"We surrender" Said the French

[Uskis]

I hate the whole french-surrender joke thing. It's primarily some butt-hurt americans response to the accusation of being uncultivated etc. I can totally understand the need for a good comeback, but I think the argument totally fails since:

The british/american had quite a bit of water between them and the panzers and dive-bombers of the blitzkrieg.

Considering this, can we please stop making that lame, worn out surrender-joke? I doubt other people would fare any better. France was pretty much alone on the continent, as far as my perception of history goes.

Also: I talked to a czech friend of mine, who told me that the Czecho-slovakians handed over all they're guns, ammo and equipment after Hitler threatened to crush them to pieces, thus allowing Hitler to equip his army and take control of Europa. Why don't you make czech "supply the germans with weapons"-jokes, or polish "use the nazis as an excuse to wipe out jews"-jokes.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

Battle of Hastings, 1066, only war I can think where they but us British, and that was Normandy not the whole of France.

 

[Lord George]

Forgive me for thinking that an entire nation is snobbish and full of itself when all the people i've met from that country are snobbish and full of themselves. Whatever gave me that idea?

Well, let's just say that most British we met gave us a Hitler greeting, that doesn't mean I despise the entire nation for being assholes, though.

That might have to do with this Fawlty Towers sketch. DON'T MENTION THE WAR.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." --- General George S. Patton

When I hear that sort of right wing American sound bite I automatically get suspicious and check with snopes for accuracy or general misleadingnessitude.

As I have a French mother-in-law, I am predisposed to believing all such slanders against the French, but this doesn't seem to ring true. Patton served in France in both World Wars and his "War as I Knew It" has a number of warm anecdotes about his experiences with the French. In addition, he had the French 2d Armored Division assigned to him during three separate periods. He complained long and loud each time they were taken away from him.

Patton was fluent in French and enjoyed socializing with the French people. He thought highly of several French officers, especially General Juin (who advised Patton on where best to penetrated the Siegfried Line) and General Giraud. Giraud had earlier served in the Metz garrison and provided Patton valuable advice as to how best the Third Army should attack it. In return, Patton made sure that his 4th Armored Division sought out and rescued Giraud's family, whom the Germans were holding prisoner in the vicinity of Weimar.

Patton's wartime memoirs are full of acerbic, candid and distinctly non-PC observations, but I didn't see any disparaging comments about the French army. On the contrary, when the 2d Armored (French) and 4th Infantry (US) Divisions arrived in Paris, Patton was tickled to hear the French troops had proudly announced to the press that they were still part of the Third Army (much to their disgust, they had to be transferred to the First Army to accomodate their participation in Paris' liberation).

The only time he mentions problems with the French was, during the drive on Argentan when General LeClerc heatedly complained that he was not being allowed to attack fast enough - never a type of complaint to upset Patton's temperment. "In spite of a little rough talk, we parted friends," Patton concluded.

The only other time he mentions anything remotely critical of the Fench Army was when he related a dinner conversation he had with an old WW I friend, French General Koechlin-Schwartz, who had been a leading instructor at the Army General Staff School at Langres. Patton asked him why he thought the French Army performed so poorly in 1940. Koechlin-Schwartz blamed it on the French Army' emphasis on the defense during the 1930s. And that's as critical a passage as I could find.

So, in my humble opinion, the OP just doesn't seem to fit with what we know of Patton.

 

[SilentHunter7]

Earlier posted list is flawed as hell, though. With a little spin of words I can make a country like America look the same.

Civil war? Lost, mostly because the opponents were also American. World War I? Lost, seeing as they came in late on France's side and then signed a ceasefire. Gulf War? Lost; Kuwait was freed but Saddam remained in power. Vietnam? Lost. War on terror? Not quite lost, but closer to it than to 'won'.

The United States of America won the civil war. If we lost, America would be a little less united now.

Also you should study up on Military Science. Victory in a war is defined as achieving what you set out to do. A military victory is pointless if it doesn't achieve a greater goal. This has been the definition of winning a war since Sun Tzu in the 6th Century BC.

In the first Gulf War, our objective was to protect our interests by defending Saudi Arabia's oil from attack, liberating Kuwait, and crippling Saddam's army in such a way that he could never threaten another country again. Needless to say, we won the Gulf War completely and utterly.

In the second Gulf War, our objective was to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and remove terrorist influence from the country. Now, while our military had a resounding success in that they had completely subjugated the country in one week, the second gulf war was a colossal failure. There were absolutely no post-victory contingency plans, and it destabilized the region, bolstered Al Qaeda, and removed resources from Afghanistan, allowing the Taliban to return.

In World War One, we went to war to end the German threat to our citizens, and our sovereignty. WW1 was a victory, because our objective was to end the German U-boat threat, and the threat to our sovereignty.

In Vietnam, our objective was to stop the spread of Communism. I don't think anyone denies that the Vietnam war was the biggest strategic failure by the US in the 20th Century. Not only did we fail our objective, but we lost over 70,000 soldiers, and spent countless dollars worth of resources in the region.

 

[Random Argument Man]

The French are considered cowards because they are cowards; throughout history they've proven that they talk big and run fast. They treat their allies like shit (QUEBEC I'M LOOKING AT YOU!!!) and when they're in trouble demand that their allies help them. History has proven that the French suck.

At least, they'll be remembered... Unlike the single digit that you are.

*Personnal note: I'm sorry about that. I am little attached to my french heritage.

 

[Uskis]

How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?

No one knows. They've never done it.

Yes they did.. WW1, where the yanks showed up 1917, and the french (as well as people from all over their colonies) had bled, starved and choked to death in the trenches for 3 years. Germans never got to Paris, even though they got close.

Oh yeah, and in 1871 during the commune of Paris, where the french both attacked and defended the city.. funny thing with those civil wars huh?

 

[fix-the-spade]

My question here is in no way meant to cause any sort of offence or to start flame baiting, just to figure out why from the members of this forums, why France is plagued by this stereotype.

It largely stems from World War 2, where the massive French army and Air Force (and a load of Englishmen too) got butt raped by the German army.

To put some numbers on it, nearly three and a half million troops, mostly French, were beaten by the Germans in six weeks. Six weeks at a loss of 2000 aircraft, 5000 tanks, 360'000 casualties and 1.9million surrendered/captured (also, the Royal Fleet Air Arm ended up sinking almost the entire French fleet because the Germans were about to capture it, possibly one of the largest scale betrayals in history, ironically one of Britain's biggest propaganda victories too, it showed both Germany and the US that when the British said no surrender, no peace, they bloody well meant it).

Before that the French army actually did fine, World War one and the Napoleonic wars before that they were both a feared and respected fighting force. Since WW2 the French have aquitted themselves fine as well, but it was such an enormous, total and rapid defeat it's stuck in the world's conciousness. Especially England, America and Germany (who rescued France and handed out the butt rape respectively).

 

[TMAN10112]

From what the people at the local winery say; "Because they're dicks, and talk shit about Americans (or anyone else, apparently)."

Of course, thats just someone's biased opinion. I think that they're plauged by the stereotype because it's just fun to make fun of other people, and it happened catch on with the French for some reason.

For Example: This

 

[Berethond]

Some people need to go read a fucken text book before they open their mouths. If you don't know what you're talking about, stop talking

I will open my textbook!

From Chappter 6: (regarding the King Williams War in 1702-1713) "Peace terms, signed at Utrecht in 1712, revealed how badly France and its Spanish ally had been beaten."

Regarding King George's War (1739): "Once again, France allied itself with Spain. And once again, a rustic force of New Englanders invaded New France. With help form a British fleet and with a good deal of luck, the raw and sometimes drunken recruits captured the reputedly impregnable French fortress of Louisbourg."

Just the two I know the pages for.

What does that have to do with the HUNDRED YEARS' WAR. The one we were discussing? It took place 300 years before what you're talking about.

You said "go read a text book" and, unfortunately, the Hundred Years' War isn't in my book.

Not my fault.

 

[Faps]

Battle of Hastings, 1066, only war I can think where they but us British, and that was Normandy not the whole of France.

Normans weren't French, they were Viking settlers and Frankish (German) natives.

The name "Normans" derives from "Northmen" or "Norsemen", after the Vikings from Scandinavia who founded Normandy (Northmannia in its original Latin).

 

[TheSunshineHobo]

The French are considered cowards because they are cowards; throughout history they've proven that they talk big and run fast. They treat their allies like shit (QUEBEC I'M LOOKING AT YOU!!!) and when they're in trouble demand that their allies help them. History has proven that the French suck.

At least, they'll be remembered... Unlike the single digit that you are.

*Personnal note: I'm sorry about that. I am little attached to my french heritage.

The funny thing about that is, i'm French too. My father is French, my mother is of British heritage, but shes from Newfoundland. I'm fucked genetically.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

I think we need more Italian surrender jokes. I mean, they were the only country to get beaten by France in WW2.

That's gotta be worth something.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Now not long ago I was on Uncyclopedia looking at random stuff for shit's and giggles, upon looking at funny subjects to joke about, mainly my home town (apparently were all inbreeds ) I decided to type in France I though it was piss funny but I saw the old We Surrender gag and it got me thinking, well why is this trait often jokingly attributed to the French?. Does this have some thing to do with the background of France or due to war, obviously this stereotype as to have came from some were... but were?, see I haven't done much study on France, I know they were really good fighters at one point back in the 100 year war, so I don't know were it's come from.

I was going to put up a poll asking whether the French are or aren't cowards but I honestly though it may cause flame baiting so I've decided against it. My question here is in no way meant to cause any sort of offence or to start flame baiting, just to figure out why from the members of this forums, why France is plagued by this stereotype.

Why? Because a vast majority of the wars they fought in, they surrendered very quickly.

 

[LockHeart]

I think we need more Italian surrender jokes, I mean, they were the only country to get beaten by France in WW2.

That's gotta be worth something.

Did you hear the one about the Italian armoured vehicles in Ethiopia?

They were manufactured with one forward gear and five reverse...

*Ba-Dum-Tish*

 

[Dudemeister]

But guess who still won the 100 year war? Thats right the British

What did they do in the 100 Year's War?
(Narrowly beat out the British... then surrender)

Are we forgetting that they came back and forced the British out of France. Ending The Hundred Years' War. I'm pretty sure that would make them the winners.

Ah, but aren't you forgetting when the British returned with Velociraptors ?

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

I think we need more Italian surrender jokes, I mean, they were the only country to get beaten by France in WW2.

That's gotta be worth something.

Did you hear the one about the Italian armoured vehicles in Ethiopia?

They were manufactured with one forward gear and five reverse...

*Ba-Dum-Tish*

Is that a real joke, or did you just make it up?

It's funny, but we did actually win in Ethiopia, so maybe something more appropriate like Greece or North Africa should be in order.

 

[ace_of_something]

Doesn't make sense really. Guess if you surrender once you never live it down. What about Poland? Haven't they been conquered several times?

 

[Rassan]

Almost 50% of his army was not French, too.

The same tactic was used by the Romans, too. How does that diminish their military genius?

Military genius is relative.

You know...
I really don't hate the French...
They're just too easy to make fun of.

Your complete ignorance is somewhat as easy to make fun of as it is to bash the French due to them being French.