@ABWorsham:

@cts17:

In truth, though, I feel that Napoleon and Alexander the Great are very much underestimated, especially Napoleon.

Read up on Napoleon’s work, especially all that he did for the French people. Imagine the effects he could’ve had if he hadn’t invaded Russia… or if he lived longer…

I think Hannibal and Napoleon, while history gives both credit, are not given the amount of fame and acknowledgement they deserve.

Hannibal fought Rome without his nation’s full support and time after time won.

Napoleon bagged Europe, destroyed the Holy Roman Empire. Should he get discredited for attacking Russia, a country so vast that it lacks any vital objectives. The Russians did not defeat him, Jack Frost did.

Napoleon did more than that. He brought law and order to a France in ruins and on multiple occasions tried to force Britain to the peace table. As I’ve said repeatedly, I’m convinced that the wars he fought were of defensive nature against hostile European monarchs. His personal genius also bears mention: he could dictate to four secretaries on four separate letters without losing track of what he was saying to all four!

Yes, he failed in Russia, but he still won nearly sixty battles! And some of those he won brilliantly even AFTER the invasion of Russia!

If I wasn’t restricted to World War II leaders I would always pick Napoleon, one of the greatest military minds to have ever existed. It’s very fascinating to speculate on what kind of leader he would be in the 20th century. Unfortunately he gets a bad stain in history for the Russian invasion and for his “tyranny” over Europe, but I suppose history is written by the victors.

I think Hannibal and Napoleon, while history gives both credit, are not given the amount of fame and acknowledgement they deserve.

I don’t think so: more books have been written on Napoleon than any other historical figure in history, except for Jesus Christ himself!

@crusaderiv:

I agree Genghis Khan united Mongolia and was a superb leader. Napoleon and his hero Alexander the great are also strong contenders. But i would have to say that Attila the Hun would be my favourite leader a man who could be the thorn in the the side of the great Roman empire must be a great leader.
ya…Attila is not a bad choice but Napoleon, Alexander and Genghis Khan conquer more territtory.
No one talk about the viking….

Yeah, except, unlike Genghis Khan or Alexander, Napoleon fought wars of defensive nature, not wars of conquest.

@Imperious:

By “apocalypse”, i assume obviously that this means:

Demonstrating by obvious facts and proving them as opposed to defending the French no matter what, making arguments that don’t in any way support a view that the French were the bravest people always fighting to the bitter end against evil and never supporting it, or by saying what the Free French and Resistance did as a means of white washing their OTHER actions of collaboration, or just a general " id rather go down defending what they did with flimsy arguments which are not concurrent with reality.

That must mean “apocalypse”. To me the word “Francophile” fits better.

That was not a position I took. Not once did I say that that French “fought to the bitter end”, nor did I deny that collaboration existed in France in shameful levels. All I had ever argued was against lumping all or “most” of the French during WWII and holding them accountable for the acts of the so-called “legitimate” Vichy regime, and the notion that the Resistance and Free French were somehow minor sideshows that only did negligible actions. Especially after Vichy was occupied and the Occupation became progressively more harsh, it’s safe to say that the amount of collaboration dwindled. That’s not to say that lets the collaborators off the hook, nor does it excuse the fact that it happened. There were even instances where the Vichy Milice exceeded the Germans’ expectations.

But still, to say the French as a whole collaborated with the Germans is just as fallacious to say the French as a whole fought to the bitter end, because simplifying what a people as a whole did during the most destructive war of all time in a country divided in more ways than one is going to end up looking silly.

@Imperious:

Again this is because the population had no reservations against fighting against her occupiers.

Right, so because a large part of the population was not fighting means they collaborated. Again with this “us vs. them” nonsense. Either you’re with us or against us, is that it?

How convenient to ignore days before the allies invade or after they invade.

Except they didn’t “ignore days” before the Allied invasion. As I’ve already pointed out they constantly fed intelligence to the Allies in Britain and smuggled downed pilots out of the country.

Compared to the systematic acts of collaboration, these acts pale in comparison.

Your point being? Still waiting on those numbers of collaboration by the way.

And how did Yugoslavia use such excuses of physical separation? They didn’t. They fought all the way. Other nations occupied did not just form collaboration government and pretend they are ‘neutral’.

Guess you’ve never heard of Quisling. Or the “Independent State of Croatia”. Or Dutch police and civilian authorities collaborating with the Nazis (the Netherlands had one of the highest levels of collaboration with the Nazis during the Holocaust. Guess that means they’re all cowardly, incompetent fighters, hmm?) Or the Denmark “Protectorate Government”.

You’re extremely oversimplifying it. The fact that French historians to this day are extremely divided on Vichy France does not mean that “they” all just sweep it under the carpet. I’m not sure why you still think France is some big monolithic entity with a hive mind where all its inhabitants have the exact same opinions of Vichy.

Again don’t make excuses for them.

Did you even read it at all? I said: which was in no small part due to their own mistakes.

And again ignoring the fact that Germany was almost completely occupied before they surrendered, unlike France which falls with about 20% of their country is occupied.

Well I’m sorry that you feel the French didn’t follow in the footsteps of the Germans and throw young boys and old men after an overwhelming force even when the war was far lost.

Yes some french did decide, while the vast majority went “Vichy”.

Still waiting on those numbers–-

They became policemen who helped Germans find innocent people

–-Oh, right! Nevermind, we have the numbers right here. According to you the vast majority of the French population became policemen. Never before have I heard of such an influx of people, millions at that, actively go out and round up people.

The Free French was not a “government” it was nothing but a loose collection of French soldiers that escaped Dunkirk. The “French Government” was in fact Vichy collaborating with the Germans for 4 years. The Free French was also a number of military units fighting with the allies and totally financed by UK.

Really? Just soldiers from Dunkirk? Then pray tell how it managed to grow to 540,000 by 1944, when 139,997 French soldiers were evacuated from France, a great many who eventually was repatriated?

@Imperious:

No you missed the point again. It means that the “French” for the most part are collaborators with the Germans, and acts of defiance were in the minority. The larger point was that the French just support the easy choice of helping the Germans, unlike occupied Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.

Because Yugoslavia and the occupied USSR was treated far, far worse by the Nazis than occupied France was. Naturally you’d expect there to be more resistance against crueler treatment.
And again, your wording is poor. “The French”, again implying that all or most of the French collaborated with the Germans, which they did not. Many were simply trying to get through an increasingly harsher occupation.
Yes, the Resistance was small, even at its peak in 1944. But as I’ve clearly pointed out (and which you’ve conveniently decided to ignore), they were of great use to the Allies, especially leading up to and during D-Day. If you’re going to pretend that the Resistance was just a minor, auxiliary plaything, then I honestly can’t help you there.

Right and it was very easy for them in that case to remain on whichever side was in control, if that changed they just conveniently switch to the other side and do as the new controllers tell them. MY point is nations like UK and USA would never behave in that manner. They would fight against Germany no matter what.

You’re exactly right there, because the US and UK are not the same as France, geographically and politically. The US has an entire ocean to protect them, and the British Isles have a channel. And neither the US or UK were plagued by incompetent and confusing leadership, both in government and military, although that’s not to say the British were less guilty of appeasement or betraying the Poles.

It is also funny that Vichy forces fought against those allies too. But as it looked like the allies are winning …they just turncoated.

You accuse the French of collaborating with the Germans and fighting the Allies, but when the Vichy forces in the colonies joined the Free French you accuse them of being mere turncoats. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t it seems.

But it is true that they did. It just shows that once you get past french pride, either defending the fleet against UK or fighting the allies, or switching against the Germans, these people could be on any side at any time…whatever was easy for them.

“These people”, “those French”.  Yet again, these absolute terms are poor wording on your part, as is the “us vs. them” mentality.  Again ignoring that French politics during that time was extremely complex, which was in no small part due to their own mistakes.

A week:  Berlin fell April 30/May 1st And looking at the map of controlled Germany in May 45 shows that 90% of the country was occupied. IN the case of France only the capital a a much less area of the country are occupied before they fall.

Yes, congratulations, you’ve proved that the German government decided to uselessly resist for a week more and throw more young men to die in a war they lost more than a year ago. Considering that the cause was lost in France in more ways than one, and that France and its populace was simply not prepared to fight another war, of course they’re going to fall more easily.

Their was talk about fighting in Brittany too, but the official French leadership knocked that down. We can only look at the leadership which is representing “every single Frenchman”

No, we can’t only look at the leadership, because as I’ve proven quite clearly, there was Frenchman that continued to fight with the Allies. A number that was small at first in 1940 but grew considerably during the war.

Their is not proof that “every Frenchman”  would love to fight with de Gaulle or serve coffee.

No, but as I’ve said there’s proof that many French people were trying to as peaceful a life you could get in an increasingly brutal occupation.

Right but you have not once accepted the fact that the much greater weight of actions ARE collaborations with Germany

Do you have any numbers, per chance, of the number of people that were actively supporting the Nazis and the Vichy regime?

and a very minor aspect was actually fighting the Germans.

Odd, because that “very minor aspect” became a useful tool for the Allies inside France, and the Free French had continued to grow over the years.

You can’t keep brushing that under the rug of national shame.

No, nor do I intend to. I just completely disagree with your juvenile notion that a great majority of the French populace engaged in active collaboration with the Nazis. You might accuse me of trying to ignore the dark stains of French history at that time, but I can just as easily accuse you of trying to ignore the many instances where French people either continued to fight with the Allies, or simply did not actively collaborate or resist.

That means if they didn’t get financing, likely it would have been much smaller, so the ‘effort’ was conditional. In the case of Lend Lease this represented a vastly smaller portion of finances. For UK financing the Free French, is was a huge and totally funded action. Not mentioning the disparity is pretty hilarious.

That probably has something to do with the fact that the Free French government was a government in exile, whereas the Soviet Union was not. Nothing particularly hilarious about that.

@Imperious:

They did those things… BUT i can list pages of collaborations that occurred to aid German interests. Nobody is claiming that the French Resistance didn’t exist, but it was very minor compared to the acts of banality the Vichy Government condoned during occupation.

This is getting ridiculous at this point. I’ve clearly listed just a few things the Resistance did to help the Allies, and you turn around and say “oh but also Vichy!” It’s the same baseless argument that if Vichy France was set up, that must mean France as a whole are cowards and not brave right?

They also fought against the Allies in Dakar, Madagascar, Syria, and Morocco.

Funny you mention Dakar, the Free French were part of the Allied attack on that city. Also, there was considerable confusion as to the allegiance of French colonies. The soldiers there, and elsewhere, had two choices: remain loyal to Vichy because it was the “legitimate” government of France (as you like to insist) or continue the fight against the Germans and join the Free French.

And again, also funny you mention Syria and Morocco, since French forces also participated on the side of the Allies in all of those instances. In the latter case the Vichy French forces scarcely put up a fight before defecting to the Allies, and this became full force with the rest of the forces in Africa when the Axis occupied Vichy France.

And again with this ridiculous reasoning. “Oh but also French soldiers fought against Allies, guys that must mean they’re all bad! All or most of them!” Strawman argument.

“I’d rather have a German Division in front of me than a French one behind.”

• General George S. Patton

Do you know where this quote comes from? No? Patton certainly held contempt for the French but he wasn’t as birdbrained as others and respected their fighting capacity, both in history and during that time.

It is about who is brave. If you surrender at first chance when the capital falls that indicates a failure of national resolve. Stalin or Churchill would not have surrendered if Moscow or London fell. Germany fought on after Berlin fell. Only Italy and France took the “we surrender if capital falls option”. Japan if invaded would probably not surrender if Tokyo was lost.

First off:

France=/= Britain, France=/=Soviet Union. And yes, Germany did surrender after Berlin fell. They only resisted for a few more days.

Secondly:

There was talk of continuing the war from North Africa, talks which was encouraged by de Gaulle but ultimately didn’t pull through. So again, does this mean we’re to condone every single Frenchman for the actions their defeatist government took? Are we just completely putting the Free French aside now as some minor anomaly?

Throughout all of this I have cited at least a dozen instances where the French Resistance and Free French fought in the interests of the Allies, and all you return with is “oh but look collaboration that means all Frenchmen are not brave!”. Talking about French politics in World War II is a complex subject, far more complex than your “us vs. them” mentality.

Oh yes, and I like this little tidbit here:

A few things some Free French ( with total financing by England) did:

What’s this supposed to mean? “Oh you can only be considered a real fighting force if you don’t take resources from any other country!” Guess Britain and the Soviet Union are cowards and incapable of fighting then, since they used resources from the United States.

@Red:

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I will repeat myself.  The general anti-French bias is unfair.  It seems stronger in the US but no doubt it is due to France not falling into immediate lock-step with US foreign policy.

I wouldn’t call it unfair.  Overdone at times, but not unfair based on the history.  It’s a case of reaping what was sown.  It’s not the lack of “falling into immediate lock-step with US foreign policy” but the direct and overt attempts to sabotage it frequently that rightly draw the ire of Americans (and many others.)  France is an unreliable ally as has been shown repeatedly over the past century.  I recall quite a bit of swaggering by the French leadership about how they ran the EU and they would stop us from doing this and that during the lead up the Iraq war.

France’s strenuous efforts to undermine the sanctions without renewing inspections (along with their Russian allies) set up the conditions that made a pre-emptive attack palatable to the U.S.  If they had instead backed ultimatums or at least abstained from opposition, Saddam would have complied and the sanctions would have continued.  Instead Saddam wrongly assumed that France would shield him…and he was surprised by the outcome when it did not.  France, Russia and others were trying to end the sanctions, and that was producing a crisis where we faced the choice of:  1.  Watching the sanctions slip away (despite our efforts to maintain them) or 2.  Acting decisively to end the stalemate.  After 9/11 the first option was seen as intolerable for us.  Ironically, French “diplomatic” efforts were misguided in that they boxed us into attacking.

Public sentiment in the U.S. toward military action actually was strengthened by French opposition–something Saddam, the French, and others clearly didn’t understand and probably still don’t today, but was blatantly obvious to us at the time.  While there was noise in the final weeks, the decision was made months in advance when France dug in…after that it was just public show with the so called late stage diplomacy.  The reason for that was obvious:  time of year and logistics.  It was no longer a diplomatic issue, but a military one.  When you have a window and a given amount of prep time, you don’t let some sort of international political shenanigans close it.  After the ball was rolling anything short of abdication by Saddam in the final few weeks was insufficient to halt the attack.

While I consider France just as much to blame as Dubya in the run up to the Iraq War, I’m relatively francophilic and took quite a few French language courses way back when.  I had been making plans for some months for a family trip to France in the lead up to the invasion.  I cancelled because I really didn’t want the family to be there when I correctly projected the military action would begin.

Yet the French have fought with the ISAF in Afghanistan, fought in the Gulf War, and participated in the NATO intervention in Libya. I wouldn’t exactly call that “unreliable”.

@Gargantua:

it’s not contributing

Au Contrair!

Once you open your eyes enough, to see the things France has done in the last 200 years, And they way as a culture they have behaved, you will understand why the French see so much contempt.

I never knew any culture was a single, monolithic entity and “behaves” in any certain way. I’m pretty sure living in the country for five years qualifies as “opening my eyes”. I don’t think sitting behind a computer and ranting about monolithic cultural entities and posting horribly old French jokes qualifies, however.

And no. It’s not contributing. It’s pictures and links to unfunny, overused jokes.

@Gargantua:

Scandal widens in France, politicians extorted money from African dictators for years.

Because putting it in a bigger font is supposed to be more dramatic…somehow.

Sarkozy, the president of France, allegedly received millions worth of cash from brutal African dictators. Many of the dictators that recent French leaders are accused of extorting bribe money from make Qaddafi look like a great leader.

You haven’t even given a source.

@Gargantua:

5000 + 35000 + 25000 = 65,000

That’s still 10,000 less than JUST the ones who LEFT HOME to work in Germany, and COLLABORATED with the Gerries.

Not including the pancake makers.

So what exactly are you trying to prove here? All or most of the French collaborated with the Germans? Out of how many Frenchmen total at that time?

@Gargantua:

ancient jokes and one picture

So far in the last few posts, all you have posted is a YouTube videos of French Canadians booing, another post with unnecessarily large font with an uncited, alleged (as you put it) claim, and yet another posting a link to an ancient, overused joke sprinkled with some pictures depicting even more ancient French jokes. I’m not sure if you’re trying to be funny or witty, but either way it’s not contributing in any way.

@Gargantua:

Hey Spacy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2qFfuLy_fs&feature=related

There’s a bunch of French folk, insulting YOUR country, en mass.� Because they are french.

Consider yourself cordially INSULTED.

Oh no, some rowdy sports fans booed. I guess I better hold a grudge against French people everywhere and universally hate their culture!

This is getting increasingly irrelevant.

@Imperious:

Funny how in Yugoslavia and occupied Russia, these people fought Germany behind the lines, where in France they just served coffee and “collaborated” out of fear of reprisal. The mark of courage is to face death while struggling, not making pancakes for German officers.

Here’s a few things the French Resistance did:

They sabotaged production in war plants. They destroyed parts, damaged machinery, slowed down production, changed blue-prints
They dynamited power plants, warehouses. transmission lines. They wrecked trains. They destroyed bridges. They damaged locomotives.
They organized armed groups which fought the German police, the Gestapo, the Vichy militia. They executed French collaborationists.
They acted as a great spy army for SHAEF in London. They transmitted as many as 300 reports a day to SHAEF on German troops’ movements, military installations, and the nature and movement of military supplies.
They got samples of new German weapons and explosive powder to London.
They ran an elaborate “underground railway” for getting shot-down American and British flyers back to England. They hid, clothed, fed and smuggled out of France over 4,000 American airmen and parachutists (Getting food and clothes isn’t easy when you’re on a starvation ration yourself. It’s risky to forge identification papers). Every American airman rescued meant half a dozen French lives were risked. On an average, one Frenchman was shot every two hours, from 1940 to 1944 by the Germans in an effort to stop French sabotage and assistance to the Allies.

Serving coffee, hmm?

Brave means resolve to fight on elsewhere. If UK was occupied, they would have continued from Canada or elsewhere. But not France. One and done.

A few things the French did:

-The French fought in Africa, in Sicily, liberated Corsica, fought in Italy, took part in the invasion of Europe and fought through the battles of France and Germany – from Normandy to Munich.
-Units from the French navy participated in the invasions of Sicily, Italy, Normandy and South France.
-Units of the French navy and merchant marine took part in convoying operations on the Atlantic and Murmansk routes.
On June 5, 1944, the day before D-Day, over 5,000 Frenchmen of the resistance dynamited railroads in more than 500 strategic places.
-They delayed strategic German troop movements for an average of 48 hours, according to military experts. Those 48 hours were tactically priceless ; they saved an untold number of Allied lives.
-French resistance groups blew up a series of bridges in southern France and delayed one of the Wehrmacht’s crack units (Das Reich Panzer Division) for twelve days in getting from Bordeaux to Normandy.
-About 30,000 FFI troops supported the Third Army’s VIII Corps in Brittany: they seized and held key spots ; they conducted extensive guerrilla operations behind the German lines.
-25,000 FFI troops protected the south flank of the Third Army in its daring dash across France: the FFI wiped out German bridgeheads north of the Loire River; they guarded vital lines of communication; they wiped out pockets of German resistance; they held many towns and cities under orders from Allied commmand.
-When the Third Army was approaching the area between Dijon and Troyes from the west, and while the Seventh Army was approaching this sector from the South, it was the FFI who stubbornly blocked the Germans from making a stand and prevented a mass retirement of German troops.
-In Paris, as the Allied armies drew close, several hundred thousand French men and women rose up against the Germans. 50,000 armed men of the resistance fought and beat the Nazi garrison, and occupied the main buildings and administrative offices of Paris.

Some comments from generals on the FFI:

“General Patton cabled General Koenig, the French commander of the FFI, that the spectacular advance of his (Patton’s) army across France would have been impossible without the fighting aid of the FFI.”

“General Patch estimated that from the time of the Mediterranean landings to the arrival of troops at Dijon, the help given to operations by the FFI was equivalent to four full divisions.”

“The Maquis who defended the Massif Central, in the south-central part of France, had two Nazi divisions stymied; they kept those two divisions from fighting against the Allies.”

When they retreat and surrender who else can we blame? You cant make an argument that the French soldiers fighting are brave, while the generals order retreat. The result on the battlefield dictates the orders from “higher ups” The only thing you can look at is the result.

So, again, by that logic, we should blame Germany for being cowardly because they ultimately lost. There are instances where local French units fought and won tactical victories in the 1940 invasion, and the British likely would not have got out as intact as they did from Dunkirk had the French remnants fighting around the perimeter simply threw up their arms in surrender.

@Gargantua:

The French Resistance

It seems to me that French COLLABORATORS outweighed French Resistance, if you consider the duration of the war.

Here’s a passage from “112 Gripes About the French”

“The French mostly collaborated with the Germans.”

The Germans would disagree with that. The Germans tried for four years to get more Frenchmen to collaborate. That’s why they killed so many hostages. That’s why they destroyed 344 communities for “crimes” not connected with military operations.

The Germans overran France in 1940. For two years they used every promise, trick and pressure to induce the French people to work in Germany for the German war machine. They offered workers better food, clothes, privileges and protection denied them in France under occupation rules. And in all of France, during that entire period, about 75,000 French workers enlisted. The Germans admitted the campaign was a failure.

The LVF (Legion Volontaire Francaise), the French volunteer army that the Germans tried to organize, was a gigantic flop.

The glaring reality, is that our experience with French culture, whether at home, or abroad, is one of isolation, cowardice, and insult.

I’m not quite sure what to make of this. I have lived in France for about five years, and overall I did not feel any of the above as a foreigner. Of course you have your bigots, but those exist in every country. Not many fellow Americans I met in France (or Quebec, for that matter) told of any overwhelming insults.

Everytime other nations attempt to make the world a better place, it seems they’re garunteed to get a scathing comment from a frenchman.

Could you explain this more? I recall France being at the forefront of UN missions in Africa, most recently the civil war in the Ivory Coast.

French culture is even true to your own post Spacy, how you make it seem that this observed disposition towards the french being laughable is somehow OUR problem.

It’s no one’s problem actually. It’s a viewpoint that is quite frankly irrational and unfounded.

@Imperious:

Another thing France does well is somehow they always find a way to fight on the winning side, even if this means switching sides or conveniently making the official “French Government” on a new side as the war turns against the side that they originally sided with. case in point: the governments of Petain and Col. De Gualle. De Gualle’s exiled government only gained currency when it was clear that the axis would lose the war. In reality, the official former French government was Vichy located in southern France, not the "Free- French located in England. De Gualle, just assumed power and it was easy since the British financed his endeavors from 40-44.

Wrong. Charles de Gaulle was officially recognized by Britain as the “Leader of all Free Frenchmen, wherever they may be” on June 28, 1940 and did not recognize Vichy France as the legitimate government.

France deliberately linked the Allies creating the conditions for war and encouraged the Czar to mobilize, which forced Germany to mobilize. The Czar was effectively tricked into mobilization, which was a very influential motive behind why Stalin latter didn’t trust the Western Allies the next time Germany was planning to attack the Soviet Union. Stalin didn’t want to be goaded into mobilizing into another war.

Really, without these alliances the Serbian conflict should have been Russia and Serbia vs. Germany and Austria.

England only entered because they had a treaty with Belgium. They didn’t set up a war to start based on some need to gain back land.

Right, and poor Germany was a victim of intertangled alliances in Europe all orchestrated the imperialist French. Clearly Germany was pacifistic and reluctant to go to war with France at all. World War I caused by the French? That’s a first.

@Imperious:

This is totally true to the point where post war French revisionists constantly churn up all these stories of Resistance, while at the same time never recount the vastly greater stories of collaboration as as not to appear like they just flop from one side to another based on advantages. In truth they flew the flag of whoever was in power at the time actively helping that side and selling French pride down the gutter.

The “greater” stories of collaboration are bigger simply because it was easier to do so. To resist the occupier was basically a death sentence, whereby you also put your family and loved ones at great risk. In addition, not a few French people saw the Resistance as dangerous. What outweighed both collaboration and resistance, however was people trying to lead relatively normal lives as best they could. This of course changed over the years when the German occupation began to severely affect the population, and the Axis occupation of Vichy France.

I am against Francophiles who have nothing to hang their hat on in terms of any argument that France was among the bravest nations since 1870. They were not.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Is a nation as a whole considered “brave” if it wins a war? If we go by that logic than Germany is the most cowardly nation on the planet for losing both world wars.

Russia was invaded and they didn’t go for the big wall option.

That has a lot to do with the fact that a)they had undergone a violent Revolution, and the new Soviet government was too busy modernizing the country (at the cost of millions of lives) and purging its own ranks and b) the Russian border with the rest of Europe is immense. Do you honestly think any sort of “big wall” option is feasible for distances that large?

Yea you got that right. But by different we must conclude that France became less interested in dealing with actual problems, preferring to make walls to hide behind, while letting Poland die even with a great advantage in force on the Franco-German border. If you want to label that with “bravery” thats fine. France had the most brave soldiers of all time who could not even be contained from rich French food and just ran out of the border and attacked Germany in 1939. They had great success!

You keep on assuming that we must blame the French nation as a whole for the decisions their government and higher ups made.