12-10-2020, 06:14 PM
On the French military in the 20th century -- it is a complicated history, and one punctuated at times by poor employment dictated by government policy.
In 1940, it was mainly doctrine in both their army and their air force that arranged their defeat. Even so, it was nothing unique. The Brits also got run off the continent in that year, and one year later, the Soviets almost collapsed when they fought the Germans. Only their geographic expanse saved them because it gave them time until the winter blunted German offensive operations.
By 1945, the French Army was a winning force again, but it was much smaller than it had been in 1940.
Dien Bien Phu was a stupid deployment and it cost the French their control of Indochina. That was in 1954.
Oddly enough, they had practically won the war in Algeria when De Gaulle decided he had seen enough and ordered the army home. That provoked a mutiny and reorganization of the army. This was in 1962.
Since then, the French have had troops in many smaller conflicts. The troops have done well.
But the question of "France" as a military partner really revolves around the policies of the government in Paris. At the moment, "Paris" has its nose too far up the ass of "Berlin". This unbalanced partnership is inducing problems for both the EU and NATO, but one would never realize that from the European media or the public statements of the governments.
The other bit here is that fully 10% of the French Army is on permanent internal security operations within FRANCE. That alone is a shocking indicator of the instability lent by the presence of the migrants there. So, super-soldiers or not, that is 10% of the French Army that is not available for other purposes, including the defense of France from invasion by other countries.
This kind of discussion could be made for any country; the question of their reliability as an ally hinges upon many things besides the competence of their armed forces.
Cheers
In 1940, it was mainly doctrine in both their army and their air force that arranged their defeat. Even so, it was nothing unique. The Brits also got run off the continent in that year, and one year later, the Soviets almost collapsed when they fought the Germans. Only their geographic expanse saved them because it gave them time until the winter blunted German offensive operations.
By 1945, the French Army was a winning force again, but it was much smaller than it had been in 1940.
Dien Bien Phu was a stupid deployment and it cost the French their control of Indochina. That was in 1954.
Oddly enough, they had practically won the war in Algeria when De Gaulle decided he had seen enough and ordered the army home. That provoked a mutiny and reorganization of the army. This was in 1962.
Since then, the French have had troops in many smaller conflicts. The troops have done well.
But the question of "France" as a military partner really revolves around the policies of the government in Paris. At the moment, "Paris" has its nose too far up the ass of "Berlin". This unbalanced partnership is inducing problems for both the EU and NATO, but one would never realize that from the European media or the public statements of the governments.
The other bit here is that fully 10% of the French Army is on permanent internal security operations within FRANCE. That alone is a shocking indicator of the instability lent by the presence of the migrants there. So, super-soldiers or not, that is 10% of the French Army that is not available for other purposes, including the defense of France from invasion by other countries.
This kind of discussion could be made for any country; the question of their reliability as an ally hinges upon many things besides the competence of their armed forces.
Cheers
![[Image: 14sigsepia.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/9yxWwxj/14sigsepia.jpg)
Location: The lost world, Elsewhen