Why dont people here do like French?

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: daniel49
I can't say I have met that many true frenchmen, but just looking at the way they always seem to shirk there responsability fromm ww11 when they did not even defend paris.

Also it was decided by her allies that they not fight on to the end so they could regroup in their colonies,

De Gaulle was one of the few in the cabinet to resist surrender and to propose that the government withdraw if necessary to their colonies in North Africa to continue the struggle once united with the foreign legion poised to strike the axis soft underbelly while he gave secret orders to the resistance.

De Gaulle never gave up and went on to be the president of the liberated mainland france, and paris is a open city, it was quite smart to save paris as by the end of the war it was about the only city in europe that did not turn out to look like this which would have been a massive cultural loss to the western world.



"The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom." -Sun Tzu's Art of War

In the end it comes down mostly to the fact that germany used a guerdian's new combined force doctrine with armor that was centered around countering how the french fought war at the time, the german generals were literal geniuses and even when they were beaten badly at the end of the war germany provided the united states with the worst mass capturing of our troops and the biggest military loss in the history of the united states in france and luxembourg. The battle of the bulge. Granted they were being invaded by the soviet union at the time and could not hold up for long.

Still they took the biggest number of american POWs in one battle ever -the german war machine was brutally cunning.

Guerdian and Rommell to this day are seen as geniuses to even modern tank commanders. Literal supermen of tactics, the french were not prepared as the rest of the world was not.

Also in ww1 they took the brunt of the german attack holding france until we could join them many years later, they suffered 7.5 million dead and wounded, only to be outdone by the losses of germany itself, russia being next. To compare America had 300k killed or wounded, france was "bled white" of their young men for generations.

People who say france ran off in ww2 without knowing how their population was just used as a meatgrinder in the trenches of ww1 to hold the line just a few decades earlier makes americans sound plain ignorant.

Lets not even get into the fact that france were the only ones to recognize our independence from the worlds superpower -the UK and helped us win our freedom when this country was new to carry on to be the only other democratic country in the world while everyone else was still kissing some kings pinky ring.

De Gaulle had little to do with the factors leading to the French defeat in 1940. The French military and political establishment of the interwar years was mostly to blame. The French military did a decent job considering what they had to work with, but the strategic situation they had allowed themselves to fall into at the time of the blitz was probably beyond recovery.

France was just as happy as Germany to get WWI started. They saw it as an opportunity to reverse some of the results of the Franco-Prussian war, namely restoring the territory of Alsace-Lorraine to France. However, the French military greatly underestimated the strength of the German army at the time as well as the importance of effective artillery (which was almost a religion to the Germans). The British managed to save their bacon, but just barely. When the Schlieffen plan failed the war settled into the great battle of attrition we know it to be today with the Germans, French, and British becoming so invested as to resist armistice until the Germans finally ended up near defeat (partially as a result of the US joining the war).


The French monarchy helped us to hurt the British, not out of any noble sense of freedom. Ironically this enormous expense was one of the key factors leading to the initiation of the French Revolution and the eventual overthrow of the French monarchy.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: K1052


De Gaulle had little to do with the factors leading to the French defeat in 1940. The French military and political establishment of the interwar years was mostly to blame. The French military did a decent job considering what they had to work with, but the strategic situation they had allowed themselves to fall into at the time of the blitz was probably beyond recovery.

France was just as happy as Germany to get WWI started. They saw it as an opportunity to reverse some of the results of the Franco-Prussian war, namely restoring the territory of Alsace-Lorraine to France. However, the French military greatly underestimated the strength of the German army at the time as well as the importance of effective artillery (which was almost a religion to the Germans). The British managed to save their bacon, but just barely. When the Schlieffen plan failed the war settled into the great battle of attrition we know it to be today with the Germans, French, and British becoming so invested as to resist armistice until the Germans finally ended up near defeat (partially as a result of the US joining the war).

Still though, the french took the brunt of the german juggernaut and it was a huge factor in ww2 seeing as how their people were exausted, population wise france is no match to germany, america coming into the picture so late was just the last straw and germany signed the armistace.

Like I said, 7.5million french casualties to americas 300k. Germany was already on the ropes america was the straw that broke the camels back.

And I agree the diplomatic situation that led to ww1 was a mess, all the alliances set up were asking for a world war to break out, but it was not france who started it, yet of the allies they paid the highest price to defend their country by far.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: K1052


De Gaulle had little to do with the factors leading to the French defeat in 1940. The French military and political establishment of the interwar years was mostly to blame. The French military did a decent job considering what they had to work with, but the strategic situation they had allowed themselves to fall into at the time of the blitz was probably beyond recovery.

France was just as happy as Germany to get WWI started. They saw it as an opportunity to reverse some of the results of the Franco-Prussian war, namely restoring the territory of Alsace-Lorraine to France. However, the French military greatly underestimated the strength of the German army at the time as well as the importance of effective artillery (which was almost a religion to the Germans). The British managed to save their bacon, but just barely. When the Schlieffen plan failed the war settled into the great battle of attrition we know it to be today with the Germans, French, and British becoming so invested as to resist armistice until the Germans finally ended up near defeat (partially as a result of the US joining the war).

Still though, the french took the brunt of the german juggernaut and it was a huge factor in ww2 seeing as how their people were exausted, population wise france is no match to germany, america coming into the picture so late was just the last straw and germany signed the armistace.

Like I said, 7.5million french casualties to americas 300k. Germany was already on the ropes america was the straw that broke the camels back.

And I agree the diplomatic situation that led to ww1 was a mess, all the alliances set up were asking for a world war to break out, but it was not france who started it, yet of the allies they paid the highest price.

It should not be forgotten that the British endured a similar number of military casulties to the French.

As I said, France viewed a possible German offensive as a clear opportunity and planned along those lines extensively prior to the war.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: K1052


Still though, the french took the brunt of the german juggernaut and it was a huge factor in ww2 seeing as how their people were exausted, population wise france is no match to germany, america coming into the picture so late was just the last straw and germany signed the armistace.

Like I said, 7.5million french casualties to americas 300k. Germany was already on the ropes america was the straw that broke the camels back.

And I agree the diplomatic situation that led to ww1 was a mess, all the alliances set up were asking for a world war to break out, but it was not france who started it, yet of the allies they paid the highest price.

It should not be forgotten that the British endured a similar number of military casulties to the French.

As I said, France viewed a possible German offensive as a clear opportunity and planned along those lines extensively prior to the war.
[/quote]



http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1castable.htm

France suffered twice as many as the UK, both of them held on best they could though.

And of course they planned to take advantage, if germany was my neighbor I would be ready for any advantage, they are not exactly kittens.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: K1052


Still though, the french took the brunt of the german juggernaut and it was a huge factor in ww2 seeing as how their people were exausted, population wise france is no match to germany, america coming into the picture so late was just the last straw and germany signed the armistace.

Like I said, 7.5million french casualties to americas 300k. Germany was already on the ropes america was the straw that broke the camels back.

And I agree the diplomatic situation that led to ww1 was a mess, all the alliances set up were asking for a world war to break out, but it was not france who started it, yet of the allies they paid the highest price.

It should not be forgotten that the British endured a similar number of military casulties to the French.

As I said, France viewed a possible German offensive as a clear opportunity and planned along those lines extensively prior to the war.

http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1castable.htm

France suffered twice as many as the UK, both of them held on best they could though.

And of course they planned to take advantage, if germany was my neighbor I would be ready for any advantage, they are not exactly kittens.[/quote]

I remember the dead being about 1.5M French and 1.2M British over the course of the war but I don't have my reference handy. Also, your source says 5.6M total French casualties not the 7.5M you posted.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: K1052


Still though, the french took the brunt of the german juggernaut and it was a huge factor in ww2 seeing as how their people were exausted, population wise france is no match to germany, america coming into the picture so late was just the last straw and germany signed the armistace.

Like I said, 7.5million french casualties to americas 300k. Germany was already on the ropes america was the straw that broke the camels back.

And I agree the diplomatic situation that led to ww1 was a mess, all the alliances set up were asking for a world war to break out, but it was not france who started it, yet of the allies they paid the highest price.

It should not be forgotten that the British endured a similar number of military casulties to the French.

As I said, France viewed a possible German offensive as a clear opportunity and planned along those lines extensively prior to the war.

http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1castable.htm

France suffered twice as many as the UK, both of them held on best they could though.

And of course they planned to take advantage, if germany was my neighbor I would be ready for any advantage, they are not exactly kittens.

I remember the dead being about 1.5M French and 1.2M British over the course of the war but I don't have my reference handy. Also, your source says 5.6M total French casualties not the 7.5M you posted.
[/quote]


You are right about that, it is still twice the UKs as I stated regardless of typo, my number pad is messed up it seems. -Corrected in post.


Allies
Russia 6,650,000 (they alway get chewed up bad w/ germany -ouch)
France 5,651,000
UK 2,367,000
Italy 1,407,000
US 321,000
Australia 211,000

Germany = one bunch of bad mofos good to see they learned better finally.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: K1052


Still though, the french took the brunt of the german juggernaut and it was a huge factor in ww2 seeing as how their people were exausted, population wise france is no match to germany, america coming into the picture so late was just the last straw and germany signed the armistace.

Like I said, 7.5million french casualties to americas 300k. Germany was already on the ropes america was the straw that broke the camels back.

And I agree the diplomatic situation that led to ww1 was a mess, all the alliances set up were asking for a world war to break out, but it was not france who started it, yet of the allies they paid the highest price.

It should not be forgotten that the British endured a similar number of military casulties to the French.

As I said, France viewed a possible German offensive as a clear opportunity and planned along those lines extensively prior to the war.

http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1castable.htm

France suffered twice as many as the UK, both of them held on best they could though.

And of course they planned to take advantage, if germany was my neighbor I would be ready for any advantage, they are not exactly kittens.

I remember the dead being about 1.5M French and 1.2M British over the course of the war but I don't have my reference handy. Also, your source says 5.6M total French casualties not the 7.5M you posted.

You are right about that, it is still twice the UKs as I stated regardless of typo, my number pad is messed up it seems. -Corrected in post.


Allies
Russia 6,650,000 (they alway get chewed up bad w/ germany -ouch)
France 5,651,000
UK 2,367,000
Italy 1,407,000
US 321,000
Australia 211,000
[/quote]

I remembered the France/UK numbers being closer, but I am too tired to look it up right now.

The Russians got handled badly for a lot of reasons. Horrible leadership, massive supply problems, logistics, communications the Germans could read faster then their own commanders, and a very determined enemy (the Germans feared a Russian invasion like nothing else).

 

[Steeplerot]

Yeah, that is how germans trained for war, always practicing ways to outflank and trickery against a larger foe in the terrain of prussia if I remember off the top of my head, trying to rememberwhat battle that was that split the russian by a lake in the middle or their advance, a trap germans practiced for ages to rout a advance into prussia. And it worked all to well.

Crazy doctrines of encirclement warfare to stay mobile and counter a much larger foe.