What the actual fuck?

>>2834813

Be a bit more specific about what's specific aspect is so WTF and we can give you better information.

But yea, there was a lot to WTF about in that war. Enough so that the French would invent the world Revanchism to describe how WTF'd they were.

>Germans baited the French into a war, while hiding it from them that they'd lined their entire army on the border, and Napoleon III hastily declares war without bringing his armies to the border
>French logically get curb-stomped in 5-to-1 ratio battles, in which they are culled back to Sedan where the emperor is captured
>French state enters utter civil war with Bonapartists figthing Republicans across the countryside, while forgetting to address the German problem
>Germans can't even enter Paris and wresttle it away from French syndicalists that have risen up, and have to be happy with Versailles as a consolation prize
That's the gist of it basically.

A French emperor better at peace than at war.

>>2834823
>756,285 French Casualties and Losses
>116,696 German Casualties and Losses

>>2834813
Yeah.
Germans mobilized faster and got into northern France with little resistance.

File: swedenwhy.png (41KB, 331x417px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 331x417px

Post your best Wiki war infoboxes

>>2834829
I try to trudge through why the casualties are so skewed on here: >>2834827, and also don't forget that the Germans had fought in three wars in only the last decade (against Austrians, Danes, and a third one that I can't remember), while the French had had their laste taste for it in the Crimean war, thirty years before. German generals were always going to be more experienced.

>>2834843
Were the Indochina Wars (maybe throw in related conflicts in Malaysia and Thailand) really World War 2.5?

>>2834865

Did no one tell you about the Cold War?

>>2834827

To be fair, during the Revolution having a massive civil war only seemed to help them curb stomp the rest of Europe at the same time.

>>2834892

The revolution is what allowed France to implement levee en masse, the first example of modern conscription. The revolution gave the common people agency, which made them more willing to serve in the conscripted army.

The sheer size of the conscript army, and the structure that allowed for continuous conscription throughout the years of the french revolution and Napoleonic wars is what made France able to fight the rest of the continent on better than even terms.

>>2834892
Yup, and I don't know how much you intended for things to say that way, but you're actually driving at something that France attempted to do in the Franco-Prussian: reinvigorate the "revolutionary war" spirit where a divided and hurt France had still managed to chase out invaders. A lot of Republicans emulated that idea by touring across the countryside, hoping to field armies from recruitment alone (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garde_nationale_mobile).

Here's a quote about those armies that they tried to build in the imitation of the armies of the Revolution:
< Les mêmes causes produisent les mêmes effets, et les mobiles de Paris se conduisaient, en 1870, au camp de Châlons, comme les volontaires s'étaient conduits en 1792. On n'en parlera pas moins encore des braves mobiles et des héroïques volontaires ; cela est naturel, les gens instruits savent l'histoire, les ignorants acceptent les légendes; c'est pourquoi la légende étouffe l'histoire et lui survit.

>>2834929
>what made France able to fight the rest of the continent on better than even terms.
Meh, depleted the country of men though, to the extent that the only ones to remain to be fielded in 1815 were "Marie-Louise", the nickname passed on to 16-18 year old boys fighting in the French forces, and battered old veterans from other campaigns.

Conscription saved France, but also massively dampened it for the XIXth century.