Just an Observation

[Moraelin]

Maybe Scientific would be a fitting second trait for America. Not sure either. Just taking a guess, seeing as a lot of the 20'th century discoveries were made there. (Admittedly, a lot of them were done with "imported" scientists. But then IMHO it just means the USA recognized the importance of research enough to pay those scientists better. Sounds Scientific enough to me.)

[Spiffor]

Hey, eventually I agree that French are industrious in a civ point of view : they have the fastest trains in the world

Mmmh... Ok, I admit it, I'm french. And I didn't know before lurking on Apolyton that the Americans consider us as whimpy. I don't understand why, since France has long been a military nation, with some successes (from stopping the Arab progression in 732 to the Napoleonic wars). Could someone explain me why the French are considered as cowards by the Americans ?

[nato]

Spiffor - I cannot speak for all Americans, but here is a try at an answer.

Like I said above, France has gotten an unfair reputation. So I agree with you.

The main reason is France lost the Franco Prussian War and the early part of WW II. During WW I they were having a very tough time against the Germans as well. So the last 3 big wars have all been losses or near losses against the Germans.

France does have a long proud history before that ... but Americans don't always think that far back. Most of that happened before we were even a country, so we have a shorter span of reference sometimes.

Also, Americans see WW I and WW II as the U.S. coming to save France and Britain. So we have the picture that France was not doing well and needed to be saved. (I know the France/U.K. view would be we were slacking by coming late ... this is just how some Americans might see it if they were not trying to see it from another way.)

More than anything it is probably surrendering in WW II ... WW II is very very important to Americans so we emphasize it a lot.

Also pulling out of NATO was very rude ... after all NATO was formed in large part to protect France. France shirked the commitment, but still got the protection of all the other allies ... this did not help France's image.

Ok I hope I have not somehow offended anyone ... keep in mind please my online name is nato so I must like U.S., U.K., and France a lot ... West unite!

[cutlerd]

Spiffor,

As an American, a student of World History, and an avowed disliker of France the nation but an avowed friend of France the people, I will try to answer your very honest and reasonable question.

The biggest reason for France's bad rep in the US is twofold. First, France's utter capitulation in WW2. Say what you like about the benefit the British had with the Channel between them and Germany, I have NO DOUBT that even without the Channel, the Brits would have fought Hitler to the LAST MAN for their home country.

France capitulated with over 2/3rds of the nation untouched by Germany. Italy made it about 100 yards into France through the Alps. In addition, the French gave up Paris with nary a shot being fired in the city. It was, without a doubt, a complete and utter wimp out. When the Brits evacuated Dunkirk, they already had plans to re-land those troops in France to the south along the Atlantic Coast to pick up the fight again. Surrender never occured to the Brits. In fact, some unlucky Brits were redeployed back into France from Dunkirk when the French capitulated.

And not only did France capitulate, but a great many of them reveled in the Vichy government and especially chose to vent their anti-Semitism by gleefully rounding up Jews and Communists for the death camps.

But for Americans, the REAL affront came during Operation Torch. Here are Americans coming to liberate your damned nation and what happens? The French fire on us!!!!! Yes a cease-fire was eventually negotiated...but how the hell is that for gratitude?

"Ve are Vichy France, and honour demands zat ve fire upon ze Americans coming into our lands"

Well..where the hell was French honour when they decided to roll over on the Germans? Why decide to show backbone when your friends show up to help you? With friends like the French...who needs enemies?

Everytime I see a documentary on Torch or read about it and know that American boys were killed by French soldiers in the act of trying to liberate France it makes me want to slap a poodle.

Add to this the utter gall (no pun intended) of the French conduct during WW2, especially Mssr. Charles DeGaulle. Read up on their constant demands for equal status and concerns about preserving "French Pride" during WW2 that, in many cases, actually hampered Allied operations and cost American and British lives. The French were a beaten country that rolled over on the Germans and here they are trotting around with their chests puffed out as if they deserved the same consideration as the US and Britain? Once again, makes me want to slap a poodle.

But wait...there's more. So after all of this, we form Nato. What do the French do? They pull out of Nato. Then Mssr. De Gaulle makes this statement:

"Our nuclear weapons point both to the east and to the west"

What an unmitigated, arrogant bastard to even suggest that France might ever consider nuking America.

I am not finished yet.

France also denied us use of their airspace during the Gulf War.

I will sum it up in a nutshell. The problem is that France continually acts as if it is a superpower but except for the pre Middle Ages and a rather brief Napoleanic interlude, it really hasn't been much of a world power at all. It is one thing to be arrogant when you ARE a superpower and have accomplished mighty deeds on the world stage (we Americans are certainly arrogant). But it is far worse to be arrogant when you have no basis whatsoever to act that way. It makes you seem like little brats who are jealous of the other nations of the world because your time in the spotlight of the world stage was so brief.

I leave you with this:

The first French super carrier the Charles De Gaulle finally rolled off of the production line after 3 billion dollars in cost and something like 15 years in construction. But a problem occured. Sacre bleu! They found that in the many years it took them to finally build the damned thing, the naval jets France intended to use had become obsolete. And the new Rafaeles required 18 more feet of runway space than the carrier they just built had!

In desperation, they finally just bolted an 18' piece of metal onto the end of the carrier deck and have decided to pray that works. If you see pictures of the vessel as it currently sails to help in Afghanistan, look for the shiny piece of metal on the front.

Vive la France!

Devin

[David Weldon]

There's a beer commercial in the U.S. that summarizes the "whimpy french" opinion quite nicely:

"Hard to respect a people when you have to bail them out of two big ones in the same century...

Gotta hand it to 'em for mayonaise, though...

Way to go, pierre."

I guess that helps to reinforce the uneducated hick image of the U.S. at the same time, huh?

[nato]

cutlerd - I agree with you on one thing, the part about France acts too arrogant. I think France's main problem is its bad attitude. They have treated America like an enemy just because we were more powerful than them.

France is just a terrible team player. They are too obsessed with being number one, and they are rude to their allies. De Gaulle said we were more dangerous than the USSR, then he says great powers have "no friends, only interests." If you have that attitude, fine ... but don't expect to have any friends.

That is why people are mad at France, and that is why this thread comes up periodically.

Edit: Now I feel guilty ... I do like France, I just wish they were more of a team player ... whether they like us or not, we are all stuck together.

[HatchetMan]

Originally posted by habadacus
French Civilization:

Civilization Bonuses:

Can surrender 1 turn before country declares war on them
50% bonus to production after capture by Germany
Drags America into a war every 60 turns

[Evil Robot]

Originally posted by Kurgan
Another thing about your economy, is that you developed a strong economy because since the foundation of the USA, you had the most protectionist tariffs in the world, because you knew your products could not compete with the European ones (those numbers you can find from US sources on tariffs and duties), and you did not lowered them till WWII was over and no other industrial power was left in one piece. About the Film industry you should know that any film not shoot in english have to be shown with subtitles in the USA by law

1st Point: America was the second largest industrial power (behind Great Britain and in front of Germany) by 1900. By 1913, it had surpassed Great Britain by a sizable margin. I really doubt our products "could not have competed" with the equivalent European ones.*

2nd Point: No, it is not illegal. I watch films without subtitles ALL THE TIME. Try Spanish, French, Italian, and German classes in the US. You think they show movies with subtitles? Kinda defeats the purpose. I don't know what you're talking about, sir. Please find me a legal code, and maybe I'll believe you.

*Source: My 'European History' textbook. From a survey written by a Frenchman in about 1950.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by nato
cutlerd - I agree with you on one thing, the part about France acts too arrogant. I think France's main problem is its bad attitude. They have treated America like an enemy just because we were more powerful than them.

France is just a terrible team player. They are too obsessed with being number one, and they are rude to their allies. De Gaulle said we were more dangerous than the USSR, then he says great powers have "no friends, only interests." If you have that attitude, fine ... but don't expect to have any friends.

That is why people are mad at France, and that is why this thread comes up periodically.

A distinction has to be made clear between the French government and the French people. The French people (NOT Parisians, they have their own nationality it seems) are, next to the Germans, some the nicest and hospitable folks you'll ever meet. I have spent every mid-July to mid-August backpacking across Europe from Slovakia to Ireland, and I can tell you that the French are certainly a greater and kindlier thing than France. Therefor, I have no problem at all with the French, it's France that I have a problem with.

The rest of the world seems to enjoy remarking how arrogant America is. Americans, as a whole, feel the same way towards France. America does it's deeds that earn the power it has today and the ego to match. Regardless, America does it's best to use it's power and influence responsibly and tries to get along with the rest of the world. France, however powerful it once was, has it seems a Napoleon complex (pun indented). They are no longer the greatest/most influential nation of the world, and yet does it's best to prove otherwise.

WWII was brought up earlier and that, apart from the American Civil War, was perhaps the most important event in the American psyche. It defined who we feel we are as a nation and how we perceive the world around us. Unfortunately, WWII and it's aftermath is the timeframe wherein France's actions piss us off the most: namely the pre-mature (in America' eyes) surrender to Germany and the withdrawal from NATO. Both of these are actions of the schizophrenic French government, not the French people themselves. The French resistance was a key part of the Allied victory and D-Day would have been even more risky if not impossible without it.

*shrug* Some Americans have a problem making the distinction between the French people and France itself. Then again, it's not like the rest of the world is in the habit of showing America the same courtesy either. In the end, we are all near-sighted and xenophobic.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by cutlerd
But for Americans, the REAL affront came during Operation Torch. Here are Americans coming to liberate your damned nation and what happens? The French fire on us!!!!! Yes a cease-fire was eventually negotiated...but how the hell is that for gratitude?

Last I've heard, Operation Torch was a fake both ways. IF the French troops had simply surrendered -- or worse yet, just joined the Allies -- it was feared that the Germans would vent their frustration on France. The SS was known for razing whole towns for much lesser affronts than that.

So basically what happened there was a mock resistance, with an aggreement before hand that the French would surrender after a few days. Yes, the cease fire had actually been negotiated before the first US soldier even set foot there, not after a few days.

The Germans had less frustration to vent. After all, it wasn't much of a surprise to them that the "cowardly" French surrender again as soon as they take any losses. Same as in 1940. What else is new?

IF the French had actually fought you for real, then I do believe that your forces for Operation Torch were by far not enough to succeed. We're not talking Normandy here, but a rather small and fragile beach head. The French forces were far more than enough to deal with that, or at least to turn it into a very long and very bloody fight.

(And even Normandy COULD have went pear shape, if the Germans weren't 100% sure that the invasion would be at Calais, and that Normandy is merely a diversion.)

So if you want to talk bastards, then in my book BOTH sides that aggreed to that mockery are bastards. Because it was real fight, and men died. Both Americans and French. Men got crippled. For what? For show business.

Then again, it could be argued that the show was really necessary. So the French did what they had to do, and you did what you had to do, as per the script. Like good actors do. They're not any worse, and you're not any better in THAT operation.

[cutlerd]

Regarding the absurd claim that the US requires non English films to have subititles....I work in the film industry and handle foreign films (amongst others) and that is just plain false. Ever heard of Godzilla? Ever seen a subtitled Godzilla flick in a US theatre? Nope. Know why? They were ALL DUBBED.

The reason 90% of foreign films are subtitled in the US is because generally the market for foreign films in the US is comprised of film buffs and students of fine film who, rightly IMO, regard a subtitled version of a film as a more pure version that better keeps the artist's vision intact.

Regarding Operation Torch, at two of the three landings a negotiation was reached and there was no bloodshed, but the accounts I have both read and seen of the contested landings tells me that it was not in any way a bogus resistance but on by the French. Given that the Vichy French were VERY protective of their navy (witness their outrage when the British and DeGaulle struck them at Oran and Dakar [the French even ratliated with a strike at Gibraltar on the British], I doubt they would have willingly allowed their battleships to be sunk during Torch.

Could Torch have succeeded against a fully resisting French armee d' Afrique? Probably not given the lack of air cover and long supply lines. But that does not excuse in ANY WAY the deaths they caused to American boys landing in North Africa.

Devin

[SeferKoheleth]

Speaking as a law student, the more I learn the less I like the French.

I just got through reading a French extradition hearing of a suspected terrorist at the 1972 Munich Olympics (you know, when the PLO killed every Israeli athlete). Both Israel AND Germany sought this guy's extradition. What did the French do?

They told the Germans that they couldn't get him because THEY DIDN'T FILL IN THE BLOODY FORM PROPERLY!!!!

They told the Israelis that they couldn't get him because killing Jews in Germany doesn't violate French law (uh.. not only is that wrong under multiple international conventions, it defeats the purpose of EXTRADITION).

So they released him and put him back on a plane to Tunisia, where he was greated with a hero's welcome.... Oh, and the French never explained why they dropped charges relating to forging FRENCH documents and committing FRENCH immigration violations....

Then there was Rwanda-- where the French backed Hutu millitiamen in their slaughter of Tutsis.

And I'm not even going back PAST 1980!!

A totally stupid, worthless, cheese race- those Frenchmen. Nice cheese, nice wine-- miserable people. And a foreign policy that waxes and wanes between "we surrender" and "we hate America" with the occasional "Arab terrorists deserve our support."

Instead of commercial and industrious (industrious? yea who strike and whine for a 30 hour work week-- I don't think so)- I'd suggest "cowardly" and "pompous"

[Moraelin]

Whether or not you like France's attitude -- and I'm not that fond of it either -- bringing in WW2 won't solve much. I still maintain that there wasn't that much that France could hope to achieve, if it kept fighting. It had suffered massive losses, but in turn had inflicted only minimal damage to the Germans. In fact, the French and British combined had inflicted less punishment than Poland did. Literally.

Germany had achieved not just air superiority, but plain air supremacy, and wasn't affraid to use its bombers to good effect. Both against military and civilian targets, including refugee convoys. The Luftwaffe seemed invincible, to both the French and to the Germans themselves. Maybe it looked TOO much so. The fact that so many people were saved instead of wiped out at Dunkirk was mainly due to a stupid German experiment, to see if they can destroy them all with only aircraft, while explicitly ordering the ground troops to halt.

The French pilots had fought well, and did shoot down more Luftwaffe aircraft than they lost. Pretty surprising, given that a stupid French government had (among other thing) cut down the power on the engines of fighter planes, to cut the costs. But they DID lose to the superior numbers of German aircraft, and now the Luftwaffe ruled the skies.

The French military doctrine had been severely outdated. In spite of the fact that the French HQ had a copy of "Acthung: Panzer", the book which told exactly how tanks will be used in a Blitzkrieg, apparently noone had bothered reading it. The French used their tanks in small groups, like in World War 1, which were no match for the Panzer divisions. (In all fairness, it had worked well in WW1, but only because the Germans had nothing to oppose to those tanks.) Plus, no tank was a match for the mighty 88mm German AT gun. And they had lost a lot of tanks to the Luftwaffe. (There goes the "aircraft can't kill" Civ 3 theory)

The Maginot line would have been good and fine, but it had been simply bypassed through Belgium. The reason why there were no fortifications on the border with Belgium was again, due to French politics. They didn't want to make Belgium feel left alone. (Though another interpretation was that the line was actually INTENDED to guide an invading army throug Belgium, making it concentrate on one point where it can be intercepted. Only someone forgot about that part.)

IMHO France was already defeated, by any count. Sure, we can all talk about bravery and fighting to the last man. But for all the French political blunders, THAT was the first right decision one of their leaders had made in a long time.

[Kurgan]

Originally posted by Evil Robot


1st Point: America was the second largest industrial power (behind Great Britain and in front of Germany) by 1900. By 1913, it had surpassed Great Britain by a sizable margin. I really doubt our products "could not have competed" with the equivalent European ones.*

2nd Point: No, it is not illegal. I watch films without subtitles ALL THE TIME. Try Spanish, French, Italian, and German classes in the US. You think they show movies with subtitles? Kinda defeats the purpose. I don't know what you're talking about, sir. Please find me a legal code, and maybe I'll believe you.

*Source: My 'European History' textbook. From a survey written by a Frenchman in about 1950.

1st point, The fact that you had that big industrial muscle (and it is completely true that you had it) does not mean that because the lack of labor hand the salaries over there were much higher (and that is a good thing, and one of the reasons so many people migrated) the cost of the manufactured goods was much higher there. The Soviet Union had an impressive industrial muscle, but when it had to compete, it was useless, or they had to devote double (or more) the energy and resources than the US. What I said, and that is true, that if since the beginning of the USA you would have applied the free trade policy the US defends, you would have not industrialized (or at least at different pace), because it was much cheaper to buy textiles from the factories of Liverpool where they paid a misery to children five years old. In the US the salaries where much higher, because the scarcity of labor force. I still think that you should see the tariffs and duties and contrast them with the english ones at the same time from the foundation of the US till the end of WWII. My point is not that the US had not a strong industry, my point is that you had it, because you protected "unfairly" (if you really think that free trade is always and in all situations the best policy) your industries. What you say about your industry in 1900 and 1913 is true, what what I say is true too.

And for the films I do not understand you, What I mean is that it is illegal, to (the problem is that I do not know the word in english) take a film which is in another language than english, and erase the original soundtrack, and put the dialogues in english looking as it they spoke english (hell I can not remember how this process is called). Here in Spain we see all the American films translated to Spanish, without subtitles. You of course can watch the movie in its original language, but not "translated" to english. That is why the European films not made in english can not reach the US market of people that only speak english. If in Spain the American movies had the same obstacle, it would be a pain in the neck for most of the Spanish that do not speak english, and do not want to read the films, they will not be as popular as they are.

[nato]

N. Machiavelli - Yes of course, every single country in the world the people are just fine, but the government is awful. Just about every non-American I have talked to has said the same thing about America (except the American = redneck guy I guess) ... I really think it is true for all countries.

Moraelin - You might be right, but like I said earlier, and then N. Machiavelli said too ... WW II is very very important to America. It is our "defining moment".

Also we like it a lot because we were at our greatest moment and the height of our power right after it. All was right with the world to us! An example ... I can remember in my high school history class (early '90s) ... my teacher telling us basically that America was just so perfect back then and they were the "Greatest Generation" and now my generation has basically ruined everything (mostly because we lost the so wonderful manufacturing industries to Japan).

What I'm saying is, WW II is an idealized, super important time to Americans. So we will emphasize it.

Most people (not just Americans) don't try too hard to look at history from other countries point of view. So the fact that France was in a hopeless position doesn't matter much to most non-French.

In response to what you are saying, some people would say ... why did France get in such a hopeless position in the first place? They had a bigger army, more and better tanks, more aircraft, better artillery, defensive advantage ... and all that is true. France "should" have won, but it got outfought.

Throw in a joke about the stupidity of the Maginot Line and France gets a very bad reputation.

I am not defending this, just explaining it. I actually AM pretty pro French ... so are almost all Americans if it came down to another war ... there are just a lot of jokes and criticisms.