Is the French reputation for military incompetence deserved?

Answer 1

YES - - - the French make Love, good Food, witty farces and excellent bread but are lousy at war. They have won a few Wars, certainly their Golden Age during the 1600;s attests to that - - - and having recently read 'The Swordbearers' by Corelli Bennet can say that the French HEROICALLY stopped the German Invasion of 1914 and held on despite incompetent generals & politcians.

The French Military has been hampered by the Revolution of 1789. The Revolution planted this notion that the Government should supervise the military. Lots of other factors get involved but a simple explanation (see book cited above) - - - many French Soldiers are Brave, but their Generals spend hours days months years theorizing rather than actually training. Instead of spending weeks in a swamp learning how to crawl under machine fire & barbed wire, the French prefer sipping Cognac & coffee in front of Blackboards & Maps, snapping their fingers and ejaculating, "Zat izz Eeeet, We Send Sixty Five Men Up the Pomme Road with a howitzer and a hundred men around the silo with a machine gun,....."

The French simply are not good at war, even they admit it, but it should be said they are brave and resourceful and when led by British and American Officers they perform Superbly.

Peace.........

See Petain for example of a good General.....

PS Arrogance plays a large part in it; same for other countries, A weapon is made, millions spent on evelopment, certainly then that gun should last Forever. The beloved Label Rifle of 1893 was in use well into 1916 in spites of known deficiancies. And don't even ask about the sky blue uniforms in the brown mud of Flanders...

Peace

Answer 2

The French, like any nation or people, are driven to succeed along the same lines that any other nation or people can be. You do not lose a war because you are French. You do not win a war because you are French. The answer to your question is No.

Incompetence stems from so many different places with each war scenario having its own unique reasons, causes, and effects. Germany may have "lost" WW1 but no one will say that the German soldiers lossed the war. The same can be said of the French soldiers.

Leadership and direction play a key role, and it is true that in the last century of conflicts, French military strategists and more often than not the big name generals were inept. For the most part the bad reputation is only a very modern one however. The Romans were the greatest army and now no one wil say that the Italians are great soldiers.

The armies of France under Louis XIV, under the leadership of Turenne, DeConde, Vauban were the greatest in Europe at the time. No one back then would have said that the French were lousy fighters. During the middle Ages, the same could be said of Charlemagne's armies. Even dating back to the Gauls, it was they when united, gave Caesar his first defeat at Gergovia.

For those who say Napoleon is Corsican and not French it still was not him by himself fighting the battles! The point is under the right circumstances the French can be either as good or as bad as any other fighting man of the same character.
If anything now, the reputation is based on more of a lack of will to fight rather than being incompetent. If someone doesn't think the cause is worth dying for, he is not going to be as effective as a person who fanatically believes in what he is doing. The Waffen SS german soldiers were extra tough not because they had black uniforms but because their morale was higher due to their fanatical belief in the cause.

The reputation for the French is underserved. Circumstances play a larger role in this case then we assume it does.

Answer 3

Military Incompetence

Answer 4

In the past 150 years or so, it seems deserved. In the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, the Prussian chief of staff Helmut von Moltke asked for an estimate of how long it might take France to mobilize. The staff answered 20 days. von Moltke asked for a plan of Prussian mobilization in 19 days. In the event, it took France 21 days, and the Prussians were already over the border. In the coming action, French officers only had battle maps of Germany. They had no maps of northern France. A good account of all this is in a novel, "La Debacle," by Emile Zola, in English in cheap paperback. The French were rounded up and defeated at the battle of Sedan.

In 1914, the same thing happened again. Germany mobilized days faster than France. The Germans invaded through Belgium, far to the east, where the French least expected. The plan was for Germany to swoop far south and east ("Let the last man on the right brush the English Channel with his sleeve.") and come up behind Paris from the south. The only thing that saved France from immediate defeat the second time was that the last German general on the right, von Kluck, could not resist making an eastern dash at Paris rather than completing the southern envelopment. French general Gallieni saved the situation by rushing soldiers to a new front by taxicabs. A good account of this is "The Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchman.

In WWII, the French declared war in Sept.,1939 over the invasion of Poland. But they waited, doing nothing, during the "phoney war" of 1939-40. When they were ready, the Germans attacked in a blitzkrieg (Belgium again, LOL). France was crushed at once. A good account of this is "History of the Second World War" by Winston Churchill.

Answer 5

Probably not, but it's such a great joke.

The French have, as some say been unlucky, but the fact is that the French have consistently been beaten by inferior (in number) forces throughout much of modern history. Much of this has been due to bad command decisions. The French probably make no worse soldiers than any other nationality, but their commanders tend to hang on a little too long to the "last war" and its hard to truly judge when they are always fighting a losing battle.

Answer 6

Not really... They only had to surrender in WW2 because all of the roads were blocked with morons trying to get out of France.

Later the Resistance came up, and was worth "fifteen divisions".

And besides, look at the US. Did THEY fight for what was right in those wars? No, they fought to save their own butts and had to be attacked on both occassions...

Answer 7

Probably - they performed just as badly in Vietnam as the Americans

Answer 8

heck yea it is. The french have like never won a war, and Napolean was ITALIAN by the way.
Look up "French Military Victories" on google and click "I'm Feeling Lucky" and you'll see what I mean.

Answer 9

since Napoleon Bonaparte died they ain't been much in the military way.

Answer 10

I believe so and this is the reason why:
http://www.marxist.com/Africa/ivory_coast_intervention.htm