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

(+) Yeah! (+)

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.

It's a historical fact that France was defeated and surrendered in WWII. It's a dumb opinion that France are cowardly surrender monkeys, and makes zero sense. If you surrender when you have to then that's a necessary choice, not a cowardly one.

If you lose a conflict you surrender. I'm not sure what people expect a country to do, unless continuing a pointless battle of arbitration and wiping out an entire generation of young men is how you let everyone know you're a real hero.
---

The French were pushed back in World War 1 and needed the help of the allies to turn the tide back against Germany. I don't have time to go through every battle, there is a wiki for it.

TheShadowViper posted...

The French were pushed back in World War 1

I think you might want to look up what surrender and defeat mean.

TheShadowViper posted...

The French were pushed back in World War 1 and needed the help of the allies to turn the tide back against Germany. I don't have time to go through every battle, there is a wiki for it.

Calling for aid is not being defeated and surrendering. It successfully defended itself.
---

Are we talking about France as a nation or the French people
---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

TheShadowViper posted...

The French were pushed back in World War 1

I think you might want to look up what surrender and defeat mean.

They lost just about every significant battle they fought in WW1 without allied forces. I think you need to learn what being defeated is. If a country continually loses battles and needs their buddies to help them win, they were defeated before help arrived.

And definition of defeat, buddy:

win a victory over (someone) in a battle or other contest; overcome or beat.

TheShadowViper posted...

Broseph_Stalin posted...

TheShadowViper posted...

The French were pushed back in World War 1

I think you might want to look up what surrender and defeat mean.

They lost just about every significant battle they fought in WW1 without allied forces. I think you need to learn what being defeated is. If a country continually loses battles and needs their buddies to help them win, they were defeated before help arrived.

And definition of defeat, buddy:

win a victory over (someone) in a battle or other contest; overcome or beat.

Don't you have school in the morning?
---

TheShadowViper posted...

They lost just about every significant battle they fought in WW1 without allied forces.

Please list them.

TheShadowViper posted...

Broseph_Stalin posted...

TheShadowViper posted...

The French were pushed back in World War 1

I think you might want to look up what surrender and defeat mean.

They lost just about every significant battle they fought in WW1 without allied forces. I think you need to learn what being defeated is. If a country continually loses battles and needs their buddies to help them win, they were defeated before help arrived.

And definition of defeat, buddy:

win a victory over (someone) in a battle or other contest; overcome or beat.

The joke here being they continued to fight through that awful meat grinder despite taking some of the heaviest losses the world had ever seen up until that point. How could you think them cowardly for that? Literally millions dead, and they kept going until they won it.
---

Sinroth posted...

TheShadowViper posted...

Broseph_Stalin posted...

TheShadowViper posted...

The French were pushed back in World War 1

I think you might want to look up what surrender and defeat mean.

They lost just about every significant battle they fought in WW1 without allied forces. I think you need to learn what being defeated is. If a country continually loses battles and needs their buddies to help them win, they were defeated before help arrived.

And definition of defeat, buddy:

win a victory over (someone) in a battle or other contest; overcome or beat.

Don't you have school in the morning?

Oh no! Are you suggesting it is my bed time? Oh please don't unleash that wit on me again!!!! I don't think I could handle it.

TheShadowViper posted...

They lost just about every significant battle they fought in WW1 without allied forces. I think you need to learn what being defeated is. If a country continually loses battles and needs their buddies to help them win, they were defeated before help arrived.

And definition of defeat, buddy:

win a victory over (someone) in a battle or other contest; overcome or beat.

Let it be known France actually lost WWI.

The French defeated the Germans at Verdun and at the First and Second Battles of the Marne and then played a large roll in the 100 days offensive. They won the decisive battles that really mattered.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

TheShadowViper posted...

They lost just about every significant battle they fought in WW1 without allied forces. I think you need to learn what being defeated is. If a country continually loses battles and needs their buddies to help them win, they were defeated before help arrived.

And definition of defeat, buddy:

win a victory over (someone) in a battle or other contest; overcome or beat.

Let it be known France actually lost WWI.

TheShadowViper, rewriting history because apparently asking your friends for help is not allowed.
---

Nowhereman24 posted...

The French defeated the Germans at Verdun and at the First and Second Battles of the Marne and then played a large roll in the 100 days offensive. They won the decisive battles that really mattered.

A large roll?

It was more like a large croissant.
---

Nowhereman24 posted...

The French defeated the Germans at Verdun and at the First and Second Battles of the Marne and then played a large roll in the 100 days offensive. They won the decisive battles that really mattered.

The battle of Verdun could barely be called a victory and the first and second battles of Marne were fought with allied forces. You literally listed one battle out of dozens that were fought where France could be said to have achieved a victory. Almost every single other battle, that did not include allied forces, was a draw or a loss.

Battle of the Frontiers
Battle of the Ardennes
First Battle of the Aisne
Battle of Champagne
Third Battle of Artois
Battle of the Somme
Second Battle of the Aisne
Third Battle of the Aisne

Are just a few of the battles they lost or came to a draw in. You literally have one battle, where victory was dubious as both sides suffered heavy casualties, as an example for France "defending itself".

The reputation sticks due to a general resentment of another french stereotype. Being snooty, pretentious, arrogant. While also turning into a pussy ass, liberal shithole that doest stand for anything except being a tourist trap. And a crappy form of socialism that weakens the people and country. They're decadent and dying out.

It's not the French people, it's the french government.

Europe screwed up. Poor Charles Martel, he'd cry to see it

Keith_Valentine posted...

The reputation sticks due to a general resentment of another french stereotype. Being snooty, pretentious, arrogant. While also turning into a pussy ass, liberal shithole that doest stand for anything except being a tourist trap. And a crappy form of socialism that weakens the people and country. They're decadent and dying out.

It's not the French people, it's the french government.

Europe screwed up. Poor Charles Martel, he'd cry to see it

liberals aren't socialists
---

This has to be the first time I've ever seen it argued that France lost World War I. We're breaking new ground today.
---

Feline_Heart posted...

I think it's funny

Wow I didn't think Captain America was not much of a D-Bag to Americas oddest Allies.
---

TheShadowViper posted...

Nowhereman24 posted...

The French defeated the Germans at Verdun and at the First and Second Battles of the Marne and then played a large roll in the 100 days offensive. They won the decisive battles that really mattered.

The battle of Verdun could barely be called a victory and the first and second battles of Marne were fought with allied forces. You literally listed one battle out of dozens that were fought where France could be said to have achieved a victory. Almost every single other battle, that did not include allied forces, was a draw or a loss.

Battle of the Frontiers
Battle of the Ardennes
First Battle of the Aisne
Battle of Champagne
Third Battle of Artois
Battle of the Somme
Second Battle of the Aisne
Third Battle of the Aisne

Are just a few of the battles they lost or came to a draw in. You literally have one battle, where victory was dubious as both sides suffered heavy casualties, as an example for France "defending itself".

The battles I listed were decisive battles that decided the fate of the war in the west. Three times the Germans launched major offensives. The Shlieffen Plan, The Battle of Verdun, and the Spring Offensive. All three were eventually halted largely due to the French. The battles you listed were either incredibly small in scale compared to the larger battles on the Western Front, used mostly British troops, were offensives that could never have succeeded or were doomed to fail from the start, or simply would not have had much of a deciding role in the war whether or not they were won or lost. My point wasn't that they won more battles than they lost but that they won the battles that mattered, which is what ultimately matters in a war.

Guns still couldn't turn more than 180 degrees. Can't deny that mister.

I always found it weird too. During the Roman Era, the Gauls were a serious thorn in the empire's side almost exclusively because of their military ability. The great migration birthed France proper, and Charlemagne, who was the most successful Christian warrior king in history. The medieval era was full of back and forth between the English and the French. During the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Era, the French beat down several monarchies that were much, much more powerful than them (which actually created the myth that their revolutionary fervor made them better soldiers, despite evidence to the contrary). The French also added some 30,000 troops to the US Revolutionary efforts, greatly bolstering their side. In WWI they sustained some of the most significant casualties in the Entente but still held the line significantly longer than most people expected. Their only real major loss was WWII, but that was understandable considering the Blitzkrieg was literally a reinvention of war in the Napoleonic sense, and no one had faced tank battalions before. Oh, and I suppose the Plains of Abraham too.

Liberal ideology and socialist government. Whatever. Didn't work

Dash_Harber posted...

Their only real major loss was WWII, but that was understandable considering the Blitzkrieg was literally a reinvention of war in the Napoleonic sense, and no one had faced tank battalions before.

The British and French knew that the Germans were coming, and they actually possessed higher quality tanks than the Germans did, but they expected them to come through the plains in northern Belgium. That's the reason France fell so quickly - the Germans punched through in the Ardennes and were able to push to the Channel and encircle the British and French armies in Calais. If the Germans had actually met the Allied armies head-on, we likely would have had a repeat of the first world war instead of a six week surrender.
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Their only real major loss was WWII, but that was understandable considering the Blitzkrieg was literally a reinvention of war in the Napoleonic sense, and no one had faced tank battalions before.

The British and French knew that the Germans were coming, but they expected them to come through the plains in northern Belgium. That's the reason France fell so quickly - the Germans punched through in the Ardennes and were able to push to the Channel and encircle the British and French armies in Calais. If the Germans had actually met the Allied armies head-on, we likely would have had a repeat of the first world war instead of a six week surrender.

Thanks for enlightening me. It's been awhile since I studied the subject matter.

Oh well I'm bored and I'm purdy sure Iran-Iraq and Cambodia-Vietnam killed off more people. Sorry but WW2 really needs to go **** itself.

Didn't they start the Vietnam War and leave the US to finish it?
---

- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian. [Or at ths time in history, a Roman -ed.]

- Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.

- Italian Wars
- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

- Wars of Religion
- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

- Thirty Years War
- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

- War of Revolution
- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

- The Dutch War
- Tied

- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

- War of the Spanish Succession
- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."


- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

- The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

- The Franco-Prussian War
- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

- World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

- War in Indochina
- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

- War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

I die a little bit more inside every time I see someone regurgitate that link.
---

I'm just glad not to be modded.

Stereotypes will remain as long ignorant masses repeat what they've heard without any thought, no matter the reason
---

Returning_CEmen posted...

Didn't they start the Vietnam War and leave the US to take over and then surrender and flee?

fixed that for you.

pinky0926 posted...

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

First, why even bring up the US in the first place when this was a thread about France? Is there some kind of insecurity showing there, despite you being British?

Second, you do realize that the US could take over any nation right now if it truly wanted to, or even destroy the world, right? Considering the US's naval presence, air superiority and nuclear arsenal, there wouldn't be anything to stop the current, modern US from turning its enemies into dust, if that was their intent.
---

I googled this...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_France
---

Of the many, many, MANY negative generalisations you could use about the French, it baffled me that people went with that one.

Then the answer came to me - the people using it are most likely blithering idiots.
---

DirkDiggles posted...

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

Lol!

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

pinky0926 posted...

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

First, why even bring up the US in the first place when this was a thread about France? Is there some kind of insecurity showing there, despite you being British?

Second, you do realize that the US could take over any nation right now if it truly wanted to, or even destroy the world, right? Considering the US's naval presence, air superiority and nuclear arsenal, there wouldn't be anything to stop the current, modern US from turning its enemies into dust, if that was their intent.

I brought it up because this surrender monkey/failure stereotype is mainly perpetuated by Americans (and I concede by Brits). And we're not talking about the scope of your military arsenal. We're talking about the success of military conflicts.
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Is there some kind of insecurity showing there

Funnily enough, found in the most insecure-sounding post ITT.
---

I remember when you typed in "french military victories" to Google and it would come up with no results. "Sorry did you mean to search for French military defeats". Good times
---

Ironically enough the GIGN has the best operators in Rainbow Six Siege, even when against the SAS, Navy Seals, and fucking GSG9.
---

dummy420 posted...

I remember when you typed in "french military victories" to Google and it would come up with no results. "Sorry did you mean to search for French military defeats". Good times

I'm pretty sure that never happened and was just a doctored meme pic.
---

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.

This is what I came to say. Here's a post I once saw in a Paradox facebook group that I found so relatable I saved it:
"Ah, EU4. After more than 2000 hours you can be sure that there is one thing this game has given you. It is not about the history and geography of the world. It is not about how technology and culture evolved and moved through the centuries. And it is not the ability to differenciate Austria and Australia.

What EU4 alone has given me is an unending hatred towards the French."

They are the big blue elephant in the room, forever and always.

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

First, why even bring up the US in the first place when this was a thread about France? Is there some kind of insecurity showing there, despite you being British?

Because if we want to measure military success, we can't measure it in a vacuum. For example, one country's loss is another country's victory. The fact that the US has suffered a comparable number of defeats means that either they are both average militarily (which would need to be compared to other countries) or that they are both not very good at it.

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Second, you do realize that the US could take over any nation right now if it truly wanted to, or even destroy the world, right? Considering the US's naval presence, air superiority and nuclear arsenal, there wouldn't be anything to stop the current, modern US from turning its enemies into dust, if that was their intent.

Well, technically, China and Russia would prove a huge problem.

Either way though, current military strength doesn't negate past failures. Nor does a nuclear arsenal equal victory in, say, the Middle East.

MrZAP17 posted...

This is what I came to say. Here's a post I once saw in a Paradox facebook group that I found so relatable I saved it:
"Ah, EU4. After more than 2000 hours you can be sure that there is one thing this game has given you. It is not about the history and geography of the world. It is not about how technology and culture evolved and moved through the centuries. And it is not the ability to differenciate Austria and Australia.

What EU4 alone has given me is an unending hatred towards the French."

They are the big blue elephant in the room, forever and always.

Hahahahaha, so true. Even in Crusader Kings, beating Francia is a fucking tour-de-force. From Charlemagne to the 100 Years War, they are a beast in comparison to the Ottomans.

Also, that reminds me of another massive French victory; The Norman Conquest. You know, that one where one single French province conquered England and gave the country the place names we all use today?

P01ntyDmonspank posted...

Did France take over Europe like it planned?

It almost did a few times but every other non terrible country kept siding against it for obvious reasons.
---

ColdOne666 posted...

P01ntyDmonspank posted...

Did France take over Europe like it planned?

It almost did a few times but every other non terrible country kept siding against it for obvious reasons.

Also, the Holy Roman Empire/Francia took over a significant amount of Europe.

pinky0926 posted...

dummy420 posted...

I remember when you typed in "french military victories" to Google and it would come up with no results. "Sorry did you mean to search for French military defeats". Good times

I'm pretty sure that never happened and was just a doctored meme pic.

That could be true. I could of sworn I actually got that result back in high school around 2000. Maybe before. But it's been so long I could be remember wrong. Google used to do those types of joke and still do other less offensive ones like do a barrel roll.
---

>Gets angry because people don't know history
>Doesn't attempt to remedy the situation

Is history some exclusive club to you, TC? Something to feel superior over?
---

DirkDiggles posted...

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

Savage
---

this topic pains me