Why are the French so bad at wars?

I'm a big history of warfare buff and played many war games, but that is the extent of my training. But I like to think I have a decent understanding of strategy. I find the Napoleonic wars to be fascinating. I have a huge book on the subject I haven't had time to read yet, but I've read about a number of his battles. While armies in modern times typically destroy a force by attacking the weak point, many times attempting to hit their flank, Napoleon destroyed the enemy center, something you would see more often in ancient times. His ability to pull a complete victory from the jaws of defeat was amazing. It reminded me of the first couple years on the eastern front when the Germans would pull off a victory when greatly outnumbered.

 

Which as I pointed out was going to happen eventually anyway. Rational people care. Saddam controlling most of the worlds oil would have been just about the worst thing that ever happened. Especially after Saddam died, strong men aren't immortal you know, and the whole damn thing blew up.

I agree Syria and Libya were both acts of irrationality.

 

Not true. Hitler's interference cost more German soldier's lives on the Eastern front than anything else. The West likes to think it won WWII but it did not. Russia did. One look at the casualty tables demonstrates this, 90% of the German casualties in the war occurred on the Eastern Front (1.1 million Germans killed on the eastern front vs 107,000 in France/Belgium). After Stalingrad, Germany had absolutely no chance of winning the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II

 

'irrationality'? Insanity! And now look what we've done - as per ****ing usual!!! No wonder they wanted Assange so bad?

 

I've read Jomini, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Liddell-Hart, Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon, The Osprey press books for the French British and Austrian Armies, which details the color schemes for various Napoleonic regiments of those nations, Churchill's books on WWII, and Eisenhower's. Plus scores of others on campaigns large and small. For me one of the saddest things of all is how frequently bad ideas are repeated and how slow even the smartest people are to adapt to large scale change. What scares me the most is that the period we are in right now reminds way too much of the period leading up to WWI, say 1885 to 1913. Tuchman's "Proud Tower" is probably as good a work on the era as you will find and a far better read than most other histories of the period.

 

Don't forget though that Hitler's interference in those choices grew as the war progressed as did his megalomania. He was far more likely to give his commanders a free hand in 1940 than in 1944.

 

Well not exactly. Exactly why they want him will be clarified by whether he lives long enough to get here, my money is on not.

 

And where the Initial German Assaults upon the Belgian forts along the Liege had opened the battle, convincing the Anglo-French that it was indeed to be a repeat of 1914.

 

The revolution was a total collapse of 1789 french society, a total chaos. I'm not sure it could have ended in another way. I never blamed the US people, some of your leader like George Bush yes, I just don't appreciate that some people mock my ancestors, when those knew a war and hell at a scale they couldn't even imagine.

 

Can you read english, if so please tell me where I wrote anything about which front Hitlers interference cost more lives on or where I have claimed the west won WW2. Please if you wish to make things up, do it about another poster, thank you .

 

This is the internet where people who had barely read a book in their lives can expressed all the unfounded opinions that they care to.

At least this is fairly harmless unlike such madness as it is unsafe to vaccinate your children.

For those who do read the fact that Napoleon was one of the greatest military minds ever born and his grand army was one of the most powerful military forces ever created is without question.

 

I don't appreciate a lot Napoleon basically for one of the same reason than I don't appreciate Hitler, both send too much of their men in their death. Napoleon maybe brought some "glory" to France, but at the cost of a good million men dead, considering there was 40 millions people in France at this time.
In fact, If I'm not wrong, french population was basically the same in 1789 and in 1914 because of the cost the revolution and the napoleonic war.

 

Diseases in those eras did tend to have far more of an effect on population numbers then wars.

We are less then a hundred years from having very large numbers for infant deaths rates being the norm.

Hell both of my own grandparents suffer a fifty percent death rate for their children from causes that now days would not had apply.

 

You claimed:

Stalingrad and Hitler's inability to take Moscow in the first year is the universal consensus from all historians that I have read.... in fact even Hitler's generals realized this at the time.

The inference from your above assertion is that West won the war. The troops saved at Dunkirk never fought on the Eastern Front against the Germans. From what I have read, Dunkirk had absolutely no impact on the outcome of the war or even on the Battle of Britain. If you have ANY legit source that backs up your claim that the Dunkirk evacuation lost Hitler the war please provide it. The idea that Germany could have completely destroyed the British at Dunkirk betrays a complete ignorance of Britain's power at that time... NAVAL. Germany never had a chance of invading Britain because of Britain's overwhelming naval power which was completely unaffected by Dunkirk.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...irk-the-real-turning-point-world-war-ii-20843

 

I love Napoleon because of the famous graph that demonstrated his invasion of Russia. Look at the troops he started with and what he returned with. Getting out of that campaign alive was akin to winning the lottery.

 

Nope, learn English so that you understand the use of the caveat "arguably". If the British Army and the remnants of the French army had been completely destroyed at Dunkirk then chances are that Britain would of surrendered and if that had happened Hitler would not of fought on two fronts, Russia could not of received military aid and food from the atlantic convoys. That is a recognised military history. No where do I assert that "the West won the war" in fact in multiple threads on this forum I have asserted that it is was indeed Russia that defeated Germany, but to ignore the economic might of the Americans and the support of the convoys is equally disingenuous. Learn english or do not make stuff up other posters have not even implied fool.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/hitlers-greatest-mistake-the-halt-order-at-dunkirk/

 

Any source for that claim? Given your conduct on this thread, I have a great deal of empathy for the people who have to interact with you in real life. Are you capable of civility? If so, please use it when interacting with me and I will return the favor. If not, please put me on ignore.

 

Yes I gave the source, but since the post was deleted when you ran to the mods, find it yourself.
Coward.

 

Look, all I said was we didn't win it and we should not have been there. Just like everywhere else. In Nam we overthrew the elected Diem, we overthrown the elected government in Haiti, El Salvador, guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, We are now trying t do the Same in Velenzuela.

We meddled in the mid east from the shah, quadafi, murabank, Hussein, and now Assad and we are getting ready in Iran again 50 years later. We fight wars not for the behalf of american citizens safety but for american company profits.

 

1. Diem was not rightfully elected. The south Vietnamese government was very corrupt, Kennedy tried very hard to straighten them out. Regardless fighting againt communism is about as noble as a fight can be.
I fully support the war in Vietnam. I totally reject Johnson's methods of fighting it.
I reject any war in which our goal wasn't the complete destruction and ultimate surrender of the enemy.
We were winning the war then Congress made us walk away.

The saddest thing about the War in Vietnam is how many good opportunities there were to avoid it.

 

No the saddest part of Vietnam is the 58,000 of us who died stopping the country from electing who they wanted to elect.
And I don't see how fighting against communism and killing 3 million in another country is noble.

 

Technology and an understanding of how to use technology was what made the German attack around the Maginot line successful.
The French had better tanks, the British had tanks with better armor. The difference was communication. The German's could communicate tank to tank and isolate and destroy single tanks by communicating with each other. The Allies were essentially deaf and nearly blind. Each tank could MAYBE see a couple tanks around them and had no way of coordinating attacks in any particular direction after the battle began.

The German's also had an edge in aircraft in that their initial assault caught the Allies flat footed giving the Germans near air supremacy.

After the breakout from the Ardennes the Germans had a long virtually undefended supply line and if the Allies had a forceful coordinated attack they could have cut that and destroyed the spearhead but sadly...lack of communication and poor battle tactics meant that the several piecemeal attacks on the German flanks were beaten back and that left the Allies with no chance to do anything but try to escape

 

So is mine, sort of? But it would implicate the Swedes and I don't think they're that compliant in the conspiracy.

 

There isn't necessarily a connection there. Whatever the warrant says the manning thing isn't why they want him so bad. He's a lose end in a much much darker game. Remember he was already living in the Ecuadoran Embassy when the DNC hack happened and he knows where that came from and has stated repeatedly that it didn't come from the Russians. If true and if he can prove it the last thing some people want him to do is show that in a court of law.

 

I wonder why the Germans were so bad at war? Obviously the OP is a total stretching of reality, but it inspired me to watch some videos on German history which prior to WW2 I knew little about. Two world wars, lots of won battles and seized territory, but both times smacked down. Before that, Germany was the failed half iof the Francish empire.

For that matter since the drawback on the Korean Peninsula, save for the light work, why are we so bad at war? We have all the money, all the tech, and can't win in Afghanistan, coudn't maintain in Iraq?

There are a great many factors that make wars easier or harder to prosecute. All the tech and might in the world won't stop a nation where all the people's hearts are on change (or most) Vietnam proved that to a large degree. We were supporting a corrupt goverment run by idiots in the South.

Same thing in Afghanistan, plus the terrain, defeats us. One major reason if we ever did try and move on Iran, it would be NOTHING like Iraq. It's arguable we could not win an invasion of Iran, and given the implications for the Chinese and Russians both, I'd say it's very likely we'd get our asses handed to us in a conventional style invasion of Iran. Iran's army is a LOT more formiddable than Iraq's ever was, and they have powerful allies in China and Russia. The terrain is also a lot more like Afghanistan than it is in Iraq. The Saudies are also already stretched.

War is NOT always about the best equipment and armies, sometimes it's about the cause, the land in question and the determination of it's people. Not to mention all the "help" and proxy wars (like our revolution), supply chins, lenders, so much factors in. It's just not a simple question, regardless of the average American "Joe Dumbass'" opinion.