underestimating France?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Discription: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9844
Printed Date: 14-May-2024 at 14:08
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: underestimating France?
Posted By: Guests
Subject: underestimating France?
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 11:14
| Why is it when people diss France they always say France never won nothing. guess these guys never heard of Napoleon or Charlemagne or William of Normandy? |
Replies:
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 12:37
|
or the 1998 world cup and 2000 European championship. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2006 at 18:17
|
It's the old "what have they done recently?" that gets 'em.
|
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2006 at 19:05
|
only arrogant people say that...but then again they also think that Africa is a country ...so it doesnt really matter.
------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2006 at 19:27
|
Please explain.
|
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2006 at 20:13
|
lol, ok in my experience, people who tell me that France did not win anything are usually not intelligent, have a poor background in history and geography... ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2006 at 20:23
|
Hmmm....thanks. After 1919, France's achievements in international politics, and it's history rather suggests more failure and geographic regression than anything else. Of course, France is prosperous and secure, but that is much obliged to the Marshal Plan, and to NATO, regardless of what the French think. Britain, The Soviet Union and The USA did not have Nazi stooges running their countries for four years. And they did not have to be liberated by someone else.
|
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2006 at 20:32
|
yes, that is true...but you are comparing France in both WWI and WWII with the strongest country at those times, Germany. If Great Britain was not an island, and was connected to Germany, you can bet they would have been gonners too  And lets not forget, France is still one of the strongest countries in the world...now how would a country that has not won anything, be at the top of the food chain for the past 1000 or so years ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2006 at 20:55
|
mamikon: I will concede that until about 1860, France was a formidable part of the political community (at least in Europe). Within the next 30-40 years, they were eclipsed by Britain, the German Empire and the United States (and then later by Russia/Soviet Union). The exhaustion of France was not generally realized until the 1930s. After 1940, France was a spent force. France was certainly a large and prosperous power 1660-1860. But for 100 years before that it was an almost unending seat of civil war, and had been well defeated by the Habsburgs from about 1500 to 1559. And, from 1700-1815, its most successful generals were foreigners. Marechal The Duke of Berwick (Jacobite Scots/English), Marechal Moritz de Saxe (German) and Napoleone Buonaparte (Corsican of Italian ancestry) The French, I think, cling to glories past, and there are many of them. However, the attitude of the French (the French elites, mostly) in the 21st century is rather absurd. They are the recipient of American defense largesse in NATO; British foreign policy that directly benefits them, and German economic industriousness and capital development that France tends to take credit for. Charlemagne was a Frank, and therefore a German. William the Bastard was a barely French Norman. The French elites in their Givenchy suits, and with their Bordeaux, Roquefort and Anjou pears would be appalled! My view anyway.
|
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2006 at 21:02
well yes compared to Soviet Union, Great Britain, Germany, and USA it was a spent force...however lets draw some parallels between politics, the real world or whatever you want to call it and chess. A grandmaster who constantly loses to the rank 1, rank 2, rank 3 in the world is still a lot better than an amateur who beats novices ------------- |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2006 at 22:05
|
Just a saturday night thought- fulll of rum and Moroccan weed... while France may be hated by everyone -and maybe not without reason- it's also the heart of Europe.
------------- 
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Halevi
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 06:29
Word. Perhaps its fate is in fact inextricably tied to its particuar geographical location.. no? BTW, that Moroccan s*& 'll f*&^ u up! I once went near-raving through the streets of Marrakesh with a blanket wrapped around me after doin too much of that stuff. ------------- "Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 07:07
Absolutely. Geography isn't destiny but it is a conditionant. Anyhow, France used to be the largest country of Europe demographically too for a long time. That also marked France a lot historically, as it was the most powerful realm in its region naturally yet balanced by internal weaknesses (feudalism and feudal wars) or external "alliances" (Habsburg Empire). -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Halevi
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 07:16
Yes, but what about the hash? ; ) jk ------------- "Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 18:00
|
The hash is off topic... Understand that when wrote those lines I was so high (or rather low) that I had to review the message twice before I dared to click "post". Words were all roWds... if you know what I mean. Too much rum. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Halevi
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 01:44
Yes, i do know what you mean... but lets not get off topic ; ) ------------- "Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone |
Posted By: Frederick Roger
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 05:14
|
Seriously, take a look at this: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html - http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html ------------- |
Posted By: Halevi
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 05:42
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Seriously, though, everyone always forgets about Napoleon. *He conquered Europe, people.* ... its just everything that's happened since thats so amusing. ------------- "Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 08:08
| Sorry for abusing this thread but could anyone explain me why so many people don't like France or at least say so. Great Britain and the USA have a special history with France. But what about the rest? Did some people decide to dislike the French and now everyone swims with the tide? |
Posted By: Halevi
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 08:24
We here in English Canada tend to swallow the Ango-stereotype of the French whole... this isnt helped by our sometiemes-messy relations with the Francophone Quebecois, who like to out-French the French. All in all, i really like France... i lived there for a while as a kid, and really enjoyed it. They have great writers, cinema, architecture and are staunch secularists, which is pretty cool. Paris rocks. Et les moules et frites... mon dieu..! ------------- "Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone |
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 08:35
|
I guess that the recent dislike for the French by the Americans is due to lack of support of the imperialistic policy of the American Government. Of course, I'm not so naive to think that the French are disinterested in their opposition to American policy, they have their own policy. What I don't understand is why our beloved premier Mr. Berlusconi aims at doing the silly Billy of the Americans. Which policy does he pursue? |
Posted By: Halevi
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 09:04
Yeah, Berlusconi bewliders me a little. He seems so out of touch with the pulse of Bella Italia. He must have either a very personal agenda in mind, or some sort of committment to a new US-aligned conservative global order. I could be very wrong. BTW, da dove in italia sei? Io amo il tuo paiese... ------------- "Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone |
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 09:20
the search worked for me...3,670,000 hits on google, its just the albino website that created a page for defeats, lol ------------- |
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 10:08
I live in Gorizia, a little town on the border between Italy and Slovenia Ciao! |
Posted By: Halevi
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 10:11
Cool... what's the cuisine like there? Venetian? Friulian?.... Olive oil, or butter based? ------------- "Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 10:52
Yea. I think that there's a smell to "freedom fries" in this topic. Quite greasy.  I personally have many more reasons to dislike France than all those Anglos of either side of the Ocean but I think that one must be balanced. And one can't just deny that France has been and still is very important in Europe. Europe can live without Britain most likely and definitively does not need the USA, whatever they think but, we like it or not, Europe as we know it can't exist without France (or Germany or Italy). I find ridiculous that Pikeshot and others are trying to mock France instead of discussing it. That's not what I would expect, even in the halls of the White House. After all, unlike Britain, France has a sense of European interests. It is normal that after falling slave of the US ruled NATO chains some people in Europe find that "alliance" opressing and unnecessary. specially when te major "partner" does not listen to the rest nor respct their interests. But this is a current affair... not the history of France. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 11:02
It's a mix of various kinds with some Slav and Austrian influences. Some samples: Musetto e brovada (friulian):
Scampi alla Busara (from Trieste): 
Gulasch suppe (Austrian influence):
Cevapcici (balcanic influence)
Gubana (friulian):
But above all, in our region there are the best white wines in Italy
|
:
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 11:03
|
Maju: French fries are a favorite of mine. And I don't mock France, but the French elites who want to exert influence they have not had since shortly after WWI. And look closer: France has a sense of European interests only insofar as those are French interests. The cuisine, wines and cheeses are fabulous though. Cool history too.
|
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 11:10
Actually, it's a bit unfair to say France has won nothing. Ok, you can attribute those victories for a big part to the USA but don't forget it took part in the Kosovo and Gulf Wars and with quite some success in both. More recently it made a successful intervention in Ivory coast by evacuating it's French citizen there from the rampaging mobs fed by propaganda from their government, those situations are often very tough to handle (where to put the difference between a soldier and a fighting civilian, Israel has this dilema to settle for ages). ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 11:18
This is a dangerous thought. Corsica is French, maybe it's unfair, but it's like this. As much as Aoste is Italian and not French when it has a French speaking background (much more than Corsica has an Italian speaking background). Well if the Italians are interested in a trade they're welcome though  .I say it's a dangerous thought, because as we speak of Italy, then you could argue the Kings of Italy (and Sicily) were French and not Italian and were foreigners, the Houses of Savoy and Hauteville for example. But it's also true for Spain (Bourbon), or England (Normandy & Anjou) and others. Finally, I'll give you back this quote from Napoleon: "Soldiers win wars and generals get the credits for them". ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 11:23
|
These are excellent points. The French military is highly professional and technically competent. Their equipment and training are first rate, and I have met French officers on fellowship to the US Army War College.....Very impressive. The performance of their air forces in the first Gulf War was outstanding. This will surprise Maju, but France had a magnificent modern navy in 1940 with some of the best ships in the world. I don't know about the modern navy, France being an important part of the WEU land forces for 50 years. The French political elites, isolated and indoctrinated in their ecoles superieurs, still want it to be 1919. It is not.
|
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 12:06
|
The French navy was really powerful in WWII and afterward. The Richelieu class battlecruisers were the world most powerful following the Japanese Yamato class. The Richelieu class had 2 batteries of 4 guns that could fire at the lowest points of the ennemy battleships. When the French fleet refused to surrender to the American and British fleets, they were damaged by air raid, while the American and British though they were out of service, they successfully routed some American and British destroyers. When the Yamato class were sunk then those ships took the place of world biggest battlecruisers and remained active, for example, in the Suez crisis.  The other powerful ship was the submarine Surcouf, with 10 topedoes tubes and a garage to host a scouting plane. I was back then the biggest submarine ever built (nuclear tactical submarines today are bigger). It even had two guns for surface combat.  Today, the French navy is under regeneration, 30 years of defence cut done by socialist governments made it only a tiny thing compared to what it was. There are now plenty of future project and it'll be an impressive navy again. Aside the next 65,000 tons aircraft carrier, there are 2 20,000 tons helicopter carriers entering service. Two anti air destroyers of the Horizon class who may be joined by 2 mores, 17 multimission frigates (FREMM) and if the last 2 Horizons are not ordered it'll be 19 frigates then. Adding to the already existing aircraft carrier and the 5 La Fayette stealth frigates and some other stuffs (7 frigates and 2 destroyers of another class). The 4th Triomphant class tactical sub will replace the last of the the Redoutable class and the next generation of nuclear attack submarines, the Barracuda class, is on study (should be 6 subs). Some other stuffs like the Gowind corvettes or the Scorpene and Marlin diesel subs are for export only. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 12:30
|
The French navy by 2015 would look like: 1* Charles de Gaulle nuclear supercarrier (40,000 tons, can use 40 Rafales M and 3 E-2). 1* CVF (probably the Georges Pompidou) supercarrier (65,000 tons, can use 60 Rafales M and 3 E-2). Both will be using catapults and not STOVL systems, being the only ones in Europe (UK and Italy stick with STOVL, same for Spain). 2* Mistral class Helicopter carriers (20,000 tons, can use 8 Tiger and 8 NH-90, can transport 40 Leclerc MBT). 2* Foudre class landing platform (8,000 tons) 2* Anti-Air Horizon class destroyers (6,600 tons) maybe 4 (depends, they cost 1,1 bilion each) 2* Tourville class Destroyers, anti submarine warfare (6,000 tons) 17* FREMM (5,500 tons) European multimission frigates) maybe 19 if the last 2 Horizons aren't ordered. 5* La Fayette class stealth frigates (3,500 tons) 6* Floreal patroling frigates (3,000 tons) 4* Triomphant class tactical submarines (14,000 tons) 6* Barracuda class attack submarines (4,700 tons) ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 15:48
|
Well, France is economically much more powerful than, say, Britain, and carries more influence globally than Britain does. But both have been overshadowed in international affairs by the US ever since the Suez Crisis.
As far as France's defeat by the Nazis, one must recall that the same engagement saw the BEF running for its life, its escape considered a national miracle by the British to this day. If Britain did not have the sea to protect it, there is no doubt at all that the Germans could have easily conquered it at the same time. And it's funny, at least France fought back - but no one calls any of the Scandinavian countries "surrender monkeys" even though they all either outright stood down and allowed themselves to be conquered, or simply co-operated with the Nazis and made invasion unnecessary. Aside from conquering Europe, France also managed to penetrate and build an economy throughout the interior of North America at a time when other nations were struggling simply to hold on to their thin strips of coast line. And with only a tiny population, and an even smaller fighting force, the French in North America held on to these vast swaths of territory in the face of persistant attacks from much larger English forces and their native allies for well over a century! Given the amount of pressure put on such a small population, it's surprising they held out as long as they did, even more surprising they were initially able to penetrate the continent so far inland given the failure of other powers to extend influence in any comparable manner. |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 17:01
|
Edgewaters. I would tend to disagree when you say France is wealthier than Britain. It's true the French may be enjoying a higher quality of life. Most likely due to the nature of the landscape and climate itself. But that's not wealthier. In GDP per Capita, Britain is slightly over France, but you also have to consider two things: - France includes in its GDPs (as well as unemployment) stats its overseas departments and territories, and those have fairly low wealth and high unemployement (up to 30%) while they account for 2 milion of the French population (on 62 milion) as the oversea territories are as French as the mainland is. I think mainland France proper is indeed slightly wealthier overall than Britain proper, but it's given irrelevant because the wealth difference between France and mainland France only is the one spent on the oversea territories. - Average weath takes in account everyone, including a small minority that control large amount of wealth, even though those are important for the economy they are hardly relevant of the middle class standard of living. Between the richest region of Britain (aside London) which should be Surrey and the richest French one (outside Paris) which would be Alsace, there is indeed a large difference in favor of Britain. While the same comparison between Cornwall and Corsica should give the wealth advantage to the later. In international affair, the Suez crisis was the turning point. Britain thought that to avoid future situation they would become the best friend of the USA. So they bought a lot of US technologies, like their nuclear weapons (the Tridents) and use a lot of American designed weapons or will use some like the F-35 JSF. Though, if Britain can have fairly good equipment at a much lower cost than France, it has its bad effect: - Britain is very dependant of the will of the USA about technology transfert. The JSF is the best example when Britain may get much lower than they expected about it. - The USA can delay the supply of ammo to Britain, making it very vulnerable if that happens. - The USA can jam the British weapons as they have the codes. Just like France could jam the Exocet missiles in the Falkland war. This is of course including the Trident nuclear missiles. France in the other hand decided it should be able to strike and destroy both the USSR and USA in the MAD (mutual assured destruction doctrine). This was visible in the nuclear arsenal of France. Don't forget it used to have 6 nuclear tactical submarines, ICBMs, nuclear strike aircraft fighters and short range nuclear weapons (Hades and Pluton). Believe it or no but it was enough to kill everyone in a nuclear war. But those weapons were very expensive and showed useless in modern conflicts with Serbia and Iraq. So I would say in a conventional conflict Britain definately weight more than France, their navy is more capable to project their power (though it's gonna change soon, France is changed hell a lot of ships, see my previous post) while France is definately in a better position to defend its land against big players because of the threat of mutual annihilation. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 17:23
|
Exarchus: Thanks for the French navy update. What is the primary operational theater expected to be? Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, horn of Africa? Just curious. |
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 18:53
|
this just in...there is no nuclear war...
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 19:28
Per capita? I said they have a more powerful economy. Not necessarily a higher standard of living, though they may have that as well. They have a *larger* economy than Britain, considerably larger. Per capita, Canada outclasses either of them by a considerable margin, but its overall economy does not match the size of either. The size of one's economy, not per capita performance, dictates one's relative influence in matters of global trade. In the EU, the heavyweight economies are Germany and France; these are the ones with the most commercial influence. |
Posted By: unicorn
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 20:30
|
I don't think anyone considers (say) Poland a worth-nothing country and yet Poland was technically for hundreds of years a country split in pieces amongst the great powers that be of the time. But this is not the first thing we think about when we listen Chopin, and by the way Chopin was enthousiastically adopted by the French intellectual elite. If we look at nations only in terms of which exerced sheer domination and which is more wealthy, it comes to only one Big Boss and all the rest can be deemed as waste. China is the largest nation and has incontestable cultural strongholds yet sincerely I'd never want to live (again) in a communist contry, be it a "liberal" communism. There is no such thing as "unimportant" nation. Those who are really so are actually disappearing (as the cause of their maintainance is lost). Compared to France, Austria or Denmark look pale yet they both have relevant positions in Europe's and world's history. Europe's early middle ages were shaped in many respects by the vikings and European history after the Renaissance spells "Austria" in many points. That now Austria is a shadow of the immense prestige and power of the former empire, whilst Denmark never accomplished something relevant in its efforts to obtain a voice amongst the powers that be of Europe from Middle Age till now is a gross balance of their history. But human civilization has much more depth.
< id="kpfLog" src="http://127.0.0.1:44501/pl.?START_LOG" onload="destroy(this)" style="display: none;">
< ="text/">
------------- At corpus non terminatur cogitatione, nec cogitatio corpore (Spinoza, Etica) |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 05:54
In total, the British GDP is now above the French one since a few years. But it doesn't seem it'll last though, with the strong demographic growth of France (75 milion expected in 2050) France may get its place over Britain back (actually, considering Germany is loosing population as we speak, if nothing is done to change that France could also take over Germany by 2050). ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 05:55
Everywhere lol. Considering we are more and more reforming our navy from a nuclear strike to a projection force. I would say everywhere exepted Europe. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Degredado
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 12:18
|
People like to mock France mostly because of what is percieved as France's intellectual arrogance and chauvinism. I was born and raised in the States during the Reagan administration, and I remember that France was considered a sort of 'buddy'. Many Americans might simpl mock France because they think the French treacherous and ungrateful. ------------- Vou votar nas putas. Estou farto de votar nos filhos delas |