Current Events > The french surrender stereotype/joke has to be the dumbest one of all time.

(+) Yeah! (+)

As far as stereotypes go, it makes about as much sense as saying the Irish are a bunch of lightweights, or Russians a bunch of warmhearted pansies, or koreans crappy at RTS games.

But you have the French. The most successful military country ever. The greatest land power for hundreds of years. A fight record that looks like Muhammad Ali's professional boxing stats. But because they made the obvious choice to surrender a battle they'd already lost instead of pointlessly dying to the last man, they're cowards lololol. And then come the Iraq invasion and they conscientiously object to that corrupt colonial shit like we all should have done and again they're lumped with the sissy jokes, lololol, according to Americans and Brits who know not one iota of the relevant military history.

You can keep your freedumb fries.
---

I invite anyone who takes stock in the surrender monkey stereotypes to play a game or two of EU4. The big blue blob will beat the ignorance right out of you.
---

pinky0926 posted...

The most successful military country ever.

How so?
---

yea as you said, the french are the most successful military country in all of recorded history. but because they didn't want to fight WW2 after the devastation of WW1 all of that is somehow nullified by ignorant people
---

Did France keep Hitler out?

Did France keep Algeria in the fold?

Did France take over Europe like it planned?

Hell the US likely wouldnt even exist without France's military
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

I invite anyone who takes stock in the surrender monkey stereotypes to play a game or two of EU4. The big blue blob will beat the ignorance right out of you.

You're giving me flashbacks to when AI France solo'd the 30 years war in a multiplayer game I played.
---

I also hate how people praise Hitler and the nazi's as military geniuses. They were just more prepared for war than the allies at the beginning and attacked as fast as possible. France losing the war is like watching a dude get sucker punched pretty badly. France has always been a dominant power and if it wasn't for France then the concept of Germany wouldn't even exist.
---

I think most educated people know this. As typical, it's the stupid ones out the spewing ignorant stereo types
---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

I also hate how people praise Hitler and the nazi's as military geniuses. They were just more prepared for war than the allies at the beginning and attacked as fast as possible. France losing the war is like watching a dude get sucker punched pretty badly.

true but germany was still powerful militarily. they won a lot of battles while outnumbered, and not just on the soviet zerg side, but against americans and british/etc as well

rommel in north africa comes to mind
---

I think it's funny

Anybody interested in buying this French WW2 rifle? Never been fired and only dropped once.
---

Bloodychess posted...

pinky0926 posted...

The most successful military country ever.

How so?

Most victories, most conquests, most total and utter domination for the longest time, most advances in military technology and strategy during all of that period. Of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in 50 – more than Austria (47) and England (43). Out of 168 battles fought since 387BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10.

This is all super ironic when you look at America's track record in recent conflicts and how it completely pales in comparison.
---

DirkDiggles posted...

Anybody interested in buying this French WW2 rifle? Never been fired and only dropped once.

holy fucking shit
---

ThyCorndog posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

I also hate how people praise Hitler and the nazi's as military geniuses. They were just more prepared for war than the allies at the beginning and attacked as fast as possible. France losing the war is like watching a dude get sucker punched pretty badly.

true but germany was still powerful militarily. they won a lot of battles while outnumbered, and not just on the soviet zerg side, but against americans and british/etc as well

rommel in north africa comes to mind

Rommel lost the north african front against mainly a British empire fighting a two front war against Japan, Italy, and Germany.
---

P01ntyDmonspank posted...

Did France keep Hitler out?

Did France keep Algeria in the fold?

Did France take over Europe like it planned?

Keep in mind they couldn't even suppress Indochina
---

uh, when did France become the most "total and utter domination for the longest time" in any point in history?
---

GeneralZhao posted...

P01ntyDmonspank posted...

Did France keep Hitler out?

Did France keep Algeria in the fold?

Did France take over Europe like it planned?

Keep in mind they couldn't even suppress Indochina

Keep in mind every other European power lost in decolonization
---

hitler was a meth head so
---

P01ntyDmonspank posted...

Did France keep Hitler out?

Did France keep Algeria in the fold?

Did France take over Europe like it planned?

Sorry what is the question you're really getting at? I never said France had a perfect track record of conquests. I'm saying it's utterly ridiculous to label them cowards when the context in which they surrendered was the most reasonable conditions to surrender you can imagine. You wouldn't call the Japanese cowards after surrendering post Hiroshima, and yet the French are cowards for surrendering post WWI.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

uh, when did France become the most "total and utter domination for the longest time" in any point in history?

How about you google western civilization
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

uh, when did France become the most "total and utter domination for the longest time" in any point in history?

In European history.
---

Jesus, it's real easy to tell which users are underage ITT
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

uh, when did France become the most "total and utter domination for the longest time" in any point in history?

lol
---

pinky0926 posted...

Out of 168 battles fought since 387BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10.

So considering 387BC is like a thousand years before the earliest definition of France as a country (a definition that is fairly meh for the sake of according credit for military victories, how about we count from say 1500 AD instead?

P01ntyDmonspank posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Out of 168 battles fought since 387BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10.

So considering 387BC is like a thousand years before the earliest definition of France as a country (a definition that is fairly meh for the sake of according credit for military victories, how about we count from say 1500 AD instead?

You're welcome to look up those stats, but I feel you're just being contrary at this point. I'm not sure what you hope to prove by measuring up the ancient world in this conversation. The actual point here is that the French have a highly impressive military track record, surrendered in entirely necessary conditions and deserve none of the flack they get.
---

A friend of mine is a former tank gunner in the French Army. I asked him the age old joke of "How many gears does a French tank have?". It went completely over his head. Tried to give me a technical answer and everything.
---

P01ntyDmonspank posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Out of 168 battles fought since 387BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10.

So considering 387BC is like a thousand years before the earliest definition of France as a country (a definition that is fairly meh for the sake of according credit for military victories, how about we count from say 1500 AD instead?

you should look it up if you really want to know, but I think the point would still stand even if you just focused on 1500 and on. that's where france was particularly impressive
---

pinky0926 posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

uh, when did France become the most "total and utter domination for the longest time" in any point in history?

In European history.

I mean, I will admit I forgot about shit like Charlemagne, Charles Martel, and the line of Louis, but still. That was yeaaaaaaaaaars ago. Literally yeaaaaaaaaaaars.
---

true, history really is about things years ago, huh. really made me think
---

ThyCorndog posted...

you should look it up if you really want to know, but I think the point would still stand even if you just focused on 1500 and on. that's where france was particularly impressive

Probably yeah. I just have no clue what TC is attempting to do with this topic. He's certainly not proving anything by going "you know if we count military encounters starting in 387 BC..."

P01ntyDmonspank posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

you should look it up if you really want to know, but I think the point would still stand even if you just focused on 1500 and on. that's where france was particularly impressive

Probably yeah. I just have no clue what TC is attempting to do with this topic. He's certainly not proving anything by going "you know if we count military encounters starting in 387 BC..."

Dispel the myth that the French are surrender monkeys, obviously.
---

P01ntyDmonspank posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

you should look it up if you really want to know, but I think the point would still stand even if you just focused on 1500 and on. that's where france was particularly impressive

Probably yeah. I just have no clue what TC is attempting to do with this topic. He's certainly not proving anything by going "you know if we count military encounters starting in 387 BC..."

it's kind of hard to explain the history of Western Civilization on a gaming forum. It is not our fault that you are completely ignorant of history.
---

pinky0926 posted...

Dispel the myth that the French are surrender monkeys, obviously.

By referencing a people and nation that could not be considered French...

ASithLord7 posted...

Hell the US likely wouldnt even exist without France's military

Likely? We 100% wouldn't have. France saved our ass in the revolutionary war.
---

Where do you come up with this stuff?
---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

It is not our fault that you are completely ignorant of history.

You sound like a buttmad bitterbeard. When have I suggested I don't know France's military history? Obviously not fully, but to a fairly reasonable point?

pinky0926 posted...

P01ntyDmonspank posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Out of 168 battles fought since 387BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10.

So considering 387BC is like a thousand years before the earliest definition of France as a country (a definition that is fairly meh for the sake of according credit for military victories, how about we count from say 1500 AD instead?

You're welcome to look up those stats, but I feel you're just being contrary at this point. I'm not sure what you hope to prove by measuring up the ancient world in this conversation. The actual point here is that the French have a highly impressive military track record, surrendered in entirely necessary conditions and deserve none of the flack they get.

Tbf, you're the one who used that as a measure of French military competence. There's no way you could consider the people living in that region pre-1000 AD as french, and that's a pretty arbitrary date in itself.

Completely agree with your general point though.
---

P01ntyDmonspank posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

It is not our fault that you are completely ignorant of history.

You sound like a buttmad bitterbeard. When have I suggested I don't know France's military history? Obviously not fully, but to a fairly reasonable point?

you obviously do not.....good night sir
---

P01ntyDmonspank posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Dispel the myth that the French are surrender monkeys, obviously.

By referencing a people and nation that could not be considered French...

1. why could they not
2. why are you so focused on the details that are superfluous to the point being made? You know that the precise time at which France could be called France is not actually the focus of the discussion, but you are treating it as such
---

CowboyDan posted...

Tbf, you're the one who used that as a measure of French military competence. There's no way you could consider the people living in that region pre-1000 AD as french, and that's a pretty arbitrary date in itself.

Completely agree with your general point though.

I used it as an example of France's military competence, not the measure. As for the date I was quoting a line from a Historian, not a figure I made up myself. Regardless of whether you believe that date arbitrary, their track record over say, the past 500 years is as a supreme military force.
---

I think it's just cuz of WWII. Like the French had great military leaders like Napoleon and Charlemagne if you go back far enough.
---

eh I would agree that counting gauls and whatnot as french is silly. but anything after charlemagne seems like fair game to me
---

Paper_Okami posted...

ASithLord7 posted...

Hell the US likely wouldnt even exist without France's military

Likely? We 100% wouldn't have. France saved our ass in the revolutionary war.

Saved our ass? No. There is no way to know the outcome of the war had the French not joined forces with us, but there is absolutely no historical evidence that the war was unwinnable without them.

As for the topic, France was defeated (or would have been defeated had they not received significant aid) in both World Wars, and are largely the reason Vietnam became a problem as they lost it as a colony and moved out of the region. Additionally, France has a reputation as terrible at war because of their recent conflicts not because of their conflicts hundreds of years ago.

The United States wouldn't exist today as we know it without the French navy.

And when you fight as many wars as the French, you're bound to lose some.

It is indeed a very stupid stereotype.
---

TheShadowViper posted...

As for the topic, France was defeated or surrendered in both World Wars

uh

Broseph_Stalin posted...

TheShadowViper posted...

As for the topic, France was defeated or surrendered in both World Wars

uh

---

TheShadowViper posted...

As for the topic, France was defeated or surrendered in both World Wars, and are largely the reason Vietnam became a problem as they lost it as a colony and moved out of the region. Additionally, France has a reputation as terrible at war because of their recent conflicts not because of their conflicts hundreds of years ago.

They weren't defeated in WWI I thought, just super battered. They couldn't have held the western front by themselves without the British (and then later the Americans to turn the tide), but I didn't think they were "defeated"
---