Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The unification of Germany to its east created a powerful new enemy that France simply couldn't compete with in a straight conflict.
Just as important was a gradual erosion of the country's demographic dominance. Throughout the Medieval and early modern periods, France could often overwhelm its neighbors with sheer manpower. As other countries began to unify, and increase their populations, France's demographic advantages declined.
France hit its high-water mark in the Napoleonic era relative to other European powers. France had 30 million citizens while Britain only had 15 million. Germany and Italy did not exist as nations. Only Russia exceeded France in population. By WW1, France's population (40 million) was surpassed by England (47 million), Austria-Hungary (47 million), and Germany 67 million. Further, the German economy had greatly surpassed France and was 2nd only to the U.S. in industrial might. France was no longer the dominant European power as they lagged behind Germany and Britain.
France's negative military reputation mostly boils down to WW2 and the Franco-Prussian War. Those were epic military collapses. If we remove those two wars, France's military reputation is actually quite impressive. The original poster overlooked the Crimean War fought against Russia during the 1850's.
In WW1, France fought quite well considering the circumstances. They were attacked by the German Army, which was the gold standard of the time, and outnumbered France almost 2:1 in population, manpower, and military equipment. They bent several times, but did not break. France suffered the worst casualties as a % of population of any major power except for Russia. Their military casualties amounted to over 30% of the male population of military age. Germany by comparison (who lost the war) had casualties amounting to only 8% of their male population.
By WW2, France was at a huge demographic disadvantage relative to Germany due to the generational losses they sustained in WW1. France was still able to field a huge army numbering 4-5 million. They got their butts kicked more due to strategic blunders than fighting skill. There were many reasons that are another subject for another thread.
Napoleon seems to be the last time France was capable of doing anything militaryly right. Since then they seem to have been pretty bad. They were completely destroyed and humiliated during the Franco Prussian war, had it not been for Britain, and their friends Germany would have destroyed them in WWI, in WWII well..... You all know how that goes.
So why, after Napoleon have they been such complete failures when it comes to war?
France hit its high-water mark in the Napoleonic era relative to other European powers. France had 30 million citizens while Britain only had 15 million. Germany and Italy did not exist as nations. Only Russia exceeded France in population. By WW1, France's population (40 million) was surpassed by England (47 million), Austria-Hungary (47 million), and Germany 67 million. Further, the German economy had greatly surpassed France and was 2nd only to the U.S. in industrial might. France was no longer the dominant European power as they lagged behind Germany and Britain.
France's negative military reputation mostly boils down to WW2 and the Franco-Prussian War. Those were epic military collapses. If we remove those two wars, France's military reputation is actually quite impressive. The original poster overlooked the Crimean War fought against Russia during the 1850's.
In WW1, France fought quite well considering the circumstances. They were attacked by the German Army, which was the gold standard of the time, and outnumbered France almost 2:1 in population, manpower, and military equipment. They bent several times, but did not break. France suffered the worst casualties as a % of population of any major power except for Russia. Their military casualties amounted to over 30% of the male population of military age. Germany by comparison (who lost the war) had casualties amounting to only 8% of their male population.
By WW2, France was at a huge demographic disadvantage relative to Germany due to the generational losses they sustained in WW1. France was still able to field a huge army numbering 4-5 million. They got their butts kicked more due to strategic blunders than fighting skill. There were many reasons that are another subject for another thread.
This
At the onset of WW ll, France could have swamped the German army..rolled over them with sheer numerical superiority. But the French leadership put too much stock in the Maginot Line..classic military mistake..assuming the next war will be fought with the tactics of the last war.
Also the political will just was not there.
As a side note: the French Foreign Legion has served with distinction in many conflicts.
They foght well in Argelia, in Dien Bien Fu, they fought well during WWII but were treasoned by politicians. They fought well during WWI. Plus, they have done a lot of dirty deeds which Americans did not have the guts to do.
I think the French fought valiantly in the First World War, despite unimaginative leadership. The Free French in World War II also fought extremely well. The French fought well in Desert Storm and have distinguished themselves in Afghanistan, too.
The Franco Prussian War was a case of bad leadership.
May 1940 was a case of bad doctrine and bad leadership. But that's not something to lay at the feet of the French fighting man.
Napoleon seems to be the last time France was capable of doing anything militaryly right. Since then they seem to have been pretty bad. They were completely destroyed and humiliated during the Franco Prussian war, had it not been for Britain, and their friends Germany would have destroyed them in WWI, in WWII well..... You all know how that goes.
So why, after Napoleon have they been such complete failures when it comes to war?
I am not certain about the historical details regarding WWI and WWII for France. But I am very familiar with the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu. I read that book called "Hell in a Very Small Place" about Dien Bien Phu. It was an excellent overview of the failed French strategy at that doomed garrison.
Factors for the defeat:
* weather impeded supply transport - the rain and clouds impacted supply drops and bombers
* PAVN (North Vietnamese) anti-aircraft guns were unexpected and shot down many French planes
* PAVN mounted artillery by surprise at higher elevations in hill surrounding the fortress
* Underground tunnels dug by PAVN
* Advanced artillery batteries and training by Chinese officers and experts. Some artillery had been captured by the Chinese in the Korean War.
Ironically, the North Vietnamese has American artillery captured in Korea and given to them by Chinese officers with training.
* PAVN, by surprise, also had Russian-supplied rockets
* Poor positioning - the French were surrounded in a valley
* Lack of supplies - an engineering design failure on fortifications. The French had less than 10% of the supplies to effectively support the structure needed to withstand heavy artillery
* Lack of medical aid - many wounded were overwhelmed with maggots in the damaged tissue
* Lack of political and civilian support - the French Indochina War was widely unpopular among civilians and politicians
So the French were doomed at Dien Bien Phu and then routed badly. Many of the captured prisoners died on a death march. A small group escaped in "Operation Albatross" but were stigmatized for the survival when many had died. It was indeed "hell in a very small place". Here, a fictional scene shows French survivors in "Apocalypse Now - Redux".
Napoleon seems to be the last time France was capable of doing anything militaryly right. Since then they seem to have been pretty bad. They were completely destroyed and humiliated during the Franco Prussian war, had it not been for Britain, and their friends Germany would have destroyed them in WWI, in WWII well..... You all know how that goes.
So why, after Napoleon have they been such complete failures when it comes to war?
After WW I, France decided to build a better version, but of course in France. This was opposed by a number of military leaders, but eventually adopted more as a national security blanket than anything the military thought would work.
France had learned from WW I, and it's military fought on both sides. The resistance was with the allies, and was mostly a pain in the ass. The Vichy supplied troops to Germany, and was allied with Germany. Thus no matter which side won, France won. It played both sides at the same time.
Military not a great way to wage war, but diplomatically 3D chess vs checkers. Even to this day we are taught France fought with the allies. We are never taught that half of the French army fought alongside Germans until the end of the war.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
