Alternate History Challenge: No cheese eating surrender monkeys!

Archibald

Banned
The term "chesse eating surrender monkeys" come from... the Simpsons (!) groundkeeper Willy (one of my favourite Simpson character btw)
 
Some people apparently don't realise that France had forces stationed in Germany throughout the Cold War.
In 1989 1st Army was assigned to CENTAG in wartime and they had 3 divisions stationed in Germany: 1st Armoured Division in Trier, 3rd Armoured Division in Freiburg and 5th Armoured Division in Landau.
France was going to fight with NATO in any Cold War gone hot, or do you think they would stand by and watch the Russians marching to the Rhine?
Besides France always stayed a NATO member, they only got out of the integrated military structure.
 
The best way to avoid this annoying and, in my opinion quite undeserved, nickname is eleminating the Vichy. The real shame for the french was not being beaten by the germans, but accepting peace so easily. France was one of the great powers and should have offered more resistance than tiny nations like Danemark.

If the french goverment had fled to Orano, for example, and continued war from there, probably no one would have even thought to call french "surrender monkeys".

The war in Algeria and Indochina are also bad examples. It's not thast the other colonial powers fared a lot better when tried to resist. In the end they all had to leave willingly or not.
 
First post, good website!

Having holidayed in France, (I like both the people and the country, this isn't an anti-French rant), I've got to say I find them incredibly insular, even worse than the US. Example: French TV news programme had a map of France with no coastline/land outside of the border shown - isolationist or nothing outside of the border matters? In every TV news bulletin I've seen there was NO foreign story whatsoever! All the stories seemed to be low-grade local stuff from various regions of the country, truly bizarre.

Possibly the derivation of the phrase is based on:

"Cheese eating" - well you can't fault their cheese, it's yummy.
"surrender" - WW2 and later events, as others have mentioned.
"monkeys" - during the Napoleonic wars, wasn't a monkey the only survivor of a shipwreck on the English coast? The locals caught it and thinking it was a Frenchman, hung it.
 

Markus

Banned
Now, you and I know that France has consistently produced armed forces as great as any in the world.


So, everyone: what sort of alternate history could have rescued the French from being derided universally as "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" and suchlike? (In this vein: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-frenchmilitaryvictories.htm .)

Impossible! You can not chance certain aspects of US politics enough to avoid the "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" bullshit.
 
Impossible! You can not chance certain aspects of US politics enough to avoid the "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" bullshit.
If the world does not conform to popular knowledge of certain US citizens, change the world? Seems like a winning recipe!
 
True. But how many will really think about this, unless they have some reason to (being, say, European, or in some way connected with the American defense industry).

Example: how many americans have a clue what the BAOR was, or even that sort of commitment to NATO? It cuts the other way, too. The french absence from NATO just isn't the sort of thing that gets brought up whenever the image of cheese-eating surrender monkeys comes up. It's more or less a non-issue. French integration in the NATO structure will mean a few more references in technothrillers and such, but in the end little would change. The european allies tended to get overlooked in those media, anyways.

More than you think. I have friends who were stationed in Germany during the Cold War, and I have heard their stories regarding NATO troops.

And if the reality is changed the perception stops being reinforced. Various pundits and leaders altitudes are changed, and this does filter down to those who look up to them.


One could argue that this is the only image that matters. But I still fail to see how a less powerful france will circumvent this image.


It is so bizzare to me that being a member of an alliance translates to less powerfull in your mind.

The French cannot fight a war of attrition with the Soviets, true. But if the Red Army marches to the Rhine, does the Force de Frappe simply cease to exist? One of, if not the cornerstone of French defense policy during the Cold War was that they would be able to guarantee their security against anybody.


Of course not. BUt would France being willing to end the world in order to free Germany from Soviet occupation? Or would they be forced to accept the fait accompli? And adjust their foriegn policy according to the new balance of power?

West Germany transferred to the East Block, Nato broken, France findlandized...

Soviet Victory conditions met.




I see that there is a distinction. But I don't see how a France that does not take ownership of its own security will dispell the perception of it as a pushover.

But by not being a member of the alliance that truely provides it's security, France is not "taking ownership of its own security", it is getting a free ride.


Even if you argue that closer ties mean a better image in America, it doesn't mean that France will be as helpful an ally as IOTL, and it doesn't mean that it will follow the American party line all the time (see germany during the 2nd gulf war).

If Cold War plans included France as strategic depth, than France is being vastly more helpfull than OTL.

And which ally does follow the American Party line all the time? Even the British told us to pound salt when we asked for troops during the Vietnam War. They aren't considered surrender monkeys.

And as soon as that sort of disagreement crops up, so do the stereotypes, bolstered by a weaker french military.

Why is it weaker than OTL?:confused:


the French were capable of keeping themselves secure. If they happened to be separated from the Russian hordes by Germany and the American Army, then that is fortuitous geopolitics. But if America is not in Europe for the sole purpose of defending France, then France does not need to subsume itself to American interests

Ahh, but if those fortuitious geopolitics put the Germany and America armies between France and the Red Army, thus providing, at the very least greatly increased security for France, then helping with that would be in French interests, as well as American, Germany, British, ect.

That's what collective security is about.

And undermining America leadership, which was needed for NATO, is harming French interests.




Possible. If it gets noticed. An integration into the NATO structure might be recognized in the west, but would hardly end the image.


It would be a huge step in the right direction, at least.


The french made it perfectly clear that, if threatened, they would fight and would not be worth the effort needed to defeat.


I wasn't convinced. And I don't know if the Kremlin was convinced, either. If they weren't then the deterrant value of that postion was lost.


And you really should consider mine.:rolleyes:

Oh, I am, and am trying to understand it. But in the context of the OP, I suspect my POV is more relevant.

Even though I don't so much buy the "surrender monkey" sterotype, as judge France's past policies as irresponsible.
 
Nope, they were just being perfectly rational. The US was always going to defend the FRG from the reds, so why bother putting France on the line, when the US would have to defend France (defacto) no matter how much they mouthed off?

Similarly, one can note a distinct shift German foreign policy vis a vis the US once Poland was integrated with NATO.

Similarly, if the day ever comes that Ukraine & Byelorussia joined Nato, I would expect the polish foreign policy establishment to lose a lot of their current pro-America enthusiasm.

Four quick reasons.

One: Because you cannot assume that Nato will always be able to deterr an attack. A NATO with France is a more powerfull NATO more able to deterr WWIII.

Two. Because an America with a stronger European alliance will be more able to deal with Soviet adventurism elsewhere in the world.

Three. Because not doing so, ie taking the free ride while bad mouthing the US, totally undermines their attempt to present themselves/act as serious players in the world.

Four. Because it's the right thing to do.
 
Some people apparently don't realise that France had forces stationed in Germany throughout the Cold War.
In 1989 1st Army was assigned to CENTAG in wartime and they had 3 divisions stationed in Germany: 1st Armoured Division in Trier, 3rd Armoured Division in Freiburg and 5th Armoured Division in Landau.
France was going to fight with NATO in any Cold War gone hot, or do you think they would stand by and watch the Russians marching to the Rhine?
Besides France always stayed a NATO member, they only got out of the integrated military structure.

THe fact that, even in a history forum it took until post 22 for someone to bring that up shows just how succesfull was their attempt to have it both ways.
 
The best way to avoid this annoying and, in my opinion quite undeserved, nickname is eleminating the Vichy. The real shame for the french was not being beaten by the germans, but accepting peace so easily. France was one of the great powers and should have offered more resistance than tiny nations like Danemark.

If the french goverment had fled to Orano, for example, and continued war from there, probably no one would have even thought to call french "surrender monkeys".

The war in Algeria and Indochina are also bad examples. It's not thast the other colonial powers fared a lot better when tried to resist. In the end they all had to leave willingly or not.


Good point, although there are bonus points if we can avoid WWII!:eek:;)
 
1-You, of course, are aware that "universally" means universally in the US, in the UK, in the Pacific provinces of Canada and maybe Australia and New Zealand ?

2-Andys, I suspect you watched TF1, which is the local version of Fox News. We don't have some manic jackass like Glenn Beck on it but it won't be long .

3-Actually, you all have a very American perception of what NATO was, or is. If I ignore Central Europe for obvious reasons, I'd say that NATO has been considred as a collective security tool in Germany, Benelux, Norway-Denmark and the UK, although those poor Brits still think that they have a special relationship with Washington. Their whining about how badly their military has been treated in Iraq has been, I must say, a wonderful occasion for schadenfreude, not to mention that the "Us officers treated us as badly as the Portuguese" part revealed the high esteem the UK has for its oldest continental ally....

In Portugal, NATO has been a convenient way to escape isolation after WWII and to provide support for the colonial wars. In Italy, NATO Membership has been one of the key factors of the "cold civil war" between the Christian Democrats and the Communists. In Spain...well, Spain was not technically a member of NATO, but the left has been defiant for a long time, considering that NATO had reinforced Franco. Greece and Turkey have always been on the verge of jumping at each other's throat and NATO was just some convenient umbrella.

Although we didn't left NATO, but the integrated command structure, we never considered that we would sit and watch for the Soviets if the T-72's were to cross the Fulda Gap. But what Americans see -which I can understand- as ingratitude is, from a Franch point of view, a way to deter ourselves from an American direction which is not always a guarantee for a wise collective strategy *cough IRAQ cough* and to keep independant ways to defend ourselves.

Ultimately, and this is often forgotten, our analysis of the 1940 defeat, that includes of course everything you know about pitiful commanders, ill-fated strategy, hazardous politics, extreme-left and extreme-right propaganda, pyrrhic victory in 1918, too few good planes, etc... also notes that we can't rely on our Anglo-Saxon Allies. Although I am an admirer of Churchill and the British People in 1940, we, here, have the perception that, although WWI has tragically weakened us, the UK and, to a lsser extent, the US have been more occupied with cajoling the revisionnist powers than helping us to counter the fascist tide, all of this because of some fear of French dominance.

And as a matter of fact, the Iraq crisis has just proven the truth of that : we tried to prevent our Amreican ally to do some stupid move that would put all the Western countries in an unnecessary and difficult situation and all we got is endless insults and some poorly-drawn accusations from Poland when their soldiers squealed after they found a Roland missile near Baghdad. Despite Sarkozy's americanophilia (Bushophilia would be more accurate, actually), you'll understand that our trust in the US is moderate...
 
Honestly, the POD you need for this is Gore winning the 2000 election. I'm serious. Most of the "cheese eating surrender monkey" nonsense emanates from American neocons who need some way to tar their opponents with charges of foreign sympathies. If they don't gain the ascendancy in US foreign policy, the view of the French as cowards lacking in "moral courage" will be much less widespread.

How widespread is that view outside of the United States anyway?

Its just seen as Bush's cronies shit on a par with Freedom Fries and almost choking to death on...whatever that snack was

I agree entirely with your thinking on this

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The 1940 collapse and Vichy

The French collapse in 1940 was of course the primary reason for Anglo/Americans looking down on the French military. A better showing then would have probably avoided the term. As to why the collapse happened: I would say that some overlooked factors would be:

1) The French reduction of the length of military service in the late 1920s. That resulted in a lot of French reservists not having much training, which accounts for much of the poor showing of the French B-series divisions.
2) The Germans were able to bit their best troops--the seven best panzer divisions and elite infantry--against the worst French troops, mainly B-series reserve divisions with the lowest priority in terms of equipment.
3) The French view of war was a bit more sophisticated than the stereotype of 'refighting World War I', or 'cowering behind the Maginot line', but it was vulnerable. The French saw the war as composed of three phases: (a) A phase of rapid movement before the front lines hardened, (b) A period where the concentration of firepower and the limited maneuvering room on the Western Front imposed a World War I-like stalemate on the Western Front, and (c) A period where Allied material superiority allowed them to push the Germans back.

Given that mindset, Gamelin was willing to take risks in the first part of the war because territory not grabbed in the initial stages would have to be paid for in blood later. That's why the French pushed deeper into Belgium than it was safe for them to push, and why they ended up putting a dangerous concentration of poor troops in the Ardennes, where the Germans were able to rout them, which eventually led to them cutting off the best British and French armies in Belgium.
 
Top