It has something to do with sharing a language and being pretty much as close as two nations can be, with the sting of colonialism long gone. Or maybe we're just weird, who knows?
WI: French Not Seen As Cowards in Popular Culture?
- Thread starter JonasResende
- Start date
So? You in Iraq are talking about loyalty, not bravery.
Taking into an account the questionable wisdom of this specific war (to put it mildly) and its short- and long-term consequences, why would they?
Which has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice, just with imperialistic policy. BTW, they never left their sphere of influence in Africa.
You can easily find it in Shakespeare's historic plays and the trend could be traced to the more modern authors. For centuries Britain and France were enemies (with the brief interruptions) so this is not a surprise. Now, keep in mind that we are talking mostly about the English-speaking world and the British cultural influence, which was quite strong even in the US until quite modern times. The French help in the American Revolution is pretty much forgotten (short of few monuments and street names) and so is Louisiana Purchase.
Of course, things are not necessary the same outside the Anglo-phonic world where "traditional" Brit was often depicted as a caricature.
Well, I'd be careful about "no one".
France had a much lesser population then Germany and even under Napoleon III it was not a militarized state like Prussia/Germany so the defeats are easier to understand than their ability to avoid one in WWI. Well, the Brits did not win WWI or WWII on their own either or even fought to the last soldier (Singapore was hardly an example of the excessive bravery and Dunkirk was a masterly organized evacuation but it left an ally alone in a desperate position) and they lost even greater empire after WWII so none of these arguments seems to be serious.
That was some Republicans, and they got French fries renamed to freedom fries in the Congressional cafeteria (which is for tourists in DC) and also in country singer Toby Keith's restaurant chain, which I think is pretty fitting given Toby Keith's image.
Forgotten? I recall France being mentioned in every history class about the American Revolution since elementary school. And the Louisiana Purchase was likewise mentioned at least by middle school. Yes, they often didn't mention a lot of the context of this, but I'd wager a lot of Americans know the basic facts about these events no matter who they are or their political beliefs, hence why I blame the French failure in 1940 for laying the ground for the anti-French mockery in the 2000s regarding Iraq.
Well, I'd be careful about "no one".
As half-German, half-Irish living in a country where a portion of the population likewise prides itself on giving the British Empire a bloody nose, I didn't want to come across as overly biased, though. I know enough South African people who (thanks to the atrocities of the Anglo-Boer War) still consider English the "taal van die vyand/Duiwel" (language of the enemy/from the Devil) and "only speak English in self-defense (i.e. to say "don't shoot")." However, I suspect that this may be something of a reaction to the English looking down their noses at the "dirty" Boers. And the Afrikaners make fun of the English as cowards (I've heard enough jokes about an Englishman, (insert nationality here) and an Afrikaner where depending on who tells it (English or Afrikaner) the one is always accused of some bad habit (be it theft, cowardice, drunkeness, gluttony or stupidity)).
I was unfortunately (thanks to my Irish roots) "die Ingelsman" (the Englishman) at my Afrikaans school, and to the Anglophone element I was the "Boerseuntjie" or, more perjoratively thanks to my German surname "the Nazi" (which hurts since my dad's German father grew up in a post-war orphanage thanks to the Nazis).
Actually, I was talking about perception of the "Perfidious Albion" which (AFAIK) was strong in Russian Empire, the SU and seems to be still strong in Russia.
Of course, it is not as much about the cowardice (even if not a single occasion to mention it was missed) but rather about the treacherous policy.
I don't think of the french as cowards but the memes are as delicious as it gets.
Historically, I'm more of the opinion that the modern conflicts France found itself in were too big for France, not that it was weak or anything. It is like taking your state championship football team to the Superbowl. Just because the Patriots made you look like high schoolers shouldn't reflect poorly on you (because you are).
Said another way, France found itself bad strategic situations. It was the circumstances, not the people.
Historically, I'm more of the opinion that the modern conflicts France found itself in were too big for France, not that it was weak or anything. It is like taking your state championship football team to the Superbowl. Just because the Patriots made you look like high schoolers shouldn't reflect poorly on you (because you are).
Said another way, France found itself bad strategic situations. It was the circumstances, not the people.
What do you mean? Franco-Prussian War was like your analogy, taking the state championship football team to the Superbowl vs the Patriots (no offense to Pats fans). WWI would be like playing the Patriots with an all-star team of players from the other 31 NFL teams helping your team. WWII would be like only getting the other 15 NFC teams to help your team out and quitting at the end of the first quarter when the Patriots have pulled off some crazy plays you'd never expect to work, forcing the other members of the team to pick up the slack you left.
There were a problem with people, at least people in charge : France in 1918 had a military and technical staff that was considered the more advanced in Europe, being on the verge of giving birth to the concept of operatic tought.In 1940, the general strategiic tought was as bad as it gets, making French etat-major unable to grasp the changes and challenges of motorized warfare.
Moreover, political staff was unable to really transmit to the people the reasons and necessities for the war, contrary to what happened in 1914 or even 1871, having a whole population not really sure why it fight for as objectives went, or why the tactic chosen (namely set and wait until mobilisation grows enough and then attack in 41). This provided a really important rupture in 39-40 and while it doesn't explains alone the defeat, it did represented yet another failure of political-strategical staff.
Of course, in 1940, the same people responsible for this failure remained in charge and were far too happy to blame it on their own population, Jews and ev0l reds.
But in 1940 nobody, except for the Germans, "grasped" it properly so this was not a specifically French fault.
I beg to differ : the technical use of armored cars was quite sophistictated enough at this point in German army, and spoused tactically (strategically...). Communication, autonomisation of arms, etc. was present, and not in French army where you really had a stagnation in technical, tactical and operatical levels.
You seemingly did not quite get what I was saying. By 1940 only the German army had a system which properly accommodated the new factors of the mechanized warfare.
The French tried to come with something on ad hoc basis when it was too late.
The Brits (AFAIK) did not have anything adequate as well and kept having problems with a proper coordination of the armor, artillery, infantry and aviation well into 1941.
The Poles, the Dutch, the Belgians - nothing worth mentioning.
Italy probably the same because in Africa it was routinely beaten by the Brits.
Japan AFAIK did not built a modern mechanized force during WWII putting the main effort into the naval developments.
The SU seemingly was addressing these new trends (and even the experience of 1939 - 40) but, as summer of 1941 demonstrated, their system did not work either and soon after the German attack they lost most of their existing mechanized units. Organization of their tank armies (and smaller units) of the 1943 - 45 was heavily based upon the experience (their and German) of the 1941 - 42.
The US started building a modern army only after entering the war in December of 1941.
So, as I said, there is no reason to say that the French circa 1940 were the only ones who "did not get it".
Unfortunately, Americans had/have a reputation for picking on immigrants from various countries. When tolerance won over bigotry (seemingly) in the seventies, I thought it would stick. Unfortunately it took little to revive it in today's political environment. IMO, the sole cause for the stereotype against the French (and half my ancestors were from France) was the 1940 invasion. With reports of the futility of Poland's resistance, the French realized they had no chance against the Nazi war machine. The other half of my ancestors came from Poland and Americans (only Americans) ridiculed them for being stupid because they took time to adjust to the American urban environment. Earlier, the Irish were picked on in Britain as well as America.
Stop being idiots? The rest of us are trying to convince them.
A lot of it is simply inherited Francophobia. Remember, while many Americans like to go on and on about British imperialism and colonialism, its culture is rather bound up with those of Britain, even if we don't like to admit it. They may celebrate the links of their Revolutions, but in the end it is the BBC Americans go gaga for. And for historical reasons Britain hasn't really liked France except for a brief period of the 20th century.
So the POD is probably less cultural links with the British, perhaps by the Jeffersonians stoking even more hatred against the former colonial master.
So the POD is probably less cultural links with the British, perhaps by the Jeffersonians stoking even more hatred against the former colonial master.
Which is ironic given the American Revolution and War of 1812, while the Quasi-War is glossed over at best. Perhaps blame the Anglo ruling class of the US for influencing America toward relatively Anglophilic opinions? It almost seems more likely for the US to be neutral toward the UK (meaning neutrality in WWI), if not actively hostile (joining the Central Powers) than otherwise. To the average American, it's no doubt possible to present that Britain still deserves something for what they did 1763-1815.
You'd have to get a different set of Founding Fathers, or maybe torpedo the Federalist Party earlier.
The Federalists were powerless to keep us from going to war with Britain, so I don’t think they have much responsibility for the subsequent thaw in relations. I think a lot of that may actually come down to Wilson, because before the Zimmerman note, there were still plenty of political figures skeptical if not hostile to London, including figures as powerful as Bryan and Champ Clark.
The Romanovs never sat at the table, neither did the Soviets.
Last edited: