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.
As I said... Even though I think of de Gaulle as a mini-Mussolini, the French would really benefit if they sent Petain and his buddies to retirement home and put someone like de Gaulle in charge of their armed forces before the war.
In modern times I almost cannot think of a more inadequate military leadership than the French in 1939-40. It really took an enormous amount of bad leadership to bring about the fall of France in a couple of months given the military strength and resources at hand. I'm currently following WW2 day-by-day from 75 years ago and am just past the Armistice and into the Battle of Britain. What a horrific failure by the French leadership, it hurts to read about it. Also it opened so much more opportunity for the Nazis to execute the "final solution" on Jews and other minorities so thoroughly across Europe. A lot of crap could have been avoided had they stood up even if only defensively because without the necessary resources the Germans could not have fought so long.
In modern times I almost cannot think of a more inadequate military leadership than the French in 1939-40. It really took an enormous amount of bad leadership to bring about the fall of France in a couple of months given the military strength and resources at hand. I'm currently following WW2 day-by-day from 75 years ago and am just past the Armistice and into the Battle of Britain. What a horrific failure by the French leadership, it hurts to read about it. Also it opened so much more opportunity for the Nazis to execute the "final solution" on Jews and other minorities so thoroughly across Europe. A lot of crap could have been avoided had they stood up even if only defensively because without the necessary resources the Germans could not have fought so long.
WW2 would have been different if the French had kept to their pact with the British stayed with them operating out of North Africa. They would have wiped the Italians from North Africa which would have prevented the Germans getting a foothold in the desert. The substantial French fleet would have been useful as well.
At the end of the day, it was the poor leadership on strategic level. With younger / better generals, the French army could still give Germans a run for their money,
With younger/better generals they would have knocked the Germans back to Berlin. The French army was bigger and had more and better tanks and armour.
With younger/better generals they would have knocked the Germans back to Berlin. The French army was bigger and had more and better tanks and armour.
While I respect the French, the level of preparedness / training / morale wasn't that high.
In 1914, with far better equipped and led army that was also in an extremely high fighting spirit, they managed to stop the Germans cold in their tracks but it took 4 more years and a combined effort of French, British and Russian armies (with US showing up in time for desserts) to push them back. Nevertheless, French contribution to WWI was tremendous.
In 1940, the majority of the French were still reeling from the way the cream of the crop of their young were sacrificed for some stupid made up ideals in WW1. The war was extremely unpopular, the socialist government of Leon Blum had hard time selling it to the people. Half of the people who elected his government were pacifist. The Great Depression also didn't help to raise the fighting spirit. Basically, while I am sure that with better leadership the French Army could've stopped the Germans, I doubt they would've been able to "knock them back to Berlin". Too much sacrifice and honestly not something I think the French army was capable of at that point anyway. Just look at the combined strength of the armies fighting Hitler on both fronts in 1943. Much more likely, with good leadership, they would've reacted quickly to German push through Ardennes, counterattacked and forced them to retreat, ten there would be a front established somewhere alongside the Maginot line and a hastily reinforced Belgian border. From there, it's all iffy. But I admit I have zero military training
They did not think that they could be attacked thru Belgium forest ;so they built no defensives there to start with. Basically they were prepared for WWI. Just as Hitler thought he had won the western European battle once he got to French coast ala WWI thinking. He turned on Russia thinking it would be a cake walk and quickly over. Basically no planning for what reality was on both sides. Remember the same generals/admirals who planned the early success attacks also advised that Germany would not be prepared to start a war they could win until four years later.
While I respect the French, the level of preparedness / training / morale wasn't that high.
In 1914, with far better equipped and led army that was also in an extremely high fighting spirit, they managed to stop the Germans cold in their tracks but it took 4 more years and a combined effort of French, British and Russian armies (with US showing up in time for desserts) to push them back. Nevertheless, French contribution to WWI was tremendous.
In 1940, the majority of the French were still reeling from the way the cream of the crop of their young were sacrificed for some stupid made up ideals in WW1. The war was extremely unpopular, the socialist government of Leon Blum had hard time selling it to the people. Half of the people who elected his government were pacifist. The Great Depression also didn't help to raise the fighting spirit. Basically, while I am sure that with better leadership the French Army could've stopped the Germans, I doubt they would've been able to "knock them back to Berlin". Too much sacrifice and honestly not something I think the French army was capable of at that point anyway. Just look at the combined strength of the armies fighting Hitler on both fronts in 1943. Much more likely, with good leadership, they would've reacted quickly to German push through Ardennes, counterattacked and forced them to retreat, ten there would be a front established somewhere alongside the Maginot line and a hastily reinforced Belgian border. From there, it's all iffy. But I admit I have zero military training
You're probably right a leadership is always also indicative of the masses' wishes and attitudes. The defeatism was widespread and the French people hailed Petain for his defeatism and the armistice originally. He was their hero of 1940. Later nobody wanted to remember that of course. When the leadership acted with caution and inactivity, thereby sparing soldiers combat and casualties it was what the people wanted. Certainly the WW1 experience with the crazily murderous offensives of the day played a role. The German side reacted differently by doing audacious, fast tank attacks which also spared casualties and prevented a prolonged war. Both sides had the same goal but the approach was very differently.
While I respect the French, the level of preparedness / training / morale wasn't that high.
You stated "younger/better generals". Younger and better generals would not have run that mighty force in such a half-cocked way. They would have ensured the latest equipment (which most was anyway), the best of training and ensured moral was high.
They did not think that they could be attacked thru Belgium forest ;so they built no defensives there to start with.
The Maginot Line did not extend across the Belgian border because of political reasons not military. The Belgians were upset te French were seeing them as an enemy. The Maginot Line worked.
The Germans were over confident after reaching the Channel coast. Their victory was mainly due to allied incompetence rather than anything wonderful the Germans had done. Hitler turned on the USSR to gain the resources of the east. Germany was being starved of resources of all kinds, food (human and animal), metals, oil, rubber, etc, etc, because of the Royal Navy blockade. Germany after conquest had to also supply the conquered countries coal, food, etc. France took most of its coal from the UK pre WW2, which was now cut off.
In May 1940 FDR stated that the USA would produce 50,000 planes per years - then the UKs production on top. Hitler shuddered as Germany not ever match that level of production. These planes were coming his way with British pilots in them - it looked like the USA would not enter WW2 at this point. Hitler knew the lead tome for an operational plane from order to flying. That would be early 1942 waves of planes would be over Germany.
Hitler invaded the USSR for one reason only and that was to get their resources to build up the Luftwaffe in preparation for the coming air war. As German armies were rolling into the USSR in June 1941 German industry was switching to air production. The air war was already happening as the RAF shot down 700 Axis planes over continental Europe in 1941. The larger air war, which Hitler could not compete with, did come - right on schedule.
The reasons that sparked the key points of WW2 are not how most people perceive them to be.
Some 85,000 French troops were killed during the Battle of France, so it can't be said they didn't fight. They were saddled with outdated military doctrines and strategy, inadequate equipment, and poor military leadership. Not only were their tanks distributed among the infantry divisions, but they also lacked radio communication, which made coordinated maneuver impossible.
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.
