*performs poorly in a war*

Uh what? You have Sedan which unhinges the line, and then you have clear German victories at things like Boulogne, let alone when Fall Rot starts. That's not even getting into more complicated outcomes but usually the Germans succeeding at their goals, like Arras (the 1940 one) or the siege of Lille.

By 1918, France held less than half the western front lmao

*teleports your general to an island*
heh , nothing personal France

I'm talking about the Battle of France in general. After that, if I'm correct, they won all the battles until the end of the war.

Akshually

But counting the "Battle of France" as one battle, and then everything else the Free French did afterwards as separate ones is absurd on its face. Even the German assaults were divided into two separate offensive operations, Fall Gelb and Fall Rot. Would you call Operation Barbarossa and the Rzhev operations really just one battle?

And then there's the scale. Sure, you have tactical successes like Bir Hakim, or the Free French contingent in Dragoon, but those are battles that are on scope in terms of men and equipment committed to individual actions within the "Battle of France" like the aforementioned siege of Lille.

Not to mention that the Free French forces did have failures afterwards. The attempt to seize Dakar springs heavily to mind, and I'm sure that if I trawled through the various slogging attempts in Italy, I could find ones where the Free French forces got their noses badly bloodied, like everyone else did there.

>ww1
>couldn't even beat half the german army

>franco-german war (propagandisticly labelled as "battle of" post war)
>got wrecked

France was kicking ass in WW1 and every war before that (Franco-Prussian war doesn't count). kys kraut

>Not to mention that the Free French forces did have failures afterwards.
That's why I mentioned "if I'm correct". And yes I know that the Battle of France was a bit extended (where the French were successful sometimes, like in the Battle of the Alps), it was just a generalization to point out that people like OP focus only on one battle, forgetting the rest of the war.

46 DAYS

1 DAY

What did he mean by this?

>46 DAYS

Reminder that the CSA outlasted all of Western Europe by 1,193 days resisting the full might of the United States alone with only a fraction of the manpower and resources.

The Battle of Pearl Harbor lasted 1 day before the USA were defeated. At least the Battle of France lasted longer...

That's because southern men aren't like Europeans and don't surrender when they see a spooky gun

That's because they weren't up against tanks, aircraft, and heavy artillery.

Are you seriously trying to equate the warmaking potential of the U.S. in 1861 as opposed to 1941?

That's pretty retarded.

Pretty pathetic indeed
But there's worse:

>In total, Napoleon and the Grande Armée had taken only 19 days from the commencement of the invasion of Prussia until essentially knocking it out of the war with the capture of Berlin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Fourth_Coalition#Prussian_campaign

19 fuckings days....

Bingo

Considering the fact the Union had even larger potential technological advantage (repeating rifles, Gatling guns, telegraph communications, even early poison gas), than the Germans did over the British and French AND had a pool of soldiers nearly twice as large than what the Confederacy had, that's actually quite impressive.

How do I become an honorary southerner

If you think that's bad look at this one

>11 DAYS

its not just americans who think these things

WE GOTTA GO DEEPER

Are you guys even trying?

Less impressive

>it's a "Britain boasts about defeating a nignog city-state" episode

>1 wounded
What was that guy's problem

Bet he tripped and fell on something.

mad that you don't have the world record for forcing a capitulation in the shortest time
it's okay, you must be used to Anglo superiority

That's not very long.

>It's another "Veeky Forums triggered by Britain" episode

But the Confederacy contained one third of the might of the United States

How many french general managed to capture entire cities and armies with an inferior force?
I remember one case where a french army of X men with no guns captured a german army of 10X men and a lot of guns, because they told him Napoleon is on his way with the rest of the troops and the germsn just surrendered.

A bombing run is not a battle, the USA defeated Japan.

Napoleon was Italian, not French.

They did very well most of the time until 1871. Pretty good run all in all.

He was corsican not italian and the soldiers was and the generals were French

>tfw every attempt at unifying Europe will fail as long as the islanders breathe

>if we get ready to fire on a city state and then declare war just as we fire we might get a world record

>*Steal your territory and get away with it*

HON HON !!!

Shut the fuck faggot. Go back to fucking your negro sister

>Shut the fuck faggot

Woah...so this is...the might...of Southerners.

I've always wondered about this. Is Veeky Forums full of frogs that got booted from /pol/ or something?