Those Cowardly Frenchmen

[aiwac]

A brief blog post I wrote in honor of the poilus.

http://mida.org.il/2014/05/12/packs-herds-cowardly-frenchmen/

[anthony osborne]

Hear hear!

Well written.

Ant

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

Merci.

My interest here is the mixed French cavalry regt used by the 5th Australian Light Horse Bde during the last months of the war in Palestine.

A little is written on the ex Camel Corps LHR's (14 and 15 ALHRs) but there is no writtings on the French mixed Regt.during this peroid.

I was after any details on this little told story of the war and this French Regt.

Thanks for the details on the French story and I can only agree on your concuisons.

Bon chance

Cheers

S.B

[Seadog]

You do not appear to have mentioned General Robert Nivelle and the disastrous 1917 offensive which led to the mutinies in the French Army; I assume that was just an oversight.

Norman

[SteveMarsdin]

I hope that, as we pass through the centenary period, we will all appreciate more the truth of Philpott's words.

In French eyes the continued trumpeting of the 100 days as the British victory that won the war must be annoying; a bit like the striker who comes off the bench in the last few minutes of a football match, scores the winner and takes all the glory !

[Seadog]

I agree Steve but it would be nice the get the facts right do you not think? As for this remark "The last time the French knew how to fight was during Napoleon, they say" who are "they" and what about Waterloo?, frankly in my opinion the piece offers little in the way of increasing our understanding of the French role in the war

Norman

[AlanCurragh]

It is quite clear to me who "they" are. And the last time I looked, I believe Napoleon was something to do with Waterloo.

Thanks for your blog post, Aiwac

[healdav]

Frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing people say this about the French. Leaving aside the big wars for a moment, the French today have an army which is not afraid of gouing into some pretty nasty places and sorting things out.

In World War One they had virtually insuperable odds to overcome, and succeeded. The infamous mutinies were in fact, not a refusal to fight, but a refusal to attack, and much of the problem was caused, as ever, by the politicians and others, who put out a table of rations that were being issued to the soldiers which bore no relation to reality. In fact, the Poilus were virtually starving as the government and others couldn't raise the energy to send them proper food.

\we hear a lot about the spectacular US victories of 1918, but these were under very different conditions. The overrunning of St Mihiel was not due to the superior fighting abilities of the US army,but to the fact that the French army had been facing 18 divisions in the area for the entire war, whereas the US army had only 3 divisions to contend with as the Germans were withdrawing to a new line. Had the Americans waited for a couple of weeks, there would have been no one there.

Incidentally, there was a quite large French contingent at Gallipoli.

[aiwac]

seadog,

You are certainly correct that the French had its share of serious mistakes - as did every side in WWI. The point I was trying to make was that they also had many successes (at least in WWI). As for who is "they"? Every smart aleck who makes jokes about French military capability, pretty much. It was not a reference to scholars or serious people, but popular perception. I apologize if it came off otherwise.

[paulgranger]

Is it me, or did someone not quite get the point of the OP's blog? As far as I can see, it says the French fought well in the GW, and comments to the contrary are to be disputed.