djogloc02 said:
The french troops could be good if the generals at least tried to be good.
I don't think you can't juge which troops are "good" and which are not since you had never be in position to be killed and you never did a war. It's easy to treat men who really served as "bad soldiers" and say they had to be more courageous or better fighters from the confort and the safety of your room.
by the way, where do you saw that French troops were bad? They fight well during the whole war, or tell me in which action they failed. Of course 1914 was a catastrophic year for French army who suffered around 800 000 KIA from september 1914 to end 1915, but they never gave up, no? Mutiny of 1917? They never asked to stop figthing or surrender, they just said they didnt want to be sacrified for nothing.
Because they didnt won the war alone? You think Germany was alone ? Without Austria, ottoman empire and Bulgaria i don't think they could win too, or stayed in the war during 4 long years. I have to precise to you that France also send alot of troops to support allies in difficulty, like Romania or Italy in 1916-1917, perhaps Serbia received French renforcements (i don't know for this last one).
If you consider that the few french survivors of Verdun battle arty fire of february 1916 who faced thousand of german soldiers and keep defended the place in desperate position aren't good, that's your choice. If you think the defenders of Fort de Vaux who were ALL french aren't good soldiers, that's your choice....
You can juge tactic and strategy, but please keep your absurdly opinion about troops for yourself, it's ridiculous.
