Let’s not forget Helmut Kohl and Francois Mitterand famous picture in Verdun in 1984:
And I just realised I am so off topic now,I can only apologise…:oops:
Francois Mitterand looks like he really doesn’t want to be there. Almost like a little child that has been forced to visit Grandma’s grave while his favorite cartoon is on… 
It was actually his everyday face.
It was a very important symbol at the time…welll in France anyway,I don’t know how it was received in West Germany,let alone East Germany.
Pah, this is my thread, we can do whatever we want. Just don’t tell the mods 
I’m afraid that was roughly 6 years before my time, so I can’t really say what the sentiment was in Germany, but knowing the way people think and talk today, I’m sure it was all over the media.
I was wondering, kamehouse, how was/is the French attitude towards the ‘Great War’ nowadays? Is there a somewhat bragging attitude as it is with the English and Americans, or is it more of a neutral one (Probably induced by the defeat that followed)?
Well, your location says London, so I assumed you’d be English…
I am tip toeing to make sure we won’t wake them up.Shhhhhh
I was only 13 when the picture was shot but I remember the feeling of closure ,that a page was definitely turned and we (the French) were very proud of it.
As for the “great war”,it is a very personal affair for the French on many levels.
As much WW2 is a source of shame more than glory(defeat,humiliation,collaboration,events such as the rounding up of jews at the Vel d’Hiv),the first world war is exactly the contrary.Ultimate sacrifices,heroism,bloody battles.
Even me ,I am sometimes trapped in this way of thinking.I won’t say bragging is the right word for the French attitude but more about respect,reflection on what happened and a genuine feel not to have to do this ever again.
The only ,although quite major,downside is that I feel France tries to ,maybe not ignore but downsize the importance of Great Britain,Russia,Italy and the U.S.A in the war effort.
While in France last year,I bought a couple of magazines on the subject and only a couple of pages were about the eastern front.Not much more about the Italian front.Although a full chapter was dedicated to the English and American forces.
Which brings me to this:
One thing that always surprised me all these years i have been leaving in England is the difference of attitude between the UK and France towards the war itself and its soldiers.(I created a thread last year and I got some Flak from it so I won’t go down this avenue again).
Last year was the 90th anniversary of the Armistice and while I came in France in December ,there were still many magazines(some historical and some “specials” edited for the occasion) widely available treating on the subject but I have seen nothing of the sort in the UK.One WH Smith (chain of magazines/book shops) did a special on the RAF and that was it really.
On WW2 only ,France has at least 5 monthly magazines and I yet have to find one in the UK( for those leaving there,let me know what do I need to do to get a publication if some do exist).
I am in exile.:oops:
Nah, the mods never sleep. We’ve had our eagle eyes on you two for a while.
Seriously, kamehouse and Schuultz, may I congratulate both of you on conducting such a civil, rational, informed and informative conversation on a potentially inflammatory topic of the sort which would, with some other members on this and unrelated topics, long ago have descended into a slanging match.
It’s a pity that the degree of understanding, respect and civility which you have displayed was not present in the governments and much larger number of the people in your respective countries of origin in 1914 or 1939 (or probably 1933, or maybe 1923). And that it was re-discovered after all the suffering of both wars as represented, however stiffly, by the photo of Mitterand and Kohl.
I think that one of the many terribly sad things about war is to see veterans from both sides sharing their common understanding of their past, and usually their youth, in amicable discussion. From which many with whom they served are excluded, because they died or lived but were destroyed in other ways by a conflict which served no good purpose for most of those who actually fought and suffered in it, who mostly were not the people who started or could control it.
Well, in a way the war had a big French focus anyway. I know in Germany, in many ways, it was supposed to be the ‘Great War’ to finally shut up those pesky Frenchies across the Rhine. (Yea, that worked out) :neutral:
The German Empire didn’t want England in there, and the US arrived late and predominantly in the form of resources and cash, just in time to break the back of the German Army. But after all, I can’t say I speak for all Germans, obviously, but I feel like even in the popular mindset it is considered the (hopefully) last in the series of the large-scale Franco-German wars.
(1940 wasn’t really a War compared to the rest of them, if you don’t mind me saying so.)
Russia, in the meantime, was defeated in the East, though that’s something which there isn’t a lot of emphasis put on in our History classes.
(Might have something to do with us pretty much creating a monster that was going to kill its creator 25 years later)
As I said, in the most common way of thinking, it’s considered very much a Franco-German War. It’s hard to forget about the large-scale British involvement, though, not at least because they won’t shut the heck up about it!
Last year was the 90th anniversary of the Armistice and while I came in France in December ,there were still many magazines(some historical and some “specials” edited for the occasion) widely available treating on the subject but I have seen nothing of the sort in the UK.
Really? I’ve seen plenty of British documentaries and magazines about WW1 here in Canada, mainly created by BBC. One would think they’d have them in the UK, too. Try to Google it, or for more specific results, amazon.uk (though I’m not sure if they have magazines)
On WW2 only ,France has at least 5 monthly magazines and I yet have to find one in the UK( for those leaving there,let me know what do I need to do to get a publication if some do exist).
You must be seriously looking in the wrong places, because just right off the top of my head, I can think of at least 3 or 4 British magazines dealing with it. A couple of them aren’t available at newsstands, though (at least not here in Canada), they have to be ordered via a subscription.
I also remember that for a while, there were a certain kind of magazines very popular in Germany, which would focus on a certain part of WW2, usually a Tank, ATV, or ship, and recount the most important battles in which they were used, usually in the greatest number. They would also tend to always have pieces of a scale model added to them, so people who subscribed would be able to build a model after a year.
I never bought one (cash was short), so I can’t say anything about the historical accuracy, but I’m sure they should be worth checking out.
I am in exile.:oops:
Hahahaha
Fair enough Lol
I never refer it as war either.Campaign or invasion (and err…defeat) is more appropriate I reckon.
I’d say a medium stance would be more appropriate.I don’t think it is fair to ignore what the British empire and the other allies have done but I see what you mean,to claim it too often can become a bore.
I have seen some too(the Somme: from defeat to victory was an excellent BBC production) but they aren’t recent (2006 for the 90th anniversary of the battle).
For the magazines:why only by subscription?As I said out of a dozen History magazines you would find on the shelves in a typical newstand,at least 5 are specialised in WW2!And we have less things to brag about it than the Brits!
Yes there are a few history magazine(BBC history or history today) but they talk about many subjects from Boudica to Waterloo with bits and bobs from WW2 or WW1,but only bits and bobs…unfortunately 
@Rising Sun:
thanks for the kind words.
I’ll have to practise more my ninja posting skill.
Well, I guess the problem with History regarding a fixed time period, such as a war, is that it doesn’t really have any new developments every odd month.
We might hear something new when there’s another archive opened, or the odd interviews with veterans, but it’s not like there’s a lot of veterans of WW1 left.
(Only 7 actual verified veterans, 2 Aussies, 2 Yanks and 3 Brits. Two unverified claims, one by an Italian and one by another Brit)
So I can see why they would only make special edition magazines, especially for WW1.
For WW2, there’s still plenty of veterans left, plenty of Battles not dealt with and plenty of secrets waiting to be discovered, so I guess a magazine could be kept alive for it. If I was the publisher, I’d make it only quarterly, though. Four elaborate, well researched magazines should be a lot better than 12 small, poorly researched ones.
Regarding seeing France as an Ally.
In NZ, it is a fairly common view that France is basically ungrateful for being saved not once, but twice from wars it was unable to win, and is sometimes viewed as unwilling to win.
Yes, there are isolated examples of gratitude, such as Le Quesnoy, but the truth is that NZ, Australia, UK, USA often feel ignored when it comes to remembering WW1, and very downplayed when WW2 is remembered in France.
If one chose to be brutal about it, one could very easily suggest that when the French Army mutinied in 1916, the Australians, British, New Zealanders, and Canadians should all have packed up and gone home, leaving France to be owned and ruled by Germany.
Then, WW2 would not have occurred as history now records it, but rather as a conflict between the capitalist “west” and the communist “east” possibly beginning around 1940-1942.
In actuality, in 1916 the Allied Nations used their troops to hold the line, and Germany was unable to advance.
The simple fact remains though, that in both World Wars France in essence failed.
That France claimed the lion’s share in the victory of WW1 led inevitably to WW2, as other posts in this thread have asserted.
I never have, and never shall see France as a legitimate “Victor” in either World War.
Everything achieved was in essence achieved by every Allied Nation but France: for which very reason, her status as “Ally” is extremely questionable, because her true in-context status is far closer to that of a dependant child made a “Ward of the Court”.
Whereas: I DO view Russia as both a legitimate Ally and “Victor” at least in Europe, though having taken a victory by convenience against Japan. Expressing the case regarding Japan another way: The USSR simply let the USA win that war for them, and would most likely have been quite content to let American and Australian forces bleed themselves dry had it come to the point of invading the Japanese mainland islands of Honshu, Kyushsu and Shikoku. However, that is simply pragmatism, much the same as Eisenhower deciding to let the Russians take Berlin.
Respectful Regards, Uyraell.
If Germany had won the war against France in 1916, there’s a chance that there never would have been a Communist Russia. The Germans smuggled Lenin back into Russia in 1917, IIRC, to cause unrest with the population and force the Russians into a peace treaty (which worked).
If Germany had defeated France in 1916, they might even have been able to defeat Russia with conventional methods, and something makes me doubt that the German and the Austrian Emperors would have accepted a Communist revolt in an already defeated Russia. Even though they had been at war with the Czar, I think there would have still been a certain loyalty between the Monarchies, that would have lead them to support the Monarchists repel the Communist rebellion.
As for the fate of France: I highly doubt Germany would have occupied it. Their plans were to cripple it economically and militarily (just like France did with Germany when they actually won). They would have also annexed Luxemburg, and IIRC turned Belgium into a German Protectorate.
As for Austria’s goals - I don’t recall them. But I’m sure that Italy would have gotten into quite some trouble for betraying them…
When we talk about wars in a modern context,one country is unlikely to be able to defend itself with no allies to help it.France is no exception.
As being ungrateful I wouldn’t say so.As previously stated in a previous post,I think sometimes France is downplaying the role of the allies but they certainly aren’t ungrateful.
The attitude of the French army can’t be generalised to both world war.
The army in WW1 and WW2 were far too different to do so.
The mutiny was in 1917 after the disaster of the “chemin des dames” in April.
Only a handful French soldiers deserted or fraternised with the ennemy.They even defended the frontline against probing attacks.The mutiny wasn’t social nor political but more against the way the war was decided by the French “etat major”.
After 3 months the French army went back to the offensive and the 25th of August captured symboliquely hill 394(le morthomme),the hill of Opie and Talou in Verdun, reestablishing the frontline to February 1916 line of defense.
Simple?Fact?Both?How can a country fail after 4 years of battles?So many dead,a generation was wiped out?
Expend please as simple fact in a war such as the first or second is not an easy find.
The text bolded shouldn’t be left in the same sentence.Your post stink the trolling “surrender monkey” cliche.
829 French soldiers were killed on average everyday during the 1560 days of the war.I fail to see the respect in your post.
I beg you to stick to the second world war as you don’t obviously have a clue about the first one.
Read this book:“1914-1918,the history of the first world war” by David Stevenson.I thought it was a very fair book on who’s done what.
I can’t hide that I am very disappointed by your whole post which I thought was extremely rude and shortsighted.
Unfortunately ,not all posters can be as civil as Schuultz.
sigh
Failed, because in the final analysis the victory in each World War was won FOR France, NOT BY France. QED.
AS to the matter of Respect: I do and have known many French nationals in My lifetime.
Those persons, I would not truly seek to offend, they were and are fine people, and I DO respect them. However, it did emerge in numerous discussions that they themselves felt France as a Nation had failed France as a People. I am inclined to agree with that assessment.
An entire generation . . . from every township and city in New Zealand, three quarters of the eligible male population fought in WW1, and few indeed returned home. The sons of those same men went on to serve in the Armed Forces in the Second World War. I’d suggest WW1 casualty figures in proportional terms would be near enough equal between France and NZ.
Nor, have I at any stage been uncivil. I have neither made personal attack, nor used offensive language or words. Granted: I have expressed views with which some may take issue, however, I have done so within the boundaries of civility.
Respectful Regards, Uyraell.
“Won for France?” By whom? Who could have defeated the Prussian military machine without France?
I think this a terrible oversimplification…
AS to the matter of Respect: I do and have known many French nationals in My lifetime.
Those persons, I would not truly seek to offend, they were and are fine people, and I DO respect them. However, it did emerge in numerous discussions that they themselves felt France as a Nation had failed France as a People. I am inclined to agree with that assessment.An entire generation . . . from every township and city in New Zealand, three quarters of the eligible male population fought in WW1, and few indeed returned home. The sons of those same men went on to serve in the Armed Forces in the Second World War. I’d suggest WW1 casualty figures in proportional terms would be near enough equal between France and NZ.
…
Why would the French be to blame for this? Were not the ANZAC forces members of the Commonwealth fighting for the interests of Great Britain first and France second?
For France by whom?New Zealand?
And yes France hasn’t won WW1 by herself and never claimed to have.
I know my fair share of French nationals too.Hell I lived there for 25 years!And what you are saying is just plain wrong.I would love to know the reaction of your French acquaintances if they would read your offensive posts.
Your point is not valid anyway and generally far too vague to be taken seriously:If I would claim some wrong comments on New Zealand and try validate it by saying I know a few New Zealander in London that approve of my views,does it make it more valid?Especially if I can’t actually prove I know them?
This is not a contest ,I never claimed that any ally nations who participated in the First World war wasn’t a legitimate “Victor” and their status as “Ally” is extremely questionable,You did.
By the way ,the level of destruction endured by the French country,economy and life of its citizen(civilian and military) is not to be ridiculed by your narrow minded claims,unless you want to make your post even more offensive.
You don’t need to use words to be offensive.
Your posts just proved that ,failing to prove anything else.
I’ll let the Mod team and regular members to be the judge of your posts.
What strikes me the most is that you seem very confused and carry on thinking that the French army is the same in WW1 and WW2.
Again it is two different armies we are talking about.
The first one ,I have nothing to be ashamed of.
The second ,I have not much to be proud of.
I will stop with this:
If France didn’t deserve to be a victor or an ally,why did the other allies didn’t stop her imposing the treaty of Versailles to Germany?
Such a minor ally wouldn’t be able to claim anything surely?
The U.S.A ,Italy or the British Empire would have been able to tell this arrogant and insignificant country that is France to take back their unjustifiable claims,wouldn’t they?
In the meantime, feel free to live in your fantasy world where France was hiding behind bushes during the whole “great war” and collected all the benefits at the end when the war was over.
Nick,thanks I thought I was getting crazy here.
There is one thing I learnt in my experience with forums:
Never talk about something you don’t know much about.
It always backfire on you.
Something Uyraell should know by now.
I completely understand some people might not be keen on the French.I live in England after all(which is a good thing in terms of self-criticism) but if some claims are just thrown with no logical and factual backing ,I can’t just sit down and grind my teeth.
Now now, let’s not get personal…
Please keep things polite even if you’re angry…
I think we can all agree the staggering numbers of Frenchmen dead at VERDUN (not Versailles!) alone was tragic and horrifying. That sacrifice alone entitles them to victory in my opinion–and their stupid frigging politicians’ blunders afterward to not diminish the sacrifice of the French soldier in WWI…
Not angry at all,just disappointed .
I can take a lot of bashing about France lack of prowess during WW2 but regarding its role during WW1,these were the most unfair statements.
Although Verdun was an extremely bloody battle,it wasn’t the bloodiest.
The Somme was!All nations taken in consideration, the loss were a staggering 1 200 000 casualties(KIA,MIA,WIA,POW) compared to Verdun’s 700 000.
Also 1916 wasn’t the worst in terms of French KIA(270 000) with 1914 being the worst(360 000) followed closely by 1915 (320 000).
Source: Historia Thematique, l’album inedit des archives de l’armee. Numero 116/ Novembre-Decembre 2008.
A reknown French historical magazine admitting of the British army sacrifice in the Somme and comparing it and downplaying the battle of Verdun?
Ungrateful French indeed!:rolleyes:
Let us not forget during WW1 France invented mechanised Infantry! (taxis on the marne). Whilst it is my opinion (not a fact, just the way I percieve it) the French conduct of war in WW2 was poor at best their actions in the WW1 were markedly different. As previously mentioned the poilous fought extremely hard at Verdun and took utterly horrendous casualties. So lets not bicker about WW1, back to WW2!