Actually, any Americans who are familiar with history know better. Napoleon, after all, did not get as far as he did because the French were "wimps," Yet it became part of a popular stereotype - for a time, it really no longer is - after a series of events in the early to mid-20th century.
To start, the French army mutinied in World War I. To be sure, it was a mild affair as mutinies go - the soldiers would defend their lines, but they refused, not entirely without reason, to keep using their chests to stop machine guns bullets and thus parts of the French army refused to participate in any attacks. (Of course, a change in command at the top as well as some pretty rough justice for the mutineers brought that to an end.)
Then there was France's defeat at the hands of Germany and Italy in World War II. Again, looked at in practical terms, the defeat had logical causes unrelated to the bravery of the French fighting man. However, looked at compared to French resistance in WWI, and it seemed to look like cowardice. (The mutiny having been forgotten in the light of the 1918 victory.)
Matters were not helped in this way by DeGualle. He did what he had to do and was, in my judgment, a brilliant leader. However, his haughty arrogance seemed inverse to the justification for it and was badly taken by the Anglo-Saxon powers on whom he depended.
Then came the Korean War and French troops - although a comparatively small force - did quite well. The French battalion participated in all the decisive battles of 1951, especially Wŏnju, Twin tunnels, Chip'yŏng-ni, 1037, and Crèvecœur (Heartbreak Ridge).
However, this was forgotten in the light of the French defeats at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and Suez in 1956. Throw in the protracted mess in Alegria and then DeGualle's decision to withdraw France from NATO integrated military command.
All of these had their logical explanations and in context are understandable. (Particularly the post-WWII defeats. France was attempting to rebuild after the German-Italian occupation and the battles on French soil and it did not yet have the resources for sustained military actions.) However, taken together in the popular imagination, the French became - to borrow a line from "The Simpsons" - "cheese eating surrender monkeys.
Note though, that this was distinct from the geopolitical calculations that policymakers had to make. After all, France was not kicked out of NATO after DeGualle withdrew from the military command structure. That would have seemed to follow, but Western leaders who were educated in such matters knew the reality beyond the popular stereotype.
So, via a combination of some unfortunate events and popular stereotypes, the French soldier has taken something of a hit to his reputation. However, that is actually beginning defeat.
The American imbroglios in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq has given the American public a more nuanced sense of things. So you tend not to hear the jokes about France much anymore. Reality tends to take a toll on popular perceptions given enough time.
Yes, but during the First World War after long difficulties, we were able to modernize our army and fight courageously, but this war was a real demographic catastrophe for France, I believe that France has given its last strength in this war. I don't know if you know the Romanian philosopher Emile Cioran, or he explains in one of his books that France gave so much of her in the war of previous centuries that in the end she was more capable of fighting and that she aspired to only in peace
Not getting any argument from me. World War I was a disaster for the Western world as a whole - it has never recovered from it - and France was hit especially hard.
You asked a question related to the perception so I explained where it came from. As I noted at the outset, anyone familiar with history knows better.
Nah, even being English, the French are in no shape no form cowardly.
some of the best military in the history of the world.
A lot of the key battles they lost, became political or diplomatic victories.
While much is made of Agincourt, Crecy, Poitiers not many know about the battle of Castillon Where France won the ‘100 years war’ (mainly due to advanced mass canon).
they also managed to build a rather large empire.
personally they down fall was alignment with the Catholic Church and Spain.
from the end of the 100 years war to present day, French soldiers have fought and protected France and her interests, often let down by politicians.
They were hugely responsible for America winning its war on independence, if England and France had been at Peace, then no French army under Comte de Rochambeau would have been present at Yorktown..
yes the French and France have been critically influential in the direction the world has taken, never could you say a citizen of France was a coward, heroes yes.
Coming from an English it touches me even more lol, J'ao heard that the English historians spoke of a second hundred years war between France and England, which goes roughly from Louis XIV to Napoleon, and that this second hundred years war as it is you who had won it it is you who dominated the world. Is it correct that your historians speak of a second hundred years war? Sorry for m'y Bad English
Not really no, there is the 100 years war, then it’s the various conflicts, seven years war, napoleonic , war of Spanish succession, thirty years war, revolutionary wars (France) revolutionary wars (America), English Dutch wars, Italian wars / conflicts, Huguenots.
Admittedly after the victory in 100 years war, religion and Spain buggered up France.
There were some critical battles such as Blenheim, Trafalgar, where history turned on a day.
Yes, but I have read English historians like Philip Mansel, Robert Tombs, John Robert Seeley, they talk about a second hundred years war between our two countries lol
They may but in reality it was almost constant in each century, even when at peace in Europe there were proxy wars in Canada, India, Caribbean and of course the use of letters of marque and privateers
No , they fought as hard as possible. They had no chance of stopping the Nazi onslaught. But the work they did with the Allies. Played a big big part in shortening the Second world war.
Considering that they took on a collection of enemies that can best be described as "the entire rest of Europe" and WON despite being in the middle of their own revolution, and how even after that, at Waterloo, had Napoleon thought "time to send in the infantry", the world would today consist of the three continents of Antarctica, America, and France, I'm inclined to say no, they're entirely capable of winning one. World war one springs to mind; it was France that won that- the other Allies just did the mopping up. It cost them an entire generation; that's why they pretty much sat out the sequel.
As to cowardice- what takes more guts: to kowtow to the demands of a crazed leader of the richest and most powerful nation on Earth, and bomb the crap out of a small helpless country guilty of being next door to the one that supported a major terrorist attack, or to defy said leader and refuse? Yoda said "Wars not make one great", and he wasn't wrong, but wars not make one brave, either.
We have won more wars in our history than any other European country, when France knew how to fight your country was still populated by Indians with a tree leaf to hide their gender. And don't forget that during your war of independence we had to kick the ass of the English for you, we even had to train your soldiers, provide you with equipment and we used our navy against the English.
I've worked with the French soldiers before. Individually, very capable warriors. Personally I feel that the French national will is weak. I was a soldier for years. I'm very antiwar. I've seen what it's done first hand.
I grew up watching war movies. I considered myself a patriot (still do). So I joined the military. Having always been a student of history and then learning first-hand how conflict and war work... quite troubling. I was one soldier towards the bottom but I had to come to the realization that if it had to be done then it should be done right. Of course I couldn't change the way war was managed but at least I could do my part to teach younger guys, debate with my peers and question my officers (respectfully and at the appropriate time) about how WE were going to conduct ourselves. There were a lot of guys like me. Some of them taught me how to influence our units and eventually I did, and then I taught younger guys how as well. Wow, rabbit hole...
French: Mighty warriors + cowardly leaders = failure in war.
Well yes, but still in our whole story we won a lot of wars, but the second world war destroyed our reputation so badly lol. And a lot of respect for you as a veteran 🙂
Yeah sure easy for the americans to call the french cowards when they had an entire ocean to keep them safe from the Reich. France is only unlucky geographically and when the Nazis begain their invasions they entered France before anyone could even prepare. The British do get more credit for fortitude as they were hit hard by the germans but never gave in.
Nevertheless France is still here today, still a superpower even if smaller than before true cowards never survive long and their nations usually get wiped off the map
Simple: Germany was still sanctioned by the armistice had no right to raise an army, Hitler had just won the Nobel peace prize and France, winners of the last war, didn't feel the need to look over their shoulder.
Hitler built his forces in secret not to mention all kinds of technologies that were non existing at the time like the Panzer tanks, U boats, better tier of planes. Combined with vicious war strategies consisting in taking a country by surprise and pillaging it fast before a reaction happens.
Sure it's all allies nations fault for not keeping an eye on their former enemy but you have to give the nazis credit for building such a dynasty completely under the radar
This is true, my country should have reacted, because they very well saw that Hitler had invaded other countries, but my leaders and the people had been traumatized by the first war and we lost a lot of men in this first war. I think we longed for peace and we naively said to ourselves that he would never attack our country
Well yes and then you have the 'how' it all happened.
With the Germans entering france through the Belgium border after sacking Belgium in one day and while the french were busy guarding the german border the nazis where encircling Paris
Unfortunstely, that's a stereotype that a lot of Americans believe, to the point where it's basically a joke, at this point.
Then again, a lot of Americans barely know the history of our own country, let alone another, so they aren't aware of France's war record. Anyone who does wouldn't call them cowardly.
Hell, the US owes our independence, in part, to France, and the assistance they provided us in the war, as well as for keeping the British fleet busy.
Well yes I must be honest it was purely to beat the English 🤣 But Lafayette was honest he was really attached to the American cause. I think my country doesn't like to recognize that the usa helped it during the second world war and i think the americans like to forget that we helped them lol
Hahaha, I will make jingostic jokes at the expense of the French all day;
But if I get actually serious, no. Look at the history of the Battle of Verdun and tell me the French are cowards. Naw. They just had awwwwful political leadership during the mid 20th century.
Honestly I despair of the French. They spend centuries bullying Britain with various partners. Then, when Germany invades them, they come begging to us for help. Twice. And we do. Twice. Now today, somehow France can't see that the E. U project is a German take over of France (and others) by stealth. We're okay, we're out of the E. U. But when the E. U falls and fails, which it inevitably will, the French will come crawling back to us again. I just hope we have the good sense to tell them to piss off in a big fucking way. Make up your mind France. You can't expect your better nation neighbour to keep saving you when you so willingly open your a hole for the German sausage.
You change history, the perfidious Albion has often financed the countries of Europe to attack us because they did not have the courage to face us alone
Do you talk about modern standards? Definitely no. I served for a time in Legion Etrangere and was trained by professional French military men. France has a competent and professional military. And even if we talked about past times, they only were an embarrassment in 1940 for reasons that can be a whole discussion by themselves. Being funny and telling jokes about France in 1940 can be cute while discussing with friends in a living room but it has become a false stereotype.
Well, I know if they have a Corsican in charge, they can kick ass. Recently, it's true their record hasn't been great (WWII, Vietnam, Algeria, etc.), and I hear the large numbers of Syrians have trashed parts of the country. Overall, I'd say the French are really good on a good day and really bad on a bad day, but not straight up cowardly. Certainly neither French nor British can hold to candle to us Americans.
The Algerians militarily did not have the weight, but de Gaulle judged unrealistic to want to keep Algeria under domination, you mean since the second world war that France does not come close to the Americans, because historically we have also helped Americans
It's true that Algeria had a lot to do with the politics rather than the fighting. I actually don't know too much about that. Do you? And no, I'd say that neither France nor anyone else could equal America since the end of WWI, where America's economy boomed and surpassed Britain's. After WWII that gap just got even bigger. What do you think of America's status as a "superpower"? Why are you interested in the reputation of the French as soldiers?
and yes, yay for Lafayette, admiral de Grasse, general Rochambeau, and all the rest.
Also I'm reading some of the other comments, and if you're concerned about having caved in WWII, I can only say that, being of Polish heritage, I consider Poles the foremost soldiers in the world, yet Poland (as you know) spent a lot of time supposedly not existing, and a lot of time losing. I think with life in general, its not so much about failure as how you respond to that failure.
Well you became the first world power after the second world war, because even if you had the first economy, at the military level the American soldiers were not very well trained and did not reach the level of the German, French or English soldiers. (I speak for the First World War), after the First World War you returned to an isolationist policy and then a little later you will experience a serious economic crisis. What will make the difference for the United States is really the Second World War, you will impose yourself militarily, geopolitically and of course economically.
I'm glad you know his names lol.
You know that France has welcomed a lot of Polish immigration.
I'm not crazy, I know very well that since the second world war France is not a great power lol
I know thats a meme around internet, a lot of memes about it but I don't think being a ''coward'' is for a nation, is just something personal. Some nations are born to fight tho, thats proven but being a coward is a diffrent thing.
They demonstrated they have been able to. And honestly I don't see why french have become famous for their surrendering while, for instance, Italy never got famous for starting a war on a side and finishing it on the other. There are endless examples of less than ideal events from almost every country in the world, yet only the french one stuck.
The French? Are you kidding me. They are miles above the US. To be honest we should not have one. They are an embarrassment. Well at least the semi men are, you ladies for what you can do. I’m not saying your up to par! But you do well! Any WWII soldier entry had more guts/moxie that any including brass today.
I mean the US soldiers here in the sates are rather useless, even compared to those from the Vietnam, Vietnam era. But one thing I will say about most people here is that the odds of a USA would have been real bad had it not been for the French way back. I think most look at the revolutionary war and think it was the Civil War lol.
Ah yes I understood lol, in reality I find it a shame that people remember the second world war while over more than a thousand years of our existence we have won more than one war
Yes you have, in anything it always comes down to the basics. If you have a command that forgets, time to replace. But that’s how you succeed and have. It’s up to the leader to make his first priority being the safety of the people. Or so it’s told. Ours is a little (lot) off
I am german and the french get their fair share of jokes here (understatement). Obviously in ww1 and ww2 they weren't impressive. They had their time with napoleon and other figures but the french were one of the first who were united and didn't do much with it. I don't know.
to historian Niall Ferguson: "of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in 50 – more than Austria (47) and England (43). Out of 168 battles fought since 387 BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10", making France the most successful military power in European history—in terms of number of fought and won.
I have my problems with these statistics since they don't show if it was an equal fight and other major aspects. France had from an early beginning an united language/culture/land and barely grew in Europe. That's not good considering how much potential there was.
What are you talking about 🤣 At the beginning we only had a little king called Hugues Capet who had just the Ile de France as his royal domain, there was absolutely nothing unify, and all the territories we have today have been conquered, even my region the Gironde was conquered. We took the territories away from Germany, Spain etc and we built one of the greatest colonial empires in history. And from Louis XIV to Napoleon it will take the whole of Europe to defeat us, without forgetting the cultural influence on all of Europe that we had, even Frederick of Prussia to speak French and to hate his own language.
You seem to be not only hurt but also biased. Where France starts is up to discussion but I'd argue that if you look at france in from it's beginnings in 843 (yes I looked it up) france doesn't grow that much in continental Europe. Take it as it is. Colonial empires aren't impressing me either since it was basically empty land with primitive technologies. Why would you be proud of that? And no it didn't take the whole of Europe to defeat france thats just delusional. France had a big cultural that's true and Frederick of Prussia spoke french like other important figures too. He never hated german though. I can respect patriots but I won't respect that kind of nationalist propaganda. France in modern times was anything else than impressive. Deal with it.
Because it brings richness to the metropolis, you idiotic species and it is a cultural influence. You are ignorant, of France it is indeed enlarged since Hugues Capet, and if it took many countries to defeat the France of Louis XIV and Napoleon, and instead of looking on google read historians.
Does it really matter if France expanded its territory or not? If you're constantly on the defensive for example that's something you can't achieve but you still fight and can either win or lose. Historically speaking, French as a people have been through the highest number of wars fought in Europe, along with other natural disasters that could wipe them out as a people forever. Isn't that impressive? French history is like a never-ending storm. Ich komme auch aus Deutschland.
No, colonies cost more than they are bringing in look it up. You try to claim Hugues Capet was the start so the expansion would look bigger. That's not the case. "Read historians" --> Claims colonies bring richness. Stay in your bubble sister that discussion won't bear fruits.
It depends for whom because it is indeed the colonial empires which will enrich for example the united provinces in the 17th century And under Louis XIV We fought against the United provinces, England, the Holy Roman Empire, the Spanish monarchy, the Sweden, and Kingdom of Portugal in the Ausgburg League War and we will face yet another great coalition in the War of the Spanish Succession, but Germany should remember Louis XIV with what he did in Palatinate, yes I know you are going to have to look on Google 🤣 and do I need to talk about Napoleon and the coalitions that France had to face from 1792 until 1815?
@TheFlak38 In ww1 and ww2 they weren't impressive that's what I've said. I think she's cherrypicking frances best periods and acts like the numbers she posted have a given value. They don't. They don't give any context.
However from 1918 France will have the most modern army even the Americans will use our tanks, and if you like to recall the context of things, the victory of Germany against France during the Second World War is not impressive.
You should look deeper into why colonies were being made in the first place. Look it up in your books if you want to waste your time or google it like a normal human being. The thing about wars in pre 'modern' times is that some countries were enemies on paper and never fought. Stop the cherrypicking by the way. it shows your fragile ego. You got dunked in the last world wars and you seem butthurt about it and you try to hide it by over idealizing your country. Idc if france did good or bad overall they were good but nothing that spikes my interest. I don't participate in these boring "my country is better" discussions so, cya.
Bey if you knew your history a little, you would know that Louis XIV and Napoleon really faced all his enemies. For the First World War we won and as I told you even the Americans use our tanks for example. Oh yes I understand you Germans, your country was really good at burning the Jews🤭
And my sources, these historians tell in detail all these wars. Philip Mansel, in Louis XIV King of the World, Niall Ferguson in his book The West and the Rest of the World.
The French drove the English out of France centuries ago (remember Joan Of Arc?), and under Napoleon, the French conquered half of Europe. I don’t think it’s a matter of cowardice, it’s more a matter disorganization.
jeanne d arc, Napoleon these are the sweet name that resonates in my ears🙂🤣 yes and I also believe that we have paid our sacrifice during the first war
In World War One and two yes. The French haven’t always been coward in war. But the 20th century wars they were coward in my opinion especially during World War II why the hell surrender to the Nazis in 3 weeks
Sometimes you have to stop listening to your leaders and continue fighting no matter what. The French were loosing majorly in the First World War. No I didn’t help that they were fighting two countries empire ever got over to France. Robert graves talks a little bit about his experience with the French during ww1 he said they were largely unorganized and loosing men left and right. (Of course he’s a Brit) of course both England and France would be under German control today if it wasn’t for the United States. We had to save Europe’s ass twice and we’re still saving your ass
Well no, during the first world war (not at the beginning) but then it was we who had the most modern army, and it is we who endured the greatest war effort, the American soldiers were not very good during the first world war, we had to prepare them better and besides you had to let your army command by general foch, and not forget that you were using French tanks during this war.
Secondly, I would not be so arrogant little American, without the Europeans your country would not exist and France to help your country to become independent.
Yea without Britten we wouldn’t exist, remember the British kicked the Dutch out of is now known as Pennsylvania and the British also kicked the French out of Quebec as far as owning territory goes. Most of Spain’s ex colonies are horrible places to live. Wilson was probably the 4th worst President we ever had FDR wasn’t to much better given that he lengthened them to the Great Depression by 8 years. Still once the British and the Americans came in the Germans were fucked.
Honestly I don’t know why Serbia wasn’t punished heavily for starting the Great War but they weren’t.
Now World War II I don’t think The French word exist if it hadn’t been for the United States.
Don’t get me wrong I like the French I’ve been there thrice and they helped us a lot during the American revolution but everything I’ve read states the French were terrible during ww1 of course a lot of it has been from a British perspective maybe a good book from the French perspective would give me a better understanding of the French during WW2.
By the way why did you try taking over the papacy again I can’t remember
Afther what you guys did for my country in WW1 i can't never say that. But afther what happen in WW2 i can call you guys traitors as the same level whit UK and USA. Charles de Gaulle will likely suport my afirmation.
Same for my country in WW1 but we still move the capital to show we are not traitors or cowards. Your general has strongly condemned your action. "To be French, I thought it meant to fight to the end, alongside our allies..."
Philippe Pétain, he is guilty of the shame you have to endure. But the French people did not surrender and fought guerrilla warfare, which helped the English and they also supported them with coded messages and weapons and training. General Manstein was afraid all the time when he crossed the Ardennes, he thought that the Paris army intercepted his armored vehicles, which he told Hitbler that if that happened, Germany had no chance.
He received a recording with the Polish city of Warsaw from Adolf Hitler in which the city was completely shaved off the face of the earth + other cities in Denmark, the Czech Republic, Norway, Belgium, etc. He said he could not bear to see Paris (a jewel of Europe) turned to ashes completely. He said he did this to save architecture, art, the Parisian / French style and everything related to the national heritage of France in Paris.
in world war 2, the French had poor leader and direction. It’s not so much that they’re coward, they just didn’t have an actual chance to fight. Despite outnumbering the Germans, and having better supplies and equipment.
This is not true. They are anything but cowardly. They have been on the winning side of several wars. But choosing to avoid war is not cowardly. Not many people accuse Switzerland of being cowardly.
The French have the 2nd or 3rd most powerful military in the world. The italians get a lot of stick to for ww2, the running joke is that Italian tanks have 4 gears, 1 for going forward and 3 for reverse.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
