French weren't cowards (REALLY BIG LAUGH ALERT)

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | February 6, 2003 | Pan Demetrakakes

[Chi-townChief]

Now that France has emerged as a leading critic of U.S. policy toward Iraq, a lot of pundits and editorial cartoonists are having a field day lampooning France's ''cowardice'' and proclivity to ''surrender.'' The supposed evidence for this slur is France's defeat in World War II.

Why is that, exactly? No one would dream of sneering at Poland, Greece, Yugoslavia, Norway or any of the other nations overcome by Germany in the war. So what makes France fair game?

France's critics need to be aware of some historical facts. At the beginning of World War II, Germany possessed the world's most powerful army, led by some of the world's most brilliant commanders. When Germany launched its great assault on France in 1940, it had no worries in the East, having defeated Poland and concluded a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. Moreover, France was strategically handicapped by Holland's and Belgium's foolish insistence on neutrality--which Hitler blithely violated the moment it suited him.

By the time the Anglo-American forces reached France in 1944, Germany had been weakened by three years of savage warfare against Russia. Even so, the Allies barely managed to contain a German counteroffensive (the Battle of the Bulge). How much tougher do you think the German army was at the war's outset?

Those who carp about France's ''ingratitude'' never seem to remember that the United States could not have become a nation without France's help. At the very least, they should thank their lucky stars they didn't have to face the Wehrmacht in 1940.

Pan Demetrakakes,

St. Charles

letters@suntimes.com

[Chi-townChief]

I generally don't post letters to the editor unless they're written by someone well-known but this one is so hilarious, I thought it might provide some comic relief. Mr. Demetrakakes' interpretation of the events of 1940 - 44 is somewhat fantastic.

[AngrySpud]

For Sale: one French rifle, never fired, dropped once.

[Servant of the Nine]

The Complete Military History of France

So9

[holymoly]

He conveniently forgets the Vichy government.

[L`enn]

I may have overlooked it, but I did not see any mention in the letter, that most French after Hitler's subjugation, gladly joined forces with the Wehrmarcht. They could not wait to start loading up box cars heading West.

[Chu Gary]

Why did the French plant trees on both sides of the boulevards in Paris?

SO the Germans could march in the shade!!



How many French does it take to defend Paris?

Nobody knows, its never been attempted.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

France's critics need to be aware of some historical facts. At the beginning of World War II, Germany possessed the world's most powerful army, led by some of the world's most brilliant commanders.

And France's appologists need to be aware of some historical facts, too. The Treaty of Versailles limited Germany to a minimal self-defense army of 100,000 men, and it also prohibited Germany from stationing any of these west of the Rhine. Hitler violated both provisions in 1936. If France had actually held the threatening tyrant to prior international agreements, instead of acting like ostriches (is this starting to sound familiar?), then they could have easilly stopped Hitler in his tracks. We now know that the German General Staff were terrified of proceeding into the Rhineland, because they knew that at that moment, they were far outnumbered by the French army, then the largest in Europe. It had already been decided that if the French reacted at all, Hitler would have been done for. But Hitler knew the French very well, and knew that they would do nothing. Saddam knows them pretty well, too.

[kcar]

You beat me to the "planting trees for shade" comment...

[Mr. Mojo]

[facedown]

Well alrighty then, let me be the first (on this thread):

CHEESE EATING SURRENDER MONKEYS!!!

[Dan(9698)]

France had more tanks and troops than Germany at the start of WWII.

Their problem was they had 80 year old generals.

[Tredge]

This author says more than he means, I think...

At the very least, they should thank their lucky stars they didn't have to face the Wehrmacht in 1940.

Did he mean to be that contemporary?

Maybe the U.S. was lucky to not have had to face the Wehrmacht in 1940. Who's to say?

France didn't have to face the Wehrmacht in 1940 either. It was unnecessary and avoidable. They had seven years to go after Germany before Hitler turned the Wehrmacht onto France. They could have enforced the Versailles Treaty when Germany took the Rheinland. They could have done more than talk when Hitler "merged" Austria and Czechoslavakia. History books like "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" are very plain about the gambles Hitler took before invading France - the military power Germany possessed was almost insignificant next to France's. But France didn't do anything, and they paid for it in 1940.

Seven years to stop Hitler, and seven years of talk. And here we are in 2003, and here we are talking again.

[Dan(9698)]

I forgot to add one of the features of their tanks.

They had one speed forward, and three reverse.

[tet68]

Even so, the Allies barely managed to contain a German counteroffensive (the Battle of the Bulge).

Back to school for you Pam.

It's true, but if we make fun of the "French" it is because they hold US in such distain. Any one who could tread the Voie Sacre and go through the meat grinder of Verdun are no cowards.

[EaglesUpForever]

If France had actually held the threatening tyrant to prior international agreements, instead of acting like ostriches (is this starting to sound familiar?), then they could have easilly stopped Hitler in his tracks.

well put.

[You Dirty Rats]

As long as we're talking about FACTS, how about these:

- France had the Maginot Line, but placed as many troops behind it as elsewhere. This left the center wide open.

- The Germans smashed through the center of the Allied line at Sedan -- FRENCH territory, not Holland or Belgium. Having been humiliated once at Sedan, you'd think they'd learn.

- The German generals were brilliant. But the French Generals were stupid, from Gamelin on down. Can't forget that.

- Outside of De Gaulle (one star General), the French did not launch any counterattacks.

- France had pledged not to make a separate peace. They had a powerful navy and forces outside Metropolitan France. They could (and should!) have moved the government to North Africa and fought on. Instead, they surrendered.

- The French General Doyen, on May 30 and June 2 of 1945 (just after the war), threatened US General Crittenden with force if he didn't withdraw from Northwest Italy. Truman had to write to De Gaulle and threaten to cut of arms to the French Army to put an end to this crap.

So maybe the French weren't cowards. But they did get beat in six weeks, double-cross the British, surrender to the Nazis, and threaten the Americans after the war was over. Whatever you call them, never trust them.

[ffusco]

Hmm.... blame it all on Holland and Belgium?
What else ya got there, Pan?

I agree Germany had the best army and the best tactics, that's why Poland is aknowledged as having gallantly tried to defeat the Wehrmacht on horseback; The French surrendered without firing a shot. During the war they sang and danced for the Nazi's, gleefully rounded up their own jews and scuttled their own navy. After the war all French men had amazing tales from "le resistance" . The French are stinkers!

[yendu bwam]

The French are physically weak, morally weak, intellectually weak, and weak on courage.

[You Dirty Rats]

That's exactly right. They have not learned how dangerous it is to appease a dictator.