Why do People Predict a French Collapse in WW1?

The French fought extremely hard, harder than their the British or Americans fought even in their bloodiest conflicts in history, and deserve intense respect from just about everyone out there.

Well said. This should be hammered into every American's head whenever the argument (in whatever form) "But we [god how I hate this "we"] came and won the war for you. You did basically nothing..." comes up!

Curiously, in Germany (I am speaking for the military here), disdain for Italian military prowess is much more widespread ;)
 

Deleted member 1487

Saying absent the US joining the war in 1917 the French will fold is not Francophobia or denigrating "cheese eating surrender monkeys". By that time the war was becoming a question of who was going to die of exhaustion first. The Russians had, and the Italians might have if left on their own. If the Americans are not coming in the Germans do not have to do an all or nothing offensive to finish the French off before the Amis arrive. They can be a little more deliberate.

Although with the losses of territory the French had they still could crank out lots of munitions etc, loss of the Paris area would be crippling from a transportation & industrial standpoint & also make getting supplies from the UK more chancy as German artillery & naval power can come closer down the Channel.

BTW with the resources of Poland & western Russia (Brest-Litovsk) esp grain, Germany will be able to significantly improve its food situation even if the war goes past 1917-18. If Italy drops out after Caporetto due to overall decrease in available allied support, this makes transit of goods through med to Ottomans & thence to Germany more possible.

Bottom line is that in 1917 France is closer to the edge than Germany, and Germany has had the morale boost of Russia dropping out - and France won't get "the Yanks are coming".

Exactly. Very succinct, yet comprehensive.


Well said. This should be hammered into every American's head whenever the argument (in whatever form) "But we [god how I hate this "we"] came and won the war for you. You did basically nothing..." comes up!

Curiously, in Germany (I am speaking for the military here), disdain for Italian military prowess is much more widespread ;)

Very true too. Most of this comes from WW2, as the propaganda about how much the US did for her allies and French "ungratefulness" after the war have played a large role in popular perceptions of that point in our history. A little reading goes to show that France most certainly was not weak or 'feminine', rather the German losses at Verdun finally paid off in WW2. I once did a proportional study of what modern America would have sustained if French losses in WW1 were extrapolated to the size of our population:
France 1914: ~40 million; Modern USA: ~306 million
losses: 1.4 million dead; 10.71 million dead (mostly men 18-28)
wounded: 4.3 million; 32.9 million (again mostly men)
civilian dead: 300k; 2.3 million

I have to laugh too, because during the civil war in the 1860's a southern man wasn't a man unless he could speak French and even generals like Nathan Bedford Forrest were recorded as saying the ethnic French Zouaves from Louisiana were the toughest men he'd ever seen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well said. This should be hammered into every American's head whenever the argument (in whatever form) "But we [god how I hate this "we"] came and won the war for you. You did basically nothing..." comes up!

Curiously, in Germany (I am speaking for the military here), disdain for Italian military prowess is much more widespread ;)


that would be quite understandable, they bailed on you in WWI.. then were next to useless in WWII .. then turned coat faster then a crack whore in Vegas..

i happen to crack allot of french jokes that sometimes upset others.. but i for one will stand and back the french .. they fought extremely hard in WW 1.. taking massive losses and yes they may have collapsed sometime in 17 or 18.. but then again they might not have.. as they didn't..

I think the rep comes from the franco - prussian war and ww II at least from the modern perspective.. i dont think anyone in the 20's and 30's thought of the french as weak. Its only post WW II and the somewhat rock relations between the French and the rest of Nato. Plus the French do not do themselves favors by being rather snobbish.. kind of like americans being rude insensitive barbarians.. or germans being war mongers.. or Russians the crazed drunken hicks to the east with a big back yard.. National prides get in the way and color the roses a different shade for national ego enhancement



in a one on one fight Germany would have won..with a french collapse.. just my opinion.
 
BTW with the resources of Poland & western Russia (Brest-Litovsk) esp grain, Germany will be able to significantly improve its food situation even if the war goes past 1917-18.

This is a little iffy, actually. There were intense difficulties getting the grain of Eastern Europe to Germany, despite having a year to properly set up a system for it. Granted when and if they manage a coherent system for transporting the grain they'll be alright, but I'm not convince that's likely to occur completely or quickly.
 
Saying absent the US joining the war in 1917 the French will fold is not Francophobia or denigrating "cheese eating surrender monkeys". By that time the war was becoming a question of who was going to die of exhaustion first. The Russians had, and the Italians might have if left on their own. If the Americans are not coming in the Germans do not have to do an all or nothing offensive to finish the French off before the Amis arrive. They can be a little more deliberate.

Although with the losses of territory the French had they still could crank out lots of munitions etc, loss of the Paris area would be crippling from a transportation & industrial standpoint & also make getting supplies from the UK more chancy as German artillery & naval power can come closer down the Channel.

BTW with the resources of Poland & western Russia (Brest-Litovsk) esp grain, Germany will be able to significantly improve its food situation even if the war goes past 1917-18. If Italy drops out after Caporetto due to overall decrease in available allied support, this makes transit of goods through med to Ottomans & thence to Germany more possible.

Bottom line is that in 1917 France is closer to the edge than Germany, and Germany has had the morale boost of Russia dropping out - and France won't get "the Yanks are coming".

That, in return, is an objective position I can agree with, even if the real hot point for France is more early 1918 IMHO. One could argue that Frech morale was higher during the 1917 mutinies (which were a protestation aganist preposterous offensives, but not for immediate peace) than in january 1918 (no more Allies to come, the supplies and reinforcements coming short...), and I think that Clemenceau would have a hard time to keep his cabinet together.

This said, and with all respect due to the AEF, the most essential American contribution to war has been providing money and raw materials. Of course, American soldiers played a major role in the late 1918 offensives, their elan impressed greatly the observers at the time, and their sheer presence boosted the Allied morale. But the second battle of the Marne and the following offensives have been aslo won (and I dare say proeminently) with the innovative use of armored units and planes, coordinated with infantry. While aforementioned tanks and planes were often built by British and French industries (notably the FT-17, which was superiior to British tanks at the time), they wouldn't have existed in the first place without American ressources. Honestly, had the war ended later, in 1919, that the military contribution from US units would have been far more essential (and probably the undisputed major factor of victory).
 
This said, and with all respect due to the AEF, the most essential American contribution to war has been providing money and raw materials.

Agreed entirely. It's amazing how many AHers start a Thread about the US staying neutral - and then mention only the absence of the AEF, while handwaving away or just ignoring the far more important economic effects.

I have heard it suggested (by Niall Ferguson, I think) that the AEF's role was greater than raw figures might suggest, because they took over quiet sectors of the front (not being experienced enough for anything else) and so released more seasoned British and French troops for the crucial battle zones. However, I don't recall him giving any figures, so can't judge the likely impact.


Of course, American soldiers played a major role in the late 1918 offensives, their elan impressed greatly the observers at the time, and their sheer presence boosted the Allied morale. But the second battle of the Marne and the following offensives have been aslo won (and I dare say proeminently) with the innovative use of armored units and planes, coordinated with infantry. While aforementioned tanks and planes were often built by British and French industries (notably the FT-17, which was superiior to British tanks at the time), they wouldn't have existed in the first place without American ressources. Honestly, had the war ended later, in 1919, that the military contribution from US units would have been far more essential (and probably the undisputed major factor of victory).

I've long had the impression that this was why the Allies were so ready for an armistice in Nov 1918 - becuase to continue the war could lead to a situation where they were totally under the thumb of their American associate
 
Top