5 ms·

No one in Europe makes such jokes, the French fought like lions. Of course, our friends across the pond also think state healthcare is communism, and republica

No one in Europe makes such jokes, the French fought like lions. Of course, our friends across the pond also think state healthcare is communism, and republicans are “literally” nazis so, I wouldn’t truck too much with such statements.

tgv 4y ago
We do make such jokes. Not about WW1, though. But the reputation of the French was heavily tainted by their failure to check Germany in the interbellum and the Vichy regime.
- gattilorenz 4y ago
  Then I hope that you have plenty of jokes about the country whose prime Minister came back from Germany "with peace for our time" in 1938 :)
  - yread 4y ago
    Not to mention that the main reason why French army underperformed in the war is that lots of resources were spent on Maginot line as spending them on a potentially offensive things would upset the British
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      This is an old theory that doesn't hold up at all. The Maginot line was a good investment and worked as intented. And it was by no means as large an investment as people claim. Where they failed is in terms of their officers, command&control and training. The French Generals made some horrible mistakes and never managed to recover.
  - dagw 4y ago
    Of course, however they are all framed as "LOL, look how stupid/naive politicians are" rather than "LOL look how stupid/naive our country was". "Chamberlain" is still used as a shorthand for a politician accepting a deal that no one believes will be upheld.
  - mellavora 4y ago
    Yes, a misleading statement, but also one which bought the British valuable time to build up their military. It isn't clear that Chamberlain believed what he said, politicians are sometimes cleverer than they appear.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      > Yes, a misleading statement, but also one which bought the British valuable time to build up their military. This is not really the case. The most important things the British could do against the Germans was the Blockade. And the Blockade was available at literally any time since WW1. And the Germans were already in full buildup, they delay between 1938 and 1939 helped the Germans far more then it would have helped the Allies. Not to mentioned it took out the Czech military. Specially since its only when the Germans invaded Prague that the British really started the buildup. And in the end, the British army was kind of useless in the Battle of France, since the breakthrew happens in Verdun and the British were in Belgium.
    - gattilorenz 4y ago
      He then proceeded to fool the whole cabinet by telling them that Hitler is not insane and has very limited objectives: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinet-office-100/the-munich-pact/chamberlains-account-of-his-first-meeting-with-hitler/ https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinet-office-100/the-m...
MichaelMoser123 4y ago
France lost an awful lot of men in WW1, however they could not do it alone. The allies almost lost the war with the Ludendorf offensive in spring 1918, however the USA saved the day when the expeditionary force got to two million soldiers in the summer of 1918.
- qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
  European anti-colony resentments saved the day. Its riduculous how unaware pre WW2 europe was of the rest of the world. It was just some kind of pantry to fetch things from when in need.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  > The allies almost lost the war with the Ludendorf offensive in spring 1918 Not really. Those offensive were very unlikely to win the war. They look more impressive on a map then in reality. He really had no strategic plan, its was basically 'Lets attack and hope for the best'.
  - MichaelMoser123 4y ago
    It was a big deal for Germany, they moved their troops from the eastern front after the Brest-Litovsk treaty, and they sold it as the 'last big push' to their troops. Part of the original plan was to first win in the west, in order to avoid fighting a war on two fronts at the same time.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      They basically took all their best troops and pushed them into one relentless offensive after another destroying all their best troops.
RalfWausE 4y ago
Oh, of course we make such jokes... my grandfather who spend a real good time in france sure did...
scubbo 4y ago
(Ignorant) English people absolutely make jokes about the French being militarily incompetent and prone to surrender, in the face of significant evidence[0] - "France is the most successful military power in history". Source: am English, am attempting to become decreasingly ignorant over time. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France EDIT: Wait, crap, I forgot Brexit. I guess your statement remains _technically_ incorrect, since England is in (the continent of) Europe but not in the EU.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Claiming its the most successful in history is nonsense. France was the most populated and richest country in Europe for a very long time. Despite this, what one could consider natural French territory, Belgium and Netherland France never managed to hold for a significant amount of time. And then they decisively lost the global great power struggle against Britain despite France being much richer and having larger population. France is constrained by pretty natural frontier boarders that when looking the Medieval Kingdom of 1223 and modern day France, it doesn't seem like its the most amazing achievement. Specially considering its German neighbors, for 1000 years were far more fractured, and France never managed to really take full advantage of that situation.
  - brnt 4y ago
    > Despite this, what one could consider natural French territory, Belgium and Netherland What's natural about this? Those countries had been fendong off occupyers for centuries by the time the French made any serious progress during Napoleon. If you're refering to the Rhine/Maas delta, after the Roman empire it never was a (significant) border again, at least not in the Netherlands.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      > What's natural about this? Where is the center of power of the French crown? And then measure how far away the lowlands are. The French kings have been struggling to control Flanders for literally more the 1000 years. Given how much larger and richer France was, and how incredibly valuable that land is, the most successful military in history should have managed it. > Those countries had been fendong off occupyers for centuries Yes but if they had been opposed by the best military in history then they shouldn't have been able to.
meigwilym 4y ago
Many Brits still do I'm afraid. It's a sad irony to see 'Dunkirk Spirit' being rolled out at a time of crisis, despite it being a rout of the British army. It was a logistical triumph, which no doubt allowed the British army to live to fight another day. But I also consider Dunkirk Spirit to be about standing helplessly on a beach while being machine gunned by German pilots, while 30,000 Frenchmen die, guarding your rear.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  > despite it being a rout of the British army The Allied Army was surrounded because of a Break threw in the South. The British Army could literally do absolutely nothing and they don't do anything to lose the overall battle. In fact British keeping minimal organization alive and managing even limited counterattack had a strong effect German planning. And then of course despite massive help by the British Pétain essentially stabbed them in the back.
panick21_ 4y ago
> No one in Europe makes such jokes, the French fought like lions. You clearly have never been to Switzerland.
specialist 4y ago
Yup. Attacking your opponent's strengths is a time proven rhetorical strategy. Swift Boat Vets successfully depicted war hero Sen John Kerry as a pacifist. Ditto Sen Max Cleland. Sen John McCain was mocked as weak for being a POW. Ad nauseum. More nauseating is that it works. "Balanced" media coverage signal boosting the agitprop, muddying the waters, begatting cynicism and apathy.

tgv 4y ago

We do make such jokes. Not about WW1, though. But the reputation of the French was heavily tainted by their failure to check Germany in the interbellum and the Vichy regime.

gattilorenz 4y ago
Then I hope that you have plenty of jokes about the country whose prime Minister came back from Germany "with peace for our time" in 1938 :)
- yread 4y ago
  Not to mention that the main reason why French army underperformed in the war is that lots of resources were spent on Maginot line as spending them on a potentially offensive things would upset the British
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    This is an old theory that doesn't hold up at all. The Maginot line was a good investment and worked as intented. And it was by no means as large an investment as people claim. Where they failed is in terms of their officers, command&control and training. The French Generals made some horrible mistakes and never managed to recover.
- dagw 4y ago
  Of course, however they are all framed as "LOL, look how stupid/naive politicians are" rather than "LOL look how stupid/naive our country was". "Chamberlain" is still used as a shorthand for a politician accepting a deal that no one believes will be upheld.
- mellavora 4y ago
  Yes, a misleading statement, but also one which bought the British valuable time to build up their military. It isn't clear that Chamberlain believed what he said, politicians are sometimes cleverer than they appear.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    > Yes, a misleading statement, but also one which bought the British valuable time to build up their military. This is not really the case. The most important things the British could do against the Germans was the Blockade. And the Blockade was available at literally any time since WW1. And the Germans were already in full buildup, they delay between 1938 and 1939 helped the Germans far more then it would have helped the Allies. Not to mentioned it took out the Czech military. Specially since its only when the Germans invaded Prague that the British really started the buildup. And in the end, the British army was kind of useless in the Battle of France, since the breakthrew happens in Verdun and the British were in Belgium.
  - gattilorenz 4y ago
    He then proceeded to fool the whole cabinet by telling them that Hitler is not insane and has very limited objectives: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinet-office-100/the-munich-pact/chamberlains-account-of-his-first-meeting-with-hitler/ https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinet-office-100/the-m...

MichaelMoser123 4y ago

France lost an awful lot of men in WW1, however they could not do it alone. The allies almost lost the war with the Ludendorf offensive in spring 1918, however the USA saved the day when the expeditionary force got to two million soldiers in the summer of 1918.

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
European anti-colony resentments saved the day. Its riduculous how unaware pre WW2 europe was of the rest of the world. It was just some kind of pantry to fetch things from when in need.
panick21_ 4y ago
> The allies almost lost the war with the Ludendorf offensive in spring 1918 Not really. Those offensive were very unlikely to win the war. They look more impressive on a map then in reality. He really had no strategic plan, its was basically 'Lets attack and hope for the best'.
- MichaelMoser123 4y ago
  It was a big deal for Germany, they moved their troops from the eastern front after the Brest-Litovsk treaty, and they sold it as the 'last big push' to their troops. Part of the original plan was to first win in the west, in order to avoid fighting a war on two fronts at the same time.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    They basically took all their best troops and pushed them into one relentless offensive after another destroying all their best troops.

RalfWausE 4y ago

Oh, of course we make such jokes... my grandfather who spend a real good time in france sure did...

scubbo 4y ago

(Ignorant) English people absolutely make jokes about the French being militarily incompetent and prone to surrender, in the face of significant evidence[0] - "France is the most successful military power in history". Source: am English, am attempting to become decreasingly ignorant over time. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France EDIT: Wait, crap, I forgot Brexit. I guess your statement remains _technically_ incorrect, since England is in (the continent of) Europe but not in the EU.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
panick21_ 4y ago
Claiming its the most successful in history is nonsense. France was the most populated and richest country in Europe for a very long time. Despite this, what one could consider natural French territory, Belgium and Netherland France never managed to hold for a significant amount of time. And then they decisively lost the global great power struggle against Britain despite France being much richer and having larger population. France is constrained by pretty natural frontier boarders that when looking the Medieval Kingdom of 1223 and modern day France, it doesn't seem like its the most amazing achievement. Specially considering its German neighbors, for 1000 years were far more fractured, and France never managed to really take full advantage of that situation.
- brnt 4y ago
  > Despite this, what one could consider natural French territory, Belgium and Netherland What's natural about this? Those countries had been fendong off occupyers for centuries by the time the French made any serious progress during Napoleon. If you're refering to the Rhine/Maas delta, after the Roman empire it never was a (significant) border again, at least not in the Netherlands.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    > What's natural about this? Where is the center of power of the French crown? And then measure how far away the lowlands are. The French kings have been struggling to control Flanders for literally more the 1000 years. Given how much larger and richer France was, and how incredibly valuable that land is, the most successful military in history should have managed it. > Those countries had been fendong off occupyers for centuries Yes but if they had been opposed by the best military in history then they shouldn't have been able to.

meigwilym 4y ago

Many Brits still do I'm afraid. It's a sad irony to see 'Dunkirk Spirit' being rolled out at a time of crisis, despite it being a rout of the British army. It was a logistical triumph, which no doubt allowed the British army to live to fight another day. But I also consider Dunkirk Spirit to be about standing helplessly on a beach while being machine gunned by German pilots, while 30,000 Frenchmen die, guarding your rear.

panick21_ 4y ago
> despite it being a rout of the British army The Allied Army was surrounded because of a Break threw in the South. The British Army could literally do absolutely nothing and they don't do anything to lose the overall battle. In fact British keeping minimal organization alive and managing even limited counterattack had a strong effect German planning. And then of course despite massive help by the British Pétain essentially stabbed them in the back.

panick21_ 4y ago

> No one in Europe makes such jokes, the French fought like lions. You clearly have never been to Switzerland.

specialist 4y ago

Yup. Attacking your opponent's strengths is a time proven rhetorical strategy. Swift Boat Vets successfully depicted war hero Sen John Kerry as a pacifist. Ditto Sen Max Cleland. Sen John McCain was mocked as weak for being a POW. Ad nauseum. More nauseating is that it works. "Balanced" media coverage signal boosting the agitprop, muddying the waters, begatting cynicism and apathy.