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

[Grand Old Partisan]

This article is right. Much as the French deserve criticism today, they did fight hard against the Nazis in 1940. Individual soldiers fought very hard, and they lost tens of thousands of men in just six weeks of fighting. Problem was, their generals and strategy were terrible. Remember, France put up much more of a fight against the Nazis than did Greece, Norway, Czechoslavakia, and Denmark.

French collaboration with the Nazis after 19400 is another matter. The French Resistance is portrayed as a much bigger deal than it really was. Slammed as the Nazis were on the Eastern Front, they held down the French with their little finger. My favorite illustration of this is that in the weeks before D-Day, General von Runstedt used to go on long walks -- by himself! -- through Norman towns.

[altayann]

Why, because they're the truth?

[Rocky]

Excellent point. Why aren't more people pointing this out? The French are doing the same thing with Saddam that they did with Hitler.

[vbmoneyspender]

Bingo. And as far as who did more damage to the Germans in a single operation, Keegan makes a convincing argument in Six Armies in Normandy that the Normandy operation clearly cost the Germans more in men and material than their defeat at Stalingrad. Keegan goes on to argue, quite persuasively I might add, that the defeat inflicted on the Germans in Normandy cost the Germans even more than the worst defeat they suffered on the Russian front, which was when the Soviets destroyed Army Group Centre in 1944.

[Porterville]

Well now, we could have always nuked the Germans if we got tired of fighting the big bad Germans.

[AnAmericanMother]

That's precisely the problem.

The backbone of the old French army, the gritty little poilu, was destroyed in the furnace of WWI. The generals threw those brave men away with such stupidity that they mutinied. All that was left for WWII was the misfits and the (even more) incompetent.

It's a real shame that the French have developed such a bad name for themselves, because it's really only the Parisians and the self-styled "intellectuals" who are the problem. I have never met kinder or more hospitable people than the farmers of Normandy (of course folks'll tell you that the Normans are descendants of the Vikings, so they don't count. Could be.)

[68skylark]

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.

Ugggh! I hate it when people bring up the battle of Yorktown -- it takes away some of the fun of mocking the French, and that ticks me off!

[MHT]

So why does France have veto-power in the UN Security Council? After all, what have they done in the past 60 years to assure anyone's security (muchless their own)? For starters, when was the last time they won a war? Napoleon? They wouldn't know a war hero if God sent them one straight from heaven. Look what happened to St. Joan d'Arc!

[altayann]

Uh-oh, I can see it's time for another "WWII reality check"!

The French naval fleet was sunk at Oran by the British in 1940. Ironically enough, the reason it was sunk is because the French refused to surrender their fleet to anyone.

Strange but true.

[You Dirty Rats]

Greece was attacked by Italy months before Hitler attacked, and they held out for a long time. Greece did not have anywhere near the forces for defense that France had.

Denmark was tiny and flat. They had no chance of any resistance.

Norway held out for almost two months and fought very hard.

The Czechs would have fought, but were abandoned by France and Britain. To say the France fought harder than the Czechs is technically correct, but completely misleading. The Czechs were screwed by the French and British.

Most of the French Army in 1940 did not fight very well. They leadership was awful, but very few French units on any level distinguished themselves. That's why they got rolled so easily.

[altayann]

For starters, when was the last time they won a war?

World War I ring any bells for you? You know, Treaty of Versailles and all?

[1rudeboy]

How many French does it take to defend Paris?

Approximately 250,000 (casualties), Battle of the Marne, 1914.

[WorkingClassFilth]

In 1940, France was hampered by their arrogant confidence in the Maginot line. After France fell (or coyly laid down as some would say), the Germans never maintained a garrison of over 10,000 troops to administrate the country. The affinity of the French for deep-sea butt-slurping (using a snorkle) allowed the Vichy to do a fine job of making wine, cheese and exporting jews for the Germans almost as efficiently as the Germans could themselves. The Klaus Barbie (SP) trial a decade or so back illuminated this aspect of the French quite well. IMHO, there is precious little they have to celebrate as a nation in the last hundred years.

[PokeyJoe]

Is this a "Hold Muh Beer" Worthy, or should we start a new Daily Award for Head Up Duh Butt.

The guy who wrote this definately deserves some kind of prize. How about FreeRepublic send him some CHEESE BALL from Hickory Farms? ($14.99)

[ffusco]

Thanks for the correction. I must always strive to earn my tag line. However this new information does not change my thesis. The French are stinkers!

[zip]

not even Brie?? You're not French. lol

[Badger1]

Here is a perfect description of French appeasement.

An appeaser believes you can keep throwing steaks to a tiger and the tiger will eventually become a vegetarian.

Haywood Broun

[altayann]

France didn't have to face the Wehrmacht in 1940 either. It was unnecessary and avoidable.

True. But then again, so could the British.

A large part of the reason as to why they didn't is because both nations had given up a rather large part of their male population for no discernible reason during World War I.

Neither country wanted a war because the horrors of the First World War were still very fresh in their minds. And they decided that they were only willing to go to war if it was absolutely necessary.

As tragically, it turned out to be.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Greece and Denmark, okay, but as for Norway, the British and French fought there for two months, but the Norwegians did not do all that much in their own defense. Why did the Czechoslavaks need British and French permission/assistance to fight invaders? They had a big, well-trained, well-equiped army and plenty of mountainous area to defend. They could have held off the Germans for more than long enough for the British and French to come to their assistance. And even if they didn't, what was the Czechoslovak Aarmy for other than to defend the country against invasion?