Before I respond, bear in mind that this trope is about fictitious portrayals. This isn't an objective military assessment, and said military assessment can't be reliably objective since different people have different standards to measure military success/failure and inevitably nationalism enters the picture and ruins everything. After all World War II military history is inevitably poisoned by the Cold War where people keep fudging numbers to present the Soviet Union as evil and disrespecting the sacrifices of its armies. So there is Flame Bait and Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment involved.
With those caveats out of the way, let me respond to your complaints step-by-step:
1) If this analysis is pro-French, then it must be pointed out that the trope is a product of (mainly American) Francophobia and it's a product of right-wing American militarism in The War On Terror, because some politicians and cultural warriors were angry at Dominique de Villepin's speech at the UN against the Iraq War(a highly rational and accurate speech as it turned out). So if this analysis is "pro-French", it must be understood in context. If we are going to write off and judge countries based on a legacy of military defeat and surrender, we can say include Poland and Italy more reliably than the French. Or you know we can slag former colonial countries, India was a nation of millions ruled by a small collection of Englishmen after all...we can make a trope about how the masses of Indians are ghee-eating-docile-tigers and it would be Flame Bait to make that into a trope, for rather obvious reasons. The reason for this trope's existence, or rather this page's existence, has absolutely nothing to do with any objective assessment of France's military history, it has to do because France in 2003 opposed America's invasion to Iraq and it's important we don't lose sight of that.
2) For most people who are not obsessed with the semantics of military history and grand strategy, the degree and kind of victory and defeat during The American Revolution would not be truly important or relevant. After all, George Washington's reputation is undiminished by the fact that he never won any significant major engagement as a general, and French support is crucial to the narrative of this analysis after all. The same applies to France winning The Hundred Years War. As for World War I and World War II, those two situations are highly politicized as it is, and I have read different accounts from what you have mentioned here. Namely that the French at the start of the war, had a smaller army than the first one as a result of a great deal of losses suffered at the end of the First War.
3) Spain did declare war on France and invaded the South, via the Pyrenees, during The French Revolution...that was the period where France was literally surrounded on all sides and its geography did very little favors. The justification of borders is mainly addressed to American tropers who because of their considerable borders of two oceans, perhaps don't quite appreciate the nuances of France's geopolitical and military situation.
4) I have not seen Dragon Ball Z, so I don't quite get who that reference is addressed to. In any case, France has a long history of militarism and conquest, which is frankly not something to get hung over in this modern world.
1) It's not just success/failure. It's reputation. It's what was accomplished. Italy and Poland don't have the reputation of being great military countries, so they get a pass. Likewise, former colonies don't count either, because that would be a completely different trope (if it's a trope at all). As far as the trope itself goes, the trope namer is a 1996 episode of the Simpsons, well before 9/11 and the War on Terror. The Trope Maker would be the Franco-Prussian War, the Ur-Example (a strange case where the Ur-Example comes AFTER the Maker) would be WW 1 (or if you want an example from before the Franco-Prussian War, the American Revolution, as I pointed out), and the Trope Codifier would be of course WW 2. All examples of this trope being played out 140-70 years ago, long before Osama was a gleam in his parents' eyes.
2) I am a person obsessed with the semantics of military history and grand strategy, so I view this trope in that light. For people who studied history, George Washington was a passable commander, but a great leader. He is known as the American Fabius. We had better tactical minds (Daniel Morgan and Benedict Arnold come to mind), but no one who could have won the American Revolution like Washington, so his reputation is deserved, if not accurate. As far as France having a smaller army than Germany during the Battle of France, Poland had a smaller than France's army, and yet Poland was atleast costing the Germans heavily, if not holding their own, until the Soviets got involved and launched a rear attack.
3) And yet France has natural terrain to protect it from attack. Maybe not to the level of the two oceans that protect America, but more than Germany or Israel have.
4) The Dragonball reference was an analogy. Look up The Worf Effect for how it works. And as far as militarism and conquest goes, Prussia (and later Germany) has the militarism. Conquest has England. Want a perfect example of French cowardice? Look no further than the Saar "offensive., and I use that term only because that's what it's called. During the Battle of Poland, to divert troops from Poland, France "attacked" toward Germany, but stopped before encountering any resistance. And the Germans had 22 divisions on defense compared to the 40 attacking French divisions, and yet they cut and ran at the first sign of possible resistance.
Edited by irinicus
1. All examples of this trope being played out 140-70 years ago, long before Osama was a gleam in his parents' eyes.
Well as is clear to most people on the planet, this entered the mainstream during The War On Terror. For most people, The Franco-Prussian War is your usual 19th Century Conflict like the Crimean War. Likewise, not everyone in the world sees the Simpsons.
2. I am a person obsessed with the semantics of military history and grand strategy, so I view this trope in that light.
Well this trope is not solely about your views of military history and your, I must say, rather visible Francophobic bias. I have read military historians who are rather positive or at least neutral towards France.
3. . And as far as militarism and conquest goes, Prussia (and later Germany) has the militarism. Conquest has England.
Well from the perspective of the Algerians, the Indo-Chinese, the Haitians, Senegal, Gabon and other African nations, not to mention Austria (who were pummelled into irrelevance by the French Revolutionary Army and Napoleon), Netherlands (or the "Low Countries"), and many other nations, France is a conqueror, an occupier and military expansionist. Likewise, France played a major role in destabilizing Germany during the Thirty Years' War. These might be minor and unimportant countries in your estimate, but they are clearly not to the people who live there.
1) So, just because the War on Terror popularized it, doesn't mean it didn't exist before. I just wanted to point out that that trope is accurate from a historical perspective.
2) I don't consider myself a Francophobe, and if it seems that way, it's just this analysis needs the perspective WHY it exists. And it might be a little that I'm holding France to it's reputation.
3) You sort of have a point there, but let me go over them in order. Algeria: pummeled into submission first by the US Navy, who took them on during a time when the US wasn't even considered a minor power.Indo-Chineese? If that's the areas of China and India, Britain, Japan, Germany, and Russia all had just as much a part of subjugating them as the French (if not more so).Africa is the same way (only substituting Belgium for Russia). The Haitians? True that was France (and you also neglected to mention Mexico), but what makes that any different than Cuba or Mexico, or Panama, or Columbia? France wasn't the only one colonizing the Caribbean.Austria was a Great Power (or atleast considered one) right up until Bismark conquered it...The Low Countries have always been considered a road bump between France and Germany/Russia. Not to mention Spain controlled the Netherlands as well, right up until the Dutch rebelled.
Here's a website that sums up France's military history pretty well: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
For someone who touts himself as an expert on military history to cite a non-academic link (bereft of sources, references, citations and plainly filled with snide comments) is not very helpful in my view. The fact that you don't seem to be aware what Indo-China refers to is quite uninspiring. Indo-China has always referred to the countries on the coast of the South China Sea, between East India and China, namely, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia. I'll say one thing about the French, compared to the Americans, they don't deny they lost to North Vietnam.
You don't have to consider yourself a Francophobe to express sentiments characteristic of one. There is a page for Gauls with Grenades dealing with French military history.
You have not given any reason for anyone to change or correct the Analysis page as it stands, which is accurate, fair and balanced. So that's that.
This analysis is decidedly written from a pro-French view. Let's go with the first one, the American Revolution. Yes, France won the Battle of the Chesapeake (and it was equivalent to Jutland- The French received more damage, but held the area. So it was a tactical stalemate, just a strategic victory for the French), and helped train the Patriots (although it was Von Stuben at Valley Forge that did most of the work). What was failed to mention, it was France's only real success. The same fleet tried attacking Jamaica, and was decisively defeated. They also had an equal amount of success (meaning none whatsoever) attacking India.
Number 2, the Hundred Years Was. Sure France won, but it took them EIGHTY SIX YEARS to take 2 provinces. And that was due less to French competence (or lack there of) and more due to the fact England ran out of money, and the nobles refused higher taxes to fight it. In the batttles outside of the ones Joan fought, the French kept losing.
Number 3, the WW 1. If it hadn't been for the BEF and the Belgians putting up a bit more resistance than expected, WW 1 might have been known as the Franco/Russian-German War. They took massive casualties DEFENDING their land, so much that they couldn't stomach attacking Germany, even with American and British support, thereby setting part of the seeds of WW 2 (Foch, one of the few competent native French commanders said, when he viewed the Armistice, "This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years").
And then there's WW 2. France was overrun in SIX WEEKS. Sure, they took a lot of losses, and one thing that is pointed out (somewhere) the French took more losses during the Battle of France then the Allies did liberating her. Problem with that is the British (and to a lesser extent, the Americans) had the Germans so bamboozled/convinced the main Allies attack would be at Calais, that some 35 divisions didn't respond to Normandy. If they did, it certainly would have been a lot bloodier. And let's not forget, France built the Maginot Line forcing the Germans to attack (one of) two areas, and they STILL lost in said six weeks.
And ten there's the final bit about geography. And how France had to be prepared to fight on all sides. Well, not really. France and Spain have (usually) been allies, so attacks from Spain were rare (and only for about a hundred years, say from the early 1500s to the 1600s was Spain a threat to France. Who would attack from the Mediterranean? France's main threats were England (who could only reliably attack Calais), Germany, and Italy. And The English Channel protects France from England as much as it protects England. The Alps and the Pyrenees provide a buffer from Italy and Spain respectively, so their only real threat is from Germany (and Russia attacking through Germany, which was just as great a threat pre-German Unification). Israel is in an even worse position (limited population/reserves, no terrain protecting it, and completely surrounded by enemies that would love to see it destroyed), and yet is far more successful at fighting wars.
All in all, France has the reputation of Goku, but the track record of Yamcha (maybe a bit better, but not to the level of Tien or Krillen) from DBZ.
Edited by irinicus Hide / Show Replies