Why is the French war effort in WW2 so looked upon ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but these are pure acts of badassery :

I never pretended the French resistance was as big and efficient as the Yugoslav, Polish or Czech ones, but downplaying their role post D-day in fucking up the German logistics and slowing down the reinforcements ( Das Reich division among others ) would be a grave mistake. There was a French resistance, yes there's a huge propaganda myth behind, but they were here.

>hey
>looks like germany is loosing the war
>yeah lets do some token stuff too get a participation medal and then overblow our effort

Nah my son.

>Implying that was the mindset of those brave men who fought and not that of De Gaulle post war

The French and entire English expeditionary force collapses and were defeated by the Wehrmacht in a rapid 6 week campaign. One of the most impressive modern military victories to date.

Thats why they are not remembered and the Wehrmacht is.

>Vichy French strength in 1941: 300,000
>Free French strength in 1941: 100,000

Uh huh, 10%/10%

In fairness, as a civilian with no military training, if my country were conquered militarily I also would probably end up "trying to get along everyday."

But I do want to read more about the fall of France. That part of the war doesn't seem to get a lot of attention in the Anglosphere.

Free French isn't Resistance you absolute retard

People fail to realize that the French weren't under the threat of Genocide like the Poles were, hence the lack of hardcore resistance since they believed everything would go back to normal once this stupid war was over

>Thats why they are not remembered and the Wehrmacht is.

The real question isnt why the Wehrmacht is remembered but why Brits arent getting shit for their patheticness in this war

Not him, but I'm curious as to what aspect of the British war effort you think was pathetic?

They were no better than the French but still are as glorified, hell they are even bragging about how they played an equal role compared to America and the Soviets

>Dutchies got overrun, had a resistance and some colonial troops
>Waffles got overrun, had a resistance and some colonial troops
>Fishniggers got overrun, had a resistance and some commando raids going
>Poles got overrun had a resistance and a bit of an army going
>pretty much everybody that was overrun had some resistance shit going on
Difference between those guys and French? Unlike the French they can cope with the fact that they lost and where insignificant for the remainder of the war.

Their performance in the Battle of France for one
Instead of getting shit for that, they have movies glorifying their failure

Battle of Singapore was pathetic.

>Poles can cope with the fact they were irrelevant in WW2

t. never discussed WW2 with a Pole

The BEF's performance was adequate, the breakthrough was at Sedan, not a portion of the line that the British were holding.

Furthermore, the British kept an open war effort going far longer than the French were; you have successful operations at sea and in the air, wheras the French have no open war again until 1944, and even then they're very much in a support role to even the other western allies.

Fishniggers?

OP here, I never denied the fact that France got rekt by Germany, I'm just stating the fact that despite many acts of bravery ( Which in my humble opinion are greater than most of other occupied nations ), the French are still regarded as the ultimate losers.

Singapore noit really, it was the rest of Malaya that made it impossible. Still, yes, that was very badly done, allowing a force a third your side to consistently outmaneuver you again and again. Still, it's not like this was a uniquely British failing; you had similar crushings going on contemporaneously in the Philippines and in the DEI.

Norwegians I guess, the commando raid on heavy water factories ?

Because truly, that's what you expect out of a major power and colonial holder like France, to do about as well as places like Poland and Greece. Not pathetic at all.

And my point is that after naming a few rather important battles/campaigns where they made up for that defeat by fighting bravely and having real success, people don't care and just stick with the battle of France.

But it doesn't make up for that defeat, not even close. It makes them a minor power that was essentially irrelevant outside for a few feel-good moment. You expect somewhere like Greece or Norway to be primarily irrelevant, because they were smaller and poorer than a place like Germany and you expect them to be overrun quickly. France has much higher expectations, and to be perfectly honest, a successful holding action in the middle of Gazala and some stuff in 1944 doesn't even make up for the resources that occupied France provided for the German war machine.

You must be new to this board

snowniggers*

>snowniggers
I thought thats the Swedes, or was it the Swiss?

This.

The British actually had to teach them how to fight and even then they were ineffective. Real resistance in France was done by British commandos.

Ironically, the French Air Force achieved a 2:1 kill ratio despite flying objectively worse airframes.
Say what you will about the Army, but the Air Force got shafted during the battle of France by the media to try and shift the blame of defeat

They went from being a considered a formidable and great power to surrendering in 6 weeks.

Unironically, Polish troops likely caused the Reich more military losses than French troops during WW2.

I wouldn't be so sure, the French fought in great numbers in Italy and France, all the way deep into Austria

Well, their entire expeditionary force collapsed very quickly and they basically stayed on their Island until the Americans showed up and the Russians had the Wehrmacht on full retreat on the Eastern Front.

The only two militaries that preformed incredibly well during that war are

>Germanys
>The Soviet Unions
>The United States

In that order.

So did the Poles. Little known fact, the Poles had roughly a quarter million men fighting in the West, after the fall of Poland.

By the end of the war, the French had around 1 million troops deployed

A lot of that was fighter to bomber ratio: The Luftwaffe was fielding roughly as many fighters and bombers, the Brits tended to fly 2 bombers for every fighter, and the French were fielding 4 fighters to every bomber. Sure, they did great in air to air battle, but their ability to actually provide ground support was pretty awful.

>Ignorance, the post.
Do me a favor and go look up Operation Crusader. Then again, given your patent inability to count, I suspect this will be difficult for you.

And my dick is 8 inches thick

>The only two militaries

>Germanys
>The Soviet Unions
>The United States

Wehraboo """education"""

Fuck those collaborating faggots and nice try French faggot

>Six examples
>Not a single one of them is true

Face it frog, your country's only accomplishment in WW2 was being an Axis bitch for 3 years and stabbing the Brits in the back at Dakar and Mers el Kebir

Are you absolutely retarded ? The Brits bombed the French fleet and they're supposed to be the backstabbers ? Also prove me wrong on any of these exemples, they're all true.

Implying the English were not already defeated on mainland Europe forcing them to initiate operations elsewhere.

Implying they won any significant battles giving them the initiative in Europe.

England literally did nothing but wait for the Russians the Americans to do their job for them.

My list is absolutely correct, ill improve it for you.

>Germany
>Soviet Union
>The United States
>Japan
>Britan
>France

The British did nothing but lose during that war, including virtually every single one of their colonies.

Nice argument, you still have failed to prove that my list is incorrect.

>Implying you have any idea what you're talking about.
>Implying they didn't win North Africa
>IMplying they dind't provide the bulk of the troops in the Italian theater
>Implying they didn't provide the majority of the troops in D-Day
>Implying they didn't carry out the transport plan
>Implying they didn't blockade Germany and cut her off from her overseas imports
>Implying that a list with three countries is the top 2.

Pick up a book.

Bagration was so much more impressive, why is it less admired?

Ive read many books. Germany fought 4 world superpowers on three fronts sir, 4 of the armies on that list.

Again, England did nothing but lose during that war. They went from global superpower to Americas assmonkey.

Good question, a guess would be the Germans were outnumbered and out mechanized during that battle and the Soviets learned their massive encirclement operations from the Germans themselves. For they had army after army encircled and destroyed during the first few years of that war.

If you can't beat them, copy them.

You must be trolling

Did you know the rear view mirror was invented by a French officer?

Last time I checked it was an american

People forget that after the war 1,8 millions of french were taken prisoners in Germany. Obviously, it's hard to organize a global resistance when the men able to fight are not here.

People laughing about the battle of France are kids, or uneducated (usually both). Real life isn't like a paradox games, and the war can go very fast. The Germans learned this from Napoleon. On WW2, the french armies were encircled. France lost 100 000 men in just 6 weeks. If you want to compare, the US lost 400 000 men...for the whole war.

because they fucking gave their country to the germans because their top brass was antisemitic as all fuck...

>By the end of the war, the French had around 1 million troops deployed
source please nao!
>protip, it was 400k at best, and most where low grade

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_France
>Soon they were fighting in Alsace, the Alps and Brittany, and by the end of the war in Europe, they were 1,300,000 strong – the fourth-largest Allied army in Europe – and took part in the Allied advance through France and invasion of Germany

>Germany fought 4 world superpowers on three fronts sir, 4 of the armies on that list

because they were absolutely retarded, this isn't impressive at all. As soon as they were fighting on 3 fronts, it took less than a year to defeat them.

And even then, they only fought Britain for a full year, and didn't win, and they practically only fought the Soviet Union on land for 2 years, and still lost.

How exactly is Germany impressive, at all?

>Japan

Japan did the absolute worst though.Italy was more competent than they were

...

is that de gaul diaries during war. just a guess

>Italy was more competent than they were
Nice try Guido.

>The BEF's performance was adequate, the breakthrough was at Sedan, not a portion of the line that the British were holding.
The breakthrough was at Sedan because the BEF was already isolated further North. The BEF did no better in their breakout attempt at Arras.

>even though we're supposedly on the side of the allies let's not turn over our ships to them
>better yet, let's just let them potentially be taken over by Germany and potentially threaten the home fleet

Captive Frenchmen from the 33. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS Charlemagne and Wehrmacht stand in front of Général de Division Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque

When General Leclerc called them traitors and said: “How could you, the French, wear someone else’s uniform?” one of them replied: “You yourselves wear someone else’s uniform”

Furious, Leclerc unhesitantly ordered the execution of all of the the prisoners

I thought the Swiss are "Mountain Kikes"

SU gets so fucking overhyped on this board. Stop being a contrarian and admit that the best thing they managed to do was barely hold on until America started funding basically their entire war effort

Because it was done by a Red Army supplied by Lend Lease that had started arriving in very large numbers and against a Wehrmacht that was also forced to fight in France and Italy and invest heavily in anti-aircraft measures to ward off devastating Allied air attacks.
The doctrinal advances they made was impressive, but they probably couldn't have done it without the support they got.

Brit Navy>Brit Intelligence >RAF>Brit Army

Aside from Monty in North Africa, the Brit army was pretty bad. Their navy owned the Germans and Brits had the best intelligence services in the war. And RAF eked out the win in the Battle of Britain. But yeah army was pretty poor for the most part.

Whoops should have been Navy=Intelligence

>10% Actively fought the Germans
Ah, yes. The three Frenchmen and a dog who didn't collaborate.

So Germany just wanted to send the Italians more precious troops and resources in North Africa and the Balkans just to cash in their "victories"?
Nice try Pastaboo, come back once you find the Italians achieving success that is of the same scale as the Invasion of Malaya and Singapore.

I don't get it

found Lindy

comin' through...make a hole

1940: the fall of france by Andre Beaufre

read collapse of the third republic by william shirer

>Polish
>Resistance

the French were based in the field, with great leadership until you got up above about brigade level, where suddenly every officer is literally a geriatric fuck who WE WUZZES about the first World War when he was actually competent and is so senile and delusional that they think it's basically still 1917

>Char B1 Bis "Eure"
>annihilates 13 tanks and 2 field guns
>hit 140 times, no effect
>tfw if Gamelin (satan) hadn't scattered his armored strength all over France and the low countries WW2 in Europe would have been 2 days of French armored divisions decimating boche armor and Guderian crying while committing suicide

>people in France still have huge boners for the US/Commonwealth and even the Russian forces for beating Hitler
>mfw not even French people buy into the resistance meme

literally churned out by a humiliated and butthurt government and exaggerated so blatantly that not even the actual people of France believe it, also it fucking sells out the small heroic groups who did actually resist for 5 years and who mostly died in the attempt.

>1944, US enters Paris
>suddenly 300,000 "resistance" members are there
>they try to claim they already "liberated" Paris

no pierre, now GI's will fuck your wife after they've finished fucking the germans

a problem with these though was that very few had radios while all german tanks did, when French tanks got into an advantageous position they couldn't properly exploit it in a way the germans could. Orders from high command also had to be sent by courier and not by radio for god knows what reason.

pretty much all of it familia, especially in Asia, what a fucking disgrace, the insanity in Italy is another low point, only with Monty raping Rommel in Africa and from Overlord onwards were they anything approaching based

Royal Navy was based the entire war though, same with the RAF, pretty much the only shining lights in a sea of failure until LATE 1942

>700 dudes holed up in unfinished bunkers
>hold up 40,000+ Nazis for 3 days
>make Guderian look like a dumb asshole

Woah...
So this is the power...
Of America...

>for god knows what reason
>>great leadership until you got up above about brigade level, where suddenly every officer is literally a geriatric fuck

bruh what did I just say? GERIATRIC FUCKS who thought it was still the previous war and that they were still cutting edge tactical and strategic geniuses, they probably thought the radio wouldn't work because the field telephone cables hadn't been run back to them from the front, and who thought tanks were a new meme that'd never catch on besides as single vehicle infantry support.

>doddery 65+ year-old generals who think pigeons and bicycle messengers are still the premier mode of comms in 1940
>wonders why tanks had no radios

>“You yourselves wear someone else’s uniform”
What did he wear then?

>Why is the French war effort in WW2 so looked upon ?
Generally "American education".

The difference is the others didn't surrender after essentially a set back. They all got utter rekt, but France surrendered while still being a massive and powerful force.

>one of them replied: “You yourselves wear someone else’s uniform”
>GI's burst into laughter

Well the French actually stood a chance, or should have at least.

The free french wore british or american uniform. I remember reading about the 6th june landing, where 177 frenchmen landed as part of the british commando, and the local french citizen talked to them in english thinking they were brits.

>Furious, Leclerc unhesitantly ordered the execution of all of the the prisoners
>Sauce?

>french """"""""""resistance""""""""""

Dutch had a small but decent navy, particularly subs. Norwegians had a huge merchant fleet.