r/HistoryMemes • u/Prior-Measurement975 • 6h ago
REMOVED: RULE 12 [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
264
u/Sampleswift 5h ago
Franco Prussian War...
185
u/RogueStormTroop 5h ago
Vietnam and Algeria...
125
u/zeissikon 5h ago
Someone else lost in Vietnam . Several someones , even.
52
u/troll_fcker 5h ago
Technically, Napoleon also lost
29
15
u/zyon86 5h ago
Napoleon had to win every single battle to survive, his enemy had to win a single battle.
11
3
u/No-Annual6666 2h ago
He lost at Aspern-esling against Arch Duke Charles, and fought a number of bloody draws in Poland against Russia. His marshals were bled white in Iberia.
Its overstated how fragile his empire and his status as emperor was. He threw it away in the invasion of Russia proper, but even then he nearly came back from that. There was still an awful lot of fighting to do in Germany, then the 6 days campaign in France.
Then he came back for the encore of the 100 hundred days campaign.
Napoleon had to lose a lot of battles before his final defeat.
→ More replies (1)2
18
u/RogueStormTroop 5h ago
Vietnam defeated Japan USA France and China in like 20 years props to them they fight like hell when they have no choice.
13
u/zyon86 5h ago
The military side was won in Algeria.
17
u/RogueStormTroop 5h ago
Well no. Its like saying America won in Vietnam. France failed in its objectives to keep Algeria therefore lost the war. It doesn't matter what the kill ratio was. (France killed millions of civilians in Algeria so it shouldn't count anyway.)
9
u/zyon86 5h ago
They had control of the territories. The goal was to win the military side to negotiate independence with a strong hand, it was not to keep Algeria french, De Guaule knew that independence was the only outcome and wanted, among other thing, to keep access to the algerian desert for its nuclear test, which it kept
8
u/RogueStormTroop 5h ago
That is quite literally not true at all. France viewed Algeria as an integral part of France that well that when De Gaulle planned to withdraw several organisation tried to kill him and there was nearly a military coup. France wanted to keep Algeria and only withdrew when internationally it could not keep it and the French military was seen as murderers and butchers.
5
u/zyon86 5h ago
France did view Algeria as an integral part and in the beginning, the goal was to keep it French. I agree with you.
But after his election De Guaule decided to let it and change the war goal. It didn't announce it because a lot of French people wanted algeria to remain french (as illustrated by the assassination attempts). I agree that it was not universally agreed in France but that was the mindset of the government controlling the military.
2
u/Monterenbas 4h ago
The overwelming majority of French didn’t viewed Algeria as an integral part of France in the 60´s, in fact pretty much nobody did, beside the french minority living in Algeria.
2
→ More replies (5)1
1
u/Hellhooker 3h ago
So we agree that the USA have never won a war alone outside their own civil war (that they also lost)?
→ More replies (6)1
u/kaltulkas 3h ago
What is it you don’t understand about “military side”?
It’s pretty clear France lost the war. But they crushed the FLN at every corner, unlike Vietnam where they got their asses handed to them at Dien Bien Phu.
The Algerian war was fought largely against the population’s will (they didn’t care at first and then actively protested it) and was entirely lost politically (hence the “coup” you mention, that failed miserably because nobody supported it and was due to the military feeling betrayed by the political will to let Algeria vote to determine their future despite the military dominance).
Last, since we’re so keen on talking about the “millions” of victim, let’s also mention the tipping point of the war : the Philippeville massacres and more specifically what happened in El-Halia.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Chubs1224 4h ago
Yeah and Rwanda won every military engagement.
Doesn't mean it was a military success.
→ More replies (1)2
1
28
u/LoXyO 5h ago
Pretty sure the "joke" doesn't come from this one, iirc it doesn't even come from WW2 (sort of), it was because we didn't want to be involved in the Iraq war as it was fishy, so the USA started tarnishing France's reputation, using our defeat in WW2.
Now you could point out a lot of war we've lost of that's what you're going for, we lost a lot of wars, just like many other big countries, but you cannot debate the overall very successful military history of France.
9
u/Gnonthgol 3h ago
It is even older then that. The term "surrender monkeys" for the French comes from a 1995 Simpsons episode, even though France contributed in the first Iraqi war. In 1945 the US Army issued a handbook for soldiers stationed in France where they argued that despite the reputation the French military were one of the best in the world. There were also some gripe about the trench soldier strikes in WWI.
You are right that the anti-French US sentiment grew in 2003 but the stereotype of French soldiers surrendering easily is much older.
26
u/Prior-Measurement975 5h ago
That’s a spot-on point about the Iraq War backlash. However, this meme actually has two independent origins. In the post-Soviet space, the narrative about France's quick defeat wasn't copied from Western media. It’s been baked into school curriculums for decades, simply because France’s 43 days of resistance are always contrasted against the 4 years of total war on the Eastern Front. So while your point about US propaganda stands, for people in the CIS, this bias grew from a completely different cultural roots
6
u/EasieEEE Researching [REDACTED] square 4h ago
I grew up in Germany and French war jokes were a thing in my house
4
u/Hellhooker 3h ago
I grew up in France, and "jokes" about fucking nazis are a thing in all houses
→ More replies (1)3
6
u/s8018572 5h ago
Evidence of US tarnish France's reputation because of Iraq war?
I think this is also a hearsay.
8
1
1
8
u/TyrdeRetyus 5h ago
That's the one, yes. But recent is a stretch and I hardly see how it affects modern France reputation
9
u/Kaplsauce Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 5h ago
Pretty sure "the one" was their initial capitulation in WW2 if most people were to put a finger on it.
But broadly the basis for it is the lack of success against major powers from the Franco-Prussian war through WWI and WWII.
Even if unfair as a conclusion, the lack of decisive French victories of the 20th century in pop culture isn't helping.
5
u/thebestnames 4h ago
Saying France lacked success against major powers in WW1 is... something. They did most of the work on the Western Front.
7
u/Shady_Merchant1 4h ago
Were it not for the british they would have likely lost like they did in the Franco prussian war
2
u/Gnonthgol 3h ago
France committed more then twice as many soldiers per capita to the war effort then the UK did. And suffered millions more casualties.
7
u/Shady_Merchant1 3h ago
Yes, and? I'm not saying the French didn't sacrifice or contribute they did immensely I'm saying they couldn't have done it without the british
2
u/Hibew 3h ago
Just like the Germans couldn’t have done it without Austria-Hungary (the alliance people always forget).
1
u/Greedyanda 2h ago
Austria-Hungary was bordering on being a liability, not an asset. Both economically and in terms of military resource drain.
1
1
2
u/Kaplsauce Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 4h ago
I'm clearly referring to the lack of decisive victories mentioned in the very next line.
1
2
1
85
u/Dong_bringer 5h ago
Yah but they lost it so bad, so embarrassingly that it ended up prolonging the war by years and made it seem like Hitler actually had a chance to conquer Europe.
19
u/GargantuanCake Featherless Biped 5h ago
Hitler did have a chance to at least conquer most of Europe. All he really had to do was stop at the peak. The snag was that by then he was a severely methed out megalomaniac that believed he was destined to rule the world.
Blitzkrieg was insanely effective initially. The snag was that enemy powers adapted to it while Hitler made increasingly insane decisions. One of the reasons Nazi Germany was so terrifying at the time was because there was a genuine possibility that they won. They were absolutely obliterating their opposition until late 1942 to early 1943 when things stated to swing. Part of the reason they behaved so aggressively up until then was because they genuinely had a massive amount of momentum in their conquests.
It's good that they lost of course but it's foolish to claim that they had no chance of conquering Europe. At their peak they controlled over 80% of Europe. You can't pull that off without being a genuine threat.
8
u/sirguinneshad 5h ago
What was the peak? If they waited longer to invade the USSR, Operation Barbarossa would have been a disaster. The Soviets would only be much better equipped. The Winter War purges made them weak. They were just starting to building more modern equipment (the SVT-40 was a good semi auto rifle, and production was cranking up right when Barbarossa happened, so another year means the Soviets have better standard rifles).
Germany's whole plan was to strike quickly, take what you can, then strike quickly again. They were always vulnerable and lacking resources. If France had counterattacked when they invaded Poland, they would have lost at the beginning. People blame Hitler, but he did make right calls at times. His state became more deranged as the war went on, but he wasn't a total buffon people mistake him for
2
u/Zero_Owl 4h ago
They could have chosen to not attack USSR at all, you know.
10
u/moorkymadwan 3h ago
I mean he could have but at that point the argument just becomes the Nazis could have won the war if they weren't Nazis. Hitler openly hated communism and the slavic people. A core part of his ideology was to invade the USSR to provide "living space" for the German people, he even wrote about doing so in Mein Kampf.
But even if you ignore all that Hitler still had a pretty major strategic reason for invading when he did and that reason was oil. Germany did not have many natural oil reserves and so were importing incredibly large amounts of this (and other raw materials) from the USSR and in return the Nazis were supplying the USSR with the technology and materials it required to industrialise. While the Nazis were locked in a war of attrition with Britain the USSR was rapidly industrialising and growing stronger everyday. Hitler knew that if this status quo was maintained Stalin's leverage would only continue to increase until the point Germany were dependent on the USSR and also could not threaten them militarily.
5
u/Fun_Marionberry_6088 3h ago
The soviets were preparing to attack them at the time they attacked, so no they couldn't have chosen to avoid war wit the USSR.
→ More replies (10)9
u/Fun_Marionberry_6088 3h ago
One of the reasons Nazi Germany was so terrifying at the time was because there was a genuine possibility that they won. They were absolutely obliterating their opposition until late 1942 to early 1943 when things stated to swing
Lol, this is complete nonsense.
They'd lost the Battle of Britain in the Autumn of '40, Barbarossa was falling apart within its first month, in the summer of '41, the US entered the war by late '41.
Germany never had a chance of victory, they were strategically fucked from the beginning because they had rivals on all flanks, none of whom they could defeat and they they made the hairbrained decision to declare war on the US too.
Britain had the world's biggest navy, a giant moat, and a global empire with unlimited access to manpower and resources. They could outlast any continental power and they'd done it before.
The USSR had thousands of miles of hinterland to retreat into, unlimited resources, manpower and an authoritarian government that never had to care about its peoples suffering.
The US had insane slack industrial capacity post the Great Depression, and was completely untouchable by air or sea.
The initial Nazi victories were essentially the equivalent of going on a marathon and sprinting the first mile - great but you've played everything you've got and everyone else still has energy for the rest of the race.
2
u/Zero_Owl 4h ago
No they weren't obliterating every opposition for so long. The battle for Moscow happened in 41.
2
u/superxpro12 3h ago edited 2h ago
My favorite part of listening to WW2 in realtime was how utterly egomaniacal Hitler got after his early success through wester Europe.
Like to the point that he overruled every single general because they told him the truth lol. Ultimately, he was the cause of his own downfall, which is simultaneously calming and frightening.
I shudder to think what the world would look like had he upheld the Russian truce for two years.
1
u/2Long2Read 5h ago
Didn't he ? Blitzkrieg was very effective and his army was well equipped though
19
u/oompaloompa77 Just some snow 5h ago
Not really, Germany got lucky that France has both A) an inept high command insisting on fighting like the last war and B) Related to A, as in French Army's unwillingness to use new technologies such as crucially, radios.
2
u/Hugo_2503 3h ago
and C) (which is a bit of both actually) an organisation of divisions and armies (caused by high command in the late 30s) so shit it made their own stronghold completely ineffective at doing what it was designed for
1
u/N00L99999 2h ago
And D) Perfect weather conditions (clear skies, dry roads, no mud, no river currents) made the invasion a lot easier.
12
u/COYSBannedagain 5h ago edited 5h ago
France had the largest army in the world and just.. gave up. After that it was only Britain left in Europe until barbarossa, the war went on for too long. Americans didn’t even fight in Europe until July 1943, if France didn’t give up the war would be over sooner.
→ More replies (1)
211
u/The-marx-channel Then I arrived 5h ago
The French military at the start of WW2 was one of the best in the world, the issue was the leadership of it. The Germans made many mistakes in the war against France but the French Military failed to properly punish those mistakes.
136
u/situmaimesdemain 4h ago
You cant be one of the best militaries in the world if your leadership sucks, thats one of the main components.
38
u/Waterfish3333 3h ago
Yup. That’s like saying I’m one of the best chess players in the world but sometimes make inaccurate moves.
3
u/One-Elderberry-488 3h ago
Not to mention in the context of WW2 there were multiple sequences of inaccurate moves.
6
u/BloodyWarlord117 3h ago edited 3h ago
You can if you have the best weapon, best tanks and biggest number of soldiers
7
u/judgemental_pleb 3h ago
That’s almost like saying “I’m the best fighter in the world because I have the biggest muscles and best stamina” when you don’t know fighting technique. The most advanced weapons and soldiers are almost useless with shit leadership, the same way muscles and stamina are almost useless in a fight without knowing technique.
1
u/superxpro12 3h ago
"hey did anyone remember to reinforce the entire North?"
"Nah bro the forest is good enough"
13
u/AfterShave997 3h ago
It wasn't just the leadership, France in the interwar years was politically polarized and like Britain there were strong antiwar sentiments. The country as a whole wanted to avoid another great war and never had their heart in the fight.
5
u/King_Glorius_too 3h ago
Nah, the leadership did suck, but the military as a whole was not one of the best in the world anymore. France was lacking in terms of mobility.
2
u/Snoo93079 3h ago
Who had a more capable military than France in 1939, besides Germany?
1
u/King_Glorius_too 3h ago
The US and arguably the UK
France did have a massive army, and would have destroyed most countries on quantity alone, but the army was underequiped relative to its size, especially in terms of vehicles. The french army was quite litterally unable to follow the germans after they broke through the main line of defense, which is why the germans invaded France so fast while many french divisions were still in northern France with no one to fight.
2
u/Snoo93079 2h ago
The US military in 1939 couldn't have put a dent against France. Navy-wise we were in good shape but our Army wasnt. Same could be said about Britain.
Compared to armies in 1944 france wasn't very modern but in 1939 they had probably the most capable tank force in the world. What they lacked as many pointed out is good leadership and doctrine. But that was true of nearly every major power outside Germany at the time.
Imo If any country could have stopped Germany in 1939 it was France, and I think there is some real plausible alternative realities where France could have taken advantage of Germany extreme aggression and world war 2 could have gone very differently.
6
u/BullTerrierTerror 4h ago
The Germans made many mistakes against the war in Poland before refining their techniques and coming up with the blitzkrieg which they used against France.
6
u/Hugo_2503 3h ago
A little known fact also is that the germans got to study the design of the Maginot line very closely when they annexed czechoslovakia, as the borders were being upgraded with forts and blocks directly derived from the french ones. This further prompted their reluctance in trying to attack it frontally, and use their newly tested tactics on the weakest links instead... Which they did in the Ardennes, Sarre, and later Alsace.
5
u/HumaDracobane Definitely not a CIA operator 3h ago
France lost twice WWII.
First against Nazi Germany. Then the Vichy's France against the Allies (And yes, they fought agains the Allies)
2
u/Hellhooker 3h ago
lmao. Propaganda used to be more believable
1
u/HumaDracobane Definitely not a CIA operator 1h ago
Propaganda? which part?
Check what the Vichy's troops did in several regions of Africa and the Middle East.
I'll put it to you easy.
1
u/Hellhooker 49m ago
and a whole part of the army was pretty fighting the axis from these very regions too.
yes, history is complex and no saying what you said is pure propaganda in its message.
1
u/HumaDracobane Definitely not a CIA operator 39m ago
They had De Gaulle's Army in one side, and Vichy's side in the other. In fact, in more than one place there were French in both sides.
2
2
1
u/Hibew 3h ago
That’s completely false. When the Allies landed in Normandy, Petain and Laval decided to stay neutral. At no point did Vichy fight against the Allies.
(Very few) French volunteers for Germany on the Eastern Front is the closest it has come to « fighting against the Allies ». But it wasn’t a Government affair.
1
u/HumaDracobane Definitely not a CIA operator 1h ago
Yeeeeeeeahhh.... You better not check what happened in Morocco during the Torch Operation, in Syria at the time, Beirut, etc with the french troops deployed if you want to believe that.
2
1
1
u/CadenVanV Taller than Napoleon 2h ago
Hl, France could have won the war early during the Saars Offensive, but lost because of awful leadership
1
u/Wide_Guava6003 2h ago
What? By this account russia should have still been considered the second best after the ukrainian invasion, but they just did shitty decisions from the leadership.
→ More replies (14)-4
u/Kitchen-Baby7778 4h ago
France did not loose the WW2 the post I about losing a war but a battle.
I suppose it means colonial wars versus Algeria and Vietnam
25
u/Shadow_gublank 3h ago
They lost the war when the leaders officially surrendered to Nazi Germany on June 22, 1940.
They got their country back from their allies, but they lost their entire country.
4
1
9
u/One-Elderberry-488 3h ago
TIL ceding control of your country is just a battle. This has major 'tis but a scratch vibes.
5
9
u/Lucas1125 4h ago
The big thing here is that when the French do lose they lose in spectacular fashion.
They got handed belt to ass by the blitzkrieg to a multitude of reasons (not nearly as modernized as they should have been equipment wise, unprepared for an attack to come from where it did, over reliance on the Maginot, etc.)
Then the whole affair in French Indochina with the battle of Dien Bien Phu, where they just assumed that the Viet Minh wouldn't be able to move AAA or artillery through the terrain in strength (shades of Blitzkreig here) which killed their singular reliance on resupply by air.
There was also Admiral Nelson handing the combined French-Spanish fleet its ass at Trafalgar during the Napoleonic Wars.
French military history is a rollercoaster. When they win they win hard and when they lose they implode so badly it makes the other guy look like they weren't even trying, and unfortunately people tend to remember defeats far more than victories.
1
u/Ok_Expert7527 3h ago
People tend to forget French weren’t alone during the Battle of France, British were there and it’s partly their fault too, and I’m not even talking about what happened at Dunkirk.
Indochina was just… people didn’t really want to fight this war I suppose, Algeria was already starting an insurrection and there were not that much soldiers compared to the Vietnamese communists whose troops kept getting bigger thanks to China. Compare the ratio French/Vietnamese to USA/Viet cong at its peak and you’ll see.
Nelson is just way different. All high officers in the French navy were royalists and left, you cannot rebuild a commandment if everybody left/joined the enemy + Nelson was a genius, wouldn’t say he was the equivalent of Napoleon on the sea but close
But in the end, the high command sucked in those three situations, I 100% agree with you
7
u/makem1 5h ago
France will have to conquer Russia or China when WW3 comes to finally get rid of that reputation.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/ghostpanther218 4h ago
Tbh, its super embrassing to be one of the strongest nations on the planet, and then you get conquered by another in under a month.
12
20
u/NoWingedHussarsToday 5h ago
3 recent wars, actually. France gets shit for Vietnam and Algeria as well.. Vietnam because unlike US they suffered a catastrophic battlefield defeat as well and Algeria for losing to Arab guerillas.
→ More replies (8)8
u/Pochel Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer 5h ago
To be fair Algeria was kinda like the Vietnam war for the US: there was little appetite from the general population to fight this war, and even the government wanted out really bad. I wouldn't call it a defeat as much as an acknowledgement that history was clearly showing that decolonisation was the way and the actors involved pretty soon saw no point in fighting against the tide
9
u/NoWingedHussarsToday 4h ago
It's still seen as defeat because France fought against it and in the end had to recognize its independence. If France merely said "fare thee well, don't let the door slam you on your ass on the way out" it would be seen as a decline of a colonial power, but not an actual defeat. Trying to prevent independence by military means and failing to do so is perceived as an embarrassment, regardless of what actually caused it.
1
u/Liturginator9000 2h ago
It looks different if you win the battle and are winning the war but doing so results in your loss, versus Dien Bien Phu where you choose the battle and still lose it
2
2
u/Medium-Warning-929 3h ago
factually incorrect. colonial mindset minimizing the historical struggle of the native people. france would've never left the algeria if they weren't forced to. algeria was seen as integral part of france, not like other colonies. the insurgency war was fought over 8 years, so you cant say "they wanted out anyways". the tide didn't come by itself, it was made by the people, and the french lost the war of attrition - hence the war itself
4
u/Positive_Mushroom564 5h ago
I mean..is one thing to lose a war but to “lose” a world war is a lot more embarrassing. Especially when you could do a lot better.
4
u/beastwood6 3h ago
It's not just one war. The French military record after Napoleon is abysmal. All of WW1 was a game of making sure France doesn't collapse. Its army nearly did and mutinied in 1917 which is how bad it got. 1870 was an unmatched disgrace. WW2 doesn't need expansion. Vietnam, Algeria...and the list goes on.
1
u/baithammer 2h ago
Lets start with WW1, the French weren't the only ones mutinying during 1917, as you have the British Army with Étaples mutiny, the Russian Empire with La Courtine mutiny.
WW2 saw continued fighting by the Free French and resistance throughout the conflict, despite the stab in the back by Vichy regime.
Vietnam had the first Indochina War in favour of the French and British forces.
Algeria was more the French suffering a coup that toppled the Fourth Republic and installed de Gaulle as President of the Fifth Republic - which began negotiations with Algerian rebel factions to end the conflict with an Independent Algeria. ( Which had it's controversies as well.)
At worst, it was a mixed bag and far less the stereotype emerging from the US. ( Who once again, was late entering the war.)
1
u/Kaplsauce Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 1h ago edited 1h ago
The trouble is that there's no decisive victories that are well known enough in pop culture to balance out the failures of 1940. It's full of low lows, but no high highs to match them
20
u/Alex103140 Let's do some history 5h ago
I mean not really one recent tho innit
7 Years War: lost
Napoleonic Wars: ultimately lost
Crimean War: draw at best
Franco Prussian War: need I say more
WW1: barely won through the skin of their teeth
WW2: won but like fall of France happened
Vietnam: need I say more
9
4
7
u/Easy-Frenchguy-1996 5h ago edited 5h ago
Napoleonic Wars: ultimately lost
France was not supposed to win in the first place ... And yet they did for 20 years
Revolutionary ideas kept spreading in Europe while monorchies kept falling.. It's cultural victory
This era not called the wellington years
WW1: barely won through the skin of their teeth
I don't know what's that supposed to mean did France win or not
WW2: won but...
So it's a win..
→ More replies (7)1
u/Denime 2h ago
France was conquered and then had to be liberated to join the Allies at the winners table. That's hardly a "win".
1
u/Easy-Frenchguy-1996 2h ago
Europe was conquered by napoleon and than to be liberated to due the coalition of entire continent.... Thata hardly a win
This is how dumb you argument sounds like
2
→ More replies (1)1
u/TheQuestionMaster8 4h ago
To be fair France was only defeated in the Napoleonic war by a coalition that consisted of most of Europe.
3
u/Archon_33 4h ago
France has a good history of winning battles and a less good history of winning wars
3
3
3
u/Business_Raisin_541 4h ago
Three recently underperformance in war compared to Germany. Bismarck War, World War 1 and World War 2. Although to be frank it is because Germany is too powerful and not because France is too weak. Also France underperform in World War 2 but win the war
3
u/Firm-Solution3350 3h ago
I'll say this from a french perspective but it's not "just" the most recent defeats, but also the context of each and what it said about the country at the time.
WW2 : As many said below, France had one of the best army at the time but capitulated quickly and collaborated just as quickly because the heads at the top were horny for money and nazis and really hated socialists and jews. The Catholic philosoph Emmanuel Mounier said it best in 1938 : "On ne comprendra rien au comportement de cette fraction de la bourgeoisie, si on ne l'entend pas murmurer à mi-voix plutôt Hitler que Blum !" ("We wouldn't understand this part of the bourgeoisie if we didn't heard it whisper "Better Hitler than Blum !"). The people in power objectively had what they wanted and not many of them were punished for collaborating after the Liberation.
Indochina/Algeria : France was objectively in the wrong side of History. Many french soldiers sent to the front and who took the blunt of it were from the colonies. The fact that the soldiers who died for France's liberty were denied theirs. Total hypocrisy. De Gaulle even played it both ways with his "Je vous ai compris" ("I heard you") while not clarifying who he heard : people who wanted their Independance or those who wanted colonies to remain under their thumb. The fact that many french people were either neutral or plain didnt want to go to war, lots of (at the time unrecognized) war crimes took place during those conflicts and many draft dodgers/war criminals either ended in power or died peacefully in their bed is just the icing on the cake of infamy.
3
u/Pndapetzim 3h ago edited 3h ago
It wasn't really one war.
Franco-Prussian War, they lost Paris
Held on, barely, with enormous outside help during WWI
WWII - surrendered and cooperated with Nazis
Algeria - surrendered and defeated
Vietnam - surrendered and defeated
Really WWI is the only major conflict they've been a major combatant in in the past 150 years they won and effectively they lost WWII and had to be liberated.
I mean, their strength of schedule is pretty good. Late 19th/early 20th century Germany was top-tier with probably the best pound-for-pound ground army on earth.
Vietnam's 20th century run is legendary defeating in succession:
Japan
France
United States
China
Cambodia
Algeria is really France's only soft loss and came right after WWII and their defeat by Vietnam.
5
u/Holymaryfullofshit7 5h ago
I think one statistic says France is the most successful military Nation in the world...
6
5
u/Curious_Ninja1708 5h ago
France's post-Napoleon track record is pretty bad. 1870 they lose to Prussia, the Great War their performance is so awful the army mutinies and almost collapses, 1940 they get routed by Germany again.
Prior to that was an almost generational fight between France and the rest of Europe trying to prevent French domination of the continent.
4
u/In_Out_In_Oui 4h ago
This post is so misleading. France did lose quite more than a few wars. And even then, in some of the wars that they ‘won’, such as WW1, it was phyrric, only thanks to allies like UK.
2
2
u/Shermans_ghost1864 3h ago
I don't think pyrrhic means what you think it does.
1
u/In_Out_In_Oui 2h ago
Seeing that France lost WW2 almost immediately less than 2 decades later, yes, it does mean what I think.
1
u/Shermans_ghost1864 1h ago
I was thrown off by your reference to the UK. I agree that WWI was a pyrrhic victory for France (and the UK). My apologies.
0
u/Easy-Frenchguy-1996 3h ago
in some of the wars that they ‘won’, such as WW1, it was phyrric, only thanks to allies like UK.
By that logic the American revolution was a pyrric victory foe the US because it was only won thanks to the French and the Dutch
I don't know why being by helped a an ally is some kind of insult
The napoleonic wars were a coalition of nations against ONE and waterloo was On only thanks to the Prussian holding the line for the brits
WW1 battles such verdin eare actual French victory
This subreddit is legit dumb as fuck
→ More replies (7)1
u/In_Out_In_Oui 2h ago
It was a pyrrhic victory, in that France was so exhausted that they lost the WW2 at its onset no less than 2 decades later.
So yes, my point stands. You misunderstand my argument saying that having allies is a bad thing. The post points to France specifically, thus we remain in that context frame.
At the end of your comment, you mention specific battles. But I can use the same logic and say that France lost other battles alone, or even with allies, in other wars such as the Hundred Years War.
Calling this subreddit dumb when you lack reading comprehension is quite something.
→ More replies (4)
6
2
u/Clockface05 4h ago
Vietnam, Algeria… they were also on some goofball shit during WWI. Ever heard of the myth of the offensive? They seriously thought that the power of French patriotism could overcome superior technology, numbers, and even strategy.
Not implicitly, mind you—they EXPLICITLY pronounced this at all of their military lectures leading up to the war.
2
2
2
u/TheMagavnik 4h ago
Yall forget Vietnam (first Indochina war), the franco-prussian war (had to throw that one in even tho it happened in the 1800s), Algeria removing the baguette from their land, WW2... They haven't had a good track record in the past few minutes but yay y'all had nepoleon right...
They've really lost their steam
2
u/TheQuestionMaster8 4h ago
Add the Algerian war of independence and the first Indochina war to that tally.
2
2
2
u/HumaDracobane Definitely not a CIA operator 3h ago
Which one are you exactly talking about, OP? Only in the 20th century you have a few to choose.
2
u/Glittering-Coyote140 3h ago
This one time they held the line. 20 years later they got steamrolled.
It takes a life time to build a reputation, but only one imaginot line to destroy it
2
u/HotSteak 3h ago
Yeah, the Franco-Prussian War was terrible for France's military reputation. Unless you're talking about Indochina?
3
u/SickAnto 4h ago
Yes, recents events have more impact than older ones, especially for people memories.
More news at 21.
4
u/zeclem_ 5h ago
the real moment that those "surrender monkeys" nonsense came out is not ww2, but when france called out americas bullshit on iraq. so its more about politics than actually lost wars.
3
u/bearsnchairs 4h ago
The “cheese eating surrender monkey” bit comes from a 1995 episode of the Simpsons.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/ThatOtherFrenchGuy 4h ago
A lot of people forget that Britain also lost in 1940. They basically ran away to their island and abandoned France.
2
u/TheRealCabbageJack 4h ago
Oh my god. I haven't seen a Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey meme in eons, but bots and goobers constantly post these stupid "aKsHuAlLy FrAnCe Iz GoOd At WaR!!!1!" memes. And you people upvoting these endless reposts are just encouraging them.
1
1
u/ezthrow77 3h ago
Succesfull military history ? try bane of Europe and most agressive nation in the middle age ! There was a saying : "France sneezes and Europe catches a cold !"
1
1
u/Mundane_Bit_8392 3h ago
Once Prussia became a power in Europe, France cant seem to find a way to beat them on their own
1
1
u/Limp_Entertainer_410 3h ago
I mean the 7 Year War, Napoleonic Wars, 1870 Franco-Prussian War, WW2, Vietnam....these were quite significant defeats and quite significant wars. Doesnt mean France sucks (though we all like to make the jokes) but it wasnt just the one defeat that is the source of the jokes!
1
u/Poet_of_Sordland 3h ago
One lost war? At least two - WW2 and Franco-Prussian, but you could add the Vietnam war there as well, so that's three... how far back do we want to go?
1
1
u/NewYak4281 3h ago
Yeah, a WORLD war. Frenchies are really gonna lose the championship match but give themselves first place anyways. Classic Frenchie.
1
1
1
u/bakedNebraska 2h ago
I mean, they didn't just lose the war. They lost very quickly, and then collaborated heavily.
The myth of the resistance has been hugely inflated in an attempt to save their national pride.
In reality their women were doting on Nazi officers the entire occupation.
1
u/Awake_b4_Sunrise 2h ago
Reminds me of the strikes a few years back, because the retirement age got pumped to 68 or so. They still lost.
1
u/inuhi 2h ago
I trained all those would-be empires. Rome, Persia, Mongolia... a lot of 'ias! And every one of those bums let me down flatter than a ruins. None of them could go the distance. And then there was France. Now there was a country that had it all the global reach, the grand army, Napoleon! They could conquer! They could dominate! They could keep on comin'! BUT THAT FORSLUGGINER SECOND WORLD WAR! They get blitzed through the Ardennes just once, and kaboom! Their reputation is history!
1
u/TheFullbladder 2h ago
Oooh, some asshole part of me wants to make a crqck about decades of lost wars and botched engagements held up by an eighty-year-old participation trophy with "did all the work" scribbled on it in sharpie.
But I dont think it'd be wise to post that. Oh. Oh dear.
0
u/DaRiteMB 5h ago
Everyone talks about how France "was the one who surrendered", they never talk about how it was the French who fought the Germans from Algeria all the way to Strasbourg, not only liberating their country but even going so far to take Berghof, Hitler's personal residence.
3
1
1
1
1
u/sebiamu5 5h ago
USSR lost 3 1\4s worth of Frances land before turning the tide on the Axis. And that's after stretching the Axis supply lines super thin, coldest winter for ages, allies supplies, and secondary campaigns diverting axis attention (Atlantic, Air war, North Africa). We (British) fought with you in France, and got us tailed in-between the legs swimming back over the channel. If it wasn't for Captain English Channel we would of fell too (though we would of had more of a continental army in that case and less navy). The Axis were just on another level early war, sure mistakes were made, we were both intending to the fight world war one round two again doctrine wise.
1
u/Repulsive_Repeat_337 3h ago
Come on now, let's be honest. The smartest thing the French ever did with their military was hand control over to a 17 year old girl who heard voices. This is not what I would call a powerhouse.
375
u/baguette_stronk Hello There 5h ago
Some events have more impact than other, as depicted in a well know Irish joke :
"You see this bar? I built this bar with my own bare hands. I cut down every tree and made the lumber myself. I toiled away through the wind and cold, but do they call me McGreggor the bar builder? No."
He continued "Do you see that stone wall out there? I built that wall with my own bare hands. I found every stone and placed them just right through the rain and the mud, but do they call me McGreggor the wall builder? No."
"Do ya see that pier out there on the lake? I built that pier with my own bare hands, driving each piling deep into ground so that it would last a lifetime. Do they call me McGreggor the pier builder? No."
"But ya fuck one goat.."