For all the petty, immature American sniping at France, one very real truth needs to be noted - the USA never faced a land invasion that the likes of France faced in WW2. Nor, I notice, does the brave fighting of the Resistance and Free French Forces merit remembrance; for example the 400,000 french troops who participated in the re-invasion of France and subsequently liberated Paris (after Paris revolted, Eisenhower held back the Allied Army, but under pressure allowed the French to go ahead due to their fearing a repeat of the massacres seen during the Warsaw uprising).
So in actuality, the French, despite being outclassed by a more modern army and abandoned by their government, played a massive role in prolonging and eventually winning the war; particularly on the African front during the dark days when Britain stood alone as a sovereign, allied european nation.
This needs to be qualified, rather badly.
The US has faced land-based invasion before. The War of 1812 springs to mind. (Mexico has invaded the US before, as recently as shortly before WWI at that. Hardly a serious threat, but it happened...)
Any serious student of history remembers the Resistance, and also remembers that it was only effective because it had US and British support; regardless the Resistance contributed much to the war. The Resistance accomplished a great deal in the days after D-Day to immobilize German units outside of Normandy and deserves the true credit for liberating Paris (instead of the Free French 2nd Armored).
It is an unpleasant truth that a student of history would also probably like to forget the Free French, who, despite the contributions you have stated, were less then helpful in the conduct of the war. Probably their greatest contribution to the Allied victory was to offer approval of the Transportation Plan before D-Day. Even the Poles did more in the physical task of winning the war, and were much less disagreeable in the process. If one examines the official histories of various services from Allied nations, the Free French are regarded with something akin to exasperation. Even Vichy is given a better treatment. While not always reliable on moods (the Admirality official history in particular seems bad about this), they are fairly unanimous on the subject.
Furthermore, to state the French were outclassed in terms of technology is simply untrue. They were outclassed in terms of doctrine perhaps, but to claim their army was outmoded and unable to defeat the Wehrmacht is to do them a gross disservice. The French army was regarded as the best in the world for good reason. They had excellent equipment, including superior tanks to the best model the Germans had in service at the time (the Panzer IIIE) and considerably better artillery. Their weakness lay not in their troops or their equipment, but in their commanders. The French high command just rolled over and died, giving up before the majority of their army had a chance to even see, much less fire at, a German soldier.
It is instructive to consider the peace that Vichy obtained was to far better terms then that of any other nation conquered by Germany. The French believed they could not win, perhaps, but Germany believed that the Wehrmacht could still lose. It is also instructive to consider that the French created an unusual decoration after WWII, probably the only one of its kind. It is awarded to those who have disobeyed their orders when it was the right thing to do, a reflection of the deep feeling of betrayal by their leadership in the French armed forces.
French contributions in Africa were, frankly, nonexistant. This is one of the campaigns I've had a particular interest in, and if one wishes to remember what nation besides Britain contributed most to victory at El Alamein, look to Australia. (The Aussies really deserve a great deal more credit then they get in both World Wars, particularly WWI.)
