D
Deleted member 88
Guest
The French have an independent nuclear deterrent, an aircraft carrier, they intervene to keep the Sahel from falling to Islamic terrorists, among other things.
History Myths and Misconceptions of History you Hate
- Thread starter AndrewJTalon
- Start date
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
Wrong I'm comparing the earth's one military power to a nation that hasnt defeated another nation's army in... how long, again?
There is only one real military power on earth.
And the next four after them.
To be clear, you think the french could have beaten Iraq's military, the fourth biggest on the planet?
"War is like, really hard, man"
-The french, right before giving up
French military- Did not defeat the NVA, let alone deal them so tremendous a defeat that they more or less disolved as an entity
American military- Did so whilst hamstrung by it's own leaders.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Okay, you do realize the militaries the US beat were in the last twenty years includes-Iraq an Arab country, Afghanistan-Taliban fighters, and various other terrorist groups. What an impressive record!
The other nine countries or so with nuclear weapons would politely disagree.
And? The US is a hyperpower and outclasses all its neighbors, allies and rivals. Thus comparing it to them is neither useful nor honest.
In 1991? Probably yes. In 2003 definitely yes. The Fourth Largest Army you bandy about was composed primarily of frightened conscripts, had no NCOs, didn't even properly apply Soviet doctrine that most of their weapons were based for, and generals too terrified to actually be honest lest they be shot by the big man. What a fearsome military machine! The one that fought Iran for eight years and nearly lost, and only turned if not for liberal chemical weapons use and Iranian manpower on the verge of collapse.
Yes war is really hard. What a dumb thing to say. Modern war is even harder. The leading French General in WW2 dismissed the role of airpower because he was an old guy raised on old thinking. They didn't coordinate effectively, the government was dysfunctional, the French command didn't have radios. Do some reading on why they lost.
The NVA didn't exist in the first Indochina war.
Last edited by a moderator:
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
That's laughable, the Americans inflicted numerous tactical defeats on NVA but never destroyed it, the fighting went on before the negotiations, during negotiations and after negotiations - it never ceased.
Even though it's an obvious red herring with the comparison, The French Army in 1991 would've been able to defeat the Iraqi Army in 1991.
They had AFAIK three armored divisions, two mechanized infantry divisions, one light armored division one airmobile division, one parachute division, one marine division, and one alpine division. Then they had the units and Legion forces in Germany and overseas. Plus about eight or so reserve formations if the need was really pressing and they had to put a half million troops in the field. Only their 1st Corps was disbanded prior to the Persian Gulf War so outfitting the reservists wouldn't be too difficult.
And yeah... 2003 Iraq is almost taken for granted they'd win.
They had AFAIK three armored divisions, two mechanized infantry divisions, one light armored division one airmobile division, one parachute division, one marine division, and one alpine division. Then they had the units and Legion forces in Germany and overseas. Plus about eight or so reserve formations if the need was really pressing and they had to put a half million troops in the field. Only their 1st Corps was disbanded prior to the Persian Gulf War so outfitting the reservists wouldn't be too difficult.
And yeah... 2003 Iraq is almost taken for granted they'd win.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
The French still have a good military to conduct usually successful military operations against any third rate army.
To really test anyone's military we need a war between peers to test that but preferably when we're all dead.
The first world war had every European Empire preparing to murder the shit out of each other and it was not pretty.
To really test anyone's military we need a war between peers to test that but preferably when we're all dead.
The first world war had every European Empire preparing to murder the shit out of each other and it was not pretty.
Denmark literally surrendered far more quickly then France did. Like in a span of hours. The Netherlands fell after a few days and after suffering the shock of one of the first large scale terror bombings (ala Guernica and Warsaw before it) before they surrendered. King Leopold of Belgium even surrendered before even consulting his government! The main point is they surrendered after continued active military resistance would've just disproportionately added more death and misery to the losing column.
The Vichy France thing is somewhat more interesting, but honestly it doesn't seem more exceptional in regards to resistance then it does with the other Western nations that fell such as Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and Denmark. All of them had collaborators and resistance portions but most were passive in both cases with a giant bell curve of just keeping their heads down. Plus Germany didn't want to swallow all of France into occupation anyhow unlike the far smaller countries in the West it had swallowed up or key strategically like with Norway.
France falling was inevitable with how the situation in the Northeast turned out. After Fall Gelb France had sixty divisions left (including a fair number of 'Fortress' style divisions) with all of their best units already destroyed. They were facing 140 German divisions and a lame Italian invasion on the Southern border. In two days the Weygand Line somehow collapsed and people were surprised it lasted that long considering the disparity of forces. If they continued fighting in France there'd be no chance for the French military to carry on the fight in some sort of Southern French enclave and with only sixty divisions, they wouldn't be able to withdraw significant forces from the front to evacuate to North Africa or whatever without again, a complete collapse.
They could've followed Reynaud's advice though so at the very least, portions of the French Army and Air Force as well as the Navy and Overseas possessions could help contribute to a shorter War since there were significant forces in North Africa, the Middle East and Indochina specifically.
But the Vichy thing... nah... I don't see that as exceptionally cowardly in comparison to the other conquered Western European countries. Everyone was rolled by the Germans and singling out the French for being particularly 'cowardly' is just silliness. The only thing that saved Britain from the same fate was a channel of water filled with boats. And even then, folks like Lord Halifax were open to reaching 'accommodation' in the wake of the Fall of France. And the US Ambassador to the UK at the time was even more pessimistic in regards to Britain at the time. So defeatism wasn't something exceptional to France.
Free French (along with the other 'Free' countries) of course did seem to perform an exceptional job in the wake of the Fall of France anyhow.
Last edited:
Harlock
I should have expected that really
The French counter attack into Stonne between the 15th and 17th of May was one of the most brutal and brave episodes of the war. The town stood on high ground near the German crossing on the Meuse where the Blitz originated making it an incredibly valuable strategic location.
Both sides sent their best forces to take it and over those two days it changed hands 17 times as the French and Germans launched continuous ferocious attacks. The German commanders called it a second Verdun and rated it alongside Stalingrad for sheer savagery.
The Germans won in the end but not because their opponents were weak or cowardly. The French had poor leaders and were outplayed by the Germans, but on the field the French had some very hard fought battles. Anyone saying those men were cowards is a fucking cunt.
Both sides sent their best forces to take it and over those two days it changed hands 17 times as the French and Germans launched continuous ferocious attacks. The German commanders called it a second Verdun and rated it alongside Stalingrad for sheer savagery.
The Germans won in the end but not because their opponents were weak or cowardly. The French had poor leaders and were outplayed by the Germans, but on the field the French had some very hard fought battles. Anyone saying those men were cowards is a fucking cunt.
I need to read mor about this battles it seems very interesting.
The Free french grew thier army as they went through french territories and claimed more and more soldiers who were french, making it back to france with more then 3000 like they started with.
They had a lot of weight behind the idea of freeing france
Harlock
I should have expected that really
Decent run down here...
Battle of Stonne 15-17 May 1940 - Axis History Forum
forum.axishistory.com
Notable events include a French heavy tank wasting 13 Panzer III and IV in a single gun duel tanking (literally) over 140 hits from AT guns for no damage in return, and another French tank grinding an MG team under its tracks and causing the next German position to break and run when it saw the incoming vehicle splattered in the gore of their comrades. Savage battle indeed.
It helps show that in terms of spirit and basic equipment the French had what it took, they just lacked the higher leadership to apply it properly. During the initial attacks the French armoured units on the Belgian border were stopping the Panzers dead and then beginning to push them back when numbers were even.
In a fair fight the French would have done well, but nobody is going to fight fair if they can help it.
I am guessing a B1 bis since that is the earliest heavy tank the french had during the War
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
The Western European countries like Belgium and Denmark also happened to be very small and could not sustain the sort of losses a prolonged war would bring, in both manpower and damage.
And they’d know they’d lose anyway? So why fight pointlessly when your going to be defeated? There is a difference between bravery and suicidal recklessness in the face of one sided odds.
As for France in particular-it was a combination of a complexity of factors, but a shift to a doctrine of defensive warfare and the tendency to fight to the last war were important determinants.
www.airforcemag.com
General Gamelin in particular was a bright guy but was an old man set in his ways.
“Airplanes, like tanks, were considered to be support for the infantry. “There is no such thing as a battle of the air,” Gamelin said in 1939. “There is only a battle of the land.”
This may have been the case in WW1 but was not so in WW2.
Also on the topic of myths-the Maginot line being ineffective for one-this national interest article might be of interest.
nationalinterest.org
And they’d know they’d lose anyway? So why fight pointlessly when your going to be defeated? There is a difference between bravery and suicidal recklessness in the face of one sided odds.
As for France in particular-it was a combination of a complexity of factors, but a shift to a doctrine of defensive warfare and the tendency to fight to the last war were important determinants.
The Fall of France | Air & Space Forces Magazine
Miscalculations led the superior force to a stunning defeat in less than six weeks.
www.airforcemag.com
General Gamelin in particular was a bright guy but was an old man set in his ways.
“Airplanes, like tanks, were considered to be support for the infantry. “There is no such thing as a battle of the air,” Gamelin said in 1939. “There is only a battle of the land.”
This may have been the case in WW1 but was not so in WW2.
Also on the topic of myths-the Maginot line being ineffective for one-this national interest article might be of interest.
The National Interest: Blog
nationalinterest.org
Last edited by a moderator:
Another notable engagement was the Battle of Saumar on June 18th to 20th, right before the Armistice. The Saumar Cavalry School (which General George Patton attended in 1912) was located near the bank of the Loire River and decided to defend a twenty mile front of river from a ten thousand strong German force.
They had a bunch of WW1 era guns, 550 older cadets, 800 junior cadets with a few months training, 200 Algerian Colonial Infantry and 600 or so other random reserve, training, retreating and support troops and so were basically outnumbered five to one.
But they resisted the enemy advance for over two days and sustained over ten percent casualties before the word of the armistice reached them and their position became untenable.
They had a bunch of WW1 era guns, 550 older cadets, 800 junior cadets with a few months training, 200 Algerian Colonial Infantry and 600 or so other random reserve, training, retreating and support troops and so were basically outnumbered five to one.
But they resisted the enemy advance for over two days and sustained over ten percent casualties before the word of the armistice reached them and their position became untenable.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
In the article I cited-various forts of the Maginot Line held out for days or even weeks. Apparently they could have held out for months.
The French put up admirable resistance, the problem was their resistance was badly led and coordinated.
It doesn’t matter if you make a stand and the enemy suffers 40% losses if you are cut off and they have already overrun most of the country.
The French put up admirable resistance, the problem was their resistance was badly led and coordinated.
It doesn’t matter if you make a stand and the enemy suffers 40% losses if you are cut off and they have already overrun most of the country.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
WWII era France were macho fearless paragons of Chaditude compared to the modern French who won’t even lift a finger to protect their women and children from Muslim rape gangs when they have more than enough military ability to do so.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
The problem is that the French of today won’t acknowledge they’re being attacked and those in the know are too afraid to be called NAZI’s and arrested or have enough connections with fellow survivors or people related to survivors
They need to all be made to fight by sudden and very obvious circumstance, they come out different then
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
The idea that the US wasn't preparing for WWII before Pearl Harbor. I hear it all the bloody time(well at least a few times a season) from people of my age group(sigh this why we really need better ways of teaching history in American public schools) and yet from people way older than me.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
I think years ago there was a saying that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen in order to justify entering WWII
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
Ah yes the idea that FDR would be willing to throw away thousands of experienced sailors and mutiple capital ships for no good reason when Japan attacking the Philippines like it inevitably would sometime in the near future(that or one U-boat incident too many) get the US involved in WWII. Also fun fact due to her engines being all but dead thank to them being triple expansion engines(what drugs the procurement/design team where consuming when they though that was a good idea) Oklahoma was due to be retired inside of six months along the USS Texas for much the same reason albeit the Oklahoma's engines were a far worse state.
Last edited:
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Isn’t the whole 9/11 was allowed to occur in order to justify attacking the middle east, still a thing?