Posted on 03/24/2005 6:00:38 AM PST by John Jorsett
France's military reputation has taken a beating over the last three years due to their attitudes towards Iraq. Whether or not this record 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.”
In World War II, France is often judged by the 1940 German offensive. This is unfair in some aspects. France had 3 armored divisions – Germany had 10, which was a decisive edge in one of the earliest mechanized campaigns in history. After France surrendered, Free French forces took part in the African battles, and played major roles in Operation Dragoon (the landings in southern France in August, 1944). The French also carried out the liberation of Strasbourg, and took part in the final defeat of Nazi Germany.
Since World War II, France has taken part in the 1956 Suez War, which was a military victory. France only backed off due to political pressure from the United States and USSR. France also did not lose the Algerian War of Independence from 1954-1962 on any battlefield, but instead in terms of politics. The only real loss was the Indochina War, which was highlighted by the Battle of Dien Bien Phu.
France today has a reasonably capable military (they operate the only CVN outside the United States Navy, and the Rafale is one of the best combat aircraft in service at the present time). 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.
France has, in these wars, lost as many as two million killed in action. Far more often than not, France has won major battles in the past century, and in some cases, paid a dear price to do so. French military forces have gotten a bit of a bum rap as a result of the weasel-like positions of certain French political leaders. – Harold C. Hutchison (hchutch@ix.netcom.com)
Did you know?.... The French Foreign Legion tried to assassinate a French PM because their government had shunned the military financially and publicly?
Yeah, but what have you done for me lately?
The problem is, even when they win they take on all the worst attributes of the enemy.
I've got to get to work, so I'm bumping this for a reply later today...
American bomber crews that bailed out over France were routinely executed by French partisans who blamed them for the destruction of their country.
American bomber crews that bailed out over France were routinely executed by French partisans who blamed them for the destruction of their country.
Hey John, tell everyone about the Pro-Vichy units and Operation Torch!
"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."
What on earth? This "brilliant operation" entailed destroying 2 old Sukhoi 25 jets and 3 helicopters parked on the tarmac at a converted public airport.
The consequence of all this was that he French youngsters had very little enthusiasm for war. Recall that a generation or two had been shot off during the Napoleonic Wars and another generation in WWI. Perhaps they are really just displaying some wisdom.
In closing, there was a saying by an observer about the French army in the latter part of WWI. "The were not very good at fighting, but they were very good at something that sounded a lot like it."
Thats deceptive. France had THREE military treaties with Poland, all stating that France would come to her aid if she was attacked by Germany. One even spelled out in detail the number of troops she would use and the # of days needed for of mobilization. Germany stripped the Seigfreid line to invade Poland. The Poles fought a losing battle with elan and valor, knowing that they need only hold out for a few days because, per the treaty, French armor would soon be slicing into the heart of Germany.
France never even mobilized.
Everything honorable about France died in the trenches of WWI. Take the French propaganda somewhere else. France always betrays her allies. Every. Single. Time. They are Weasels.
While it is technically true that French forces took part in the African battles of World War II, the author could at least be honest enough to point out they they took part in the battles on the side of the Axis.
In the workup to WWII, Churchill was advised not to worry, that the French Army was matchless. He would soon realize this estimate had a opposite meaning.
That's right.
This was continental. The romantic image of warfare was destroyed by WWI, and yet the Brits still managed to muster heroes for the RAF. There is no excuse for France.
Just a joke. Charles Martel revolutionized warfare. As I write in "A Patriot's History of the United States," the French victory off New Jersy in 1781---by the way, the ONLY time the French Navy ever defeated the Brits (so how is that for Divine Providence?)---sealed Washington's victory over Cornwallis, no question.
But this is too easy on a French Army that had bigger and more powerful tanks than the Germans in 1940 and which stratigically was utterly blind by hiding behind the Maginot Line when everyone knew that the Belgian border was wide open.
Let them eat frogs.
It bears pointing out that the French based their opposition to the liberation of Iraq from a position of righteous morality - but when the dust settled we discovered it was more about their business contracts with Saddam and the Oil for Food ripoff. The mockery of France is well-deserved.
If we go into medieval history, of course, the French usually won their wars. There is a REASON why France is by far the biggest country in Western Europe, and had a population second only to Russia's until the 19th Century.
We should remember, for example, that the Norman conquest a was the conquest of Anglo-Saxon England by the French nobility, and that the Hundred Years' War with England, which France won decisively in the end, was a fight between the domestic French and English French nobility. Richard the Lion Heart was not really the Lion Heart, he was Coeur de Lion, a French nobleman who happened to be the King of England.
We should remember that the reconquista of Spain and the First Crusade started out as largely French affairs.
Moving on into the Renaissance, Reformation and Age of Reason, we should remember that the French, again were a military behemoth. Out of the picture for half a century due to civil wars of religion, when the French re-emerged, it was the theretofore invincible Spanish tercios that were smashed to pieces by the French army at Rocroi.
It is interesting that Americans who know history generally know the names of a couple of great English victories over the French: Agincourt, Crecy and Waterloo come to mind. But hardly anyone seems to know any of the great battles in which the French defeated the British. Hastings and Orleans come to mind. Indeed, one comes away with the impression that the English never lost and the French never won, when actually, the French conquered Britain and essentially set up modern England, and at the end of the day, in the five grand strategic wars between France and England (the Norman Conquest, the 100 Years War, the Wars of the Age of Kings, the American Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars), three were decisive French victories, one was a draw with significant French territorial gains, and one was a decisive English victory.
Truth is, Americans have been mad at the French since de Gaulle pulled out of NATO, and with good reason too! De Gaulle, Mitterand's refusal of US overflight enroute to Libya, and French skulduggery concerning Iraq have all made France persona non grata in the US. And, of course, for a military society like the US, engaged in important hot wars abroad, it is important psychologically to denigrate the capacities of your political opponents.
1940 was inglorious for France.
But let's be clear. In 1941, the US lost a whole Army without much of a fight too, in the Philippines, and lost almost the whole Navy at Pearl Harbor in a surprise attack. France should have performed better in 1940, but the French were simply rolled over by surprise. Let's remember that the English were unable to hold the Germans back either, and fled for the Channel, leaving their equipment behind at Dunkirk.
The French, English, Russians and Americans all were caught in nasty surprises by enemies using new tactics, and they all got rolled by the enemy in the opening campaigns. The difference is that England had the strategic depth of the English Channel, Russia had, well, the endless expanses of Russia to fall back into. America had the strategic depth of the Pacific Ocean. Paris is 100 miles from the border where the Germans crossed. When the French and British Armies were surprised by the new tactics and rolled, France had nowhere to fall back upon.
All that said, French forces fighting Eisenhower in North Africa was an utter disgrace. Every Frenchman involved in fighting those battles on the German side should have been shot, and the whole Vichy collaborationist regime probably should have been hanged. France's failure on the battlefield in 1940 was comparable to the loss of the US Army in the Philippines and the US Navy at Pearl. But the political collaboration of the French with the Nazis, and the export of French Jewry are marks on French honor, black as hell, that can never be expunged.
For perspective, Benito MUSSOLINI and Italy did not cooperate as much with Hitler's Holocaust as the French did. Despite being an Axis power, Mussolini's Italy only sent about 5000 Jews to their deaths, and many of them only after being directly seized. By contrast, supposedly Allied France shipped cooperated in the export of 40,000 + Frenchmen to their deaths. It is a badge of dishonor to France that the Axis, Fascist government of Italy was less enthusiastically cooperative with the Nazi holocaust than the government of France. That was inexcusable.
Here is the way I put it: walk around Paris and observe carefully. Everything that is truly great in France was built by the Kings, or by the Third Republic. The Kings have all departed, and the manhood of the Third Republic bled to death in Flanders in World War I.
What the French of today are, are like the Italians of 600 AD, dwelling in the grand ruins of a lost Empire that they themselves do not have the capacity to recreated.
France was glorious when ruled by her Kings.
France ruled by her modern accountants is a shrivelled thing dwelling in the dinosaur bones of glorious civilization that bled to death at Verdun.
After the war of 1812, they worked back door deals with Britain during the Treaty of Paris process.
The city that was "too beautiful" to defend from Nazi siege? Sorry, but I will never set foot in Paris. ;)
"American bomber crews that bailed out over France were routinely executed by French partisans who blamed them for the destruction of their country."
Routinely?
What are you talking about?
The French Underground spirited Sixty-THOUSAND (60,000) downed allied pilots to safety.
Eisenhower said that the French Resistance behind enemy lines was worth the equivalent of 6 divisions.
This is calumny.
That it may have happened sometimes is probably true.
But routinely?
Non, monsieur, that is not true.
The Resistance was too small when it had to fight, and too large when the war was over from all of those who claimed to have been in it ("I looked crosseyed at the Germans as they fled, therefore I was in the Resistance" -that sort of thing). But it was brave, and allied, and immeasurably assisted allied aircrews, quite a few of whom were French, by the way.
WWII there is simply no excuse. Yes, France had 3 armored divisions to Germany's ten. But they also had a large number of independent tank brigades, and various tank battalions. In fact, they had more and generally better tanks than than did the Germans. One of the few French generals to actually put up a real fight was DeGaulle leading one of those tank brigades. 'Course, he launched his counterattack in violation of orders....
Since WWII, they managed to win at Suez against token opposition, and to "dominate" the Ivory Coast. Wow. They were completely clobbered by the Viet Minh, and, when they showed up for the Gulf War, asked not to be put into heavy action.
Sorry, but I'm not impressed.
Only problem with the Maginot Line was that they defended it with too many troops. The Maginot line was well-built and a good investment.
And actually the Belgian border WASN'T wide open; the French heavily manned it and immediately dashed into Belgium when the German invasion began in 1940.
The one part that was "wide open" was a narrow area in the Ardennes across from Luxembourg; of course, the Germans shot through there behind the French forces dashing into Belgium.
Thanks for the interesting post, Count.
I've seen accounts that the French plannned for the Ardennes as a "forced" avenue of approach and viewed it as a kill box? Is it true, and if so, where did they fail?
The Battle of Monte Cassino wasn't in Africa. The landings at Casablanca, Oran and Algiers were. It was only after the French opposed, but were unable to defeat, the Allied landings that they switched sides.
They're out here as part of the Coalition fighting Operation Enduring Freedom.
'Scuse me, but the partisans routinely lost around 2-3 people for each airman they rescued; and they rescued tens of thousands. That's a heck of a sacrifice.
Bir Hacheim occurred some six months before Operation Torch, and it was in North Africa.
Vicomte13, you give the FRENCH credit for the NORMAN Conquest of England. Normandy was not France, was not a part of France, was in fact the sworn enemy of France. And Normandy was founded by Vikings, whose leader, Rollo, founded the line of Dukes of Normandy. The Normans would have been the first to deny that they were French.
The reality is that about half the froggies in WWII were sympathetic to National Socialism and half of that number welcomed the German Occupation ... hence their less than stellar performance.
Normans? French Nobility?
I thought the Normans were North Men (Vikings) who took that area away from the French people living there.
So if we want to go back in time the whole Normans-Anglo Saxon thing really has nothing to do with the "French".
...which underscores the point that the French fought on both sides of the war, realigning their loyalties with the shift of the winds.
I've never heard of that at all.
The Ardennes were thinly defended (and the elite Belgian Chasseurs Ardennais, who the French thought would cover the area, went north into Central Belgium without telling the French what they were doing, leaving it even more thinly defended.)
The French were basically obsessed with getting as far into Belgium as possible and got obsessed with the idea the decisive battle would be in Central and Northern Belgium. They considered the Ardennes as poor tank territory (which they were, if defended. Even minimal air strikes killing ONE tank at the head of a column could have screwed up the whole German attack and even lost them the war.)
The 1940 Battle for France was a very close shave. The Germans very easily could have lost. Not only did the British and French have better and more tanks, and lots more artillery, they had more men, and arguably better trained men...and even the Luftwaffe wasn't nearly as superior to the French and British as they are made out to be.
And before the battle started the French arguably had better morale than the Germans, believe it or not.
And even after the attack started the Germans were lucky. There are several incidents you could point to where if they'd gone the other way the Allies would have won.
From November 1939 through May 1940 Hitler wanted to attack France; his Generals were sure Germany would lose, and kept getting him to postpone the attack every two weeks; the plan during most of that time was to attack through Belgium, exactly where the French expected it. The Ardennes attack wasn't adopted till the last minute, and only because the French captured the original German plans for the Belgium attack from a crashed airplane.
There was a great deal of intermarriage. You'll notice most Normans have French names.
In 1940 the quality parts of the French Army (which was most of it) performed well. They kicked the living crap out of the German tanks they met in central Belgium; destroyed hundreds of them.
The problem was the main German attack fell on the non-quality parts of the French Army. It wasn't an issue of the French not wanting to fight or being sympathetic to the Nazis; they simply lost because they had a bad plan and the Germans managed to come up with the perfect plan to exploit the bad French plan at the last minute.
Merely Viscount, of a defunct monarchy.
Ergo "citizen".
"The source of the real defeat of France and the French Military after WWI... a lack of political will and a government which fully and continuously favored Liberal public opinion so that the Military was not prepared to face the increasingly belligerent and patently overt German mobilization. The German onslaught was a long time coming and a long time ignored by the French government. For that they paid."
In 1938, during the Czech crisis, the french had over 100 active duty divisions mobilized on the border with germany. The Germans has 12 reserve infantry divisions facing them. The entire german army was outnumbered 2 to one and was parked on the Czech border.
All the french needed to do was march. They instead SAT.
You are most correct. The Normans (Vikings) were doing pretty well for themselves for a while. Then along came Cristianity and intermarriage with the French. It was all down hill from there :)
This is a misconception.
The Norsemen arrived on the coast of Armorica in the early 900s, and were granted a fief there by the King of France in 911. They were vassals of the French King. Unruly vassals, to be sure. But then, there were no kings anywhere outside of Byzantium who had any centralized control. The Norsemen owed their fealty to the French King and were given a fief in the land.
Had the conquest of England happened at that time, it would have indeed been a Viking conquest of England.
But there is an important piece of that story which is missing, and which changes everything.
The Vikings who landed in Armorica were overwhelmingly MEN. Pagan warrior men. They did not load up their boats with the comely pagan women of Scandinavia and sail to the coast of France. They landed, like Spaniards in Mexico, and they stayed. Unlike the Spaniards in Mexico, they did not take the French capital. The French King, to buy peace, gave the Vikings a fief in exchange for a theoretical suzereinty over these pagan Viking men.
But that was 911.
The Norman Conquest of England was in 1066, one hundred and fifty-five (155) years later. What happened in that intervening century and a half?
Well, what DIDN'T happen was a mass migration of Scandinavian women into Armorica. And absent that, the Vikings would have ceased to exist in one generation.
What happened was that the Viking men of 900 married French, Catholic women. The Viking men went off to war: that what Vikings did, and well too. But their wives and children were in Armorica. And their CHILDREN were not Vikings. They were half French. Their mothers were French. Also, tellingly, their religion was not the pillars of Wotan, but Catholicism. And their language was not Norse, but French. That takes us to about 940. Then the next generation came. Still no Scandinavian women. Now men who are half-Viking and half-French, with their fathers' taste for battle and bravery, but their mothers' religion, language, and manners of court, married French women. Their children were 3/4ths French and 1/4 Viking. Both their parents spoke French, were Catholic, and had Catholic manners of court. That takes us to 970.
Then they married, and the kids became 1/8 Viking and 7/8ths French by blood, more or less, but were 100% French by language, courtly customs, food, and religion. And all still vassals of the French King.
They preserved, of course, the particularly militaristic organization of their Viking roots. But they were not Vikings at all in any sense of the word. Actually, they FOUGHT against Viking raiders.
That takes us to 1000.
Cycle two more generations, and we are at 1066. The men are French speaking, have French customs and cultural mores and law. They hate paganism and are fired up with Catholic zeal (the Vikings are still pagans at that time). They kill Vikings who come ashore. They have peculiar organized military customs of Normandy which are not like the rest of France, but Normandy looks NOTHING like Norway in any sense: different language, different religion, different mores, different food, different laws, different customs and beliefs.
The Normans were proud of being Norman, and Norman was a very distinct and dangerous breed of Frenchman (much like a Texan is, because of his history and culture, a very distinct and dangerous breed of American), but after 6 generations and 155 years he is no more a Viking than someone whose great, great, great, great, great grandpa who fled Prussia to come to America is a German.
The Norman piece of France had its own nobility, of the lineage of the Viking men who settled there. And their own tough military customs. But this was France.
What happened to the Vikings in France is what happened to the Germanic Franks before them, or all of the invaders of China: male warriors settled and were culturally absorbed.
As to Normans not being "French", none of the French are "French". All of the pieces of France are some other ethnic culture subsumed into a French norm. The East is Germanic. The Northeast is Flemish. The South is Italian or Catalan, The Center and Britanny are Celtic and ethnically more Irish than Latin. Normandy descends from a mixture of French women and Viking men, with French culture, language, and religion completely absorbing Norse culture, language and religion.
The only thing "Norse" about the Normans by 1066 was the proclivity for war.
Normans are still aware of their origins. I am Norman myself. But Normandy is France, and it was France in 1066. The invaders of England spoke French. They had the laws and mannerisms of the French court, not Scandinavia.
Their religion was Catholicism, not sacred poles and Odin. And William was a vassal of the King of France.
He ended up being the French King's RICHEST vassal, and ultimately the 100 years war was about the English-French aristocracy trying to gain possession of the whole of the rest of France. But that age was before nation states. If you asked a Kentish Saxon, or a peasant in Brittany, or a German orchard tender in Swabia what he was, the Saxon would not have said "a Saxon" or "an Englishman", and the Breton or the Parisian would not have said "a Frenchman", and the Swabian certainly would not have said "a German" or even "a Swabian". They would have all answered "a Christian". And if you asked them about politics, they would have told you who was their lord and who was their king. If you asked a Norman in 1066, he would have called himself a Christian (and he would have said it in French). He would have said that his lord was Duke William, and that his King was whoever the French king in Paris was.
Modern nationalism didn't exist. The Norman conquest was not a French political conquest of a political nation, England. It was a noble political conquest of Norman-French nobles over Anglo-Saxon nobles that resulted in a cultural conquest of England.
The extent of that political conquest is visible by dissecting this very sentence and noting the number of French words that predominate in it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.