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're kidding, right? They would have been slaughtered where they stood, and it wouldn't have slowed down the Wehrmacht's timetable by a second. The French government was already making plans to abandon Paris.
Discretion is the better part of valor. The British and French troops that were evacuated were the nucleus of the armies that were eventually able to punch into Germany in 1945. None of this would have happened had they been obliterated in 1940.
Discreation would have been to assist all of the Free French, who wanted out to fight the Germans another day, to get out. Not run out on them and say, "Cheerio chaps. Your on your own. I've got mine."
Discreation would have been to assist all of the Free French, who wanted out to fight the Germans another day, to get out. Not run out on them and say, "Cheerio chaps. Your on your own. I've got mine."
This is utter nonsense. The British continued to aid the Free French, given how they managed to save roughly 100,000 of them to fight another day. For you to say otherwise is ludicrous.
I agree that Soviet manpower played the greatest role in defeating Germany, but manpower was worthless against the german war machine without war materials via lend lease from the US. Whole factories were dissassembled in the US and shipped to Russia, then reassembled by US engineers to get Soviet tank production underway. They had NOTHING but manpower, EVERYTHING ELSE came from the US, the planes, artillery, tanks, guns, overcoats, boots, food. The Russians were eventually able to produce and innovate on their own, but it never would have happened in time to defeat Germany without all the US did for Russia.
This is an overstatement. The Soviet industry produced tens of thousands of tanks, aircraft, artillery, small arms and other goods. I think you got the facts wrong about tank factories being disassembled in the US and shipped to Russia. All tanks produced in the USSR were of Soviet design and manufacture. The Soviet Union did receive factory equipment and US made Sherman tanks but that's not quite what you said.
This is an overstatement. The Soviet industry produced tens of thousands of tanks, aircraft, artillery, small arms and other goods. I think you got the facts wrong about tank factories being disassembled in the US and shipped to Russia. All tanks produced in the USSR were of Soviet design and manufacture. The Soviet Union did receive factory equipment and US made Sherman tanks but that's not quite what you said.
The Soviets definately pulled their weight in WWII but US industry was the real game changer. Hitler knew this very well, he did not want to bring the US into the war for that very reason. The industrial might of the US, at that time, was un-matched.
The Soviets definately pulled their weight in WWII but US industry was the real game changer. Hitler knew this very well, he did not want to bring the US into the war for that very reason. The industrial might of the US, at that time, was un-matched.
Both you and MrMarbles are correct.
The Red Army got millions of tons of supplies from the US Lead Lease program, but probably the least effective thing were the US tanks. The Russians' own designs were better suited for the Eastern Front.
However, the 21,000 US aircraft they got and the large numbers of transport vehicles were indespensable.
This is an overstatement. The Soviet industry produced tens of thousands of tanks, aircraft, artillery, small arms and other goods. I think you got the facts wrong about tank factories being disassembled in the US and shipped to Russia. All tanks produced in the USSR were of Soviet design and manufacture. The Soviet Union did receive factory equipment and US made Sherman tanks but that's not quite what you said.
The Russians had 3 tank plants in WW2, all were manufactured in the USA and shipped to Russia, built with engineers from Caterpilla. Soviet industry was pretty much American industry, Stalin tried to build these plants with his own engineers and failed. My time line is not quite right in that the actual plants were already built in the 30's before lend lease. The steel for the tanks was from lend lease. Those plants are still in operation today, and many tanks used in Korea and Vietnam against US forces were built from those plants. Christie had a hand in the design for the T-34.
Let me see....hmmmm. This was after the French surrendered, as they usually do, right?
No, the Dunkirk evacuation conlcuded on June 4th, the French signaled they wanted to sign an armistice on June 16th and the official surrender was on the 22nd.
However, people seem to be spinning this whole thing in some odd ways. The forces in Dunkirk were completely cut-off with no hope of making a stand or breaking out. The British could either withdrawal the troops or lose them all in the field.
There is little ire being thrown at the Belgians whose surrender cut off the main French 1st Army at Lille who had failed to withdraw to the coast and was acting as a rear guard slowing the German advance. There is also little mention of the fact the British withdrew well over 130k French troops as well, allowing them to be repatriated in the hopes of continuing the fight.
There is also little mention of the fact the British were landing new units in Brittany and Normandy to continue to support the French and create a second BEF. The British at this point still thought the French were going to continue the fight even though the situation was untenable, which led to the second BEF evacuation in which over 200k Allied troops were taken back to Britain to continue the fight and is where deGaulle and his Free French forces came from as well as the various Polish units.
There is also little mention of the fact that in terms of KIA's, Britain suffered nearly as many casualties in the fighting as did France despite having far fewer troops engaged.
I honestly can't believe that anyone who even remotely studied the Fall of France or WW2 would accuse the British of abandoning the French to their fate.
The Russians had 3 tank plants in WW2, all were manufactured in the USA and shipped to Russia, built with engineers from Caterpilla. Soviet industry was pretty much American industry, Stalin tried to build these plants with his own engineers and failed. My time line is not quite right in that the actual plants were already built in the 30's before lend lease. The steel for the tanks was from lend lease. Those plants are still in operation today, and many tanks used in Korea and Vietnam against US forces were built from those plants. Christie had a hand in the design for the T-34.
You are taking bits and pieces of information that are true to make an argument that is almost completely false. If the US is repsonsible for the Soviet tank industry, how come the US itself was without a tank when the war started? Why was the US scrambling in a hurry to first make the relatively poor M3 Grant/Lee and then followed up with a much better but still unimpressive (by late war standards) M4 Sherman?
The Soviet Union did buy (emphasis on buy) equipment from American companies prior to WWII but, as you said, that has nothing to do with the Lend Lease. General Motors owned Opel - and in fact much of the German industry during the inter-war period was funded by American and British capital. Does that mean that German industry was basically American industry?
It was a losing cause long before the english evacuated the french mainland. The evacuation was in two phases and the second with the sinking of the worse british naval disaster was kept pretty quite. It was what it was evacution of a defeated british and french forces. After that for some time there was the false war talked about with just a few raids.Then the air battle for pre invasion started over england.Luckily Hitler had never actually planned to invade britain and with his aircraft selection never planned on air raids really.Een then the evacuation was as successful as it was because Hitler allowed his armour to pause.He pretty much had achieved what he palnned and thought britain would come to terms.The french governamnt surrendered and it was most french communist who were the resistance.
The Brits should be proud of how they rallied to save the army at Dunkirk. Is it a defeat? yes technically. However those troops and material were all saved to fight another day. In reality its more of a failure for Germany, as if they had destroyed the army at Dunkirk the war would have been much harder for the allies to win. The French on the other hand folded like a house of cards. The British were expecting the French to acually fight when they sent troops there to help defend them. So to answer the OP, we see the Brits as having done a good job rescueing their army from Dunkirk. It is the French we are more critical of.
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.
