🍊orange fursona🧡
Does the stereotype not help that France's national symbol is a chicken?
ᜇᜎᜈ᜔ᜇᜈ᜔|I DO COMMISSIONS|ᜇᜎᜈ᜔ᜇᜈ᜔ Hide / Show Replies
I thought it was a rooster
. A rooster doesn't have the same connotations as chicken...
Rooster as connotations of being hypersexualized, preening, pomposity and boastfulness. So it fits the French Jerk page...
Did you know this is a regional trope, that only Americans use? British often have the same stereotypes regarding French , except that one . And Japanese don't have it (to them, a French person is blond and refined, but coward? Nope). I wondered why for a while then realized : It's the wrong side to have been allies forever, and never fought.
Japan couldn't be shocked by the WWII surrender; it was in the Axis, so it was joining the good side, in its eyes. As for Europeans, it certainely shocked them, but remember: the ancestors of British, Germans, Spanish, Italians, etc; had to fought French at some point.
When they won, well , "victory without risk brings triumph without glory. " They certainly won't admit it was easy, against an unworthy opponent, and that Waterloo station or Trafalgar square were named after picnic parties, against a bunch of pansies.
And when they loose (no, really, it happened: Patay, Orléans, Marignan, Austerlitz...), it would be belittling the ancestors's pain.
So, this opinion isn't shared at all.
Ad luna in flama gloria.
Didn't Adolf Hitler refer to the French as "cheese eating surrender monkeys"?
Hide / Show Replies
It's much more recent than Hitler. 1995, apparently.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I have to wonder: To what extent is the development of this Trope a matter of not fighting alongside us? (The "us" in this case being England and America) The attitude of France with regards to NATO actions, combined with the enmity between du Gaulle and Churchill bordering on Enemy Mine levels, suggests that it's more of an "If I can't lead, then I won't play" attitude than a "War is Bad" attitude. (Not that other nations don't have the same problem.)
EDIT: Incidentally, most of France's colonies had Wars of Independence. England, meanwhile, learned a good deal from Washington's Rebellion and tried to make amicable splits with their remaining colonies, which they did a majority of the time.
Edited by 216.99.32.42 Ketchum's corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced tactic is indistinguishable from blind luck. Hide / Show Replies
I would hardly call Mao-Mao an 'amicable split', nor would I say that the British really tried their hardest to avoid it or hold themselves back from a great deal of cruelty and brutality during it. Being less evil than others is still, well, being evil after all. "It's like being the thinnest kid at Fat Camp", as I heard someone say. What were you trying to say when you brought up colonies, though? o_0
I reckon you've got a point there, though. Bronze002 (see above) was pointing out just how strained Anglo-American-French relations were during WWII, but there really is a tangible difference between our gripes with them back then (giving up too easily, not helping enough, taking too much credit) and our gripes with them in 2003 (cowardice, and rightly pointing out that the war we wanted them to join was illegal and probably a bad idea).
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. — Mark Twain
This troper has heard the "France = Unconditional Immediate Surrender" trope since his earliest days (70's), so it is definitely not Newer Than They Think; it started with the initial loss in WWII and was codified during the Viet Nam war, with France eventually abandoning the country to the American forces (until the Americans left, NOT because they lost but for *completely* different reasons). When France refused to allow American bombers to fly through French airspace in the 80's while bombing Qaddafi, this trope was long embedded in the public consciousness; hell, the Simpsons episode it is named for came out in 1995! The heading needs to be gutted and rewritten; it wouldn't be trashing someone's work - it would be cleaning up someone's trash. It's factually wrong and offensively so.
Hide / Show Replies
People from the USA seem to like to use the word 'offensive' a lot. However, I do not believe in being courteous - I believe in being right.
The age of this trope is a question worth asking. Who else thinks this is Older Than They Think, and what evidence can they supply?
I would've thought that the Guerre d'Algerie would've been more important than the Guerre d'Indochine, at least domestically. The former was far bloodier and more controversial.
On an aside note, can you explain why you felt the need to claim that the USA did not lose her 'Vietnam War'? I was under the impression that people in the US were more concerned with the people who were killed and crippled in the war than abstract things like power and glory.
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. — Mark Twain
The fact that everyone here thinks this stereotype is new must be because of the site being mostly teenagers and twenty-somethings.
Back in 1945, US soldiers hated the French so much that the military had to hand out guidebooks arguing against common complaints about the French
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112_Gripes_About_the_French
The gripes run the gamut of "the French are lazy" to "the French can't drive a car", but a few are particularly relevant to this discussion
6. "We're always pulling the French out of a jam. Did they ever do anything for us?" 18. "The French let us down when the fighting got tough. What did they do - as fighters - to help us out?" 76. "The French have no courage. Why can't they defend themselves against the Germans ?" 77. "The French don't even have enough men to stand up against the Germans." 78. "The French didn't put up a real fight against the Germans. They just let the Heinies walk in." 100. "What got my goat was all the publicity the French soldiers got! Take the Maquis and the FFI - the part they played in the war was exaggerated in the press 104. "After France fell, the French laid down and let the Germans walk all over them. They just waited for us to liberate them. Why didn't they put up a fight?"
So this stereotype has existed since at least 1945, though it may not have been as major back then since there were a LOT of things Americans hated about the French. I would've just added this to the examples section but the trope description really is wrong about how old this is.
Full book here: http://www.112gripes.com/index.html
Oho, I remember that one. I couldn't breathe for laughter XD
Hmm. I wonder... is it possible that there are waves to this thing? Perhaps our great-grandfathers really did hold a grudge from WWII - but there's no denying tjat the USA's 'War on Terror' brought it out again and gave it a different form.
That is to say, back then we were convinced that they were ungrateful glory-hounds who gave up too easily and didn't do their fair share of the dying. During the 'War on Terror' we were instead convinced that they were ungrateful cowards who didn't acknowledge the debt they owed us all for saving them from Communism.
..that sounded logical enough in my own head, but what do you think?
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. — Mark Twain
Is it just me or could this article really use a cleanup? It doesn't even read like any of the other tropes on the site because it's not even trying to be funny. If you ask me, the main article looks like one too many edit wars went horribly wrong. I can't be the only one who noticed this.
Hide / Show Replies
I noticed too. The article is more of an analysis on french victories than the trope's use in fiction and is too long to read for a trope entry. I think a good chunk of it would find a better place in Useful Notes on France, we can keep a few key points in the article and link to Useful Notes from here.
This article needs serious work. However unfair the stereotype against the French may be, TV Tropes is not the venue to argue the point.
I would clean it up myself, but this isn't Wikipedia. We don't trash each other's work here. I would instead urge the original writer (if (s)he is even reading this discussion) to dramatically reduce the uninteresting and boring proof that the stereotype is invalid, and summarize it in a single short paragraph.
Then allow the article to move on to funny stuff.
I think a better way to organize the article is so give a more brief description of the trope, and a quick explanation that the stereotype is historically inaccurate, with a "see real life section for more explanation", and then move all this history stuff about France's history with wars to a Real-Life section.
Real Life section pulled: There's enough note in the description, we're not a historical debate site, and that it reaches five stars and a "Wankable," make it clear that it's Flame Bait
- In an inversion, the French were the first to militarily support and diplomatically recognize the Libyan National Transitional Council, catalyzing the passage and enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 by NATO and others.
- Some analysts believe that ironically, this is because of their avoidance of the Iraq War; if the Western powers were a sports team, France would be the "fresh guy".
- No, that was because Nicolas Sarkozy thought it was a good opportunity to make people forget he completely failed to support revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. And there may be some hidden reasons...
- An Economist article actually referred to the trope by name. To quote, "Who's a cheese-eating surrender monkey now, eh?"
- While France did perform poorly in WW 2 and the Franco-Prussian War, it has had quite a successful war history. During much of the modern era, France was an innovator in military matters and generally seen as the prime military power in Europe. Also, while France did fall rather quickly in WW 2, it managed to inflict quite some casualties on the Germans (for example, the Luftwaffe lost almost a quarter of its aircaft), with French soldiers performing quite adequately and brave. Finally, the Free French and the Résistance showed that the French people were willing to fight back, instead of surrendering and cowering.
- After WWII, France also lost major colonial wars in Vietnam and Algeria. Their 20th century win-loss record isn't as good as their 19th century one.
- Of course, this neglects that France didn't lose either war for military reasons. Both conflicts were lost due to political issues at home.
- Though this is very true of Algeria, Indochina was lost by a military slow to adapt and (again) fighting a war against new tactics with the ones of the last and with terribly little support from its own population and politicians. The Paras and Legion learned, the leaders did not. Navarre and Cogny basically FAILED miserably and sacrificed the elite of the French army (fighting with extreme valour, endurance and elan) in a faraway and insignificant valley against a VASTLY superior Viet Minh force. The Paras and Legion officers then, determined to never loose a colonial war to insurgents again, took subversive warfare to a new level in Algeria.
- Wankable, really. The Viet Minh took hell even when it won, and even after Dien Bien Phu the French still controlled the majority of Indochina, and had reinforcements from the Metropolitan arrived or the petitioned-for American aid been granted, Dien Bien Phu might have gone down as something that would have made Pyrrhus proud. But that would have cost far more than the French public was in any mood to stomach whatsoever.
- Though this is very true of Algeria, Indochina was lost by a military slow to adapt and (again) fighting a war against new tactics with the ones of the last and with terribly little support from its own population and politicians. The Paras and Legion learned, the leaders did not. Navarre and Cogny basically FAILED miserably and sacrificed the elite of the French army (fighting with extreme valour, endurance and elan) in a faraway and insignificant valley against a VASTLY superior Viet Minh force. The Paras and Legion officers then, determined to never loose a colonial war to insurgents again, took subversive warfare to a new level in Algeria.
- Of course, this neglects that France didn't lose either war for military reasons. Both conflicts were lost due to political issues at home.
- Also, popular belief about how France lost World War II is terribly inaccurate. The popular version is that the French sat behind the Maginot Line while the Germans went around it, through Belgium. The truth is that the Maginot Line was designed to force the Germans to go through Belgium, but the whole basis for that plan was the Germans would never, ever repeat their World War I's tactics of going through the Ardennes. Thus, the French and British sent their best mobile forces to the wrong part of Belgium: the northern plains, instead of the seemingly impenetrable Ardennes forest. Had England and France planned better, noticed this earlier, or just left Belgium to the Germans and fortified the France-Belgium border, they would have been likely able to stop the German forces. Ironically Manstein's feint luring the Allies to N. Belgium to be trapped by the "sickelschnitt" was exactly the same basic tactic that Napoleon used at Austerlitz.
- There's also the belief that the Germans plowed through France because their tanks were awesome while the French tanks were outdated crap. While the French tanks were based on more World War I lines, they were still rather solid and capable. The Char B1-bis was feared by the Germans, and one Char called Eure took out a whopping 13 German Panzer IIIs and IVs by itself—and in an ambush set up by the Germans no less. The reason French armor ultimately lost was that their best tanks were fuel hogs, there were no where near enough, and French tank tactics didn't use their strengths effectively *.
- If the Germans had really disdained French tanks as crap, they would not have gone to the trouble of refurbishing as many as they possibly could for Wehrmacht use - and forcing French factories to provide ongoing logisitic support in terms of spare parts and maintainance/ovehauls. In contrast, captured British tanks were largely disdained and ignored, at best used for training and third-class units, or else used as end-war desperation issue. Upgraded French tanks mounting German heavy guns were still in front-line use in 1945.
- Both the Maginot Line issue and the tank issue were because France was completely unprepared for war due to financial problems and the fact that it was still suffering from the consequences of the first World War where France was one of the countries to suffer the most losses. (Also the reason why France was so reluctant to agree to Chamberlain's appeasement policies.) This is illustrated by the story of Churchill asking General Gamelin where the French reserves were, to which Gamelin replied: "There are none." And the material and human losses of World War I meant that the majority of the population did not want another war (just like English politicians prior to Churchill had yielded to Hitler's demands in Austria and Sudetenland to avoid a conflict). That'S why in May 1940, Petain was seen as a hero and the reasonable man, while De Gaulle was the hot-headed extremist.
- After WWII, France also lost major colonial wars in Vietnam and Algeria. Their 20th century win-loss record isn't as good as their 19th century one.
- While Napoleon was, technically, not French, the soldiers under him definitely were. During the Napoleonic Wars, France controlled an empire comparable to that of Nazi Germany.
- Plus, Napoleon also owed his military training and career to his service in the French army, and rose as far as he did thanks to the French Revolution.
- In a further inversion, the national anthem of France, La Marseillaise, is one of the most martial and bloodthirsty of any nation at any period. To illustrate, the chorus refers to watering their fields with the impure blood of their enemies, and some of the verses are even more violent.
- A common misconception, even amongst French people. The "impure blood" is not the blood of enemies, but the blood of the French themselves ("impure" meaning here "not noble", i.e. the common people). So it's about not being afraid to die to defend the nation's future, even if the leaders are defeated, which fits surprisingly well with the Resistance.
- An analysis published by the American Army concludes that the French soldiers are amongst the best there is when they are properly led. It all comes down to leadership. Under a Napoleon, De Gaulle, Louis XIV, De Lattre De Tassigny or Bigeard they will fight like devils, but under a Petain they will not.
- There has been quoted a 1940 discussion of Prime Minister Reynaud and General Gamelin, the latter having snapped: "I do not trust De Gaulle, he's just a youngster" (Gamelin being 68 by then). To which the Prime Minister asked De Gaulle (just before making him an Undersecretary of State for War) his age (50) and replied: "At your age, Napoleon had already made and unmade all his conquests and his career had ended."
- De Gaulle was not a brilliant tactician in the field, he was more of a forward thinker and an inspirational leader. In the 30's, he published several writings on the necessity to make more tanks and to better understand how to use them in battle; his views were dismissed because of his very tense relations with his former commanding officer, Petain, who happened to be one of the most decorated and revered heroes of WW I.
- There has been quoted a 1940 discussion of Prime Minister Reynaud and General Gamelin, the latter having snapped: "I do not trust De Gaulle, he's just a youngster" (Gamelin being 68 by then). To which the Prime Minister asked De Gaulle (just before making him an Undersecretary of State for War) his age (50) and replied: "At your age, Napoleon had already made and unmade all his conquests and his career had ended."
- Joan Of Arc kicked ass during the Hundred Years' War against England. Between ages 17 and 19, she raised the siege of Orleans and was responsible for (and present at) the coronation of the rightful King of France. So what did he do when she got captured? Wimped out completely and let her die. Her mother had to start up a movement to clear her name a few years later. She wasn't canonized for 500 years.
- Still an inversion, the "Attaque à outrance" (Attack to excess) strategy. In a nutshell, French armies used Leeroy Jenkins tactics. Roman Empire called it "Celtic boldness", Italy in the Middle ages: "Furia francese." They only gave up on it in WWI (that strategy killed a third of french army in 1914.)
- The lesser known Franco-Prussian War had France loose 140,000 men compared to 30,000 Prussians and German men (over 4-1 ratio).
- By 2002, successive short-term myopic defence cuts had ensured that for the very first time ever, Britain's Royal Navy was smaller than the French fleet. Nelson is said to have turned in his grave, although the modern British government is "relaxed" about this fact. In 2012, further defence cuts forced by the bankers' recession have raised the spectre of the Royal Navy chartering a surplus aircraft carrier from the French. You can probably power a small British town if you attached a dynamo to all the admirals spinning in their graves.
- It should also be noted that technologically and logistically speaking, the French armed forces are no joke. As stated above, the French navy is by quite a margin the largest and most advanced in Western European (they are one of the only country other than the US that operates a aircraft carrier that launches an aircraft comparable to the F/A-18 Superhornet and Su-33, the Dassault Rafale, whereas the three VTOL carriers the United Kingdom operates are can only launch the subsonic AV-8 Harrier). The French are also host to one of the most elite and battle-tested counter-terrorism units in the world, the GIGN.
Most of this seems to be saying it's not an example:
- Punch Out gives us Glass Joe, by far the weakest fighter in all his appearances.
- He doesn't truly count, however. True, he does portray the typical stereotype that all French people are weak; subverted though, because he never gives up, no matter how bad his record gets.
- And even Doc praises him for not surrendering. It takes a lot of things to have a 1-99 record in boxing. Cowardice is not one of them.
- It gets worse. The SNES game has Gabby Jay, who sports an identical 1-99 record and is even weaker, and worse, doesn't have a powered-up Top Ranked/Title Defense incarnation later on. In fairness, Germany's Von Kaiser isn't much better. Guess someone at Nintendo has a dim view of any nation that surrenders, regardless of when or how. (Kind of ironic, coming from a Japanese corporation.)
- Is it particularly ironic? Piston Honda only comes out as the third worst fighter, after all.
- Gabby Jay doesn't really seem to be French... he looks and sounds Southern American ("Come Awn!" "Yay!"). Maybe they started with Glass Joe, changed a few things to create a new character, and forgot to change the home town?
- Little known fact, the one fight Gabby Jay won was against Glass Joe.
If 72.88.47.239 thought the main article was bad, he hadn't seen the Real Life examples section; this wasn't "edit wars gone wrong," it was "View of Flanders, November 12, 1918." I hope my edits have given things a more 'TV Tropes' and less 'Wikipedia tribal feud' feel; after all, this is a trope, and is used as such.
I should probably consolidate these things further, so that there aren't multiple references to (say) Lafayette. A series of historical examples arranged by date, would prove my point that with the French military, it's either "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" or "entire country of Chuck Norrisses," and you can never tell in advance which one it's going to be this time.
I deleted the following from Film - Live Action because it's not correct. The French did not surrender to the Martians, they negotiated a settlement with them.
- In Mars Attacks, the French surrender to the attacking aliens. They are promptly wiped out.
Cliché
The way I remember it, the french leadership during WW 2 had WW 1 in it's memory when they surrendered so quickly. WW 1 was a huge, insane and apocalyptic meat grinder that cost a significant portion of young frenchmen their lives. The leadership during WW 2 was of the opinion that if the french battled the germans this hard again, there would simply not be any frenchmen left, and thus the french race would die out from a sheer lack of young men. So they surrendered not from unreflected cowardice, but consciously decided to save the french race.
I pretend to be a troll because it makes it easier for you to dismiss my opinion.
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Soapbox-y description
, started by helterskelter on Jul 23rd 2011 at 8:10:54 PM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman