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.
Wrong I'm comparing the earth's one military power to a nation that hasnt defeated another nation's army in... how long, again?@Shipmaster Sane TBH, your comparing apples and oranges.
There is only one real military power on earth.The French though are a military power. Whether you like it or not.
And the next four after them.The distinction is that the US is a stronger power than the next four countries combined.
To be clear, you think the french could have beaten Iraq's military, the fourth biggest on the planet?As for Iraq-quantity and quality are not synonymous. Comparing the French and Saddam's Iraq is at best ignorant and at worst disingenuous.
As for World War 2, this video summarizes a lot of the circumstances and in the description there are plenty of sources for you to look at.
French military- Did not defeat the NVA, let alone deal them so tremendous a defeat that they more or less disolved as an entityFor Vietnam, claiming "we won, but the politics made us leave" ignores Clausewitz now trite dictum, and also that the Homefront matters. The US government failed to convince enough of the population to stay the course. And was unwilling to keep holding the South's hand indefinitely.
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.
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.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.
Also none of those chaps pulled a "Vichy" on us. They went down fighting whilst the French threw up the white flag to perhaps the most evil regime in history, when it still had Southern France to regroup in and the entire French Empire to call upon. Froggy high command screwed up, then willfully collaborated with the Nazis; France rightfully bears the shame whilst Henri IV weeps.
If the dead weep.
I need to read mor about this battles it seems very interesting.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.
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.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.
I need to read mor about this battles it seems very interesting.
I am guessing a B1 bis since that is the earliest heavy tank the french had during the WarDecent 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.
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.
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.
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.I think years ago there was a saying that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen in order to justify entering WWII
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 retired inside of six months along the USS Texas for much h the same reason albeit the Oklahoma's engines were a far worse state.