Why do some many people poke fun out of France for surrendering?

Question

Why? So many other countries were outmaneuvered by the Axis early in the war. The British had Dunkirk, Singapore, Malaya, Burma, Hong Kong and Crete. The Americans surrendered at Wake Island, then at the Philippines to a numerically smaller force, in addition to performing poorly in the Kasserine Pass, Savo Island, Pearl Harbor... shall I go on? After WW2 ,everyone ended up conceding their colonies anyway, it wasn't just France.

You get my drift. I'm looking for good answers, not necessarily someone that agrees with me.

No biased sources, please, especially if they're other Yahoo Answers questions posted by someone who obviously 'wants' a particular answer.

A little more depth and recency than ancient wars, if you please.

No biased sources, please, especially if they're other Yahoo Answers questions posted by someone who obviously 'wants' a particular answer.

A little more depth and recency than ancient wars, if you please.

Norway didn't fight alone until the British and French evacuated a winning battle to defend France.

I speak of surrendering, you speak of collaboration. Irrelevant, or shall I mention the ferocity the resistance groups and Free French forces displayed?

No biased sources, please, especially if they're other Yahoo Answers questions posted by someone who obviously 'wants' a particular answer.

A little more depth and recency than ancient wars, if you please.

Norway didn't fight alone until the British and French evacuated a winning battle to defend France.

I speak of surrendering, you speak of collaboration. Irrelevant, or shall I mention the ferocity the resistance groups and Free French forces displayed?

The Philippines wasn't just a scrap of land, it was US territory. Unlike the rest of the US, it had the misfortune of being situated close enough for Japan to invade.

No biased sources, please, especially if they're other Yahoo Answers questions posted by someone who obviously 'wants' a particular answer.

A little more depth and recency than ancient wars, if you please.

Norway didn't fight alone until the British and French evacuated a winning battle to defend France.

I speak of surrendering, you speak of collaboration. Irrelevant, or shall I mention the ferocity the resistance groups and Free French forces displayed? In defence of France, the Anglo-French forces fought stubbornly but were outmaneuvered - bravery does not overcome poor planning, circumstances and technological disadvantage.

The Philippines wasn't just a scrap of land, it was US territory. Unlike the rest of the US, it had the misfortune of being situated close enough for Japan to invade.

No biased sources, especially if they're other Yahoo Answers questions posted by someone who obviously 'wants' a particular answer.

A little more depth and recency than ancient wars, if you please.

Norway didn't fight alone until the British and French evacuated a winning battle to defend France.

Shall I mention the ferocity the resistance groups and Free French forces displayed? In defence of France, the Anglo-French forces fought stubbornly but were outmaneuvered - bravery does not overcome poor planning, circumstances and technological disadvantage.

The Philippines wasn't just a scrap of land, it was US territory. Unlike the rest of the US, it had the misfortune of being situated close enough for Japan to invade. And why would that be ludicrous? You are assuming the French surrendered out of a lack of bravery, not poor tactics, preparation and other circumstances. Taking France cost Germany 45,000 lives. Who is to say mainland US forces wouldn't have been routed themselves?

Ah, a blunder with posting additional details on my part. Oh well.

British forces made up a tenth of all forces defending France. You claim French troops lacked all courage and proper planning and circumstances on their side. In the same vein, it would be like me arguing the American forces defending the Philippines surrendered because of the exact same reason the French did. 45,000 German deaths is a lot, even if it costs you nine soldiers for every one you kill. Either way, that's a lot of casualties for such a short campaign.

When your country has been routed, where can you go to prepare for victory? Did not, or could not? Or did they? Masses of French forces sailed for Britain when they were all but cornered to continue the fight from there. And to be fair, these Free French forces performed pretty well when commited in battle later on.

Could have done this, could have done that, could have fortified a strong point. Would that have definitely kept the Germans at bay for sure? Could they still use the resources in land occupied by the enemy? Why didn't the Americans do this in the Philippines, until they could have been sufficiently reinforced? Sailing troops all the way from the US is one thing, but leaving your own countrymen behind at the mercy... wait, that's what you criticized the Free French for. When the British and Americans surrendered their colonies, they left the civilians there at the mercy of invading forces (they're technically not British or American citizens, but when you colonize a country, you have an obligation to provide defence).

And suppose the French forces stayed. Then what? Were they to be destroyed, it'd have been of no use to anyone.

Answer 1

The main reason the French get the dirty end of the stick is because of the ignorance of the French bashers, who have absolutely no idea the horror the French suffered in World War 1.

That is not to say the French suffered losses alone but far more than the other nations involved on the Western Front, with nearly half a million French killed at Verdun alone.

The following is not just a list of meaningless numbers but the amount of French lives killed wounded or missing during the horrors of WW1:

World War I cost France 1,357,800 Military dead,
4,266,000 Military wounded (of whom 1.5 million were permanently maimed).

and 537,000 made Prisoner of War or missing -- exactly 73% of the 8,410,000 men mobilized, according to William Shirer in The Collapse of the Third Republic.

Some context: France had 40 million citizens at the start of the war; six in ten men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-eight died or were permanently maimed.

10% of the active French population and 3,5% of the total population died on the battlefields. As a comparison, if this were to happen now in the United States, the number of casualties would reach 10 million.
There would also be 680,000 widows and 760,000 orphans.

Throughout Europe, the number of crippled soldiers amounted to 6,500,000.

Between 1914 and 1918, the drops in births in France is estimated at 1 million.

No wonder the French had no stomach for a Second War 20 years later, memories were all to fresh from WW1.

Regarding WWII, between 1939 (when war was declared by France and the United Kingdom) and 1940, 120,000 soldiers died, not to mention the number of French citizens who died as war prisoners, forced laborers, deported civilians or in acts of resistance against the Nazis during the German Occupation.

The amount of suffering occasioned by WWII in France is impossible to assess and should not be forgotten.

Answer 2

Because it took the Germans 69 days to conquer Norway, a land with little military strength at all. France came apart like the seams on a cheap suit in less time then that and they had the second biggest army on the continent at the time. And the amount of collaboration with the occupying power was enormous. Two divisions of French youth volunteered to join the Waffen SS and form the Charlemagne Divisions.
Things haven't even changed in 500 years in Europe. In 1684 a Polish warrior king named Jan Sobieski stopped the forward advance of Turkey's Muslim Army into the heart of Central Europe outside the gates of Vienna. That was September 11th. The next day he defeated that army. Among the "Muslim" troops he captured were 900 Frenchmen. One was an engineer hired by the Turks to blow open the gates of Vienna.

Answer 3

How about situations where Europe surrendered to a much weaker force? The French would pay the Barbary pirates ransoms for captured ships, until some U.S. marines and mercenaries did dome serious damage in the very early 1800s and caused all of Europe to go on the offensive which took about 30 years from when the U.S. got involved to when Algeria was taken (ending the Barbary pirates) in 1830. The French and much of Europe contine to appease hostile forces.

Answer 4

I think it's because France gave up France. The UK and the US may have surrendered colonies, but didn't give up their actual country. Britian was struggling with near constant bombardment too and France hands their actual nation (not a colony) over to the Nazis and commenced with full on collaberation, leaving Britain as the only major Allied power left. Granted, they probably would never have had a chance at fighting off Germany.

Answer 5

because the french have a history of surrendering not just in ww2. the points about the US and England are invalid because they lost battles not the war. France surrendered to Germany the US and Britain just ceded land for a short time.

Answer 6

Until the end of 1942 the German Army had unbroken success in every country it operated in.
The only thing that saved Britain was the English channel.
For a large part of WW2 the USA stood on the sidelines and made a good profit out of both sides.
The only battle in which French and US soldiers fought a major german force was at Cassino and while the American officers fled and deserted their men the french troops made the greatest advances.

Answer 7

Because they were defending their homeland and not a colony. Also because of the behaviour of some Frenchmen after the surrender, Vichy Forces fighting against the Allies and the attitude problem they had about the other Western Allies. Personally because of the behaviour of Vichy France I think we should have occupied France as well at the end of the war.

Answer 8

I'm sorry, however France didn't just surrender to the Nazis in World War Two, it threw in with the Germans. French Jews were the very first to suffer and not at the hands of the Germans, it was their fellow Frenchmen who rounded them up holding them for German collection at a later date. Many Frenchmen were not satisfied serving France, they volunteered to form a Waffen SS Division as well as a Heer (Army) Division, in total over a hundred thousand Frenchmen voluntarily served in German field gray.

There is an effort to re-write the history of World War Two, but facts are facts. I'm not making fun of France or the French, as a matter of fact I pity them their lack of back bone. You shouldn't concern yourself about me or anybody else who decries the French. Worry about the Muslims who are overpopulating France today. The enemy is in your back yard and corrupting French culture, as it is, when France falls again don't count on America bailing them again....

Answer 9

France has started a lot of things in history and never finished anything other than surrendering. How can you possibly take anything they do seriously? "SURRENDER MONKEYS" suits them fine.These COWARDS tell everyone how to conduct themselves but when you look in the shadows you always find France there making a deal with the DEVIL.
RESPECT is something you earn not something you DEMAND! If France was selling water by the cup........you can bet the farm they pissed in it!

Answer 10

Surrendering a small scrap of land is one thing.

Surrendering your entire country is something else.

On Wake Island the US Marines fought to the death, they didn’t surrender.

In the Philippines the US forces were completely cut off for months without supplies. All kinds of disease and malnutrition has turned that "numerically superior" force into nothing but a "numerically superior" bunch of walking casualties.

Also..I seriously doubt that the US forces would have surrendered had they known what was waiting for them at the end of that surrender (the Bataan Death March).

Kasserine Pass was the first major action between the US and the Wermacht, it was a defeat due to miscommunication, and lack of experience. The US of course learned from this and proved that during the rest of the war.

Pearl Harbor was a spoiling attack by the Japanese against a nation that they were not at war with.

Pearl Harbor, Kasserine Pass, and Savo Island were military defeats, not an entire nation surrendering so your analogy there is logically false.

The German Army in WW2 was formidable, however the French forces could have put up more of a resistance to them. Had they done so then France could have been used as a staging point for the allies, thereby negating all the men/material/resources used during the amphibious invasion of France.

Put short, people make fun of France for surrendering because they did so just a little too quickly considering the size of their own military. Napoleon was probley turning in his grave considering the total lack of intestinal fortitude by his countrymen. Roughly 65% of the French armed forces were captured INTACT. Meaning they were at full strength hence Vichy forces. If your in the military, and a foreign army is invading your country I think that would be grounds for fighting to the death. This obviously wasn’t the case for the French military at the time. Instead they allowed themselves to be put under the control of the very forces that had invaded their country. This aspect to me is perhaps the most dishonorable and despicable part of the French surrender during WW2.
---------------------------------------
You mention the French resistance, and Free French Forces. Yes they both were very brave. Why so few of these brave French people defending their country? Why couldn’t this bravery be manifested in the regular forces in defense of their country at the onset of the German invasion?
---------------------------------------------------
You stated "The Philippines wasn't just a scrap of land, it was US territory. Unlike the rest of the US, it had the misfortune of being situated close enough for Japan to invade."

The Philippines became "The Commonwealth of the Philippines" in 1935 and wasnt even a US territory.

I am not sure what your point is here. I guess your trying to make the point that if the USA was within range by the Japanese for an invasion then the US would have surrendered like France?

If that is your point then I have to say its most likely one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard.
-------------------------------------------------------
You Stated
" In defence of France, the Anglo-French forces fought stubbornly but were outmaneuvered - bravery does not overcome poor planning, circumstances and technological disadvantage."

You are correct. Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets (General G. Patton).

However a complete lack of bravery certainly doesnt help when combined with poor planning, circumstances, and technological disadvantage.

The French only put up resistance when British troops were along side them. Why was this? After all it was their own country.
-----------------------------------------------------
You stated
"You are assuming the French surrendered out of a lack of bravery, not poor tactics, preparation and other circumstances. Taking France cost Germany 45,000 lives. Who is to say mainland US forces wouldn't have been routed themselves?"

I had already stated this but you obviously didnt read it..
"Napoleon was probley turning in his grave considering the total lack of intestinal fortitude by his countrymen. Roughly 65% of the French armed forces were captured INTACT. Meaning they were at full strength hence Vichy forces. If your in the military, and a foreign army is invading your country I think that would be grounds for fighting to the death. This obviously wasn’t the case for the French military at the time. Instead they allowed themselves to be put under the control of the very forces that had invaded their country. This aspect to me is perhaps the most dishonorable and despicable part of the French surrender during WW2. "

65% of the French military was INTACT after the German invasion.

As to your question about a Japanese invasion of the continental US.

I think it could have been done but you more than likely would have had to kill most of the population, especially the 60 million gun toting crazed rednecks just itching to get in on some more racial killings.

Think about it.....
-------------------------------------------------------------
You stated
"it would be like me arguing the American forces defending the Philippines surrendered because of the exact same reason the French did."

From a mental standpoint losing a battle in an area that used to be a territory is completely different than letting another countries army take your country.

Americans were ill-prepared for the onset of WW2 that is a fact, but they did fight it out until they were better prepared. The French did not.
---------------------------------------------------
You Stated "When your country has been routed, where can you go to prepare for victory? Did not, or could not? Or did they?"

They were out flanked obviously the Germans bypassed the Marginot line and went through Belgium.

The French could have pulled back from the border and began to fortify their lines at a strong point. Much like the US did at the Pusan Perimeter at the onset of the Korean war.

Instead they either all retreated, ran from their country leaving their civilians at the mercy of the occupying enemy, or simply JOINED the enemy.

This my friend is just plain dishonorable, thats why they are the butt of jokes.

------------------------------------------------------
You stated "And to be fair, these Free French forces performed pretty well when commited in battle later on."

Yes they did, in my opinion to regain some of the honor that was totally lost due to the lack of bravery in most of their countrymen.

I can no longer debate this with you, I have to go work out.