Why do many Anglo-Saxons seem to think that France surrendered in the First World War?

[Julie4]

[Danzigdawson]

Because some of them are both anglo-centrist and ignorant (apparently) when it comes to basic historical knowledge.

France fought all the way through WWI on the western front along with the British, Canadians and, near the end of the war, the Americans. They were, in fact, sole responsible for defending a pretty long stretch of the western front.

During the first battle of the Marne, they managed to prevent WWI from ending a mere weeks after it began with a crushing German victory (Of course, given the astounding number of deaths and all of the devastating geopolitical consequences of WWI, one would be right to wonder if that's actually a good thing. Maybe it is, maybe not; that's another debate... but nobody knew what a shitshow it would turn out to be at that point).

They showed bravery, resilience and determination during the battle of Verdun, and came out of it victorious in the end, despite suffering heavier casualties than on the german side.

[Danzigdawson]

WW2 is another story, however

When the second world war began, the only ones who were enthusiast about the fight were the germans because they had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Both the English and the french were prepared, but they already were demoralized from the start due to nazi germany's apparent might. They were also both worried about the new war eventually becoming a bloody, depressing and ultimately pointless repeat of WWI: static trench warfare with extremely high casualties for little gain.

When the nazis invaded France in early summer 1941, they seemed unstoppable and invincible. The whole wermacht was high on meth (true story — google 'pervitin'). They were moving very quickly, deep behind enemy lines. Of course, it made them extremely vulnerable to counter attacks, but the psychological terror inflicted by this so called 'blitzkrieg' tactic was so demoralizing that both British and french did not even think to seize any opportunity to strike back hard at hitler's hordes. They were losing their cool and constantly retreating until the whole lot reached Dunkerque.

What's not really acknowledged is that the french basically sacrificed themselves around Dunkerque to allow for the British to escape with almost all of their troops. Also, they kept fighting on, alone, for almost a month after the evacuation of the British army, before finally having few choices but to surrender.

The British and the anglo-saxon world love to gloat that they stood firm before the germans and they did, but so did France.

[Danzigdawson]

From my point of view, the problem is that they seem to believe that, had Hitler attempted to invade britain, they would all have fought heroically to the last man, prefering death over surrender. Their hypothetical victory never seems to be doubted.

Let's remind everyone that britain is an island, and that there is a considerable stretch of sea to cross to get to it. Had their country shared a land border with France, it would have suffered the same fate as every other nation in western Europe. There is no doubt in my mind about this. There would have been English collaborators and English resistance just as there was in France and elsewhere. The fight could have been longer and bloodier than in the rest of Europe, but in the end, I think that they would have been forced to give up eventually, just like France.

The only thing which TRULY saved Britain in ww2 is the fact that it's an island. Obviously, invading an island is far more complicated than crossing a land border. It requires a lot of logistics and preparation to come up with a winning strategy. It also requires domination of the skies and a navy capable of neutralizing the power of the Royal Navy. The nazis didn't have that navy, but they had the U-boats, which at that time were a very deadly weapon. They could have had air superiority, maybe, but Göring's incompetent management of the luftwaffe, and the RAF's fierce resistence during the Blitz soon put a term to these dreams.

[Danzigdawson]

Hitler and his generals just didn't anticipate that France would be defeated so quickly. In fact, he wasn't exactly confident about his chances of winning against France and Britain at all before the start of the Battle of France. Therefore, he and his senior staff didn't make any real preparations to invade Britain. So, when came the time to wonder what to do with the British threat, they suddenly had months and even years of preparations to catch up with, when they should have been ready to invade england right away when it still was at its weakest.

Britain was safe, for now, from a nazi invasion. The time they had gained by retreating to the relative safety of the isle served them well. They prepared themselves extensively, called in troops from all over the commonwealth (and the americans, eventually), began to provide valuable assistance to resistance movements all over Europe and rebuilt their arsenal. When the nazis foolishly decided to invade the Soviet Union, it was pretty clear that an invasion of Britain would not occur in the then-forseeable future... and when the Soviet Union began to make the german army retreat with great losses, it was increasingly clear that it would never happen.

[Cormac995]

Because they're government did. However, saying the people gave up is far from the truth. The never accepted occupation and they died for their freedom in skirmishes and hit and run raids on Nazi's. Part of why the D day invasion was successful at all was the French saboteurs behind enemy lines disrupting logistics and wreaking havoc causing more disorder and making it harder for the Nazi's to respond to our attack. We didn't beat the Nazi's in one big move it was tons of little battles and even little moments in those battles where if a single thing had gone different the tide of history might have changed. The French people did their part. On a government level they surrendered but the people never did.

[Panthero80]

There were no Nazis in WW1.

[Cormac995]

@Panthero80 Whoops I must have miss read it. Most of the time when people make fun of the French for surrendering they're talking about WW2

[NoDecision]

@cormac995 He said WWI.

[Cormac995]

@NoDecision Like I said I miss read it.

[Entertained_Adult]

@cormac995 In light of May 8th, R. I. P. HP Blavatsky. She was a good person despite some gross misinformation in her material. She was influenced partly by indian satanic fucks, but also by the American occultists.

Here is one short summary by Rudolf Steiner about how it happened, both the occult imprisonment of HP Blavatsky and the cause of WW1 which was planned decades in advance: www.rudolfsteineraudio.com/.../...sophy1904-23.mp3

It is no surprise that the governments bent over to the English, knowing the cause of the war, Rudolf Steiner already lectured on what the war will result in during it still happening. He also warned openly how bad the nazi party is decades before their reign. As you'd learn if you look through the consequent lectures, his "33rd degree" in masonry is actually 3×3 = 9th degree, and everyone talking about supposed existence of 33 degrees (including holders of said degrees) is usually dumb as fuck, and a pawn for sinister occultists.

Anyway, as he also mentioned in further lectures of that compilation, it is in a sense predetermined before birth, whether a person is interested in the hidden spiritual truths, or if they feel at home in the mainstream material paradigm. So i do not expect anyone here to be interested, although any GaG politician is obviously to some extent a weirdo, we wouldn't be here if physical life in it's current paradigm felt like home entirely, so anything is possible.

[alice55]

They surely don't learn history the same ways we do

[RavVid]

I don't, cause France didn't.

Some might be confused between WW1 and WW2 because France was overwhelmed and capitulated in WW2 due to a failure of leadership at the highest levels. Without checking, as I remember, the Prime minister wanted to fight on but his cabinet overruled him.

France had suffered very badly in WW1 so I can understand reluctance to do it again.

[WindAtMyBack]

Not sure many people think that unless they are thinking WW2 instead of WW1. Easy mistake. Even in WW2, I'm not sure if surrender is the right word.

[Zack-Bann]

Never heard that before


The one I hear is: france couldn’t beat the germans on its own and the UK and US had to step in and help

[Julie4]

They came because it was in their national interest to do so. Secondly, they couldn't have won without France either. This is very different from the Second World War

[ProbablyClueless]

Is that a thing people think? I wasn't aware. People think a lot of stupid stuff.

[Dargil]

Because the tanks they bought only had reverse gear.

[Amur8711]

Because the goverment did surrender in bother WW1 and WW2. However I know there where a lot of resistance groups by the people.

[Julie4]

Where did you learn history? 😅

[Amur8711]

May mistake, they just were heavily occupied by Germany. Your correct, maybe because of that fact we assumed they surrendered.

[Julie4]

In the Second World War, the illegitimate Vichy government signed the armistice.

But not in World War , France fought and resisted.

[Amur8711]

I remember now that when America joined WW1, we started fighting alongside the French in France. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[Julie4]

Yes, and alongside the British too

[Amur8711]

Yep, ever heard of the Christmas Truse?

[Julie4]

Yeah

[Godihateyou]

I don't know any that do. France is where the majority of the war was faught... by Americans.

[Julie4]

World War I, fought mostly by Americans? It's ironic or profoundly ignorant

[Godihateyou]

I misspoke. By faught. I meant won. The war was mostly faught (and lost) in France by British and French men like I clearly said. The war was WON by Americans that came in late and actually won battles.

[msc545]

Bcause that is the narrative the US right wing has pushed. It is a lie.

[MrOracle]

I hope you brought receipts, because I call BS on that one until proven otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Because it's easier than telling them many French sympathized with Petain (which I won't villainize them for)

[Anonymous]

They usually mistake WW1 for WW2 and vice versa.

[DJB72]

Because they never studied history

[DrPepper12]

New on me!!! Can you elaborate?

[Staximus]

Angelo saxophones

[Kelly04]

Probably what they learn from others.