"Why the bad rap for the French?" Topic

The question came up in class yesterday as to why the French have such a bad reputation for surrendering? I was at a loss and the only thing I could really come up with was the collapse of the senior leadership in 1940. What say you?

Well, they did get rolled pretty quickly in WWII, but so did many others.

It seems that the French had a pretty formidable reputation up until their defeat in the Franco – Prussian War (1870-71). After that, it's a bit of a mixed bag; a win in the Great War, followed by a rapid collapse in World War II. I would be interested to know whether the stereotype extends beyond the English-speaking world.

Ron

I guess in most of the cases it is just plain ignorance.
The French army was defeated in battle and French political leadership saw no point in a war where hundred of thousands of civilians would be needlessly killed. So the only way left for them was to surrender and save lives.
Only mad dictators like Hitler or Stalin would demand the slaughter of their own civilian population to satisfy their crazy visions of power and/or duty.
It worked for Stalin (10 million soviet civilians killed), not so much for Hitler.

There were some low-level morale failures early on that sort of set the tone for the campaign. For example, the German assault crossing at Sedan was accomplished by about 100 guys, the French manning the defenses mostly folded without much of a fight. Add this to the collapse of the higher leadership and bitterness on the part of those who didn't surrender, and a legend was born.

The truth is that after Dunkirk, the French fought pretty hard. It was all lost at that point, but French pride still gave the Germans some bloody days before the armistice.

Vichy.

I think the Vichy collaboration plays into it, and the fact that those who fought on ( which is too frequently ignored) suffer from the reputation of de Gaulle.

My problem with the French is HOW HARD THEY FOUGHT AGAINST allied/ US forces. Do some reading about the Torch lands and fighting in Syria.

The French fought really hard for their colonies in the 40s and 50s but in my opinion suffered from very poor leadership.

Generally in my non-English speaking country we're not aware of such facts.

The Vichy French also fought pretty hard in Syria and Lebanon against Australian and other Commonwealth troops.

Several reasons: Waterloo, Franco Prussian War, WWI troop revolts, view that US had to bail them out of two world wars, Dien Bien Phu….
I'm not saying it's true, just making the observation. I think the Italians get a bum rap too.

Their bad rap is exacerbated by the fact that they had the reputation of possessing armies that were among the largest and best equipped during both world wars yet lost easily, at least in WWII.

It is the French loses in the 6 week campaign that English speaking natives don't want to admit to ("…85,310 killed (including 5,400 Maghrebis), 12,000 missing, 120,000 wounded…" from Wikipedia that point out the efforts that the French army made.

The fact that the French fought on after the UK withdrew at Dunkirk, is also usually not spoke of.

Calling the French "Surrender Monkeys" makes certain folks feel good that the channel spared them the same fate, while the Americans want to believe that only they saved the world after other nations threw in the towel (plus most Americans are not sure who fought on which side in the war).

The 80% of the total German military casualties in WWII that died fighting the Soviets would seem to indicate who did the majority of the fighting and dying in WWII to drag the Nazi state down.

Dan

Yes – as others above have said it is basically a poor understanding or slanted interpretation of the historical record.

Many problems beset the French Armed forces in 1940 but cowardice was not the reason they were defeated in 6 weeks.

The US army of that time would barely have lasted 6 days and the BEF alone not much more.

The Germans suffered very heavy losses taking France – it just pales in comparison to what they lost in the East.

Dan, I think you'll find that the "surrender monkey" epithet is a US invention stemming from the French decision not to get involved in GW2. Which was a smart move.

"Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" was a phrase first used by Groundskeeper Willie in The Simpsons.
Then Jonah Goldberg of National Review popularized it.

The joke about so many trees along the Champs Élysées so the Germans could match in the shade predates that by decades. I heard it in college in the 60s.

No intelligent person can doubt that the French fought hard and bravely. They simply had too many bad generals chosen for political reasons. The British could have horrible generals too but their blunders did not endanger the nation. French fought at home. Mostly. British fought away.

I think that a lot of the myth stems not so much from the surrender of 1940, but from the collaboration with the Axis and the resistance to the Allies that followed.

As has been said, French and French Colonial forces fought bitterly against the Allies in North Africa and Syria. I'd also add Madagascar to that list.

Another consideration is the reluctance of Frenchmen to join the Free French forces. The Free Poles absolutely put them to shame despite considerable difficulties in escaping to join the Free Polish forces. The Free Poles formed three infantry divisions, an armoured division, an independent armoured brigade, an independent airborne brigade and a commando troop, as well as many air force and naval units. This was in addition to two Polish armies under Soviet command.

By contrast, until the defection of French Colonial forces in North Africa following their initial resistance to the Torch landings, Free French forces amounted to a single battalion group in North Africa, an airborne battalion, two commando troops and a few air and naval units.

There wasn't a Polish equivalent to Mers-el-Kebir, though.

I think part of the perception is the general mis-understanding as to how such a huge army, equiped with (apparently) good quality tanks could collapse so quickly and just surrender in 1940.

As stated above surrender after being defeated militarily was the only option left. At that stage (1940) German attrocities and maltreatment of the general populance was not realised and so fighting on to the last man, woman & child was not something most civilised countries would have ever considered at that time.

Most folk have little knowledge of the true quality of the (mostly conscript) French army, vehicles and logistic capabilities or that moral failures generally followed catastrophic strategic command decisions which left tactical/local positions untennable. As a result they simply attribute the surrender to cowardice which is of course rubbish.

This is an answer that is difficult to do in a quick way.
very sensitive in France/ partly obliterated by the gaullist propaganda after the war.

A lot of the morale issue of troops comes from doctrine/ training and the expectations of combat.
The Fr troops were ready to play a variant of WW1, not WW2, so whenever the fight was too…alien, anything could happen.
(cf von Manstein memories about crossing some river too quickly for the numerous Fr artillery to adapt).

Sedan: the widely dispersed static troops defending the river were second class older reservists.
It is true most people cried/ did not want to go to war; not surprising after the slaughter and memories of WW1, but it should have been similar for the Germans, and it was not.

The 200+ guns behind them at Sedan, had no training for direct combat, low ammo, no practical way to resist (a few old mousquetons and a few clips per crew for guard duties). They simply had nothing to compare them to the steadfast and properly trained and equipped US artillery in direct fighting at Bastogne.

The head/ high command was bad; many old fashioned officers down to junior grades were simply not warriors.

The professionals (so mostly colonial)and many of the standing army, did fight hard.

The usual argument of the casualties is not proof of courage. When you lose, you usually lose a lot. One cannot accuse the US troops of fighting less because they only had say 3 times more over 4 years?

Many surrenders were ordered by command. Troops contacted during marches etc, did not have the logistics for a fight. Remember WW1 thinking. The mechanized units were often out of fuel for this reason.

The air force fought fiercely but with similar outdated methods. No quick liaison with land forces (they had to use civilian phones- such as allo opperator, can I have the air base in Creil? yes, 20 minutes wait…)

The commies initially sort of supported the Germans (sabotage-my father in 1950s fired training 75 with a long lanyard due to the 1940 ammo- not as was later said 41-44)all the Farmann bombers were grounded by sabotage…

Even after the allies were sure to win, and France was being liberated, the young ones did not flock to the colours.
(better be in the last minute resistance, roam the streets, shave and rape and kill collabos…less dangerous and you have a warm bed every night). I remember a very puny fr foreign minister who had been a 2Lt in light tanks in 1944, landed from Op Dragoon, shaming them on Tv in the 70s…

So mixed bag at best, but certainly not all cowards.
Those who did well, have even more merit.

The difference with the Poles for example is vichy: the government and hierarchy gave orders not to fight, the Polish command ordered them to fight. It is never easy to disobey, esp. in these times.

Not to mention the fact that the majority of French troops rescued at cost at Dunkirk, were returned to France at the insistence of French High Command, just in time to surrender with the Frech Capitulation.

Yes; appalling.
I remember asking a son of someone who did something, and wrote a book about it…hard to get some sense for what they did then.
De Gaulle for all the fuss about the call to arms of June the 18th, only managed to get 3000 out of 200000… So if so many listened to it then…

They were not geared to cope with the disaster and with the speed of things.

Just give look to the Norway expedition , i'm not so sure of the poor value of the french troops , but they have efficient command .

Just give a look to the fight in the alpes against the italians , but they have efficient high command .

Just give a look to the Fezzan campaign of Leclerc Force L, with 2 25 Pdrs and 2 italian 47mm , they defeated the axis forces in 1942

Just give a look to Bir Hackeim ..

french bashing is easy ,

but if there was no invasion ( or surrender ) of GB, it was because the prime minister was Churchill, and the RAF was efficient …

but if the USA fall on the "good" side, it was because the President was Roosvelt and the japanese bombed Pearl Harbor …

bashing ?

French-bashing has been around for centuries but it has culminated in recent years when European reservations about invading Iraq after 9/11 caused a reaction in the US.

The core of US historical narrative was laid down in the 18th century and is mostly derived from that of Britain and earlier England. French and European pov is mostly missing.

Given all the trouble there has been between England and France since about 1066 it's clear that this narrative is deeply anti-French. For example it highlights the great victories of the 100-years war, but neglects to mention that the French retook their country bit by bit until English posessions in France were reduced to Calais and France came out as a strong, rich nation while England collapsed into civil war.

The same thing happened with Louis XIV and Napoleon. It took most of Europe to act in concert for several decades to keep French ambition in check. To those of a deriding disposition, it was merely a matter of sending the Redcoats under Marlborough or Wellington to give the French a swift thrashing and restore order to the poor hapless continent.

And the idea that if Britain isn't effortlessly rolling over the beret-wearing onion-sellers, the German military machine is having its regular day out effortlessly humiliating France. Oddly enough the Prussian military machine only appeared on the stage in the latter half of the 18th century. The pervious entity, the Holy Roman Empire had a rather mixed record against the French.

Meanwhile France was by 1900 the second largest colonial power in the World. The defeat of 1870 was seen as more of a case of bad luck or blamed on the less than stellar leadership of Napoleon III that seen as a sign that France was a military joke. Developing nations such as Japan were looking to the French model to build their armies and general opinion was that France had one of the finest armies in the world with a long and rich military tradition.

France fought hard in WWI, the idea that the BEF shouldered the burden after the French proved useless in 1914, or that France was on the brink of all-out revolution until the Yanks arrived and that the armistice of 1918 was all thanks to Pershing's boys and the BEF doing all of the heavy lifting are mostly modern misrepresentations.

WWII showed that modern mechanized warfare did not allow for any mistake. Britain and the USSR were lucky to have specific conditions that spared them the kind of knock-out blow Germany had pulled in Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and France.

In more recent times De Gaulle's stubborn refusal to play the NATO game caused much bad blood, but then again Britain and the US have been guilty of similarly capricious behaviour.

So it all boils down to history seen mostly through the eyes of an enemy of France, that would naturally emphasize victories and minimize defeats and the lack of "other voices" to make a better case …

"There wasn't a Polish equivalent to Mers-el-Kebir, though."

You say that like it's a bad thing. I have absolutely no doubt that the Vichy French fleet would have been used against the Allies and we'd have lost the Med (and probably the war) as a consequence. The attack on the Vichy fleet was the best of a lot of crap options.

Interesting point about contrasting orders there, jcfrog. I imagine that has a lot to do with it.

Re the earlier comment about the French fighting on after British withdrawal at Dunkirk – You might be surprised to know that the 51st (Highland) Division fought on with the French X Armee until being wiped out at St Valery-St-Come. 1st Armoured Division and 1st Canadian Division meanwhile sent to France after Dunkirk, along with RAF elements, to support further French operations.

A counterpoint to this myth would be an understanding of where the "White Flag" comes from. In the 17th and 18th Centuries a defeated force such as a surrendering fortress or ship would "Strike its colours" by lowering its own national flag and raising the flag of the winning side

During this time the National Flag of France was the plain white flag of the Bourbon Monarchy. The French were winning so many victories at that time, that. "hoisting the white flag" became very common and entered the language as a means of expression to denote surrendering or giving up.

Consider that in the English-speaking world, even in North America, the French are the 'old enemy'. The British fought not one, but *two* Hundred Years Wars against the French. Gibes against French military prowess go back to Agincourt and the Ducks of the Main in the Lace Wars, not to mention Trafalgar and Waterloo.

The Franco-British alliance in the early 20th century was always somewhat uneasy because of this long history of conflict, based on real conflicting interests. It's always easy to resume the old habit of heckling the French.

The pre-war social and political situation in France cannot be ignored. There was a very real risk of civil war in the mid-30s particularly following the election of the Socialist Popular Front government in 1936. As in many countries of western Europe (and the US), Communism was seen as the principal threat.

The simple fact was that no-one wanted to fight another war. Those responsible for preparing for one inevitably prepared to refight the last one. The potential of armour was not fully appreciated, except by a few individuals like Fuller, De Gaulle, from whom Guderian got many of his ideas. Instead, the Maginot mentality prevailed.

In 1940 many French troops fought extraordinarily hard and well, as German accounts will confirm. The higher command had, in many cases, its own agenda which spilled over into the bitterly divided political arena. Anti-British sentiment was also a complicating factor (Petain: "married to a corpse…")

The lack of sufficient will to resist and overconfidence that an acceptable deal could be struck with the Nazis on the part of many politicians and commanders led to the French surrender.

A similar state of affairs existed in Britain. Under slightly different circumstances…

For a fascinating, and indeed disturbing, insight into such a situation, I strongly recommend Anthony Sansom's novel 'Dominion'.

In the 20th century high expectations coupled with poor results.

1940 was an example of France at its absolute worst and Germany at it's most daring with a whole lot of damn luck involved.

France's pre-war strategy wasn't stupid, they did plan for the future very carefully. The Germans had managed to capture the French coal and iron basin and occupy major industrial cities in Northern France. One of the lessons of 1918 is that fortifications were incredibly hard to take and required massive means in terms of manpower and artillery. Second they knew that in a future war with Germany, France might find itself in the same situation as it had been in 1870, without allies and facing a nation with a much larger population. In another war of attrition, France could not afford to make any mistakes. Now we have to remember that tanks and aircraft were still nowhere as advanced as they would be in 1940. Tank tracks were extremely vulnerable and tanks were not expected to advance more than a few dozen km before requiring new tracks.

So the French, following a very long tradition of building fortifications on her frontiers to keep out invaders. Planning a series of modern forts that would offer maximum protection to the troops, hoping to spare as many lives as possible. The plan being to stop the Germans at the border and sit tight while France mobilized the full force of her colonial empire, looked for allies and those willing to supply France with weapons and equipment. Once the French had built up enough forces they would start an offensive, hoping to force the Germans to back down. Even if the Germans checked this offensive, the French would simply fall back on the Maginot line and bring up as many reserves as possible to stop any German breakthrough. To this end the French did not neglect their armoured forces or airpower, they had plenty of tanks and aircraft, but lacked a proper doctrine, what they cobbled together towards 1940 was too little, too late …

Of course the Maginot plan had many flaws. Their doctrine was old-fashioned, based on bite and hold tactics. French equipment had been conceived in the 1920's and was already obsolescent in 1940. The Maginot line was hardly water-tight, and while this was known it was expected that a German invasion would not differ too much from their own plans with the Germans using bite and hold tactics to break through the lines. The French were confident that their forces could react in time to plug the gap.

The Germans gambled on an offensive through the Ardennes, had their forces been held up, their situation might have ended up much like it had in 1944 and the campaign for France might end up differently. The Germans might still defeat the French, but it would not have seemed as effortless as it seems.

Did that Simpsons episode coincide with all the "freedom fries" nonsense.

As I recall it had more to do with a teacher's strike or something.
Groundskeeper Willie was the substitute French teacher. "Bonjourrrrrrrrr, you Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys!"
Note the shirt and beret.
YouTube link

I know it's technically not rap, but Daft Punk is awesome! :-) So however good French rap may or may not be, their house music holds its own.

The truth is that after Dunkirk, the French fought pretty hard. It was all lost at that point, but French pride still gave the Germans some bloody days before the armistice.

Absolutely!

As well, more than 200,000 French soldiers were rescued from the Dunkirk pocket. Most of them opted to go back and fight on the mainland, even knowing that it was all probably lost. They don't make men like that anymore. Brave soldiers all.

The Germans apparently were "1 trick ponies." They had some stunning victories early in the war including the opening phases of Barbarossa. After that, everything was a bit more hard fought. They eschewed static defenses early on and lived in them from 43 onward.

Pointing out that the French surrendered keeps everyone from realizing that:

America was sitting at home.
The British were running for the beaches.
The Russians were still associated with the Germans.

So.. find me someone who killed more Germans than the French did in 1940.

"There wasn't a Polish equivalent to Mers-el-Kebir, though."

There were, many.

First, neither France nor GB (nor USA, but USA wasnt polish ally then) did not reveal to Poland what was in Secret Protocol of Ribbentrop-Molotov pact (1.Hans von Herwarth->Bohlen->Cordell Hull->Halifax->Bonnet & 2.Lammers->Coulondre). Even if they knew it from two sources 25.08.1939. Even if Poland give them Enigma.

Second, even if GB & F knew SP of R-M Pact they had offer crappy guarantees. Just to force Poland into war (there was discussion in Poland before the war to agree with German demands and join the Axis). The fact is GB & France knew they will not have ability to fulfill militarily their own guarantes BEFORE they propose them. It was in best interest of GB&F to start the war in Poland, but it was unfair and treacherous to Poland.

Poles knew this, still they defend France with 3 divisions and Britain during BoB.

Even after Teheran and Jalta, when Eastern Poland was given to Soviet while Western Poland was condemned to be communist, Poles still fight. Most Poles killed during battle for Monte Cassino were form Eastern Poland, they knew their homes were sold by their very allies, still they fight.

link

So going back to topic of thread: yes there were national differences in morale.

But because of history, not ethnicity.

See, poor, newly raised, encircled Poland was fighting from 1.09.1939 till 5.10.1939 (time of last major battle), for 37 days, against both Germany and Soviet Russia (even if war was lost 17 of October when USSR had backstabbed Poland, breaking non-aggression pact) and never capitulated. While four colonial Empires, ruling more than half of world population (Canada, Australia, nearly whole Africa (except Libya and Liberia) + South Africa, Caribbean, Middle East, India, Southern Asia – were fighting with alone Germany (forget Italy) from 10 May till 22 June – total 43 days.

Why morale of Poles were then so high?
Poles were described as Japans of Europe, due to national fatality (first words of anthem: "Poland has not perished yet, So long as we still live"), overpropagandizing population (all Poles had been brainwashed by propaganda so they were sure about easy won with Germany) and fanatic love to their so recently regained Motherland. For example Poland was the only European country which have been developing kamikadze weapons: link

Why morale of WAllies in 1940 were generally low?
Because of horrible loses of WWI and to lesser degree because of communist pro-nazi propaganda.

And let me fogive to say that today because of loses at WW2 all Europeans, including myself, generally have low morale. While Ukrainians (quite big part of them, at least) still want to fight for their recently reborn Ukraine.

See, IMHO war is eliminating from society and gene pool most courageous people, while those less heroic survive and prosper.

Just my 2 cents.

I always assumed the slur was for political reasons. To me it is a reaction that stems for the animosity generated by Charles de Gaulle charting his own course for France and alienating the US and UK. The slur seems to get reinvigorated from time to time when France is at odds with the US over some military action. I think I first encountered it when France refused to allow US military planes over its territory in 1986 when the US attacked Libya.

If France had remained more closely aligned with the US and UK, I don't think the slur would have had any traction.

There was also an incident in 1944 when De Gaulle threatened to stop French railways from carrying supplies to Allied forces unless French troops were permitted to liberate Strassbourg. De Gaulle's haughty and abrasive attitude to those who gave him sanctuary won him no friends over the water and as you say, had relations been closer, the myth would probably have gained no traction.

Thanks for posting that Umpapa. I always felt it was shameful how Poland was treated during and after WW2 – and yet they fought on until the end – even after they had been 'sold out' as you rightly put it.

As for Polish morale, don't forget the Warsaw uprising in August-September 1944.

I believe it is due to most people not really knowing the history of French military.

Franco-Prussian War – How many people know anything about it other than the French lost?

W.W. I – Most people don't know that the French were the ones that took the most losses and defended the most ground on the Western Front. Truly the winners of W.W. I.

W.W. II – France falls in roughly 7 weeks, yet the French military (with British help) inflicted heavy damage upon the Germans. 1/3 of Bomber force destroyed and 1/4 of fighters in German Luftwaffe.

French Indo-China – Not many understand that French could not win that war without major US help. US did pay for 80% of the war, but really needed to unleash B-29's on supply trails (read B-52 later, but too late to stop commies). France lost 75,000 men in that war.

Algeria – Another fight that the French military won, but was given away by government. 50,000 plus killed in that conflict.

So, with those wars France is 2 and 3. No mention of actions in Africa (Chad Toyota Wars, for example).

I like the French people, the food, wine and country. I've always had a good time there. 3 trips so far and yes, I've been to Paris. Great city and people.

America was sitting at home.
The British were running for the beaches.
The Russians were still associated with the Germans.

That's a it below the belt. Well apart from the Americans sat at home, of course. :-) The British didn't start heading for the beaches until there was no option. As for casualties inflicted the French outnumbered all the the other allies engaged in 1940, so would be very surprised if they didn't cause the most casualties overall, but what are the figures like if you break it down per 1,000 French, British, Dutch or Belgian troops engaged?

And as mentioned above, 51st HD was still fighting long after Dunkirk, with 1st Armoured Div and 1st Canadian Div on the way (1st Armoured Div was hammered on the Seine, but I don't think the Canadians got into action before the capitulation).

The French army was defeated in battle and French political leadership saw no point in a war where hundred of thousands of civilians would be needlessly killed. So the only way left for them was to surrender and save lives.

Funny, I was under the impression that any time the French army actually fought instead of getting bypassed and cut off from support, the Krauts got their teeth kicked in.

But the problem was that the French command structure was set up to re-fight WW1 at a very slow operational tempo, while the radio allowed for a very, very fast-moving battle.

When the French Army HQ doesn't even have a bloody phone in it, you're just screeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewed.

Individual French soldiers? Plenty brave. French politicians and senior Army leadership? Couldn't pour out of a boot with instructions written on the heel.

Just watched the World at War episode on the French in 39-40, brilliant at showing how an army is just an extension of it's society. France fell because French society was not prepared for war, Germany's alas, was.

I would say the other factor is the shock of French defeat. France was expected to be the heavy hitter on land as it had been in WW1 and when they were swept away there was an attempt to diminish the French rather than admit it was a colossal and potentially fatal blow to the Allied cause.

On the comparison between Polish and French free forces, I am wondering if the geo-strategic circumstances for rallying free armies might have differed between the two?

In 1939, France had not yet been invaded, which enabled many Poles in exile to organise there. Similarly, but later, the Poles who were in the USSR in 1942 could be transferred among allied powers.

Prior to 1943, or even 1944, however, did many Continental French have a similar place to assemble, apart from the UK, which was across the Channel?

I appreciate the contributions most on this thread that have a wider perspective. Personally, I think the 'rot' set in in the 1860s. The world was amazed that the French got hit so hard by Mexicans at Puebla and onwards – eventually leaving the country in ignominy. The endless boasting of Napoleon III, his generals and their Press now meant that many countries had the opportunity for a good sneer at their performance.

Then they did it again in the FPW – Prussians defeated them in every real battle. Mass surrenders. Internal collapse. Political mayhem. That's why Zola wrote Le Debacle. Then they did it again in 1940! That's why Sartre wrote 'Iron in the Soul'.

I know that it is grossly unfair to skip the many instances on bravery – and of success. I reckon it was the boastfulness prior to several debacles over at least a century that has cemented the myth. Big talk prior to debacle in Algeria. Big talk prior to collapse in Indo-China. In each case the politicians aided by the popular press first over-praised then let down their own troops.

Final answer to the question – because French veterans themselves gave their performances in at least the 5 conflicts named above a 'bad rap'.

France in 1940 is always mystifying. Pre-war, they were considered the best army in Europe. On paper, they had more troops and tanks, and heavier tanks, than Germany. The collapse in six weeks took the whole world by surprise, but seems mostly to have made possible by the placement of lower-grade reservists in the critical Sedan sector. And their poor performance has colored the entire French armed forces with the same brush in the decades since.