Why has France never recovered from the Franco-Prussian War?

Russia's economy is the size of Spain's and it has very limited power projection, all it has is a giant stockpile of rusting nukes. Britain is basically identical to France in stats, except it depends on the US for everything. And you best be joking about India.

India places above France on GFP.

>claims Britain is more powerful than France
>while bringing up 1954, the year Britain surrendered to fucking Egypt

Britain.

Easily Britain.

Even Russia most of the time.

What the fuck is GFP?

France before the Napoleonic Wars was godlike
They'd take huge coalitions all alone.

After that they became average-tier (mostly fighting alliance wars in Europe or colonial wars against backward shithole).
It's the tier Britain always occupied, but because France was god-tier in the past, it looks like they fell harshly while Britain has remained constant in its mediocrity

>HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE FRENCH WERE INVOLVED IN THE SUEZ WAR

get out of here you normie scum

A British website about countries current military power
See

Yes and? It was Britain that unilaterally surrendered out of nowhere because America ordered them to, not France.

The difference is that Britain didn't lose 10% of their fucking military capability abroad in a single battle in Bumfuck Nowhere in 1954. France did.

Global Firepower.

GFP isn't British.

/k/ here.

GFP is a joke.

So is the Indian military.

Their readiness rates are appalling, their Air Force and Navy are anemic, and they literally can't even make an AK right.

Even the Economist was ripping into them for this recently.

Who gives a shit about whatever meme website? India is an abysmally poor third world literal shithole with no economic or military clout whatsoever.

Nigel please.

Business Insider also has France ranked lower than India. They also ranked France lower than Japan.

>The difference is that Britain didn't lose 10% of their fucking military
That's right. That's because Britain just bent over for every shitskin country in the world without so much as a fight. Nice power there.

You really should have non-autistic people talking about military affairs, they get it all wrong.

France has much, much more force projection than India.

The only real advantage India has is numbers, but those numbers are composed of such utter mediocrity that it makes China look good.

You're talking about a country that has worse small arms than Pakistan, and probably worse planes too.

Gee user and could you also tell us what Buzzfeed and Gawker have to say about French military capability, I'm dying to know.

>French get BTFO in Indochina so badly that they lose a conventional, pitched battle to the Viet Minh
>Brits crush the communists in Malaya and leave in good order
>French get BTFO in Algeria so badly that a million pied noirs have to flee to France as refugees, and hundreds of thousands of their former collaborators are slaughtered
>Brits crush the resistance in Kenya and leave in good order

*shouldn't

>comparing Vietnam to the Malaysia riots

The French won militarily in Algeria, they ended up having to withdraw for political reasons, so the same as the British in Kenya (or the Americans in Vietnam for that matter.

both these things

/thread

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

>inb4 I was only pretending

>British withdraw with a friendly, hand-picked government in power, a safe environment for investment, and minimal casualties
>French withdraw after killing around a million brown people, and accomplishing absolutely nothing but inspiring genocidal hatred in their former subjects
>British can still live in Kenya and do business there quite easily
>all of the French people have to GTFO Algeria because the alternative is being killed

And this isn't even getting to the humiliating part of the story

>France considered Algeria part of the home country
>a million French Europeans lived in Algeria, and had been born there
>all of them have to up and leave because the French were incapable of winning the war, or not committing so many war crimes that the new government wouldn't tolerate their continued existence

lol I never even heard of that shit. You mean that joke rebellion Obama's dad was in? Is "leave in good order" britbong for surrendering? That sure turned out great for white Rhodesians.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

Few thousands of dead on each sides
Meanwhile, Indochina had hundreds thousands of viets killed

I like how you didn't address his point at all

No shit.

If you fuck up when you're fighting a small insurgency, it turns into a large insurgency.

The British didn't fuck up.

>well all you had to do was put up a trash can fire, my entire house was burning
>what's this about smoke detectors

Tell me more about how the FLN went from tiny gigantic, and the MCP remained tiny, and this had nothing to do with the quality of the administration in those countries.

>actually trying to compare the French defeat in Algeria to the British campaign in Kenya

Now that's just embarrassing.

The FLN remained tiny and was thoroughly trounced militarily, ending up isolated to a few worthless desert areas while the rest of the country was firmly under French control. Then, for political reasons the French withdrew.

The Algerian war was primarily between Muslims and Europeans living there, with the French military trying to keep the peace.

If Britain had been in charge of that, there would have been no war since you would have run away and abandoned the colony at the first sign of trouble, and then joined in international sanctions against the whites. Which is exactly what you did with Rhodesia and South Africa.

It had to do with only one thing: Britain gave up Malaysia right away while France tried to hold on to Algeria. Of course your enemies don't have any reason to fight you if you always just give in to them.

>If you fuck up when you're fighting a small insurgency, it turns into a large insurgency.

More like, if unlike in Malay, there were already hundreds thousands of rebels in the jungle before the Japs even left
The Malay revolt was a few dudes rioting in some cities
Don't try to compare what isnt comparable

I'm not British bruv.

I just got interested in this because of how badly things went in Vietnam.

What I got out of this is that the British were a lot smarter in terms of policy than the French, which makes sense being that one of them was conquered and occupied right before the colonial wars started, and the other wasn't.

Then again, the British and Americans didn't collaborate with the Japanese, and the French did, which is why the British were welcomed back by most of the population of the Philippines and Malaya, and the population of Indochina went to war with the French a matter of weeks after they dared to show their faces again.

At least the stab-in-the-back myth for Vietnam has a kernal of truth in it.

There are people on this site who honestly believe that De Gaulle signed the Evian Accords because the French administration Algeria was proving tenable, and the war was won.

They cut and run when faced with conflict in Israel-Palestine and India as well. The British were literally BTFO by kikes and by poo in loos picking up salt.

>the British were welcomed back by most of the population of the Philippine
>he thinks the Philippines were a British colony
wew lad, it all makes sense now

>the French collaborated with the Japanese
lol wtf

Japan conquered Indochina from France. Which is why the US supported the Viet Minh.

Frankly, I see this as another example of the French being dumbasses.

>okay, our countries have been fucked pretty thoroughly
>it looks like the US and USSR are a lot more powerful now, and both of those guys hate empires
>British decide that they should try to change from being a colonial empire to a social democracy and use their strategic position within NATO to give them the juice to make the transition
>French decide to keep trying to hold onto populations that despise them, and for good reason
>British held countries tend to decolonize with minimal damage to British interests, any insurgencies in them are forestalled by the promise of independence
>French held countries realize the only hope of being anything other than toilet paper is total war

>Then again, the British and Americans didn't collaborate with the Japanese, and the French did

The French didnt "collaborate" with the Japs, they were kicked out.
Just like the Brits

The big difference is that Malay had no resistance against Japan, while Vietnam had a huge resistance movement in the jungle that almost kicked the Japs out by itself
That's why when the yuros came back after Japan's defeat, the Vietnamese were ready to kick them out as well while Malayans tried to mount a resistance movement out of scraps and failed

Nigga, you know what I meant.

When MacArthur returned to the Philippines, it made him a national hero in that country.

When the French returned to Indochina, it started a war.

This may have something to do with the Americans coming to liberate the Phillippines, and the French coming to subjugate an already free country.

>implying the average Vietnamese saw an appreciable difference between Japanese and Vichy French administration

Don't forget how they just handed Hong Kong to China.

And no, it wasn't on a lease like the Brits were told and taught. The lease was for the outskirts, not the actual island. Britain literally just gave away a fully British city to a foreign power.

>The big difference is that Malay had no resistance against Japan

Nigga, the MCP started as an anti-Japanese resistance movement.

And yet, post former French colonies are still extremely pro-French to the point of being basically puppet states, while all the former British colonies hate the UK and Britain has no influence over them. Even in areas like Vanatu where they shared control, the Francophone parties are pro-French, while the Anglophone parties are "anti-colonial". Really makes you think...

French have always been hotheads and Brits have always been cautious cowards
It allowed the French to reach some glory Britain never ever apprached, but it also gave them some defeats Britain never came close from suffering

>Nigga, you know what I meant
No, I don't. I think you fucked up and exposed your total ignorance, and are now doing damage control.

That only happened in Indochina which was a special case where the war was just a continuation of WW2, and Algeria because it was highly colonised by Europeans and considered a full part of France.

The rest of decolonization went great for France, which continues to have huge (in fact neo-colonial tier) influence in French Africa, unlike Britain.

Tee bee aytch, Britain has had a lot more glory than France.

>won the Napoleonic Wars
>won both world wars
>established a constitutional monarchy in 1689 while the French are on their fifth republic since 1789
>Isaac motherfucking Newton
>largest empire in human history
>greatest world power after them was one of their former colonies

So, all of the French colonies went great, except for the ones which didn't, which can be neatly cherry picked away.

And strangely, most of the resistance groups in Malaya and the Philippines were also in favor of their earlier masters, whereas the ones in Indochina hated the French just as much as the Japanese.

Could it be that the British administration in Malaya was more competent than the one in Indochina, and enjoyed wider support from the population?

What? They did most of the work in WWI for the Allies.

Britain has literally never won a single european war by itself
Even in the wars they usually take a lot of pride in (Napoleon and WWs) they played a secondary role
Their only victories without allies are against shitskins

Meanwhile, France spent most of its history fighting alone against european coalitions and even conquered the entire continent during the Napoleonic Wars

Remember the true version of history while you still can, cause the Anglo media are dead set against France
In the next mass media bout WW1 (BF1) France has been totally removed and the focus is heavily put on Britain.

Totally disregarding the fact that France was the leader country of the allied side, that the supreme allied commander was French and that Germany gave its surrender to France (and not Britain), they'll try to make Britain pass as the main allied power of the war

>and Algeria because it was highly colonised by Europeans and considered a full part of France.
Sorry to butt into the discussion and sidetrack it a bit, but I would like to ask about this. You certainly can't be 100% literal when you say Algeria was considered a full part of France, right?

I mean, certainly everyone could've said it was at the time, but deep down they knew it wasn't TRULY France?

That sounds otherwordly, a country claiming an extracontinental territory as a full, indivisible part of itself

I just can't imagine people at the time thinking of North Africa as part of France.

as an american I kind of admire the french.
they're supposed to be irrelevant, yet somehow they persevere to have a stronger military than the british (both in army, and navy).

>won the Napoleonic Wars
>won both world wars
lol, if by winning you mean "sitting on their island while everyone else does the work"
>established a constitutional monarchy in 1689 while the French are on their fifth republic since 1789
I bet you think the UK has had the same form of government since 1689.
>Isaac motherfucking Newton
One guy.
>largest empire in human history
The British were very good at stealing colonies and defeating shitskins, and yet they never managed to defeat other Europeans one on one.
>greatest world power after them was one of their former colonies
You mean the one France forced them to give up?

It's basically born of insecurity: the Anglo knows he is inferior to the French, hence he lashes out repeatedly and without provocation, because he is trying to prove something to himself

A number of then

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Russia, and UK have been stronger then France for a long time. Russia has issues but their generation of fighter, tanks, IFV, SAM systems, and small arms that is currently entering service is just better then what the French have. Or have on the drawing board either for that matter. The UK armed force are marked better funded then their French counter parts. Look at military aircraft currently in service.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Air_Force#Equipment

The French air force is larger, but older. The only things that can effectively do modern air to is 106 Rafale B/C and 26 ( that are in service ) Mirage 2000-5. Their other fighters should stick to ground attack missions. The Royal Air Force has 138 Eurofighter Typhoons ( which are marginally more capable then the Rafale B/C) and 4 F‑35B Lightning II ( far more capable then any other fighter listed here). That 4 is planned to turn into 138, with talk of adding 120 more on top of that.

Saudi Arabia at current rate of spending, if Iran goes Nuclear and they follow, may over take France in military power by the mid 2020s.

Not trying to rub it in, but with a statement like that you are not keeping up with current events.

a lot of french airforce equipement seems to be made in france.

you can't say that about the UK (de-industrialization and/or gutting its' manufacturing base in the 1970's and 1980's, consolidating it out of mass-production-scale existance along with it's boat-manufacturing indsustry).

Saudi Arabia could spend ten times what France does, and they'd still be less militarily powerful than France, since France isn't a barbarian tribalist """nation""" that is only relevant because it has oil money.

I mean, pic-related, the Saudi Arabian intervention in Yemen.
>hundreds of thousands of soldiers
>complete air superiority
>complete naval superiority
>huge material advantage
>Saudi Arabia still loses hilarious numbers of soldiers, kills thousands of Yemeni civilians, and suffers hundreds of their own civilians dead

Iran though, maybe, they're not Arab and are much more competent.

It doesn't really though, they couldn't even bomb Libya without American logistical help

You're aware your comment applies to Britain too

In his post he said British and Americans, then referenced their respective colonies. You're the one exposing your inability to read

Yeah, I'm not getting involved in your >muh team is better than yours squabbling, just noting that saying that countries other than the US have legitimate force projection is bollocks

This same argument could be made against the US which has lost every war it's been in against tribals despite tactical superiority in every facet

The average French person living in metropolitan France didn't, but the Europeans living in Algeria did. The latter explains why France tried to hold on to it, and the former why it couldn't.

Good Boy Points

France aint getting no tendies

Most unconventional wars, like US interventions in banana republics or the Philippines war, were victories by US forces.
Vietnam was not against tribalists, the Vietnamese were a highly capable and professional enemy who beat South Vietnam conventionally.
In Iraq and Afghanistan the US certainly didn't lose several times as many soldiers as the insurgents.

>the British were welcomed back by most of the population of the Philippines and Malaya
is what he said. There is literally no other way to interpret this sentence.

As a typo?

Because if you want to ask about the Huk rebellion or Ramon Magsaysay, or MacArthur screwing up the defense of the bataan peninsula, I know these things.

Have you ever heard of ww1?

That's not a typo. You made a fool of yourself, and then made some pathetic attempts at damage control including an obvious samefag. We're done here, I'm moving on, if you want to maintain any semblance of dignity you should do the same.

A higher amount of French equipment is made in France then what can be said about the UK counter parts, sure. However there is a not small issue with looking at that angle on the subject of the UK. One various American defense companies have major financial interest in them from British investment banks. Two a lot of equipment that has the US as country of Origin is made in factories in the US owned by British companies. Kentucky is a favorite state for that do to a much lower cost of skilled labor then what it would be in the UK. The UK has a lot more say in its arms manufacture then it would appear at a glance. Three modern equipment takes so long to make there is no hope to try to have rate of replacement match rate of loss in a real war against a strong enemy.

Also that does not touch on that fact that French equipment has not really been keeping up with the times. Not all of the Rafale have been upgraded from have the RBE2 PESA radar to the RBE2-AA AESA. The fact that they have a AESA radar in service put them a bit head of were the Eurofighter Typhoons are right now. However the RBE2-AA is not very as far as AESA radars go. The AN/APG-77 ( f--22), AN/APG-79 ( F/A-18E/F and EA-18G ), AN/APG-81 ( F-35 ), N036 Byelka ( Sukhoi PAK FA, questionable ) are all just better radars. The CAPTOR-E in development for the Eurofighter Typhoons in theory should be better also because of a higher weight limit and more room also.

>sweet, I don't have to address the substance of his argument

But yeah, I think any French person will admit that the 30s through the 60s were a terrible time for their country.

Once the Fifth Republic kicked in, and they started to get a more stable political and economic system, things started to normalize.

>sweet, I don't have to address the substance of his argument
this is what you are doing tho. rather than address the substantive criticism people have made ITT, you decided to go off on this guy for criticizing your typo/mistake

Tee bee aytch it's more like I left to go do other things.

But yeah, I feel like the combination of unresolved political tensions, unstable governments, and the inherent sloth of papists would more or less cover the OP question.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but yes, Algeria was considered an integral part of France, just like New Caledonia, Guyane, or Martinique, or any part of European France. It doesn't matter if they are on the on the other side of the globe, it's France.

I know it can be pretty difficult for foreigners to understand, but France being "one and indivisible" is a pretty big deal. And it's really how the average Frenchman, and of course especially those living in Algeria felt.

The average Frenchman living in the Hexagon really didn't see it that way (unlike those in Algeria) and therein lay the problem.

>yeah, I'll just write off a million citizens, get shot at by my own military, and make several million mortal enemies for the fun of it

t. De Gaulle

>What country is more powerful than France, other than America and China? Are you one of those delusional germboos?

t. Francois

You don't really think france is more powerful than germany ? Germany has a higher population, a stronger economy, a more stable society and a better scientific foundation. I mean militarily france is stronger no doubt but apart from that ?

if you look at their position on a map they are completely surrounded by equal or superior powers its a wonder france is a thing at all

DONE BY VERDUN

Haha wtf Francois

The EPL is a much stronger league than Ligue 1.

So it's the classic french bashing thread
>surrender froggies XDDD

The sole reason those thread exist is the decision to not participate in the 2003 Iraqi war.

Sorry burgers we're not your personal lapdog even so Sarkozy made us join the inner circle of NATO again in 2009.

As a French, I consider that France maintained itself as a very potent power in the XXth century and remains one of the most powerful in the XXIth

>France is the 3rd nuclear power in the world
>France is maybe with the UK the only country in Europe capable of deployment in every continent (Germany itself is totally incapable of doing so as of today and I don't see any Greman bashing thread)
>Mali, Cote d'Ivoire, Centreafrique ; recent operations proves France continues to have a huge control on former African colonies.
>Possibly the best Spec Ops in the world (RAID GIGN GIPN 2e REC, Commando Marine ....)
>Every relevant army use French Guinea to train their SpecOps in Foreign Legion encampment
>Libya was a mistake.

>The sole reason those thread exist is the decision to not participate in the 2003 Iraqi war.
The sole reason these threads exist is the ignominous French surrender in 1940. I'm not going to mention the crushing defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 or the failure to turn military victory into political victory in Algeria in 1960, because the British Empire was also fading during those time periods. Even then, France managed to get fucking annihilated in six weeks despite having equal manpower as Germany WHILE FIGHTING ON THEIR OWN PREPARED GROUND. It was an absolute cockup.

>won the Napoleonic Wars
>won both world wars
Surely you mean "sided with the winners of both wars"?

>implying that sitting back and letting other countries bleed out to achieve your goals is a bad thing
Enjoy your French """""glory""""" Pierre, it sure was nice have the Pax Frenchannica.

Western Europe would probably have been better off if it had been united, even incompletely, by France sometime after the war of Spanish succession (assuming they had won that).

>>implying that sitting back and letting other countries bleed out to achieve your goals is a bad thing
Were you not supposed to be giving examples of British """glory"""?

>An historical event that occured 70 years ago means constant bashing as of today.

Wew lad you would make a tremendous historian. While I agree that French generals like Gamelin were complete idiots, you must acknowledge this has little influence over the current zeitgeist. You have to dig for more recent event. If not, there are many countries that would deserve bashing as well for military catastrophies (Vietnam for US, Afghanistan for USSR, Stalingrad for Germany and so on)

French bashing is a trend.

>Those numbers
France really shines when outnumbered, even if they lose.

>the entire planet falls to British hegemony thanks to brilliant naval battles and political scheming
Pretty fucking glorious to rule the world for a century.
The French national character invites bashing by being both arrogant and ungrateful.

Not even French, I just wanted to make sure you were just shitposting.

>The eternal Anglo is proud of its own cowardice
Shouldn't have expected any less.