>le france has le white flag and always loses wars XD
>in actuality, france kicks ass and has been kicking ass since years fucking 800
how do we stop this meme
>French kings wage war against another French kings
>use unwashed Anglo peons as sword fodder
>in the end they end up losing anyway
>centuries later, Anglo nationalists think of it as a moment of Anglo pride
Not even even French but it gets me every time
>So powerfull they lost all world wars.
>how do we stop this meme
By defeating the perfidious albions
>9 million British Troops
The actual numbers are 8.8 million Britons/Colonial Troops and 8.7 million French, and a significant number of British troops were dispersed on secondary fronts, such as gallipoli or on the seas, whereas French efforts were almost exclusively on the western front. On the actual Western Front the French outnumbered the British, contributing 2.5 million men in the Spring Offensive to Britains 1.8 million.
>5 million American Troops
Arrived at the end of the war, served mainly as stopgap troops.
The French were the ones who stopped the Germans on the Marne and Verdun; French Divisions in the Somme offensive (whose goal was essentially simply to remove pressure off the French in Verdun) were also more successful than those of their peers, and the French effort only slowed with the Nivelle offensive, and continued with the arrival of the AEF. While the British invented the Tank, the French introduced the first tank that fits the "modern" design.
It should be also noted the BEF was as equally BTFO as the French in Belgium in the Second World War, and that they were present in nearly equal numbers in Belgium, where the Allies fell apart. The only difference between the performance of the two nations in 1940 was simply that Britain was separated from Germany by a body of water, and that its forces successfully due to French holding actions at Lille.
>gentlemen, I have a great plan
>we should march on Russia
>Alesia? Where's Alesia?
>I don't think getting beaten by the Germans counts
>make the Danes go away! Give them the entire north of the country if that'll help
>since years fucking 800
Even since Clovis. If one country is a country of war, it's France. They have literally been in constant state of war for 1500 years, even nowadays they intervene in many countries. These guys wage wars with everybody even themselves. If they're not at war for a few years they start civil wars, sometimes war isn't just enough and they make a civil war. What the fuck is wrong with these people.
What do you even mean by France?
The King of France? French nobles?
The French soldiers were not superior or inferior to the Englishmen post-Conquest, the Germans, Hungarians and so on.
The Kings of France tended to be strong, after Phillip II, with some exceptions.
I was told France has never in it's entire history had war declared upon it first, and that in all wars it was involved in it declared war on some other party first (Even if it was a pre-emptive declaration against a nation that was going to declare war on its own given enough time).
Is this true?
The leadership probably could have made it if they wanted to, but not the entirety of the French Army, no. Your average fishing boat could go from the English coast to Dunkirk. While the french Navy was respectable, it simply lacked the means to transport the vast majority of the French Army (most of which were fighting isolated delaying actions at any rate) from Toulon to Algeria or Senegal.
Napoleonic Wars: good effort but a loss in the end
Haiti: lost to revolution
Franco-Austrian War: a win, should get credit for this
Crimea: a win, but as part of an alliance
Mexico: French puppet emperor ends up executed
Franco-Prussian War: got BTFO, Germans surrounded Paris, government collapsed
Great War: Germans almost broke through numerous times; France only won after Americans arrived, depriving frogs of a chance to boast
WWII: Nazis marched through Paris; Vichy France government collaborated with them
Indochina: Got rekt by ricemonkeys
Algeria: Sent home crying AND major French cities were then colonized by muzzies to add insult to injury
I'm sorry but what is there really to use as an argument that French are NOT cheese-eating surrender monkeys?
France's record is pretty impressive when you think about it
For most of history, they were literally the Big Guy of Europe everyone had to team against (pic related)
Germans are praised as epic warrior for having had this role for like half a century...
Easiest exemple: WW1
Plenty of other exemples, but this one is the most famous
It wasnt full blown failure like you try to make it out to be
It's just that they passed from a God-tier nation that could take on all Europe (pic >>510132 ) to a Britain-tier nation that could only invade 3rd world shitholes or win European war as part of an alliance only
No one shits on Britain for that because they've always been like that, while France used to be Godlike and thus it created a shock when they became meh after the Napoopan wars
After resisting for a whole decade in a war that had them outnumbered 4 to 1...
For much of French history they were the only large unified country in their neighborhood. It would be hard not to be a dominant military power.
Once Germany unified, they began to consistently kick French ass and I think that is where the reputation comes from... like, why is France not capable of doing what Germany does?
>like, why is France not capable of doing what Germany does?
Attempting to conquer Europe and failing at the end? They did in early 19th century
Having millions of refugees rape their women like in Cologne? It'll happen in France as well soon enough
A war won by Prussia and a German victory in....a battle....part of a war they lost
Americans saving you 4 years later doesn't take away the fact that you lost
>completely disarm Germany
>German economy is broken
>should never be threatened by krauts again
>only 20 years later, get utterly BTFO
face it, you are Germany's little bitch. and because of the EU, you will never get another war to redeem yourself. You will ALWAYS be known as Germany's bitch.
"Battle of France" is a very misleading term. Maybe it's called 'battle' because it was such a short campaign? Regardless, ww2 was a massive war comprised of several smaller wars. There have been much smaller engagements than the 'battle' of France that have been called wars
>Having millions of refugees rape their women like in Cologne? It'll happen in France as well soon enough
It has been happening in France for the last decade you nonce. Haven't you been witness to all the burka controversy years ago?
>And I don't claim that France won WW2, just that Germany never won a war
Then you're a historically illiterate retard that shouldn't be posting.
The war between France and Germany ended though. Germany conquered France. France lost. That was the end. Germany was still at war with other countries, but they were no longer at war with France. Because France lost. In the war between France and Germany, Germany won. If you still disagree then you're an idiot or a troll
More accurately, England lost the Hundred Years' War. France was doing terribly until Henry VI fucked up. This is even more embarrassing when you consider that France had roughly 5 times the population.
This is an unbelievably oversimplified analysis of the World Wars
Not exactly, but a basic understanding of Medieval politics would explain why this would take place. After Normans conquered England, this left the English royal family with a claim to the French throne due to family ties.
Russia was a pretty nice distraction m8
For the most part of the Napoleonic Wars, the French were declared war upon.
Why is the Franco-Prussian War only a German victory while in WWII it was a "decisive German victory" even though the Franco-Prussian war was a lot more decisive than Germany losing a few years later?
Something people seem to forget when claiming total French or Capetian dominance in the medieval period is that, between kingdoms, there really wasn't any serious, centralized unity. Mediterranean or Central European kingdoms with French monarchs were still Mediterranean or Central European kingdoms with their own matters and independence. In the same way that England may have effectively been a French conquest, it was still its own kingdom.
It's a similar principle to Germanic migration. Just because Germanic barbarians kings where everywhere throughout Europe after Rome, doesn't mean there was any kind of unity. Divisional, regional identities will always rein supreme in Europe.
>Russia was a pretty nice distraction m8
Britain and France lasted way after Russia folded and made peace with Germany. France and Britain still bore the brunt of the German spring offensive, broke it and then pushed right back.
>completely disarm Germany
It didn't. That's what Clemenceau wanted to do, but he was blocked by George and Wilson. When Foch said Versailles was peace for 20 years, he didn't mean it was too harsh. He meant it should have been a lot harsher.
>German economy is broken
The german economy was fine, the reparations imposed by the allies composed a smaller % of Germany's GDP than the reparations Prussia imposed on France in 1871. Even then, German industrial capacity was untouched, while the war ravaged France's most industrialized areas.
You must think history begins with the independance of your shit country. And speaking of wich, France won that war for you, without them, the redcoats would have buttraped you even harder than hey did.
>implying Americans didn't first check the German summer offensive at Catingy & Belleau Wood
>implying half a million doughboys didn't take out the St. Mihiel salient
>implying the 2 million Americans in France were of no consequence to persuading Germany to make peace
When will the US contributed nothing to WWI meme end?
No, the US didn't contribute nothing, but they came after the Brits and French had weathered the worst of the storm. After the Second Marne German collapse was a foregone conclusion. The AEF only hastened the end of the war. The German collapse ultimately came from the home front, though the Entente was already routing the Germans on the field.
Canadians are very, very proud of their (not insignificant) contribution in the first world war.
>After the second Marne German collapse was a foregone conclusion
Disagree. The krauts would've just retreated back to the Hindenburg line. Only the advantage of American numbers allowed the exhausted Allies to push Germany back. Only the presence of millions of extra Americools made an invasion of Germany in 1919 feasible. Certainly the German home front was crumbling, but if a reasonable German peace offer had been rejected by Britain & France I think the German populace wouldn't have bailed on the war in 1919
Canadian curriculum is full of imperialistic propaganda. Your average Canadian thinks his country is the best country in the world because of it. Source: I am Canadian and the average Canadian citizen's imperialism disgusts me.
>Disagree. The krauts would've just retreated back to the Hindenburg line.
A line they were increasingly incapable of holding. The British blockade was starving Germany of the foodstuff and iron required to arm and feed its military, nevermind its populace--even if they didn't, Germany alone owed more money than every entente power combined. Nobody was about to sell them anything. The best of their men had been lost in the Spring Offensive.
Meanwhile, the German tactics that had held in 1915 (hold the trenches and bleed the enemy to death) were no longer nearly as effective. The failure of the Spring Offensive was not because the German infantry was unskilled, but because they were so successful they outpaced their very supply lines. Both the Entente and German infantry tactics had long since evolved such that Trenches could no longer provide the same staying power they could have in 1915. Combined with the French and British near-monopoly on armored units (the French fielding the most modern and largest armored force in 1918), the Hindenburg Line was a paper tiger at best. The breakthrough of the Hindenburg Line at St. Quentin involved 14 divisions, only two of which were American. Even if the Entente stopped at the German border instead of implementing the 1919 Fuller Plan (from which Guderian and the Wehrmacht developed their immensely effective World War II armored doctrine), Germany would have simply starved to death.
After Brest-Litovsk, the Germans were able to transfer to the west enough divisions to hold a slight numerical advantage. Although the Spring/Summer offensives were failures, they inflicted on the Allies a similar number of casualties. There's no way the decisive 100 Days offensive is as successful without the numerical superiority only the Americans provided. Without the AEF, British leaders feared the war dragging on to 1920
By realizing its true and that you are just a contrarian
>Although the Spring/Summer offensives were failures, they inflicted on the Allies a similar number of casualties.
The casualties inflicted were different, however. Germany attacked the weakest, least-experienced portions of the Entente line (which has to do with their huge success), but gained little strategic advantage, and the soldiers they lost once the advance ground to a halt were their best. What supply reserve they had remaining had been heavily depleted in the attack already, whereas the Entente continued to (and could have continued to) purchase from the rest of the world.
>There's no way the decisive 100 Days offensive is as successful without the numerical superiority only the Americans provided.
I agree, it would not be as successful or as quick. But I do think it would have ultimately have been successful. Again, as I said before, even if it hadn't, the continued British blockade would have caused Germany to implode even in the absence of any military action.
>Without the AEF, British leaders feared the war dragging on to 1920
This is true. But France and Britain had both the men, means and materiel to push that advantage whether it be in 1919 or 1920.
You're 100% correct on your 1st point. As to your 2nd point, I believe that without any Americans in 1918, the German offensives of that year find more success, changing what the Allies are able to do on that front to their detriment. This was a great back & forth anon, I wish I could go on but I finna sleep now. Blessed be your soul
The Kingdom of Prussia was literally the predecessor to the unified German state, as it too was a conglomerate of German states. It objectively and necessarily takes a place in the history of Germany as being a state composed of mostly the same regions and peoples.
The war ended after the official unification of Germany, and was won by the German Empire, who didn't even begin the war officially as Prussia, but as the North German Federation, so the war's title was nothing more than a title, and you're retarded.
>French Revolution: Won, primarly due to the fact the opponent was also French
Lmao, didnt even need to read the rest
>You can hate it, but France won WW2. This is a fact.
Why the fuck do they call it Game of Thrones when there is only one throne but probably several "games" to take it?
Why do they call it Star Wars when there is only one war and several stars?
The French were *let* into Moscow because Kutuzov figured it would be a more effective way to kill them, and that's after the French lost more men at the Bagration flêches than at any time in any battle until WWI.
Now you're just butthurt
The Russians fought several battles trying to stop the French on their way to Moscow, but always ended up retreating because they were inferior (not in number, in skill).
Then they threw all they got at Borodino to prevent the French from capturing Moscow, but they lost once again