Confirming the Meeting but not the Discussion...

[JoeCollege]

Whatever. Other than some success under Napoleon, France has been far from a factor anywhere. From a website I found in about 20 seconds called "Complete Military History of France".

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage."​

 

[Toga]

I know it's fun and even popular to bash the French, suggest they are cowards, etc.

But having spent quite a bit of time there, I have gotten their perspective. You'll have to be the judge if it makes sense.

In WWI, the French had 1,697,800 killed and 4,266,000 wounded. That's just shy of 6,000,000 purple hearts.

For comparison's sake only, the US in WWII had 292,000 killed. In Viet Nam we had 58,000 killed.

The French figured out that 1.7 million deaths and 4.3 million wounded were just about enough to make the point that fighting these Wars was just about insane ... from their perspective. They also had a good piece of their country trashed.

If instead of 58,000 killed in Viet Nam, we had 1.6 million killed, do you think it might have changed some minds on Iraq. That Wall in DC would have to run from the Lincoln Memorial to the US Capitol.

They also thought we were nuts to go into Viet Nam ... having gotten their asses kicked there. We probably should have listened to them a bit more closely. And they think it's insane that we would be in Iraq ... having had a nasty, nasty fight in Algeria against the same crowd.

I'd like an excuse to call them cowards too. But that 1.7 million graves suggests that they weren't.

Stop with the facts. Just stop it.

 

[Townie72]

Whatever. Other than some success under Napoleon, France has been far from a factor anywhere. From a website I found in about 20 seconds called "Complete Military History of France".

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage."​

Well, your are giving Napoleon pretty short shrift, but that's OK.

You can call them unsuccessful after Napoleon. But I don't think you can suggest they were "cowards".

 

[SU2NASA]

I know it's fun and even popular to bash the French, suggest they are cowards, etc.

But having spent quite a bit of time there, I have gotten their perspective. You'll have to be the judge if it makes sense.

In WWI, the French had 1,697,800 killed and 4,266,000 wounded. That's just shy of 6,000,000 purple hearts.

For comparison's sake only, the US in WWII had 292,000 killed. In Viet Nam we had 58,000 killed.

The French figured out that 1.7 million deaths and 4.3 million wounded were just about enough to make the point that fighting these Wars was just about insane ... from their perspective. They also had a good piece of their country trashed.

If instead of 58,000 killed in Viet Nam, we had 1.6 million killed, do you think it might have changed some minds on Iraq. That Wall in DC would have to run from the Lincoln Memorial to the US Capitol.

They also thought we were nuts to go into Viet Nam ... having gotten their asses kicked there. We probably should have listened to them a bit more closely. And they think it's insane that we would be in Iraq ... having had a nasty, nasty fight in Algeria against the same crowd.

I'd like an excuse to call them cowards too. But that 1.7 million graves suggests that they weren't.

So in other words, they became cowards because they really suck at fighting.

 

[Townie72]

So in other words, they became cowards because they really suck at fighting.

You say "cowards", but they say "rational".

You're still a young man. Still plenty of ass-kicking time available in Afghanistan.

 

[SU2NASA]

You say "cowards", but they say "rational".

You're still a young man. Still plenty of ass-kicking time available in Afghanistan.

You're comparing Afghanistan to an invasion of your own country? Ok then.

The British took a beating but they never backed down. Even the Belgians fought valiantly against an incredibly much more powerful force. France deserves the ridicule it gets.

 

[JoeCollege]

...and another thread has gone completely off the rails.

 

[GoSU96]

OK, Bees. It's not mandatory that you love Notre Dame. But how many of the 36.3 million who admit to being of Irish ancestry hate em and how many love em?

A total of 36,278,332 Americans—estimated at 11.9% of the total population—reported Irish ancestry in the 2008 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Irish diaspora population in the United States is roughly 6 times the modern population of Ireland. The only self-reported ancestral group larger than Irish .Americans is German Americans.

50% Irish, and 100% indifferent.

 

[kingottoiii]

You say "cowards", but they say "rational".

You're still a young man. Still plenty of ass-kicking time available in Afghanistan.

Nothing rational about it. Laying down your weapons and saying that you rather live under the rule of another country rather than risk dying to protect your home and way of life is COWARDLY. They would have a point for not sending their troops somewhere else to fight another country's war, but this was THEIR country. I can totally understand a country only using their army to protect their homeland. That makes a lot of sense.

 

[Cheriehoop]

50% Irish, and 100% indifferent.

75% Irish - Go SU! I know the president (might be the past president by now) of the local ND alumni association - he's Italian.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Nothing rational about it. Laying down your weapons and saying that you rather live under the rule of another country rather than risk dying to protect your home and way of life is COWARDLY. They would have a point for not sending their troops somewhere else to fight another country's war, but this was THEIR country. I can totally understand a country only using their army to protect their homeland. That makes a lot of sense.

Was Robert E Lee a coward?

Or did Lee reach the conclusion that he was out-manned and out-gunned, and that it was pointless to waste more Confederate lives in a losing cause?

The French lost an entire generation of young men during WWI. When you lose that many men, you don't have enough manpower to fight the next war 20 years later. Knowing that they would face unsurmountable manpower shortages in the late 30's and 40's, the French did the only thing that made any sense (given the state of technology in the 20's), and adopted a military doctrine based on defense.

They put all their resources into static fortifications along the Franco-German border, and prepared to fight an updated version of trench warfare, because that's all their manpower and budget would allow.

Only the Germans didn't fight fair, and invaded through Belgium, bypassing the Maginot Line completely. The French and British troops that were cut off to the North of the German advance were lucky to escape annihilation at Dunkirk. The remaining French military was outmanned and outgunned. The French Air Force only lasted a few days, and French Armor was no match for the Panzers.

Even the French military, who had spend the past 20 years preparing for trench warfare, had no clue how to fight against this newfangled mechanized warfare.

It wasn't a fair fight, and the outcome was never in doubt. Perfect example of trying to fight the next war while using the last war's weapons and tactics. It never ends well.

 

[OrangeChris]

Hope nobody confuses the French government with the French people. Long after France surrendered, a lot of brave French men & women fought & died as part of the French Resistance in an effort to liberate their homeland. Their government surrendered. The people never did.

 

[SUinNYC]

...and another thread has gone completely off the rails.

Yea, we've gone from arguing about college football teams to arguing about the military history of France. Might be time to lock this one down, admins.

I'm ready for some football.

 

[orangenauburn]

Hope nobody confuses the French government with the French people. Long after France surrendered, a lot of brave French men & women fought & died as part of the French Resistance in an effort to liberate their homeland. Their government surrendered. The people never did.

and not all Germans were Nazi's

 

[The Chief Wahoo]

Was Robert E Lee a coward?

Or did Lee reach the conclusion that he was out-manned and out-gunned, and that it was pointless to waste more Confederate lives in a losing cause?

The French lost an entire generation of young men during WWI. When you lose that many men, you don't have enough manpower to fight the next war 20 years later. Knowing that they would face unsurmountable manpower shortages in the late 30's and 40's, the French did the only thing that made any sense (given the state of technology in the 20's), and adopted a military doctrine based on defense.

They put all their resources into static fortifications along the Franco-German border, and prepared to fight an updated version of trench warfare, because that's all their manpower and budget would allow.

Only the Germans didn't fight fair, and invaded through Belgium, bypassing the Maginot Line completely. The French and British troops that were cut off to the North of the German advance were lucky to escape annihilation at Dunkirk. The remaining French military was outmanned and outgunned. The French Air Force only lasted a few days, and French Armor was no match for the Panzers.

Even the French military, who had spend the past 20 years preparing for trench warfare, had no clue how to fight against this newfangled mechanized warfare.

It wasn't a fair fight, and the outcome was never in doubt. Perfect example of trying to fight the next war while using the last war's weapons and tactics. It never ends well.

Sorry, I hate posting about non football ideas, but this is ridiculous. Did you really just try to compare Robert E. Lee to the French? No disrespect, but you could not be further off. Lee did not believe in the separation but fought for his state and his new country. He also fought better than any general during the war and only gave up when there was absolutely zero hope left. He fought with honor and chose not to waste the lives of his remaining men in a fruitless effort.
I understand your argument about the French and how the Germans went outside the regular rules of engagement. Of course there were people in France who fought hard to resist the Germans, but there were also people who helped the Germans, even rounding up Jews to be sent to concentration camps. Not saying that the French should be made fun of as much as they are, but the picture is not as pretty as you painted it.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Sorry, I hate posting about non football ideas, but this is ridiculous. Did you really just try to compare Robert E. Lee to the French? No disrespect, but you could not be further off. Lee did not believe in the separation but fought for his state and his new country. He also fought better than any general during the war and only gave up when there was absolutely zero hope left. He fought with honor and chose not to waste the lives of his remaining men in a fruitless effort.
I understand your argument about the French and how the Germans went outside the regular rules of engagement. Of course there were people in France who fought hard to resist the Germans, but there were also people who helped the Germans, even rounding up Jews to be sent to concentration camps. Not saying that the French should be made fun of as much as they are, but the picture is not as pretty as you painted it.

The French Military was put in a "no win" situation due to decisions the French Government made during the late 20's and 30's. Does that make all of them cowards?

 

[SU2NASA]

The French Military was put in a "no win" situation due to decisions the French Government made during the late 20's and 30's. Does that make all of them cowards?

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Does this mean France won't be taking Oklahoma's spot in the BigXII when they leave for the Big 10?

 

[SU2NASA]

Does this mean France won't be taking Oklahoma's spot in the BigXII when they leave for the Big 10?

The Dude told me the Big 12 is looking at USC.

 

[The Chief Wahoo]

The French Military was put in a "no win" situation due to decisions the French Government made during the late 20's and 30's. Does that make all of them cowards?

Did I ever say or imply the were all cowards?

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Did I ever say or imply the were all cowards?

You didn't, but the person I was replying to did.

 

[The Chief Wahoo]

You didn't, but the person I was replying to did.

My apologies for the miscommunication then

 

[kingottoiii]

You didn't, but the person I was replying to did.

Wrong again. This thread isn't going well for you.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Wrong again. This thread isn't going well for you.

Nothing rational about it. Laying down your weapons and saying that you rather live under the rule of another country rather than risk dying to protect your home and way of life is COWARDLY.

Where am I wrong?

 

[kingottoiii]

Where am I wrong?

Simple the people who resisted and the people in the military who said this we aren't giving up were not cowards. You were wrong and then you tried to hide that fact that you were wrong by making something up. The French Government and the people who helped Germany, including many who fought for Germany, were cowards. You can continue to try and make excuses all you want but that will never change the fact.