Glorious French Victory Thread

File: hrerd.jpg (969KB, 2276x1260px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 2276x1260px

>>1847213
Brit falseflaging to troll France detected
As a real Frenchman, I wouldnt take pride in WW2, regardless of the battle

There are so many wars in which we did much better than that

>>1847213
Pretty much all the valid post-Napoleonic answers are from WW1.

Except Camarón.

File: Louis-François_Baron_Lejeune_001.jpg (891KB, 3000x1298px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 3000x1298px

>>1847219
>T*rks
>Attempting to criticize France
couldn't even hold onto a province when they had crushing numerical superiority on the order of 5v1 and the French were coming from across the sea, via insecure sea lanes, after just recovering fighting the rest of Europe, and had to have the British do the hard work
lmao, pretty pathetic

File: download (1).jpg (4KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 300x168px

>>1847226
>War of the Seventh Coalition

>>1847229
Reminder that aside of WW2, Post-Napoleonic France was merely Britain-tier (taking part in alliances for wars in Europe and conquering backward shitholes), not lower than it

It seems like such a huge downfall because France used to be godlike before that (see pic >>1847226) while Britain has pretty much always been mediocre

>>1847226
>French arms defeat Germanic "army"
>Not another achievement to be celebrated

>>1847246
Remember that time when us and Britburkas saved you from Russia?

>>1847246
>Turk
>shitting on someone for losing to Russia

m8...

>>1847243
The French didn't exactly cover themselves in glory in the Algerian or Indochina Wars, either.

File: The_defeat_of_Shipka_Peak,_Bulgarian_War_of_Independence.jpg (889KB, 1134x827px) Image search: [Google]

889KB, 1134x827px

>>1847246
Why don't you try to deal with Russia yourself?
Do I detect jealousy that the only time the T*rkish """Empire""" held against the Russians in the 19th century it was because France saved their asses?

>>1847255
They won the Algerian war militarily though.

In all seriousness the French deserve major credit for their role in WW1, especially in stopping the Germans at the Marne and leading the final offensive that ended the war. Say what you want about their pathetic incompetence in WW2, but they fought insanely hard and well in WW1, even at the cost of a significant fraction of their young male population.

That sacrifice alone should sink any of the "French are cowards" stereotypes. The Britbongs certainly have nothing comparable, and the only comparable sacrifice made by the Americans was in their own civil war.

>>1847279
The French were pretty much the leading Allied nation in WW1
But since the end of WW2, American cultural domination gives strength to all Anglos media, and they try hard to make Britain pass as the major allied power of WW1
A good exemple of that is the newest cultural product on the matter, BF1, that gives the spotlight to Britain while completly erasing France for the game.

File: Vernet_-_La_prise_de_Malakoff.jpg (235KB, 749x1138px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 749x1138px

>The same day, a determined bombardment once more reduced the Malakoff and its dependencies to impotence, and it was with absolute confidence in the result that Marshal Pélissier planned the final assault. At noon on 8 September 1855, the whole of Bosquet's corps suddenly swarmed up to the Malakoff. The fighting was of the most desperate kind: every casemate and every traverse was taken and retaken time after time as each side attacked and counterattacked, but ultimately the French maintained the prize, and though the British attack on the Redan failed, with the fall of the Malakoff, the Russian positions around the city came into range of the French siege guns.

>Even on the far left, at the opposite flagstaff and central bastions, there was severe hand-to-hand fighting. Throughout the day the bombardment mowed down the massed Russian soldiers along the whole line. The fall of the Malakoff was the end of the siege of the city. That night the Russians flied over the bridges to the north side, and on 9 September the victors took possession of the empty and burning city. The losses in the last assault had been very heavy: for the Allies over 10,000 men, for the Russians 13,000. At least nineteen generals had fallen on the final day and with the capture of Sevastopol the war was decided. No serious operations were undertaken against Gorchakov who, with the field army and the remnants of the garrison, held the heights at Mackenzie's Farm. But Kinburn was attacked by sea and, from the naval point of view, became the first instance of the employment of Ironclad warships. An armistice was agreed upon on 26 February and the Treaty of Paris was signed on 30 March 1856.[2]

>French win battle over Russians
>Anglos still think Crimean war was only British and ignore the French who played the main role
>Only thing they remember was how terrible their medical support was
>British attack on the Redan failed

can't make how pathetic the English are up.

File: 1433657151962.png (163KB, 2400x920px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 2400x920px

>>1847213

proud frankish blood flows through my veins!

>>1847340
Good lad

>>1847279
I think its sort of unfair to say that the French were pathetically incompetent in WW2.
All of the Allied nations of significant size generally suffered crippling defeats in the opening stages of the war.
The US suffered catastrophic losses to its naval fleet, the invasion of its Pacific territories which it lost, an initially devastating submarine campaign off the East Coast, and its first land engage against the Germans was a major defeat.
The UK didn't do any better than France in France, arguably worse since it was French divisions that fought to enable them to escape. Yes, they won the Battle of Britain, but that was their second battle. Against the Japanese, their opening campaign was disastrous, they lost multiple capital ships and important colonies, and were able to do little until the end of the war to reverse that predicament. They did beat Italy's opening major offensive and thrashed them with Operation Compass, but that was the Italians.
Poland (who I'm counting as a major allied power), got crushed quickly at the beginning; their defeat was pretty inevitable given the correlation of forces, but they still lost quickly.
The USSR did defeat Japan when they tried to attack them, but Operation Barbarossa was a crippling defeat to them.
China opened the war by losing most of its coastal cities and the destruction of their foreign-trained troops.
So, asides from the UK beating Italy (which would be petty pathetic if they didn't) and the USSR defeating the Japanese, all of the Allied powers opened the war with major, even devastating defeats. So did France, but France didn't have the ocean to protect them from enemies, the war going on in ultimately-expendable colonies, or enough strategic space to absorb the blows like in the case of the USSR and still ultimately still continue as a major combatant. Yes, the French made mistakes and losses, but everybody on the Allied side did too, just France was uniquely vulnerable to being knocked out quickly.

>>1848878
you just don't understand that France didn't want fucking ww2 from the start after the great war

>>1847340
I'm from Louisiana too

>>1848878
This is a great point, but far too nuanced for memesters who inhabit this board, who are more concerned with deciding who were the cool kids and who were the losers than in actually analyzing history

File: fariskur.jpg (28KB, 293x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 293x300px

brave french crusaders