[Political Interest]

So the French lost to Germany and this means they were cowards? The losers are always cowards?!

[Igor Antunov]

It's just a little bit of ignorance americans propagate for some reason. 360,000 french died in battle during the invasion, killing over 160,000 germans in the process. Where direct confrontation was possible, the french engaged and fought valiantly.
The problem was the kind of warfare the germans were engaged in. There is no mystery. The germans simply went around french troop concentrations and outran the french supply lines without regard for the forces now behind them.

This devastated the allied military planners who were expecting a ww1 style battle. The result was a complete decapitation of allied organisation which was reliant on supplies from deep within french territory and contingencies based around trench warfare that now had no applicable purpose.
This resulted in a total breakdown in leadership. Hundreds of thousands of troops on the broader front line were left directionless and stationary, without a clue what was happening behind them until the entire allied command structure had collapsed. Those that did manage to engage the sneaky germans after the initial assault on the french lines did so without enough firepower concentration resulting in shitty kill ratios for the allies. The germans kept up their strength deep into french territory by never dispersing their armoured columns and airpower. It was a direct road to Paris.

The british tucked tail and ran.

[Political Interest]

It's just a little bit of ignorance americans propagate for some reason. 360,000 french died in battle during the invasion, killing over 160,000 germans in the process. Where direct confrontation was possible, the french engaged and fought valiantly.
The problem was the kind of warfare the germans were engaged in. There is no mystery. The germans simply went around french troop concentrations and outran the french supply lines without regard for the forces now behind them.

Yes the numbers testify to the bravery of the French people. There were 360,000 who died in defense of their motherland and yet this is cowardice? Also the Germans were far superior in technology and technique.

The british tucked tail and ran.

What about Australians and New Zealanders?

[Otebo]

* Little-known fact: Britain contributed about 10% of land forces of the Western allies in 1940: 13 divisions. That's about half the Belgian contribution and barely more than the Dutch contribution. There was a massive use of France's, then-weak, manpower, making 117 divisions. The Western allies' forces were just equal in size to that of Germany. There is not much more France could have done. The defeat is inconceivable had the British contributed manpower even moderately in line with the demographic and economic strength of their country and empire.

Britain could not simply abandon all it's commitments and throw every resource it had into the battle for France. French demands for more and more aid might not have saved France but it would have left Britain without the means to defend itself after the French surrender. For example, had Britain sent the extra RAF squadrons which Paris continually demanded they would almost certainly have been lost and the Battle of Britain would have had a very different outcome. Britain fulfilled her commitments to the alliance, France clearly did not when she surrendered. Not to dismiss the courage of some elements of the French military and the French people but politically France showed itself a poor ally.

* Given that Britain's land forces were marginal and the USSR and USA made no sign of joining the war soon in 1940 (indeed, neither joined the war freely, both were forced into the war by Axis aggression), I can perfectly understand those French leaders who decided it would be better to make peace with the conqueror rather than bleed ourselves dry why the Anglo-Communists watch. In the end, in a odd de facto Realpolitik, France did the best thing for it: peace with the conqueror when he was hegemonic, side with the allies when they are winning. People will say it's not very glorious, and it isn't, but contrary to after-the-fact mythology, I dare say that no one had a particularly good track record in the war years.

It would have been just as easy for Britain to make peace in 1940. Luckily for the world the British people were made of something stronger and were prepared to bleed themselves dry when France jumped into bed with the enemy and the Yanks and Soviets stood on the sidelines.

The british tucked tail and ran.

Only a moron doesn't see the benefits of a tactical retreat. The evacuation of the BEF and a large chunk of the French Army provided the means to continue the struggle. Had they been needlessly thrown away it is debatable whether the war could have been continued. The rescue of around 200,000 British and 140,000 French troops gave us the means to continue the war.

[roxunreal]

Anyone who makes fun of France being a failure in WW2 probably didn't read a single sentence about Italy doing the period Italy during both the world wars was an absolute comedy in terms of warfare.

[SpaciousBox]

Pre-war France was a defensive country, not an offensive one. You have to remember the mind frame that existed; they did not want another war. The Maginot line cost something in the region of 120% of their defence budget per year, giving them nothing to spend elsewhere. It's been a while since I did any reading on this bit, but I believe military service was also dropped shortly after WW1. They kept training troops, yes, but they had very little training. So when Germany came for them it was a well equipped, well trained army, with a good arsenal of weapons and enough sense to go round the back rather than break through. Of course France didn't survive.

[pugsville]

The British had a very small army in 1940. It was expanding but it takes time to equip and train a army, the British were mobilizing at a reasonable rate and committed a reasonable amount of force given the initial situation.

The defeat was mainly in the strategic/operational level. Most French units fought reasonably well, it was the manouvrering and strategic planning that let them down in 1940 rather than fighting ability. Some or the second rate reserve units didnt perform well, but thats a few isolated cases, the Allied plan to advance to the dyle was the worst possible plan once the German's were cutting across their advance and isolating almost all the quality allied units in a pocket. The Plan had no Reserves, coupled with the incredibly bad communications (no real use of radios), intelligence (ignored) and command set up (poor structure multiple HQs and commands and thats JUST the french) These bad organizational and strategic planning issues were worce than the tactical doctrine of the blitz (but made them incredible bad at reacting quickly)

Once the main army was cut of and basically destroyed in Belgium the remaining french forces had no realistic hope of winning, surrender to avoid unnecessary casualties was reasonable (ish!) But the surrender could have had many different forms.

French Society was divided (extreme right and left both had fair followings) once france was defeated many of the right used the opportunity to oush various agendas (some of the worst characters in Vichy actually fought bravely in 1940) there was no plan to fail, but once the defeat happened it was used by some forces. Vichy too was a divided regime only loosely held together. De Gaul, "free" french, resistance were all again seperate groups with various agendas (spanish elements , communists who abstained until the 1941 inavsion of russia,)

[Kon]

This is the worst thread ever

Every social grouping includes men of character and deluded idiots, in some unfortunate cases the deluded idiots take the reigns and events like WW2 happen.

I have a strong feeling that we are on the eve of WW3, let's not forget that the only real ultimate cause of war is deluded idiocy

[Wolfman]

Yes the free French fought bravely in 1943-1944. The French allowed the Germans to walk into Paris in 1940. I'm talking about a very specific time. Are you saying the german onslaught was so devastating they had to stop fighting?

What are you talking about? The French were caught with their pants down by revolutionary tactics and I believe superior numbers, as I've already explained. They didn't simply let the Germans walk into Paris, they fought as well as they could under the circumstance. And the Free French were fighting pretty much constantly.

I'm not saying leningrad was captured. That was my point. Against the same army, arguably a better modernized version then that which invaded France in 1940, hold out 900 days versus 90 days for the French nation? I don't know the geography of Leningrad but is it more defensible then Paris or any other region of France?

The Red Army was much larger then the French Army during the Battle of France, the Germans were somewhat unprepared for the climate, and I believe the Russians were using guerrilla warfare and the Soviets had this hilarious advantage: a very large chunk of their army showed in the last third or so of the battle giving the Soviets a massive advantage.

[Oxymoron]

French are historically pussies aside a few lucky times when they had divine interventions. World War 2 the Polish never surrendered, and fought even when the capital was taken. The French "army "surrendered witout really fighting, they are pussies disgusting smelly pussies.

[GandalfTheGrey]

360,000 french died in battle during the invasion, killing over 160,000 germans in the process.

thats total casualties, not dead. Germans lost between 30-50,000 dead, not sure about the French.

Also French strategists probably should share some of the blame - eg dismissing the possibility that the Germans were advancing through the Ardennes

[Wolfman]

The French have historically been the dominate military force in Europe. And the shit you just said has already been roundly dismissed here by people who have something resembling knowledge of WWII

[Oxymoron]

Dominant?

Really?

Your talking about the British correct? Those who owned the french.

Or the point that the whole western French Front mutinied at one point in WW1

or that the French surrendered in WW2 without total defeat, the Poles fought never surrendered, the Yugoslavians fought, but the French surrendered without fighting that is pussy.

[Wolfman]

Your talking about the British correct? Those who owned the french.

At several points the French and British were bipolar powers in Europe, but the British were only the dominate power after they started colonizing the world. For most of the 1,500 years before that France was the major power. And until the late 1700s France was still a force to be reckoned with.

Or the point that the whole western French Front mutinied at one point in WW1

OK?

or that the French surrendered in WW2 without total defeat, the Poles fought never surrendered, the Yugoslavians fought, but the French surrendered without fighting that is pussy.

Your position is based on a complete lack of understanding of what was actually happening in WWII, and all of it has been explained in this thread. Try reading.

[Oxymoron]

Did the Polish surrender?

Did the Yugoslaves?

Did the French under same military condition?

No, NO and YES.

[Wolfman]

The Polish Government was completely destroyed before it could surrender. Oh, and Yugoslavia did surrender, after 10 days of fighting.

[Ombrageux]

Otebo - Without detracting from Churchill's moral courage and far-sightedness, the facts remain the same: It was a hell of lot of easier for Britain to stay in the war in 1940 than it would have been for France. At best the government could have fled to Algiers, clinging to an empire at the mercy of the British, while France proper would have been left to suffer enormous poverty and death under fully Nazi occupation and counterinsurgency.

Forgive me if I say it's perfectly understandable that French leaders thought peace with the conqueror was better for France than having the country bleed to death in a hopeless struggle against a superior enemy, with the Anglo-Russians as benign spectators. I don't think so. No one else in Europe behaved any differently in this respect (Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium..). At best their government fled, often precisely because France had not yet fallen and as such they could hope for victory.

None of this excuses the antisemitism of the Vichy government or its excesses. However it would be wrong to portray them as simply slaves to Hitler or as Nazis. They fought for their rump State till the end, that is the French Empire, the French navy and unoccupied France. They tried to fight off the Anglo-Gaullists when they attacked and they blew up the French navy when the Germans attacked. None of this is very glorious, but it is Realpolitik as everyone practices it (including the Allies).

[Rugoz]

I wonder why americans are so obsessed with the french.

[Zagadka]

I wonder why americans are so obsessed with the french.

Some Americans resent that we had to go to war and lose so many lives to liberate them. And not only WWI and WWII, but Viet Nam also.

Unfortunately, Americans generally know very little about European imperial dynasties.

[Smertios]

I wonder why americans are so obsessed with the french.

French girls tend to be more good-looking and less conservative than American ones..