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.
German losses in WWI were horrendous as well and that did not effect them the same way it did the French. In fact it arguably effected them the opposite, they became more agressive and stressed youth more.
The real cause of french defeatism was not the first world war, but internal conflict between the french right and left which came close to low level civil war. And a very weak economy, both of which were worsened by a traditional french problem, low birth rates. This hurt the army's willingness to fight and led French conservatives to support Vichy as a way to counter the traditional dominance of the left.
Its largely ignored in the US, but much of the support for Vichy was tied to internal idealogical conflict in France and the conflict between the largely left of center resistance and the conservative Vichy was as much a civil war as compared to support for Germany or the West.
German losses in WWI were horrendous as well and that did not effect them the same way it did the French. In fact it arguably effected them the opposite, they became more agressive and stressed youth more.
The real cause of french defeatism was not the first world war, but internal conflict between the french right and left which came close to low level civil war. And a very weak economy, both of which were worsened by a traditional french problem, low birth rates. This hurt the army's willingness to fight and led French conservatives to support Vichy as a way to counter the traditional dominance of the left.
Its largely ignored in the US, but much of the support for Vichy was tied to internal idealogical conflict in France and the conflict between the largely left of center resistance and the conservative Vichy was as much a civil war as compared to support for Germany or the West.
The German situation was different because they were so badly humiliated by the unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles. This obvious unfairness (the American government was so embarrassed by it they they refused to sign it) ended up fueling German anger that more than offset the other effects of the war. The german agressiveness you mention was fueled by a desire for REVENGE.
There WAS internal conflict in France to be sure but it wasn't the primary reason for the quick French collapse.
There WAS internal conflict in France to be sure but it wasn't the primary reason for the quick French collapse.
We will have to disagree. The then French president wanted to retreat to the French colonies and to continue to fight the war. The French public, and in particular conservative politicians chose to reject that course of action and collaberate with the Germans, primarily because of the internal situation in France between 1920 and 1940 (which in turn had its roots in the politics of the Third Republic).
The Russians took very heavy losses in the First World War, were not motivated by revenge, and took far higher casualities and loss of territory than France. Yet they never considered surrendering, even before the anti-slavic policies of the Nazis were obvious to most.
The Russians took very heavy losses in the First World War, were not motivated by revenge, and took far higher casualities and loss of territory than France. Yet they never considered surrendering, even before the anti-slavic policies of the Nazis were obvious to most.
Not true. The Ukrainians might very well have not only surrendered to Germany but might well have JOINED Germany had not the NAZIs shown their true colors and brutalized them. In the early stages of the war Soviet soldiers surrendered by the hundreds of thousands to the Germans (over and over again) - again this was BEFORE the Germans showed they had only contempt for the Russians.
German cruelty towards the Soviets cemented Soviet determination.
Fortunately for Stalin the Soviet Union was HUGE & the Germans just couldn't swallow it all in a short time. The fact is, if the USSR had been the size of France it would have been just as easily overrun and in just a short a time. In 2 weeks or so the Germans were already halfway to Moscow. The German offensive cost the Soviets something like 2 MILLION solders (many killed, but most surrendered). That's more than far enough to have overun France so if the USSR had been the same size as France it would have been all over. The vast size of the USSR bought the Soviets time - and in that time the Germans showed their true colors regarding brutality towards the Soviets - thus cementing the Soviets will to fight (which previously had not really been there). Previous to that, only fear (of Stalin & his Commissars) kept the Soviets fighting and only the countries vast size kept it from being fully overrun.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 11-07-2010 at 01:17 PM..
Of course. But during WWII, the French were only responsible for their portion of the Western Front while Germany fought along the entire western front, in addition to their commitments in the east and elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Not true. The Ukrainians might very well have not only surrendered to Germany but might well have JOINED Germany had not the NAZIs shown their true colors and brutalized them. In the early stages of the war Soviet soldiers surrendered by the hundreds of thousands to the Germans (over and over again) - again this was BEFORE the Germans showed they had only contempt for the Russians.
German cruelty towards the Soviets cemented Soviet determination.
Fortunately for Stalin the Soviet Union was HUGE & the Germans just couldn't swallow it all in a short time. The fact is, if the USSR had been the size of France it would have been just as easily overrun and in just a short a time. In 2 weeks or so the Germans were already halfway to Moscow. The German offensive cost the Soviets something like 2 MILLION solders (many killed, but most surrendered). That's more than far enough to have overun France so if the USSR had been the same size as France it would have been all over. The vast size of the USSR bought the Soviets time - and in that time the Germans showed their true colors regarding brutality towards the Soviets - thus cementing the Soviets will to fight (which previously had not really been there). Previous to that, only fear (of Stalin & his Commissars) kept the Soviets fighting and only the countries vast size kept it from being fully overrun.
Ken
A very important difference between the Battle of France and the Eastern Front in WWII is that the French were prepared for the German invasion. Their troops were fully mobilized and deployed along the border. The Red Army, by contrast, was caught completely off guard. Most units were not staffed or equipped properly, and thus were in poor shape to fight. That, more than anything else, explains the scale of Soviet defeats in the first months of the war. Germany policies toward civilian population are less important here.
The ukranians would have joined any anti-Russian coalition. The russians, who ran the state in question did not. France was not "swallowed" in 1940. Much of it, the French colonies, were never subject to German attack and French leaders proposed to fight from there. Politicians, largely for idealogical reasons, chose not to leaving a portion of the French empire to chose to do so themself. Hundreds of thousands of french troops who had escapted to England at Dunkirk, chose voluntarily to return to France and surrender, though they easily could have fought with the Free French.
Contrast that with the Free Polish movement tens of thousands of who's troops fought for the allies after Poland was rapidly destroyed.
The ukranians would have joined any anti-Russian coalition. The russians, who ran the state in question did not. France was not "swallowed" in 1940. Much of it, the French colonies, were never subject to German attack and French leaders proposed to fight from there. Politicians, largely for idealogical reasons, chose not to leaving a portion of the French empire to chose to do so themself. Hundreds of thousands of french troops who had escapted to England at Dunkirk, chose voluntarily to return to France and surrender, though they easily could have fought with the Free French.
Contrast that with the Free Polish movement tens of thousands of who's troops fought for the allies after Poland was rapidly destroyed.
Actually the Free French forces outnumbered the Free Polish forces. Free French forces ended up numbering about 400,000 or so - while the Free Polish forces topped out at around 250,000 or so - and this was in spite of the fact that the British had ATTACKED the remnants of the French navy in July of 1940.
France's defeat in the summer of 1940 was a huge shock and was something no nation, military, or intelligence agency predicted until it occurred. There are many reasons why France was defeated and all of them should be separately considered. These are the ones I can come up with.
1. Too much reliance on fortifications like the Maginot Line. When the Germans came crashing through the Ardennes, the Allied attempt to stop their advance was thrown together on the spot.
2. The German commanders and troops involved were top notch. Erwin Rommel, who would lead Afrika Corps in another eighteen months, commanded a division during the attack on France and demonstrated his abilities as a leader. The German troops were well lead at a squad and platoon level and this has been commented on by William Schirer in the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich".
3. Herman Goering's Luftwaffe was designed as a force to support troops on the ground--not for strategic bombing. France offered the Luftwaffe the perfect venue to demonstrate what it could do.
4. Allied Forces had alot of numerical strength, but were under the command of different countries (Holland, Belgium, France, Britain, etc.) This command structure created difficulties that German forces never encountered since they were under a single command.
5. There was some friction between Britain and France. France felt they were contributing far more than their share of troops. France wanted to run the show and did so ineptly.
6. The French were so confident of their strategy which relied on the Maginot Line that they literally did not have reserve troops available behind the line when the Germans came through the Ardennes.
7. Some others have commented on internal problems in France. This was undoubtedly a factor. A good portion of the country simply could not face the prospect of another world war with all the casualties and hardship it would bring. Some groups were more than happy to reach an Armistice with Germany.
8. No one was prepared for the overall German strategy of "Blitzkrieg" which involved attacks by hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles at fixed points supported by hundreds of aircraft dropping bombs and strafing everything in sight. The world was used to "trench warfare" in which a stalemate existed for years with little gain being made by either side. Although, after the attack on Poland in 1939, it almost seems pure negligence that the forces of France and Britain seemed to learn nothing.
It was a terrible tragedy. France would pay dearly during its four years of occupation by the Naziis (and afterwards) because it was not better prepared to fight.
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.
