Switch Perceptions of French and German Military Prowess

At least within popular culture, the French are often depicted as being rather incompetent at war, prone to surrender, technologically backwards, and being scared of everything (hence building the Maginot Line) with the Germans depicted as excelling at war, aggressive, and having super technology. Interestingly, in the 1930s the depiction was usually the other way around, with the French being considered experts at war with very good technology. Some politicians even considered France to be overly hawkish.

With a PoD after World War I, how could it be changed so that (at least within popular culture) the French are perceived as excelling at war and being aggressive, while the Germans are perceived as being poor at it and even prone to surrender?

France (for...reasons) goes for rapprochement with USSR, puts pressure on Poland to cooperate. They coordinate diplomatic efforts in the Sudetenland question, but Germany bluffs hard anyway.

War with the Czechs starts. Germany is tied and on the way to winning until the French declare war and pressure Poland to let the Soviets transit into Czechoslovakia.

Germany is defeated and surrenders, is partitioned into interest zones (Prussian SSR, French Sector, Polish Sector?).

Perhaps France also sticks to their guns in supporting the Spanish Republic too and ignores British pressure, though honestly it would be interesting to see if the French government can survive something like that at all. Provided it can, for (reasons), French volunteers and equipment beat Italian, while the French army beats Germany at the same time.

Two major victories like that in a row and it does wonders for your reputation.

A stronger France would probably do a bit better in its colonial wars or will have them spark later than OTL, by which time perhaps Britain will have managed to embarass itself first in Kenya or wherever, whereas France will be seen as ruthless and bloody but successful.


...

Too broad and superficial, I know, but it's basically all down to WW2 defeat and being the first to experience colonial misfortunes.

If conflict breaks out in the 20s over the French seizing assets and the German army performs horribly, as they would, and look like a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys.

Fast forward to 1936, and the French oppose the Rhineland seizure and easily thrash the German army and make the Germans look weak, again, and end up repatriating a ton of POWs. The Nazis stew on this, weakened, but still limp along to war in 1939 or 1940 after peacefully getting the Rhineland with the election of the Popular Front and an appeasement policy. In this war, the Nazis are thoroughly beaten and Hitler falls in 1941 with the French army in Berlin.

Germany meanwhile breaks up and goes into civil war, and ends up looking weak and tame under a hardline militarist regime that is periodically destroyed by coups and replaced with new leaders.

The French than also contribute to victory in the Pacific against Japan, which tries to move in on Indochina, and have achieved a reputation for power projection capabilities.

The French, overjoyed with victory given to them by the right wing government that succeeded the Popular Front, are thoroughly colonial, and proceed to fight and crush uprisings in Algeria and Vietnam in the next 20 years where small units of elite French troops beat back the waves of colonial peoples revolting and inflict massive damage before crushing each revolt.

The Germans, meanwhile, under a revanchist gvt in the 50s, tries to move in on Stalinist Poland, taken in 1940 by the Russians, and is crushed utterly.

This perception comes from quick French collapse in 1940*. Prevent that and you prevent negative perception about France.

With Germans losing Battle of France (easiest way to achieve above) Geran war stalls and Hitler is likely overthrown. That means world will see Germany as losing 2 wars in 25 years, both times being stopped by..... French. So Germany might be seen as an adventurous state that is eager to pick a fight but faisl more often than not, specially when confronted by..... French.


*Vietnam and Algeria don't help but they more drive the point home than "prove it" on their own

aktarian said:

This perception comes from quick French collapse in 1940*. Prevent that and you prevent negative perception about France.

With Germans losing Battle of France (easiest way to achieve above) Geran war stalls and Hitler is likely overthrown. That means world will see Germany as losing 2 wars in 25 years, both times being stopped by..... French. So Germany might be seen as an adventurous state that is eager to pick a fight but faisl more often than not, specially when confronted by..... French.


*Vietnam and Algeria don't help but they more drive the point home than "prove it" on their own

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that would make Germany be viewed as France is today. Italy had poor performance in both world wars and even had to resort to extreme tactics such as gas attacks to defeat Ethiopia. For some reason France has the worst reputation though, perhaps because of the swift World War II surrender and the symbolism of the Maginot Line.

Delta Force said:

I'm not sure that would make Germany be viewed as France is today. Italy had poor performance in both world wars and even had to resort to extreme tactics such as gas attacks to defeat Ethiopia. For some reason France has the worst reputation though, perhaps because of the swift World War II surrender and the symbolism of the Maginot Line.

Click to expand...

I noticed that this view is held by people on the other side of the pond. In Europe Italians have a shitty reputation for military performance while French much less so. (people told stories that when they talked to Americans somebody had to translate "fight like French" actually means "fight like Italians")

Just reverse the summer of 1940. If Germany is defeated quickly by the French, people might start making jokes about sauerkraut-eating surrender monkeys.

The usual joke seems to be that the French are quick to give up when they could still win, in Europe.

cf; a joke which holds that French tanks have a pintle-mounted white flag while Italian ones have more reverse gears than forwards ones.

So tenaciously holding out in 1940, even if they ultimately lose, would do wonders. Mind, the Franco-British Union (even if only for the duration of the war) would if anything reverse the stereotype.

"The French don't give up when they're invaded by surprise, they don't give up when their armies are routed, they don't even give up when they're conquered - which is frankly ridiculous...."

aktarian said:

This perception comes from quick French collapse in 1940*.
*Vietnam and Algeria don't help but they more drive the point home than "prove it" on their own

Click to expand...

How much of the perception comes from their refusal to take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq? There was quite a strong backlash in the US-dominated parts of the world over that, and it became very popular for a while to look down on the French in lots of ways (militarily not least). I don't remember hearing much about how bad the French were at fighting before then.

France is mercilessly bashed because of the fall of France being so quick. However the Germans also benefited from incredible luck that even further propelled the attack on France. If Hitler doesn't have the devil's luck, France would have been able to mount a more concerted defense.

Britain is hailed as courageous, but they had the massive advantage of the English Channel separating them from the Wehrmacht. If there was a land bridge to England, then things would have been a lot worse for Britain.

The rest is just common ignorance of the fact that ever since the HRE was hollowed out, the history of Europe has been trying to keep France in check of dominating the Continent.

Gunnarnz said:

How much of the perception comes from their refusal to take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq? There was quite a strong backlash in the US-dominated parts of the world over that, and it became very popular for a while to look down on the French in lots of ways (militarily not least). I don't remember hearing much about how bad the French were at fighting before then.

Click to expand...

I think it stems earlier than that. Iraq just caused it to become more discussed about, but I think even as far back as them pulling out of NATO's unified command structure and insistence on their own independent foreign policy irritated people.

Britain and France came to the opposite conclusions after Suez; Britain tied itself close to America, and France said to hell with them and focused on being more self-reliant.

M. Adolphe Thiers said:

Britain and France came to the opposite conclusions after Suez; Britain tied itself close to America, and France said to hell with them and focused on being more self-reliant.

Click to expand...

That's not really the case : after Suez, the Franco-British military cooperation never ceased and it became an important part of the regional strategical effort.
Not that French politics weren't about growing more self-reliant, but that being not much of an option, French and British military still work pretty much in team on several points (Libya being an exemple).

Don't get me wrong : there were efforts made about being less reliant on one force that is not too much thrilled about intervening in conflicts that are more French focuses, as in Central Africa. So far, it wasn't successful (especially with Germany).

Gunnarnz said:

How much of the perception comes from their refusal to take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq? There was quite a strong backlash in the US-dominated parts of the world over that, and it became very popular for a while to look down on the French in lots of ways (militarily not least). I don't remember hearing much about how bad the French were at fighting before then.

Click to expand...

Some, but not all. It was present before though Iraq brought those jokes more to the fore.

LSCatilina said:

That's not really the case : after Suez, the Franco-British military cooperation never ceased and it became an important part of the regional strategical effort.
Not that French politics weren't about growing more self-reliant, but that being not much of an option, French and British military still work pretty much in team on several points (Libya being an exemple).

Don't get me wrong : there were efforts made about being less reliant on one force that is not too much thrilled about intervening in conflicts that are more French focuses, as in Central Africa. So far, it wasn't successful (especially with Germany).

Click to expand...

I'm confused. I was referring to Franco-American cooperation. I know that they didn't break off completely, that would have meant leaving NATO. I was just referring to the fact that France wanted to be in complete control over everything and wasn't as willing to back friendly interests for the sake of it.

In the popular culture post 1918 the French were seen as at least equals of the Germans in land warfare. I've done a fair amount of reading from periodicals of the 1920s. both professional military and the popular genres & in those the French are not regarded remotely in the terms described in the OP. Those views seem to reflect something peculiar to certain groups in the US, or English language pop culture, and date from the 1960s or later.

One example from the military publications of the 1920s would be the US Field Artillery Journal. In the volumes from the 1920s & early 1930s there are numerous articles concerning French military technology & doctrine. Conversely German doctrine or military history from the Great War appears far less.

To eliminate or lessen the existing pop culture perception maybe a 1960s publisher pushing a pop version of something like Gundsbergs 'Battle of the Belgian Plain'. Alternate maybe Germans dont win?

People pay more attention to the news, where the French are more militaristic, and the German military really sucks (we all know the broomstick fiasco, right?)

It makes sense that France wouldn't have a good technological perception because it wasn't able to field any newer equipment during its time in the war, but why does Germany have a reputation for super weapons when even the Soviets had equipment that was more useful under actual combat conditions? In many cases Germany was actually behind other powers, such as using horses for logistics.

Does France have anything that could be depicted as France being good at military technology? Didn't the Maginot Line have a reputation as a showcase of French military ingenuity in the 1930s?

Delta Force said:

It makes sense that France wouldn't have a good technological perception because it wasn't able to field any newer equipment during its time in the war, but why does Germany have a reputation for super weapons when even the Soviets had equipment that was more useful under actual combat conditions? In many cases Germany was actually behind other powers, such as using horses for logistics.

Does France have anything that could be depicted as France being good at military technology? Didn't the Maginot Line have a reputation as a showcase of French military ingenuity in the 1930s?

Click to expand...

Nazi propaganda and its diffusion into Western popular culture.

Delta Force said:

It makes sense that France wouldn't have a good technological perception because it wasn't able to field any newer equipment during its time in the war, but why does Germany have a reputation for super weapons when even the Soviets had equipment that was more useful under actual combat conditions? In many cases Germany was actually behind other powers, such as using horses for logistics.

Does France have anything that could be depicted as France being good at military technology? Didn't the Maginot Line have a reputation as a showcase of French military ingenuity in the 1930s?

Click to expand...

Because it looks cooler than bunch of ordinary weapons. Becasue Gemran propaganda managed to show Tigers as these invincible behemonts which butchered T-34s and Shermans at great distances and were in turn able to take a beating and still go on. Also V-1, V-2 and Me-262

Technically the opinion about the French appeared mainly... a long time after the was and only when Amedians discovered that French had their own agenda. They were not expecting that as UK and most other countries were just basically what they were expected to do.

After the 60' French had their own nuclear weapons, their own diplomacy and so on. You will see that the last round of bashing was related to Irak and thet were right (argh!)