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.
You are very correct that I missed a key component when it comes to communications. You explained very well how the Allies worked, but you have to put that into persepctive with how the Germans did it to see exactly how far behind the Allies were. Not only did the Germans operate a complete radio communications network but in this battle they also had what was really the pinnacle of unified combined arms communication between the ground and air units. Forward liaison officers embedded with each unit were able to communicate directly with the air units (mainly Stukas) and direct them to attack enemy positions. In most cases the Stukas were able to respond in as little as 10 minutes. This level of coordination allowed them to rapidly respond to threats along their line of advance and not get bogged down trying to eliminate entrenched/fortified positions.
It is a shocking contrast against what LordBalfor explained as the Allied method.
Yup. In regard to communications the Germans had a MASSIVE advantage. It allowed the Germans to have that all-important edge (ie - to "be where the enemy is NOT and be there with everything you've GOT").
There is a little known fact that France did indeed invade Germany when they invaded Poland. France had not fully mobilized and the invasion was composed mainly of fortress divisions, but they penetrated 6 miles into Germany and the only resistance was from German reserve units composed of raw recruits and old veterans. It has been theorized that if France had pushed this attack instead of falling back when Poland fell to mobilize and wait for the BEF, that they could have radically changed the course of the war.
I wonder why France/Britain did not push on with this early attack. Maybe with the Poles on one side and France on the other, the Germans could have been made to fight on two fronts at the same time, and then beaten.
I wonder why France/Britain did not push on with this early attack. Maybe with the Poles on one side and France on the other, the Germans could have been made to fight on two fronts at the same time, and then beaten.
You have to remember history to understand the French mentality in 1940 and the interwar period. The fact is, France's losses in WWI were simply horrendous - and this is something American's in particular have a REAL PROBLEM comprehending because we entered WWI so late and didn't really have the experience of suffering through 4 long years of horrendously bloody trench warfare. For France, essentially an ENTIRE GENERATION of young men was simply exterminated - they were just gone, vanished - often without even an identifiable body to properly bury. This was true of Europe as whole, but ESPECIALLY true of France because at the onset of WWI French military doctrine revolved around the idea of "Elan" - or "offensive spirit". This was the idea that ANY enemy can be overcome through sheer determination, courage and agressiveness. It's kind of a "Banzai! attack military doctrine. The problem was, the technology of the day did not favor the attacker in any way shape or form. Weapons like the machine gun made such openly aggressive tactics nothing less than pure suicide. Against such a weapon it was almost impossible to simply overwhelm an enemy using just Elan. Aggressiveness & courage just did not protect you from a hail a machine gun bullets - and a couple of men armed with such a weapon could hold off hundreds of attackers - mowing them down no matter how courageous the attackers were. This made the WWI battlefields and absolute BLOODBATH. The front was literally nothing more than a meatgrinder. There were so many bodies piling up for so long that sometimes the frontline troops resorted to using the rotting carcases as supports to hold the trenches up against the sea of mud that surrounded them.
When you combine the near-impossiblity of breaking through the enemy to begin with with the near-impossibilty of exploiting such a breakthrough even if you DID manage to achieve one (because mechanization was too primitive to allow rapid advance & exploitation over open muddy ground) the lesson the French military learned in WWI was that offense was simply suicide and that defense was king of the battlefield. In fact, the French learned that lesson so well, that in 1917 they mutinied and simply REFUSED to take part in any more offensive actions.
This is why after the war the French spent so much effort building the Maginot Line & other fortifications. They firmly believed that WWI had taught them that a well-manned defensive line could hold off virtually ANY attack. Unfortunately for the French, technology had changed in the interwar years (actually starting very late in WWI) and whereas in WWI the defense had and overwhelming advantage because existance of the machine gun and the non-existance of things like the tank and powerful automotive motors, by 1940 all that had changed. Technology had provided solutions to the "inability to exploit a breakthrough" problem that plagued nearly all of WWI.
Consequently, the new technology of the tank and more advanced vehicles like better trucks & half-tracks (along with advances in aircraft that made them FAR more effective) suddenly negated much of the ability of the machine gun to hold the enemy off. Tanks were unvulnerable to machine guns & aircraft could just blast such defenses from above. Now, suddenly, the OFFENSE was once again back in play. The Germans (at least some of them) understood that - while the French simply did not (at least the one's making the decisions didn't). This is why the French front line communications - poor as they were - were considered "sufficient" by the French. Things moved slowly in WWI & so messagers were considered a more than sufficient means of communications between the commanders & the front.
So, the French were prepared for a DEFENSIVE war - one in which DEFENDING was the better strategy & attacking was simply suicide, while the Germans were taking a far different approach. As I said, the French strategy & tactics were colored by the massive (and largly pointless) losses in WWI - hence their great reluctance to go on the offensive in 1939/40.
Ken
PS - An interesting side note to the massive losses Europe suffered in WWI was the sudden burst of belief in ghosts, spirits & the occult that cropped up in the late 'teens' & early 1920's. This swept over Europe like a tidal wave as millions of grieving mothers, wives & lovers sought some kind of closure for their missing loved ones who marched so confidently off to war only to be never seen again (as I said, often there wasn't even a body to bury). This was when Ouija board mania & the seance were popularized - and even a wave of belief in faeries (including a very famous case - later portraid in several movies such as "Fairy Tale" & "Photographing Fairies" - whereby "proof" of the existance of Faeries was presented & believed by MANY. All of this outpouring of belief in the occult took places because of an intense desire by so many to WANT to believe in such wonders.
The other important side note to the massive losses of WWI was that the survivors of the war returned home with a huge desire to "live life to the fullest" since they had seen SO MUCH death during the 4 years of the war. This "zest" for life - the desire to live every moment as if it was to be your last - gave birth to the wildness of the "Roaring Twenties" - a period of "free love" & wild partying because so many young people had developed the mentality of "Eat Drink & be Merry - for tomorrow we may die".
Last edited by LordBalfor; 11-04-2010 at 05:33 PM..
You have to remember history to understand the French mentality in 1940 and the interwar period. The fact is, France's losses in WWI were simply horrendous - and this is something American's in particular have a REAL PROBLEM comprehending because we entered WWI so late and didn't really have the experience of suffering through 4 long years of horrendously bloody trench warfare. For France, essentially an ENTIRE GENERATION of young men was simply exterminated - they were just gone, vanished - often without even an identifiable body to properly bury. This was true of Europe as whole, but ESPECIALLY true of France because at the onset of WWI French military doctrine revolved around the idea of "Elan" - or "offensive spirit". This was the idea that ANY enemy can be overcome through sheer determination, courage and agressiveness. It's kind of a "Banzai! attack military doctrine. The problem was, the technology of the day did not favor the attacker in any way shape or form. Weapons like the machine gun made such openly aggressive tactics nothing less than pure suicide. Against such a weapon it was almost impossible to simply overwhelm an enemy using just Elan. Aggressiveness & courage just did not protect you from a hail a machine gun bullets - and a couple of men armed with such a weapon could hold off hundreds of attackers - mowing them down no matter how courageous the attackers were. This made the WWI battlefields and absolute BLOODBATH. The front was literally nothing more than a meatgrinder. There were so many bodies piling up for so long that sometimes the frontline troops resorted to using the rotting carcases as supports to hold the trenches up against the sea of mud that surrounded them.
When you combine the near-impossiblity of breaking through the enemy to begin with with the near-impossibilty of exploiting such a breakthrough even if you DID manage to achieve one (because mechanization was too primitive to allow rapid advance & exploitation over open muddy ground) the lesson the French military learned in WWI was that offense was simply suicide and that defense was king of the battlefield. In fact, the French learned that lesson so well, that in 1917 they mutinied and simply REFUSED to take part in any more offensive actions.
This is why after the war the French spent so much effort building the Maginot Line & other fortifications. They firmly believed that WWI had taught them that a well-manned defensive line could hold off virtually ANY attack. Unfortunately for the French, technology had changed in the interwar years (actually starting very late in WWI) and whereas in WWI the defense had and overwhelming advantage because existance of the machine gun and the non-existance of things like the tank and powerful automotive motors, by 1940 all that had changed. Technology had provided solutions to the "inability to exploit a breakthrough" problem that plagued nearly all of WWI.
Consequently, the new technology of the tank and more advanced vehicles like better trucks & half-tracks (along with advances in aircraft that made them FAR more effective) suddenly negated much of the ability of the machine gun to hold the enemy off. Tanks were unvulnerable to machine guns & aircraft could just blast such defenses from above. Now, suddenly, the OFFENSE was once again back in play. The Germans (at least some of them) understood that - while the French simply did not (at least the one's making the decisions didn't). This is why the French front line communications - poor as they were - were considered "sufficient" by the French. Things moved slowly in WWI & so messagers were considered a more than sufficient means of communications between the commanders & the front.
So, the French were prepared for a DEFENSIVE war - one in which DEFENDING was the better strategy & attacking was simply suicide, while the Germans were taking a far different approach. As I said, the French strategy & tactics were colored by the massive (and largly pointless) losses in WWI - hence their great reluctance to go on the offensive in 1939/40.
Ken
PS - An interesting side note to the massive losses Europe suffered in WWI was the sudden burst of belief in ghosts, spirits & the occult that cropped up in the late 'teens' & early 1920's. This swept over Europe like a tidal wave as millions of grieving mothers, wives & lovers sought some kind of closure for their missing loved ones who marched so confidently off to war only to be never seen again (as I said, often there wasn't even a body to bury). This was when Ouija board mania & the seance were popularized - and even a wave of belief in faeries (including a very famous case - later portraid in several movies such as "Fairy Tale" & "Photographing Fairies" - whereby "proof" of the existance of Faeries was presented & believed by MANY. All of this outpouring of belief in the occult took places because of an intense desire by so many to WANT to believe in such wonders.
The other important side note to the massive losses of WWI was that the survivors of the war returned home with a huge desire to "live life to the fullest" since they had seen SO MUCH death during the 4 years of the war. This "zest" for life - the desire to live every moment as if it was to be your last - gave birth to the wildness of the "Roaring Twenties" - a period of "free love" & wild partying because so many young people had developed the mentality of "Eat Drink & be Merry - for tomorrow we may die".
An excellent post. I remember by Grandfather who was at Passchaendale and Vimy talking about the terrible losses on the Western Front. Although my Great-grandparents were Church of England missionaries, and he had been a very good "traditional Christian" before the war; he embraced the "Eat, Drink and be Merry" attitude for the rest of his life. American entered the war (thankfully in 1917), but there had been so many great battles fought before 1917, and so many millions dead that it had an everlasting impact in Europe. War, the Spanish Influenza, the Great Depression of the 1930's and then war again in 1939. Europe was sick of war. It was really something as a child to sit and hear older family members talk about the losses of WW1. Just awful. Something we can't even imagine--the loss of an entire generation throughout Europe and many other parts of the world.
An excellent post. I remember by Grandfather who was at Passchaendale and Vimy talking about the terrible losses on the Western Front. Although my Great-grandparents were Church of England missionaries, and he had been a very good "traditional Christian" before the war; he embraced the "Eat, Drink and be Merry" attitude for the rest of his life. American entered the war (thankfully in 1917), but there had been so many great battles fought before 1917, and so many millions dead that it had an everlasting impact in Europe. War, the Spanish Influenza, the Great Depression of the 1930's and then war again in 1939. Europe was sick of war. It was really something as a child to sit and hear older family members talk about the losses of WW1. Just awful. Something we can't even imagine--the loss of an entire generation throughout Europe and many other parts of the world.
Thanks.
My hat is off to your Grandfather (Passchaendale - Geeze! (shudder!!!!!)). As a kid I lived in Verdun for couple of years (my brother was actually born there) and the place REALLY made an impact on me (I swear the place is HAUNTED).
You bring up a very good point about the Spanish Flu. I thought about adding a bit about that as it followed the end of the war so closely and killed so many millions - but I figured my post was long enough.
WWI traumatized Europe in a really big way (probably more than anything since the Black Death nearly 600 years earlier) - which really explains why France, Britain etc were so willing to give in to Hitler so readily in the years leading up to the invasion of Poland. It had only been 20 years since WWI had ended and NO ONE - at least no one SANE - was anxious to repeat THAT horror.
Because they thought they could and in fact could have eralier. What really happened is reality set in and they realised that Hitler had design on france. Its surprising really lookig back as europe had been at war over the same thing for decades.
I wonder why France/Britain did not push on with this early attack. Maybe with the Poles on one side and France on the other, the Germans could have been made to fight on two fronts at the same time, and then beaten.
Everything else being equal, a two-front war is much preferable to a one front war.
Anyway, Poland was basically defeated before France even completed mobilization. Saving Poland was a lost cause.
I wonder why France/Britain did not push on with this early attack. Maybe with the Poles on one side and France on the other, the Germans could have been made to fight on two fronts at the same time, and then beaten.
There were three reason for this:
1. The main French military forces were not engaged in this attack. The attack was primarily undertaken by fortress divisions and reserve infantry divisions. These units lacked any kind of mechanization and were simply not up to the task of executing a major prolonged offensive. This attack was more or less a feint to try and draw German units away from the attack on Poland.
2. Poland fell very rapidly which surprised the allies to no end. The fear was that the elite German forces that just finished attacking Poland would be able to rapidly turn around and easily destroy the units engaged in that offensive before more mainline allied units could join the attack.
3. The Low Countries (Belgium and Holland) as well as Denmark were insistent on maintaining their neutrality right up to the moment Germany attacked them. This neutral stand denied the most accessible ports for rapid deployment of the BEF and supplies where they would have been most effective.
Given the above reasons it was decided to pullback and wait for the main mechanized and armored units to mobilize and for the BEF to arrive in force. There were however two important facts the allies missed:
1. The German units defending the west at that point were nothing more than reserve units. They were mainly comprised of older WW1 veterans or freshly drafted troops that had not completed their training. They were actually of inferior quality to even the allied reserves that were engaging them.
2. Germany virtually exhausted itself in the attack on Poland. They were running critically low of war materiel and many of their armored units were in need of refit and repair. German tanks, while good, weren't exactly reliable and something like 50% of the panzer divisions operational strength was lost to mechanical failure during the attack on Poland. It would take the Germans almost until the launching of the attack on France to regain that strength (primary reason why the attack was so often delayed and the goal was not to engage France but establish a forward front away from the German industrial areas).
Had the allies pressed this offensive and added to it as their armies mobilized, it might have been possible for them to have brought the war to Germany in a major way. Despite the difficulties in deploying and supplying troops in that area without access to the main ports in Belgium and Holland.
A more interesting and plausible what if, was not the allies continuing that limited offensive into Germany, but what if Holland, Belgium and Denmark had decided to join the war with France and Britain. Their insistence on neutrality up to the last minute denied the allies their best base of operations from where they could have threatened the Ruhr directly. The allies went so far as to even contemplate violating their neutrality unilaterally, but French were resistant to that idea unless it became absolutely necessary.
Also, the opening of the campaign would not have seen a mad dash of allied units to the defensive lines in Belgium and they would not have exhausted their supplies getting there, freeing them to perhpas engage in a counter attack on the Panzer divisions coming through the Ardennes, assuming the Germans would have even still launched the attack.
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.
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.
