw not)then **** you you ****ed up retard.
''ROFL, wanting to make us believe you have an education aren't we ? ''
Yah thats right.Want a cookie?
''lucky you were saved by the Yanks 1918.''
Oh yeah lucky us.When we were defeated by Russia,Uk and US and have no army left,we had to watch out.The french only come when the battle is already won for them and than try to take over Ruhr.
The raw numbers of the forces in line in 1918:
France: men 2.600.00 / tanks 2300 / planes 3600
UK: men 1.700.00 / tanks 610 / planes 1700
USA: men 1.500.000 / tanks 90 / planes 740
When we were defeated by Russia,Uk and US and have no army left,we had to watch out.The french only come when the battle is already won for them and than try to take over Ruhr.
If the US were significant in November 1918, they were not in March. The Americans attacked as a single army for the first time the 12th of september ... the german were already at the Belgium border then.
They were all equiped with French weapons (planes, tanks, artillery).
After the last costly offensive of Lunderdorf which reached 70 km to Paris, the German were pushed back fair and square to the British sector where Haig made his famous offensives of August (with 1/3 of french troops though)
But I'd say that it was German soldiers whose chance had gone. The Brit fought soldiers whose great hope to finish the war quickly with the 2 million re-enforcement transfered from the east had been crunched the most violent way by the French a month ago or so.
They've endured then a new kind of war they've never experienced before: plenty of tanks, aviation, radio, new weapons, wise and experienced capitains, well equiped divisions they just didn't know they ever existed...
When Petain had said in 1917 "No more offensive, we wait for the tanks and the Americans" that means what it means.
No more offensive - build tanks and planes like Ford T - and wait the 2.000.000 Americans to restart offensives.
That's the Germans who took the initiative of the offensive, they had a pretty bad surpise at Matz, Villers-Cotterrets, Château-thierry when the germans saw the 27 divisions of Mangin and Degoutte supported by 500 tanks and 800 planes storming at them. They just didn't knew that such thing existed.
That doesn't remove anything to the British credit though.
French side, according to the new way to behave, they were prepearing the 'big one' offensive with all the Iron available. It had to take place a Metz in Loraine.
It was delayed because some inteligence intercepted some message showing that the germans were about to give up.
Finally the German requiest for negociations in order to archieve a armistice reached the allies.
The French wanted to continue and make the war on German soil. The Brits hesitated, Pershing wanted to continue too but this idiot Wilson made everything to stop the war. He conviced the Brits and some French.
In fact most of the conditions of the Versaille treaty were accepted then. And they were accepted by the Germans who could have continued the war is they were so scandalous.
The Germans were collapsing both internally and externally. They knew that the next offensive of the allies (led by the French this time) would lead most probably to their destruction while they hadn't had any window brocken on their soil to date. They were close, very close to the total break out (the front on the west: see the map weeks after week ... while the french weren't fully engaged yet, front on the east, industrial production front, the revolution inside, etc...)
Nothing would have stopped the allies in 1918 but the Pacific Ocean.
No, you lot have to thank Wilson and his anglophile clique for bankrolling the collective Entente war effort since the early days of the war practically. I advise you to take a look at the money movements during the war. The US went from biggest debitor to biggest creditor and the UK did the opposite. France, Russia and Italy in turn were bankrolled through Britain. Take the US (and its pseudo neutrality) away and the material superiority of the Entente quickly evaporates.
Reaver180 No, you lot have to thank Wilson and his anglophile clique for bankrolling the collective Entente war effort since the early days of the war practically. I advise you to take a look at the money movements during the war. The US went from biggest debitor to biggest creditor and the UK did the opposite. France, Russia and Italy in turn were bankrolled through Britain. Take the US (and its pseudo neutrality) away and the material superiority of the Entente quickly evaporates.
all you say is that the allies had access to the rest of the world, be in in material or money while Germany was blockaded and stuck in its corner.
Nothing new here.
Spitfirebloom So yes: Wilson saved German's asses in 1918.
yes as i said.
He saved our german asses from the mighty french who go in the offensive when the war is won for them.
Very good ! you understood today that it's much better to go to the offensive when you are strong and your enemy exhausted than the reverse.
That is the first lesson in "how to win a war". Congrats.
''Very good ! you understood today that it's much better to go to the offensive when you are strong and your enemy exhausted than the reverse.
That is the first lesson in "how to win a war". Congrats.''
yes in 1918 Germany was virtually defeated. Most of the problem of the 20th century come from "virtually".
It was too soon to stop the fight, Germany didn't really felt the defeat in her body, we had to wait end WWII for that.
De Gaules: war makes born and die States. If the gigantic effort provided by our people at the time of the First World War could open the door of the revival to us, we closed it ourselves in missing to complete our military victory. But in the hasty stop of the fight which, November 11, 1918, occurred at the time when we were going triumphantly to gather the fruits of the victory, for how much had counted the voice of the Anglo-Saxons?"
Quote:Oh yeah and btw,I would preffer a 80mil people country,than a totally deserted land with over a courter of its population living in one metropolian area
Yea there is a curse when you are too successful. You end up in largest, most beautiful territory in western Europe, with too much space, while your neighbours lives like sardines in rainy, dark, polluted ****holes.
France won the war of Spanish succession you moron. THe aim of the war was the throne of Spain. Guess what, a French lord was on the throne of Spain, displacing the previous Austrian king.
--------------------------------------------
Impossible is not French- Napoleon
1.The french lord you are taling about had to renounce his place in the French line of succession.
2.France had to give up various territories,especialy in north america.France needed decades to recover from its losses.It never became the ''world power France## of the 17th century again.
This message has been edited by Spitfirebloom on Sep 10, 2006 12:07 PM
''Yea there is a curse when you are too successful. You end up in largest, most beautiful territory in western Europe, with too much space, while your neighbours lives like sardines in rainy, dark, polluted ****holes.
''
Oh yes this one is really funny.Very great country with all the people with education(unlike you i know) move into Paris and become jobless or leave the country.France has Paris,the rest of France is only a totaly deserterd and abonded land.
K3, too bad the french have a very limited sens of humour on this issue.
I guess it's like German's sens of humour if one make jockes about concentration camps or like if one say to a American that he knows nice web sites where there is funny videos of American soldiers flying after a IED blast.
Too much ignorance displayed so tt's better to avoid this to have decent threads that aren't totally messed up.
Oh and it's not because a undescentcy is generalized that it make it more descent.
-> That just make a generalized undescentcy.
This message has been edited by c-seven on Sep 17, 2006 1:47 PM
I don't mind jokes, even little pinpricks to pride, but there's a difference between humour and insults. Calling the French 1940's soldiers cowards, or surrendering monkeys (cause it's the origin of this thematics) is not really a joke: it's a direct insult. A joke has to be well done. Plus, it's a real insult to the memory of the soldiers who actually fought and died, because they didn't surrender until ordered to do so by the government. 90 000 of them died. And 52 000 Germans died also (and I don't count the wounded and the huge material losses), and, guess what, it wasn't in a tremendous serie of tank crashes: it took the Russians 6 months to inflict such losses to the Germans after Barbarossa began, whereas the Campaign of France lasted a few weeks.
Germans won because they had learned from their previous defeat: their tanks were not best or more numerous, but they were orgaized and their action coordinated with a superior aviation. We lost because our generals had forgotten the reasons of their previous victory: we had the tanks, but no organization (our tanks and ground vehicules lacked the deadliest weapon of the XXth century: radios; the Germans had them). Check military history, it's the way of the world. The Germans were quickly crushed by Napoleon for the same reason: the individual qualities of the troopers are not in question: organization, materials (to a small extent in this time) and motivation are. It's the same for 1870, but reversed: greater numbers and better guns for the Germans, lead by the first permanent (and coherent) General staff in history; though, each time guns were not used, we won in infantry combats, thanks to good training, better rifles and tactics. but tactics don't make it up for the absence of strategy and coordination.
Sorry, I got lost, but the point is still simple: there is a clear limit between humour and insults (especially towards the deads and veterans), and remaining in the humour zone doesn't require that much subtlety. So, mock our 1940's generals and ****ty politics all you want, the bad strategic choices... Just respect the troopers who really fought well.
Par St Michel vivent les Paras,
Pour que toujours vive la France...
Et pour qu'au nom de Dieu vive la Coloniale!
"Le fantassin se doit de calquer en tout son attitude sur le morpion, cet animal sublime qui meurt mais ne décroche jamais" (Maréchal Joffre)
Quote:Germans won because they had learned from their previous defeat: their tanks were not best or more numerous,
The Germans won? What are you smoking? They only won a battle but lost the war, and was occupied by Free French forces. Mind your words please. France wasn't defeated. A pathetic perfromance but not defeated, Thank to the like of deGaulle and the resistance.
--------------------------------------------
Impossible is not French- Napoleon
Sois pas si chauvin, merde! C'était une branlée, point barre, et De Gaulle a réussi à remettre des troupes sur pied pour figurer AUX COTES des Alliés en 45. Les Français Libres, les résistants et ceux combattant dans les armées Brits et Amerloques n'ont pas fait de la figuration, et ont eu un rôle important en certaines occasions (Avranches, Bir Hakeim, Cassino, Provence, Alsace, Bavière), mais au niveau tactique: les Alliés auraient pu se passer de nous (au prix de plus de pertes sûrement), nous n'aurions pas pu, et à tous les niveaux. C'est irritant, mais c'est vrai.
Par St Michel vivent les Paras,
Pour que toujours vive la France...
Et pour qu'au nom de Dieu vive la Coloniale!
"Le fantassin se doit de calquer en tout son attitude sur le morpion, cet animal sublime qui meurt mais ne décroche jamais" (Maréchal Joffre)
Quote:Sois pas si chauvin, merde! C'était une branlée, point barre, et De Gaulle a réussi à remettre des troupes sur pied pour figurer AUX COTES des Alliés en 45. Les Français Libres, les résistants et ceux combattant dans les armées Brits et Amerloques n'ont pas fait de la figuration, et ont eu un rôle important en certaines occasions (Avranches, Bir Hakeim, Cassino, Provence, Alsace, Bavière), mais au niveau tactique: les Alliés auraient pu se passer de nous (au prix de plus de pertes sûrement), nous n'aurions pas pu, et à tous les niveaux. C'est irritant, mais c'est vrai.
Mais J'suis pas chauvin. Ne faisons simplement pas de cadeau aux barbares.
--------------------------------------------
Impossible is not French- Napoleon
This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Sep 18, 2006 4:54 AM
We lost because our generals had forgotten the reasons of their previous victory: we had the tanks, but no organization (our tanks and ground vehicules lacked the deadliest weapon of the XXth century: radios;
And also a little German invention: the Jerrycan. That sounds benin but to put gazoline in metal boxes was very wise. It could be shipped in any truck, anywhere, with any means.
In another hand the french needed tank trucks to refuel tanks. Useless to say that those ones were a valuable target for the Stuka.
The french also lacked dramatically AA guns. German's divisions had 7x more so French ones had 7x not enough. The Dutch were much better here.
But in spite of all this, i don't agree with Paracolo. In spite all, it was playable like shown by the fights in Belgium at the beginning of the battle (Hannut, Gemloux) where it was going ok for us (so that the moral was hight).
To me the most important point to explain the defeat has a name: Gamelin.
This motherf**** had let the Germans crossing the Ardena by sheer stupidity.
There were trafic jams of tanks in the Ardena. Every intel report knew it. Countless officer went in Gamelin office saying him to move in f*** ass. No kidding: that was a line of 50 km of tanks in mountain roads in the Ardena. Some good well placed atillery would have slaughtered them.
Hitler's bet was incredible and extreemely risky to say the least. Most German's generals were saying that it was just crazy and there were even projects of coup attempt to prevend this.
But Gamelin did not move is f**** fat ass.
And when at least Gamelin decided finally to do something and launch an attack near Sedan to cut the blood flood .... he was fired!
Another moron called Weigan took the place. First thing he did? Hold on one week to make a audit of the whole situation
And after this he decided to go with exactly the same plan as Gamelin. Too late of course, the panzerdivisions were already in the back of the army destroying everything and spreadind a incredible disorder.
So the second reason: luck (it exist on the battle field)
German's heads inflated like crazy after such a success and they started to make stupidities because of a excessive confidence on the Blitzkrieg... that drove to their final defeat.
I somehow agree with C-seven. The commander being overwhelmed is pretty much a myth. That war was winnable. I'm also inclined to believe the German didn't win because of the Blitz. The reason for defeat was the Ardenne manoeuvre. Once, the intergrity of your line is compromised (in this old style of war), chaos will always ensue. Your entire line would eventually collapse.
The retards in command should have had a reserve force to stem the Barbarian's flow.
--------------------------------------------
Impossible is not French- Napoleon
The only Frensh Definitive Victory was against Sweden 1805-07 we made peace
and leave "vorpommern" to Napoleon, but it took 2 years to expell ca 5000 Swedish and Finnish troops, 1812-13 we chose marsalk Bernadotte to king of Sweden we lost Finland to Russia 1809.
I think it was the "gost horse cavalry" who won time for us, as we trained
our horses in a way nobody else country did or do now, "Aktionshäst" it called in that time on Swedish.
Exlonation = Dead rider on horseback Charge Frensh soldiers and kill atleast
three of the frensh soldiers, horse returns unharmed, whit an arm belonging
too a Frensh soldier, in his mouth.
This message has been edited by ingenting on Sep 27, 2006 4:17 PM
- Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by a mad illiterate maiden who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.
- Italian Wars- Lost.
- Thirty Years War- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway.
- The Dutch War. Tied (One of Frances best results, of course they were allied with the English at the time).
- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War- Lost.
- War of the Spanish Succession- Lost
- American Revolution- Won. Of course the Colonists did 99% of the fighting. The French typically delude themselves in its few successful campaigns. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when someone else does most of the fighting."
- French Revolution- Won. Against the French.Followed by the third rule; ''France only wins if the Opponent is french,too''
- The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican.
- The Franco-Prussian War. - Lost. Humiliated.
- World War I- Losing. Won by British, Commonwealth and US.(REmember the second Rule!)
- World War II- Lost. The largest army in Europe at the time utterly and pathetically annihallated by the Nazis. Liberated again, by the British, Commonwealth and Americans. (Again,remember the second Rule)
- War in Indochina- Lost.
- Algerian Rebellion- Lost.
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
How can you talk about military victories for a nation that can't even police the streets of it's major city? The French have no balls anymore. Let north African immigrants torch their cities. French are Weaklings.
@Spitfirebloom:
you do realize that coming from a German, whose country we routinely raped for
centuries and who NEVER won any war in its whole short history, it's a little
ridiculous right ?
Why don't you let the adults have there conversations without pissing them off
repeating Yankee propaganda kido ? isn't there enough forum ? I don't know, try
Disney forum or Teletubies fan club.
This message has been edited by ultrarep on Oct 30, 2006 2:20 PM This message has been edited by ultrarep on Oct 30, 2006 2:12 PM
@Reaver 180: hab das im internet gefunden und musste es einfach schreiben^^
''@Spitfirebloom:
you do realize that coming from a German, whose country we routinely raped for
centuries and who NEVER won any war in its whole short history, it's a little
ridiculous right ?''
Not counting the wars of the 1.Reich and Prussia is as ridiculous.
Thats like not counting the victories of medieval france because it used to be a monarchy.
''Why don't you let the adults have there conversations without pissing them off
repeating Yankee propaganda kido ? isn't there enough forum ? I don't know, try
Disney forum or Teletubies fan club.''
Maybe you noticed that it wasnt ment to serius ,as this discussion became unserious anyway fast enough anyway.
So just keep calm and dont feel insulted.
And this text was was neither written by me,or does it reflect my opinion.
Infact from all european countries i like france the most,and love the current German-French relationship.
