In History class in High School, is it just me, or does anyone else view the
French Revolution as a difficult topic.

Does anyone else think of it, as a
Difficult topic.

I do. Even though I am french I always disliked this topic !

The french suck! They start wars, and they lose! They make us come clean up their mess. They rioted in the street, and they make barracades at intersection in the streets.

Originally posted by TheComputerGuy
The french suck! They start wars, and they lose!

Well we started a war with the British to gain independence, and without the French we may not have won that war. Maybe history isn’t your strongest suit.

maybe humerous sarcasm isnt yours. On the other hand, I do think selective memory is yours. you pass right over WW1 and WW2 and go all the way back to the revolution to find a time when your beloved French helped us out

Originally posted by Travh20
maybe humerous sarcasm isnt yours. On the other hand, I do think selective memory is yours. you pass right over WW1 and WW2 and go all the way back to the revolution to find a time when your beloved French helped us out

There wasn't anything humorous in his post Trav.

If you feel that somehow going back to the founding of this country is inappropriate is it ok to go back to the late 1880's when they gave us the Statue of Liberty?

Just out of curiosity Trav, why do you blame the French for WWI, or WWII? I seem to remember that in WWI the British, Russians, and Italians were also on our side in addition to other countries, yet you blame the French...why?

In WWII if you're looking to place blame I suggest that Germany would be a more logical target.

Originally posted by TheAuthenticFan
Does anyone else think of it, as a
Difficult topic.

You need to be more specific AF...what part of it do you find difficult?

Originally posted by TheComputerGuy
The french suck! They start wars, and they lose! They make us come clean up their mess. They rioted in the street, and they make barracades at intersection in the streets.

This is the History Forum, not Politics. If you wish to rant about the French this is not the place to do it.

If you want to discuss French history, perhaps you could start by telling us which wars that the French "started" that you were referring to.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
There wasn't anything humorous in his post Trav.

If you feel that somehow going back to the founding of this country is inappropriate is it ok to go back to the late 1880's when they gave us the Statue of Liberty?

Just out of curiosity Trav, why do you blame the French for WWI, or WWII? I seem to remember that in WWI the British, Russians, and Italians were also on our side in addition to other countries, yet you blame the French...why?

In WWII if you're looking to place blame I suggest that Germany would be a more logical target.

I was not saying they started the world wars pagan. I was talking about times we have helped each other out. The french are somewhat to balme for WW2, as they could have easily taken hitler out many times for his disregard for the treaty of versailles. he built up an illegal military, occupied the rhineland and all sorts of things which justified a military response by the vicorious french. they failed. hitler got to pwerful and soon it was to late, next thing you know Hitler is in paris accepting their surrender. Ya, I partly blame them. not for starting it, but for letting it happen.

Originally posted by Travh20
Ya, I partly blame them. not for starting it, but for letting it happen.

Well, I can understand that to a point. There were many signatories of the Treaty of Versailles who sat back and watched Hitler rearm Germany, including the U.S.

I think it's also important to understand the reluctance of the French to engage in another war on their soil. In WWI the French and the British were bled white in a horrific war and I can understand why they would try and avoid another such war at almost any cost. They only went to war with Hitler when it became obvious that another war was unavoidable.

To judge the French or the British too harshly now, is I think a bit dishonest. We have the benefit of hindsight, and at the time it seemed to all observers that the French army was more than capable of defending herself against a German attack. France had a larger army than the Germans, and more, and better tanks. What nobody foresaw was the effect of the "blitzkrieg" style of warfare, and I think it's just wrong to blame the french for that.

It can be said that Hitler secretly rebuilt his army, becasue he did, and it can be argued that the french didnt know about it, but Hitler marched one reinforced batallion of infantry into the demilitarized rhineland, which was a clear violation of the treaty, which it can not be argued the french didnt know about it, becasue it was done in such a maner as to let the world know. It was a huge gamble for hitler. If the french had acted and sent in a division to crush the german force that would have been the end of hitler. He would have lost all face and credibility, instead he was seen as the savior of germany, a strong leader not afraid to oppose the hated treaty and stand up to the ones keeping germany down. From that point on it was only a matter of time. France was the only country who could have put hitler in his place in the early days, not britain or america. As you said, france had a big, modern army. Its failure to use it decisively at the right moment cost the world untold suffering in the following years.

Originally posted by Travh20
It can be said that Hitler secretly rebuilt his army, becasue he did, and it can be argued that the french didnt know about it, but Hitler marched one reinforced batallion of infantry into the demilitarized rhineland, which was a clear violation of the treaty, which it can not be argued the french didnt know about it, becasue it was done in such a maner as to let the world know.

All true, but I didn't say that France didn't know any of these things were going on, what I said was, there was no way for the French to know that there army would be crushed if germany attacked them.

It was a huge gamble for hitler. If the french had acted and sent in a division to crush the german force that would have been the end of hitler. He would have lost all face and credibility, instead he was seen as the savior of germany, a strong leader not afraid to oppose the hated treaty and stand up to the ones keeping germany down. From that point on it was only a matter of time.

Again, all of this may be true, but it's only obvious with the benefit of hindsight.

France was the only country who could have put hitler in his place in the early days, not britain or america. As you said, france had a big, modern army. Its failure to use it decisively at the right moment cost the world untold suffering in the following years.

A historical lesson to be sure, but not something the French should have been expected to know at the time. I would like to say too, that while France was in a geographical position to engage Germany while the U.S. was not, it's a bit much to expect that France should have unilaterally taken steps to enforce a treaty that was signed by multiple nations. If the U.S., Britain, France, Belgium, The Netherlands etc. had put up a unified front it might have prevented war as well, so I don't think it's fair to place the blame squarely on France's shoulders.

To be honest, from a military standpoint, I think the biggest blunder on the part of France and England was the so-called "sitzkrieg". When Germany invaded Poland in September of 1939, England and France declared war on Germany, and then did nothing...for nine months. They sat on the border and waited for Germany to attack France and were subsequently overwhelmed in six weeks. If they had attacked Germany while Germany was still involved in Poland, France may not have fallen...but of course we'll never know.

it's a bit much to expect that France should have unilaterally taken steps to enforce a treaty that was signed by multiple nations."

sounds familiar. when a country decides to do it, as we did in iraq, look what happens. I guess if you learn a lesson from history you are looked down on by the same people who didnt do the right thing earlier. who knows what we prevented by attacking iraq. from what we knew we prevented a lot.

I thought there was this big defense France had at the edge of the Rhineland, and then Hitler simply went around it? I can't not remember the exact name but I do recall that being one of the biggest blunders of the start. the big guns were pointed east and when he attacked he went around and hit the west, leaving them defenseless.

It was called the Maginot Line, and it was a complete failure.

You're right. It stopped at the belgian border because "belgian weren't supposed to invade us". So all Hitler had to do was cross belgium and attack the Maginot Line backwards.

Sure the french army did a very bad job in 1940. The only one who believed in tanks was De Gaulle but he was not listened to…

" ... The only one who believed in tanks was De Gaulle but he was not listened to ... "

Maybe his personality had something to do with that.

Possible, but most probably because he was young, and had no real influence. De Gaulle had almost no responsibility before the war, and he was totally unknown to most people until 1945.
In 1939 French society was very conservative and not very open to new ideas ; most of the army was directed by generals who had been there in 1918 and they were not willing to listen a younger generation. That was sure a big part of the problem.

Originally posted by astrapol2
Possible, but most probably because he was young, and had no real influence. De Gaulle had almost no responsibility before the war, and he was totally unknown to most people until 1945.
In 1939 French society was very conservative and not very open to new ideas ; most of the army was directed by generals who had been there in 1918 and they were not willing to listen a younger generation. That was sure a big part of the problem.

the french had placed their faith in concrete instead of attack, forgetting the words of thier greatest general Ferdinand Foch. He blieved attack was teh way to win a war, not defense. if france had attacked the moment germany marched into the rhieland, or into chechloslovakia, or attacked poland, it could have been different. tehy espected teh germans to smash themsels against the maginot line and surrender, foolishly believing hitlers promises to the low countrys not to attack them. so with the low countires on their left flank and the ardennes and their maginot line they prepared to sit in their concrete fortresses and watch the hapless germans obliterate themselves in frontal assaults against prepared defenses, which we all know was not to be

Ferdinand Foch (http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/foch.htm)

The only french thing I like is Wine

Find the French Revolution, to be a
Confusing topic.

Originally posted by TheAuthenticFan
Find the French Revolution, to be a
Confusing topic.

I've asked this before AF...what do you find confusing about it?

Forgive me if this sounds rude, but you have a habit of posting one-sentence threads and expecting people to answer...that's not how it works. If you want to start a discussion, post your opinion, or ask a specific question. People are going to ignore one-sentence questions or statements.

Originally posted by Travh20
if france had attacked the moment germany marched into the rhieland, or into chechloslovakia, or attacked poland, it could have been different. tehy espected teh germans to smash themsels against the maginot line and surrender, foolishly believing hitlers promises to the low countrys not to attack them. so with the low countires on their left flank and the ardennes and their maginot line they prepared to sit in their concrete fortresses and watch the hapless germans obliterate themselves in frontal assaults against prepared defenses, which we all know was not to be

An attack would've been better than just sitting there, but ultimately they would've lost anyway. The Germans were at the top of their game at that time and everyone else, including the Americans, had militaries that had grown rusty. Besides, the British were in France helping out and they didn't do anything to stop the Germans either, and no one ever accuses them of being a crappy army.

the british had an expidetionary force there, not their entire army. Frances army was bigger and stronger then germanys when hitler gambled and marched a single batallion into the DMZ seperating france and germany. it was also bigger and better then germanys army when it marched into chechloslovakia. while germanys army was powerful, there was a pretty large window of time france could hav eeasily destroyed germany, and more then enough treaty violations to warrant it

Originally posted by Travh20
the british had an expidetionary force there, not their entire army. Frances army was bigger and stronger then germanys when hitler gambled and marched a single batallion into the DMZ seperating france and germany. it was also bigger and better then germanys army when it marched into chechloslovakia. while germanys army was powerful, there was a pretty large window of time france could hav eeasily destroyed germany, and more then enough treaty violations to warrant it

Despite the fact that France had a bigger army than Germany, I don't think they would have been victorious if they had attacked. Granted in hindsight they certainly had nothing to lose, but at the time it would have seemed a foolish thing to do.

The Germans had perfected an entirely new style of warfare that would have caught the French army by surprise as much as it did the Poles and the Russians. If the French had attacked they would have walked into a buzzsaw. Traditional military thinking at the time favored the defender in a battle and that's what the French were counting on. Add to this the fact that they had a larger army than the Germans, and it must have appeared to the French that Germany would have to be suicidal to attack them. The problem was, they didn't know what they were trying to defend against. A proper defense against an enemy using combined arms, and mobile warfare, is much different than a defense against an army of relatively immobile infantry. It was the German's tactics that defeated the French army, and that would have happened in Germany just like it did in France.

Usually I was good in History class, but I found the
French Revolution to be Confusing.
It was a complex topic

I don't understand why all these French-bashing Conservatives are allowed to transform a thread in the History forum about the French Revolution into an account of how the French can't fight wars!

Originally posted by DarkFantasy96
I don't understand why all these French-bashing Conservatives are allowed to transform a thread in the History forum about the French Revolution into an account of how the French can't fight wars!

Hey, I'm defending them! Besides, thread-jacking is normal around here . .

So? I think we're all missing the point, which is: TheAuthenticFan needs help understanding the French Revolution. So everyone hop to it, eh? You're not HOPPING! (sorry, had to throw in a Simsons Comic reference...)

TAF needs more help than I can provide.

Haha....

The French had the maginot Line which the thought would protect them but as you said Germany just avoided it. The French were just to pacifist when it came to Germany. THey failed to realize the capabilities of a German Offensive. They paid for that dearly...