Well, I'm so glad you asked.
In WWII, France had peak forces of 5 million -- on percentage terms a much higher rate of mobilisation than the USA's 12.3 million. French KIA were 210,000 (4.2% of forces), versus USA's 292,000 (2.4%). So they mobilised at a higher rate, and they died in combat at a higher rate. The closest thing America has ever seen like a war for survival was our Civil War. The French ran up a KIA percentage of "just" 2/3 that of the American Civil War, but those casualties were suffered not over years, but a matter of a few weeks.
Total French military casualties 1939-1945 were 13.04%, versus 9.3% for the Brits and 3.75% for the USA.
This does not included an additional 270,000 French civilians killed (France suffered civilian casualties at a rate of 0.83%, versus 0.21% for the Brits, and zero for the USA). Nor does it count the trauma of world war I: With 8.4 million men under arms, France had 1.4 million dead -- 16.4% KIA -- plus 4.3 million wounded. In that war, the USA had 4.7 million men under arms, with only 117,000 KIA -- 2.5% -- and 204,000 wounded.
Now you know the facts: that the French had a higher percentage of men in uniform, suffering a higher casualty rate (they had as many uniformed casualties as the USA, despite our having more than 3 times the number of servicemen). Perhaps the French were badly led. Certainly they were unlucky enough to be up against one of the best-trained, best-equipped fighting machines in history. I hate to deprive you of your fun in bashing froggies, but I’m trying to save you from coming off as an ignorant blowhard.
PS. The comment about the Norman migrations in the 10th century is just stupid.
And they certainly capitulated to the Normans, but you are correct that it was essentially the only good move they could have taken at that point, as the Norman's would have ‘drank their milkshake’.
And how about the ‘youths’ rioting in the streets?
Do you really think that the % of casualty rates is an indication of military prowess? Doesn’t the higher % reflect the ineffectiveness of French arms as opposed to the other? Utterly defeated armies in full retreat with the enemy hot on their heels most always suffer more casualties than armies that retreat in good order.
Look at the rate of British casualties in France for the same time period and you should see similar high rates of casualties.
Also, you mention poor leadership, which is something I agree with, but you mention it like single-minded French Generals and an uninspiring French officer corp were not French, which, of course, they were.
The Frogs were poorly led. They had more and better tanks, good aircraft, and plenty of decent troops. They just lacked the doctrine the Germans had developed to use them together.
Of course, everybody but the Germans lacked that doctrine... and paid in blood to learn it.
If the French had good leadership they fought well, for example, Bir Hachiem, where they fought the Afrika Corps to a standstill, then, surrounded, broke out and escaped.