U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Europe
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-18-2015, 11:38 AM
 
48 posts, read 38,995 times
Reputation: 40

Advertisements

The UK would have done the same, there was no way out.
They had to save the country, what could they do, let Germans utterly destroy France?
Remember that France suffered WWI that left a country almost without men.
Of course they collaborated!!!!
Take into account that many people in France (and in every European country) sympathised with Nazis and that many were against Front Populaire after the example of the Spanish Civil War, less than two years ago.

 
Old 01-18-2015, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Paris
61 posts, read 55,579 times
Reputation: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Depends on your definition of "withdraw":

After 43 Years, France to Rejoin NATO as Full Member
France withdrew in 1966 from the integrated military command structure of NATO, which means notably that french troops couldn't be commanded by a foreigner officer. But France was still part of the NATO.
 
Old 01-18-2015, 11:56 AM
 
12,050 posts, read 11,155,402 times
Reputation: 10010
Americans are mistaken that the French are cowardly, but the French do seem to have an overinflated sense of self importance. Yes, France is a consequential nation, but it seems to perceive itself as a world power, which just isn't the case these days. The UK has aged far more gracefully in this respect in my opinion.
 
Old 01-18-2015, 12:02 PM
 
48 posts, read 38,995 times
Reputation: 40
A self-defense mechanism, proud nations that bite the dust react in this manner.

Take Germany after WWI, or the American Confederation, or Castilians, still speaking of long gone victories centuries ago..
 
Old 01-18-2015, 12:25 PM
 
12,050 posts, read 11,155,402 times
Reputation: 10010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almansoor View Post
A self-defense mechanism, proud nations that bite the dust react in this manner.

Take Germany after WWI, or the American Confederation, or Castilians, still speaking of long gone victories centuries ago..
When a greatly diminished nation struts around, it's kind of sad but easy to sympathize with. The issue with France is that it has retained much of its greatness -- it's just not as powerful as it once was. It's clearly still a consequential nation - it's just not the power it once was. Again, the UK has aged for more gracefully in this regard. Brits act like it was such a bother to be a super power and how nice it is now to be able to sit on the sidelines once in awhile. The French, on the other hand, are like a 90-year-old man who still thinks he has the strength of a 20-year-old.
 
Old 01-18-2015, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Paris
61 posts, read 55,579 times
Reputation: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb View Post
When a greatly diminished nation struts around, it's kind of sad but easy to sympathize with. The issue with France is that it has retained much of its greatness -- it's just not as powerful as it once was. It's clearly still a consequential nation - it's just not the power it once was. Again, the UK has aged for more gracefully in this regard. Brits act like it was such a bother to be a super power and how nice it is now to be able to sit on the sidelines once in awhile. The French, on the other hand, are like a 90-year-old man who still thinks he has the strength of a 20-year-old.
True (and that explains why a guy like De Gaulle has been so popular).
And you're right to stress that UK has given up much more power than France : for example, Uk is unable to organize a military expedition overseas (UK can send some troops, but they're obliged to rely on US, notably to get some surgeons and all the medical supply). France is now the only country with the US which is able to send some troops on his own. And, you're right again, UK made the good decision, as France's will to keep his "greatness" is completely crazy (we can't even keep our streets safe but we send troops everywhere in the world). Wish we assume as soon as possible that it belongs to the past.
 
Old 01-18-2015, 01:01 PM
 
48 posts, read 38,995 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb View Post
When a greatly diminished nation struts around, it's kind of sad but easy to sympathize with. The issue with France is that it has retained much of its greatness -- it's just not as powerful as it once was. It's clearly still a consequential nation - it's just not the power it once was. Again, the UK has aged for more gracefully in this regard. Brits act like it was such a bother to be a super power and how nice it is now to be able to sit on the sidelines once in awhile. The French, on the other hand, are like a 90-year-old man who still thinks he has the strength of a 20-year-old.


Well, I lived in England years ago, and they were still reminiscing India all the time, the Commonwealth and ancient glories. Take a look at the Falkland's syndrome. They are not a superpower.

France was never a first tier superpower, but they had the "grandeur", the enciclopedist, and their empire was more cultural. I visit France sometimes and they do seem as people with their feet firmly in the ground. French are sometimes like a kid, if you pay attention to them they start making "boutades", a little clownish like Catalans.
 
Old 01-18-2015, 01:44 PM
 
12,050 posts, read 11,155,402 times
Reputation: 10010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almansoor View Post
Well, I lived in England years ago, and they were still reminiscing India all the time, the Commonwealth and ancient glories. Take a look at the Falkland's syndrome. They are not a superpower.

France was never a first tier superpower, but they had the "grandeur", the enciclopedist, and their empire was more cultural. I visit France sometimes and they do seem as people with their feet firmly in the ground. French are sometimes like a kid, if you pay attention to them they start making "boutades", a little clownish like Catalans.
The Brits may glory in the past, but they don't seem to have any delusions about the future. They seem comfortable in their retirement from having to go it alone in world affairs.
 
Old 01-18-2015, 02:53 PM
 
Location: London
4,362 posts, read 3,658,284 times
Reputation: 1990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almansoor View Post
Travric: That perception is just plain ignorance. France put up a good fight against Germans, but they were cut to pieces by bad decisions, by stupid and pacifist politicians like Renault and by the fact that many French were disgusted with Front Populaire.

Again, there was no lack of fight by the French, they were beaten by Germans and by politicians, and Petain did the most sensible thing he could do, sign an armistice.

Believe me, the UK would not have lasted more had they been in the mainland, you only have to see what happened in Dunkirk. Hitler committed a great error letting them go.
Your ignorance is total. The British stopped the Germans at Arras. Rommel thought he had been hit by a force three times the strength it was. The RAF defeated the Germans over Dunkirk, the first showing of the Spitfire. Few ships were sunk as the RAF kept the German planes away. The British and French had a counter-attack plan for Dunkirk but dropped it. Present day analysts say it would have worked as the Germans were at the end of their supply line - being supplied by horses. Only one third of the British army was in France.

Adam Tooze, Wages of Destruction.
Page 372
"even at this late date [1939] there is no evidence of a coherent Blitzkrieg conception"
"As far as the army was concerned the top priority was claimed by ammunition. A decision which seemed to be inspired by more memories of 1914 than the anticipation of what happened in 1940"

Page 373:
"Before 1 Sept 1939, the Germany's military has not actually drafted a plan for the for an offensive against France."

Page 371.
"The German army that invaded France in May 1940 was far from being a carefully honed weapon of modern armoured warfare. Of Germany's 93 combat ready divisions on May 10 1940, only 9 were Panzer divisions, with a total of 2.438 tanks between them. These units faced a French army that was more
heavily motorised, with 3,254 tanks in total."

Tooze, page 371/372.
"Nor should one accept unquestioningly the popular idea that the concentration of the Germans tanks in specialised tank divisions gave them a decisive advantage. Many French tanks were scattered amongst the infantry units, but with their ample stock of vehicles the French could afford to do this. The bulk of France's best tanks were concentrated in armoured units, that, on paper at least, were every bit a match for the Panzer divisions."

Page 377
"The Germans not only committed "all" their tanks and planes. In strictest conformity with the Schwerpunkt principle, they committed them on an astonishingly narrow front" "the Luftwaffe sacrificed no less than 347 aircraft, including virtually all its transports used in the air landings in Holland and Belgium".


Page 378
"if Allied bombers had penetrated the German fighter screen over the Ardennes they could have wreaked havoc amongst the slow moving traffic" "highly inflammable fuel tankers were interspersed with the fighting vehicles at the very front with the armoured fighting vehicles" "The plan called for the German armoured columns to drive for three days and nights without interruption".

The drivers were put on "speed" pills.

Page 379
"success would not have been possible had it not been for the particular nature of the battlefield. The Channel coastline provided the German army a natural obstacle to pin their enemies, an obstacle which could be reached within few hundred kilometres of the German border." "the Germans benefited from the well made sense network of roads" "In Poland in 1939 the Wehrmacht had struggled to maintain the momentum of its motorized troops when faced with far more difficult conditions."

"a close analysis of the mechanics of the Blitzkrieg reveals the astonishing degree of concentration achieved, but an enormous gamble that Hitler and the Wehrmacht were taking on May 10."

Page 380
"because it involved such a concentrated use of force, Manstein's plan was a "one-shot affair". If the initial assault had failed, and it could have failed in many ways, the Wehrmacht as an offensive force would have been spent. The gamble paid off. But contrary to appearances, the Germans had not discovered a patent recipe for military miracles. The overwhelming success of May 1940, resulting in the defeat of a major European military power in a matter of weeks, was not a repeatable outcome"

Tooze, page 373:
"In retrospect, it suited neither the Allies nor the Germans to expose the amazingly haphazard course through which the Wehrmacht had arrived at its most brilliant military success. The myth of the Blitzkrieg suited the British and French because it provided an explanation other than military incompetence for their pitiful defeat. But whereas it suited the Allies to stress the alleged superiority of German equipment, Germany's own propaganda viewed the Blitzkrieg in less materialistic terms."
 
Old 01-18-2015, 03:00 PM
 
Location: London
4,362 posts, read 3,658,284 times
Reputation: 1990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almansoor View Post
Well, I lived in England years ago, and they were still reminiscing India all the time, the Commonwealth and ancient glories. Take a look at the Falkland's syndrome. They are not a superpower.

France was never a first tier superpower, but they had the "grandeur", the enciclopedist, and their empire was more cultural. I visit France sometimes and they do seem as people with their feet firmly in the ground. French are sometimes like a kid, if you pay attention to them they start making "boutades", a little clownish like Catalans.
What syndrone?
The Falklands was a major success. An army at a moments notice had to be assembled and sail around the world and fight an enemy superior in numbers and equipment. On landing they brought the enemy to surrender in three weeks. Only the USA could have done that and only today the UK and USA could do that. The Royal Navy is the most advanced in the world.

The British empire morphed into the Commonwealth, which has increased in size. A number countries want to join who were never in the British empire.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Europe
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:14 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top