The French get a weird rap of being cowards and expert surrenderers, but honestly I’m starting to think that’s some sort of American media psyop. Let’s remember the French made snails into luxury cuisine (which means they discovered snails are edible in the first place), dethroned Latin as the lingua franca, and brought their feudal lords to the guillotine. The latter one a service they should absolutely export.
You don’t even have to for that far back. During the Second World War there was a massive resistance movement by the french population against the german occupation.
The “French surrender” memes says way more about their elites than their people.
French politicians during WWII were quitters. The population on the other hand were not. There’s always been a strong disconnect between the Rulers and the Ruled, which is fairly normal. What sets France apart is the Ruled’s willingness to set things on fire.
The whole “French surrenders” thing is missing context.
My understanding is that the term originated in WW2 when Nazi Germany invaded and France didn’t put up a fight. Conservatives in the USA called them cowards etc but what they didn’t know (like they cared) was that the French have been very effective in war for centuries even before the USA was a thing.
The French knew they were going to lose any war with Germany at this point in the war and relied on their allies to help them out. Surrender was the best possible option for them to save lives.
Anyone who says that the French are weak don’t know shit about their history and don’t know how their alliance has helped the US.
Knowing when to stop fighting is also a strength. Rumours of weakness are pointless - attempting to unfairly discredit someone else achieves little more than societal damage.
Not that I would discount them but. Wasn’t there a record of an army of a country that went into a war with 81 soldiers and returned with 82, or something? I’m sure I’d count that as the best battle record.
Like, the entire original basis of it was 'the French got their Maginot Line flanked/routed around during WW2 and failed to hold the line in Belgium, therefore they are all idiot cowards."
That and maybe possibly that they largely pulled out of Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) after Dien Ben Phu, leading to rhe partition of Vietnam into North and South, and generally greater US involvement in South East Asia.
Then, they wouldn’t join us for Iraq 2, therefore: FREEDOM FRIES!
… So pretty much the first one is reductionist as fuck from a history/military standpoint, and the other two are… broadly now recognized to have just been total horrific mistakes and tragedies and basically just big warcrimes and wastes of lives and money on the part of all Western powers involved… and supposedly even most anti-war/anti-interventionist conservatives now also believe this.
So, yeah, the entire thing is basically, at this point, 99% a bunch of stupid nonsense that is largely admitted to be based on mistakes and jingoism.
I agree with everything you’ve said except the bit about snails. People were already eating snails back in ancient Rome, probably even earlier than that. The French did however have the brilliant idea of drenching their snails in garlic+butter+parsley.
The French get a weird rap of being cowards and expert surrenderers, but honestly I’m starting to think that’s some sort of American media psyop. Let’s remember the French made snails into luxury cuisine (which means they discovered snails are edible in the first place), dethroned Latin as the lingua franca, and brought their feudal lords to the guillotine. The latter one a service they should absolutely export.
You don’t even have to for that far back. During the Second World War there was a massive resistance movement by the french population against the german occupation.
The “French surrender” memes says way more about their elites than their people.
Well said.
Especially in recent history since the people tend to protest and it works.
frenchies frantically upvoting
French politicians during WWII were quitters. The population on the other hand were not. There’s always been a strong disconnect between the Rulers and the Ruled, which is fairly normal. What sets France apart is the Ruled’s willingness to set things on fire.
The whole “French surrenders” thing is missing context.
My understanding is that the term originated in WW2 when Nazi Germany invaded and France didn’t put up a fight. Conservatives in the USA called them cowards etc but what they didn’t know (like they cared) was that the French have been very effective in war for centuries even before the USA was a thing.
The French knew they were going to lose any war with Germany at this point in the war and relied on their allies to help them out. Surrender was the best possible option for them to save lives.
Anyone who says that the French are weak don’t know shit about their history and don’t know how their alliance has helped the US.
There wouldn’t be a US without France.
And vice versa, by similar measure. The special relationship should have been France and the US.
Knowing when to stop fighting is also a strength. Rumours of weakness are pointless - attempting to unfairly discredit someone else achieves little more than societal damage.
So yea, an American psyop.
Of course the coward thing is just american media.
The French army, still to this day, has the best battle record of any army in history. They didn’t get a record like that by being cowards.
Not that I would discount them but. Wasn’t there a record of an army of a country that went into a war with 81 soldiers and returned with 82, or something? I’m sure I’d count that as the best battle record.
You’re thinking of Luxembourg.
And no, because that’s one event. The French Army have the most amount of total victories of any army.
Liechtenstein
Yep. My bad, I remembered the wrong country.
It 100% is a psyop at this point.
Like, the entire original basis of it was 'the French got their Maginot Line flanked/routed around during WW2 and failed to hold the line in Belgium, therefore they are all idiot cowards."
That and maybe possibly that they largely pulled out of Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) after Dien Ben Phu, leading to rhe partition of Vietnam into North and South, and generally greater US involvement in South East Asia.
Then, they wouldn’t join us for Iraq 2, therefore: FREEDOM FRIES!
… So pretty much the first one is reductionist as fuck from a history/military standpoint, and the other two are… broadly now recognized to have just been total horrific mistakes and tragedies and basically just big warcrimes and wastes of lives and money on the part of all Western powers involved… and supposedly even most anti-war/anti-interventionist conservatives now also believe this.
So, yeah, the entire thing is basically, at this point, 99% a bunch of stupid nonsense that is largely admitted to be based on mistakes and jingoism.
I agree with everything you’ve said except the bit about snails. People were already eating snails back in ancient Rome, probably even earlier than that. The French did however have the brilliant idea of drenching their snails in garlic+butter+parsley.
Which is honestly the best part in eating snails. With a fuckton of bread to soak all this delicious, delicious garlicky butter.