Why do People Predict a French Collapse in WW1?

Faeelin

Banned
Let me caveat by saying I think France could have been defeated in World War I, I just find the way they all fall over in 1917-1918 in a lot of discussions a bit weird.

There's something of an unspoken assumption that the French military would have collapsed with a firm push, and that the mutinities in 1917 could have led to the fall of France. But is this really likely? At its height, the mutiny affected 46 of France's 112 divisions. But these units didn't walk home, or stop defending the border. (The Germans had no idea there was a mutiny, and when they launched assaults on some of the "mutinous" regiments they were repelled with machine guns and artillery, as always).

The mutiny was crushed with... 43 death sentences in the French army. This isn't that high, compared to the number of executions the German army carried out; Petain met with the mutineers, and promised no further attacks unless the troops were adequately supported. And the mutinies ended.

So, why do we assume the French were about to collapse in 1917-1918? Is it a holdover from the Second World War (those effeminate Frenchmen, compared to the doughty soldiers of the Fatherland?)
 

santosza

The reason is because it's seems to be the most easiest answer and most probable because the French army seemed like it was on the edge of it's tether. However, you may be right maybe they might not fall apart. I hope this subject is greatly expanded upon.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Well we know what the OTL response to the mutinies was. France stands on the defensive while they "wait for tanks and Americans," to quote Petain, then charge east while the Germans starve to death under a silent dictatorship.
 

Dunois

I too think it's very weird and there does seem to be a slight Francophobia counterweighted by Germanophilia on the board at times.

The French army was in a position to resist in 1917-1918 and it never hard the problems of supply that the Germans faced. Fair to say that losses had been very heavy but new weapons and tactics were implemented in order to remedy that, chiefly massproduced tanks and armoured warfare. It must not be forgotten that armoured warfare was designed by the allies in 1918 after all and had the war carried on a yera longer, a general allied offensive using tanks on a massive scale would have been on the cards.
 

Shogo

Retroactive assumptions?

Like it or not, a lot of people stereotype the French as "cheese eating surrender monkeys" based on their WW2 performance.

With just that stereotype to go on, it makes sense that a lot of people retroactively assume that's true of France in past wars.

The cut off point seems to be "Napoleon was the last time the French were ever competent."
 

rast

Faeelin said:
The mutiny was crushed with... 43 death sentences in the French army. This isn't that high, compared to the number of executions the German army carried out;
Click to expand...

Hm? There were about 150 dead sentences at all in the German Army from 1914 to 1918, of which only 48 ever were executed.
Those who shot their men to the hundreds were the French, the British and the Russians.
 

Sift Green

Well, for most of the war Germany was standing on France's heart. Most of Frances population is in Paris, and between Paris and Belgium. It is possible that a successful German offensive near the end of the war would push away any hopes of regaining the French heartland, which would be disastrous to moral.
 

Gridley

IMO, when nearly half of your army refuses to advance in order to retake national territory their morale must be quite low. The French IOTL got a big morale boost with the US entering the war. Absent that, it doesn't seem terribly unrealistic that one more blow would break the army's morale completely.

As long as we're referring to Napoleon, I believe he was "The moral is to the physical as 3 to 1."

A mutiny on that scale also says bad things about the leadership at every level. When whole divisions won't advance you've got problems in your officer corps, not just with the enlisted.

All that said, I think that at the tactical level the French tend to be unjustly maligned. At, say, the company level the French tend to fight about as well as anyone with what they're given. At the operational and strategic level they seem to delight in promoting dullards and surrender monkeys. Perhaps the surgical removal of parts of the central nervous system is encouraged for senior field-grade officers of the French army?
 

Faeelin

Banned
Gridley said:
IMO, when nearly half of your army refuses to advance in order to retake national territory their morale must be quite low.
Click to expand...

Mutinying over bad food and being sent into combat with inadequate support is a sign of questionable morale, but since they turned around and advanced once they got assurances of support it doesn't seem that suicidal to me.

I mean, the Royal Navy mutinied twice in 1797, but nobody ever discusses how the Royal Navy was on the verge of collapse...
 

Typo

Banned
Because it's not so much that the mutinies directly so much as what they implied, when the soldiers refuse to follow orders it means that there is a question among the entire population on the issue of continuing the war. And in WWI they are usually a precursor to general political chaos in the country, such as the Kiel mutiny and the Russian revolution.
 

Gridley

Faeelin said:
I mean, the Royal Navy mutinied twice in 1797, but nobody ever discusses how the Royal Navy was on the verge of collapse...
Click to expand...

Mutiny on ships in port, where the mutineers promise to obey orders should the French be sighted, is not quite the same thing as mutiny on the front lines.

Remember: the French army was refusing to advance onto French soil. The Royal Navy was demanding better pay and was willing to fight to defend British soil should the situation arise.
 

Wet Coast

Faeelin said:
Mutinying over bad food and being sent into combat with inadequate support is a sign of questionable morale, but since they turned around and advanced once they got assurances of support it doesn't seem that suicidal to me.

I mean, the Royal Navy mutinied twice in 1797, but nobody ever discusses how the Royal Navy was on the verge of collapse...
Click to expand...

It's a pretty good parallel in my opinion because the Royal Navy mutinied over much the same issues, (bad food, bad conditions) and also vowed to sail if the French fleet came out. By that point in WWI the Allies could have won the war simply by staying in their trenches. The French army mutiny was not going to lose the war. Not unless the high command was even stupider that it actually was and compounded the situation with high handed responses.
 

Japhy

Banned
Gridley said:
Mutiny on ships in port, where the mutineers promise to obey orders should the French be sighted, is not quite the same thing as mutiny on the front lines.

Remember: the French army was refusing to advance onto French soil. The Royal Navy was demanding better pay and was willing to fight to defend British soil should the situation arise.
Click to expand...

Ah but the French Army Mutineers also promised and did engage any German Offensive Actions against them.

And the French Army didn't kill their officers like many smaller Royal Navies had taking place in the 1790's.
 

Typo

Banned
Japhy said:
Ah but the French Army Mutineers also promised and did engage any German Offensive Actions against them.

And the French Army didn't kill their officers like many smaller Royal Navies had taking place in the 1790's.
Click to expand...
The 1790s were different from 1917, it wasn't total war for one
 

Gridley

Japhy said:
Ah but the French Army Mutineers also promised and did engage any German Offensive Actions against them.

And the French Army didn't kill their officers like many smaller Royal Navies had taking place in the 1790's.
Click to expand...

Promising to defend yourself if you're attacked but refusing to defend your country isn't the same as promising to defend your country if it is attacked.

If the Royal Navy had mutinied after the French had landed in England and were approaching London it would be a close parallel.

How would the Allies have won the war with large parts of France remaining in Germany hands? Possession of the ground may not be all there is to victory, but it sure helps.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Gridley said:
Promising to defend yourself if you're attacked but refusing to defend your country isn't the same as promising to defend your country if it is attacked.

How would the Allies have won the war with large parts of France remaining in Germany hands? Possession of the ground may not be all there is to victory, but it sure helps.
Click to expand...


Again, they did want to defend their country. Witness how they ended the "mutiny" when they received promises of adequate artillery support, for instance. You seem to think that refusing to die in a pointless attack is a sign of unwillingness to defend one's country.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Gridley said:
If the Royal Navy had mutinied after the French had landed in England and were approaching London it would be a close parallel.

How would the Allies have won the war with large parts of France remaining in Germany hands? Possession of the ground may not be all there is to victory, but it sure helps.
Click to expand...

How would the British win the war if they aren't taking the sea from the French? I f they aren't stopping the French from sending men to Ireland?
 

Typo

Banned
Faeelin said:
Really? Censorship of the media, a draft, spending a significant portion of the nation's GNP on war...
Click to expand...
Not to the degree of France in WWI, England never lost 7/10 of its men in between the ages of 18-28 dead or "permanently mangled" for one, France 1917 was really a society which was looking at the bottom of the barrel in terms of resources to commit to the war
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top