U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-10-2017, 07:33 AM
 
12,603 posts, read 18,250,197 times
Reputation: 6536

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
You are right, the French did fight in 1940. They did not fight like they had fought in years past but they did fight.

When discussing the Fall of France, many histories seem to go from the Dunkirk evacuation right to the French surrender with Hitler and the railway car. They seem to ignore some less known facts, for instance after Dunkirk,

- Even after the disaster in Belgium and Northern France, the French still had 64 divisions to face the German 140+ divisions. They began to form new defensive positions along the interior river lines in France.
- 100,000+ of the French that were evacuated at Dunkirk returned to France to help bolster the French defense.
- The British also relanded the BEF to help the French (this is after Dunkirk).
- The French were looking to turn the Brittany peninsula into a National Redoubt, where the outnumbered French army might be able to hold off the Germans with Allied assistance.
- There was also proposals about evacuating the French government, Navy, Air Force and as much of the Army as possible to French North Africa to continue the war.
- Even with France collapsing, the French army was able to easily fight off the Italian invasion.
- There were pleas of help to the Americans. Granted it was unlikely due to strong feeling of neutrality, but had the USA responded at this time to the downfall of her oldest ally, it is very possible that France would not have given up but instead continued the war based in North Africa.
In retrospect, I think France should have moved the flag to North Africa and continued the fight, preferably under DeGaulle. Something that Chiang Kai-Shek was destined to do 9 years later.

I don't see where it was predicated on aid from the US, which at the time was hardly prepared for any kind of war. Sounds like a veiled attempt to blame their demise on us although I could be wrong.

France still had a lot of military assets at her disposal and a fairly large empire. They could have regrouped with the British and fought on. Instead they experienced more tragedies like Mars El Kebir and Operation Sword.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-10-2017, 08:28 AM
 
Location: State Fire and Ice
3,111 posts, read 4,790,712 times
Reputation: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
In retrospect, I think France should have moved the flag to North Africa and continued the fight, preferably under DeGaulle. Something that Chiang Kai-Shek was destined to do 9 years later.

I don't see where it was predicated on aid from the US, which at the time was hardly prepared for any kind of war. Sounds like a veiled attempt to blame their demise on us although I could be wrong.

France still had a lot of military assets at her disposal and a fairly large empire. They could have regrouped with the British and fought on. Instead they experienced more tragedies like Mars El Kebir and Operation Sword.
With the English? lol. that's funny. The British hid in their islands and were afraid that Hitler would want to attack Britain. But, Hitler did not want this. As soon as France surrendered, England itself began to bomb the French Fleet with fear. As for the United States, they themselves organized both world wars and naturally financed them, through international banks and corporations. During World War II, the United States financed all sides of the war on its terms. Therefore, as in the First World War and World War II, the United States enters the war only at the very end, when the winners of the war are already known. In order to get the traffic, this is real, about which people say little today
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2017, 09:20 AM
 
Location: SE UK
8,551 posts, read 7,382,046 times
Reputation: 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyKarast View Post
With the English? lol. that's funny. The British hid in their islands and were afraid that Hitler would want to attack Britain. But, Hitler did not want this. As soon as France surrendered, England itself began to bomb the French Fleet with fear. As for the United States, they themselves organized both world wars and naturally financed them, through international banks and corporations. During World War II, the United States financed all sides of the war on its terms. Therefore, as in the First World War and World War II, the United States enters the war only at the very end, when the winners of the war are already known. In order to get the traffic, this is real, about which people say little today
Yeah yeah, its all thanks to the 'superhuman' Russians that Germany was defeated right? Nothing to do with any of the other 'Allies', the Americans did nothing until the war was already won!!! Yeah right, the British 'fled and hid scared'!!! yeah right, lets face it, if it wasn't for the fact that Russia turns into a frozen hell hole every November the Germans (and Napolean for that matter) would have cut through like a knife through butter. There are many reasons why the Nazi's were defeated and I suggest that without any one of the 'Allies' the outcome would have been somewhat different and I include the French resistance in that, the British/Americans were not invaded perhaps the British and Americans would have appreciated just how 'brave' the resistance fighters were if they were invaded, don't forget if anybody was convicted of 'hiding' any Allied servicemen the whole family were simply shot and yet hundreds of servicemen were saved by French citizens. Yes its easy for us to sit here in judgement and claim that 'our' nations are/were the greatest while the French were/are 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' but I do wonder how 'we' would have fared in that particular situation - I bet GreyKarast wouldn't have been one of these so called Russian superhumans!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2017, 03:23 PM
 
Location: State Fire and Ice
3,111 posts, read 4,790,712 times
Reputation: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome View Post
Yeah yeah, its all thanks to the 'superhuman' Russians that Germany was defeated right? Nothing to do with any of the other 'Allies', the Americans did nothing until the war was already won!!! Yeah right, the British 'fled and hid scared'!!! yeah right, lets face it, if it wasn't for the fact that Russia turns into a frozen hell hole every November the Germans (and Napolean for that matter) would have cut through like a knife through butter. There are many reasons why the Nazi's were defeated and I suggest that without any one of the 'Allies' the outcome would have been somewhat different and I include the French resistance in that, the British/Americans were not invaded perhaps the British and Americans would have appreciated just how 'brave' the resistance fighters were if they were invaded, don't forget if anybody was convicted of 'hiding' any Allied servicemen the whole family were simply shot and yet hundreds of servicemen were saved by French citizens. Yes its easy for us to sit here in judgement and claim that 'our' nations are/were the greatest while the French were/are 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' but I do wonder how 'we' would have fared in that particular situation - I bet GreyKarast wouldn't have been one of these so called Russian superhumans!


I did not talk about super people, I was talking about the fact that the Russians gave their lives for the liberation of their country, at a time when Europeans believed that their lives are more expensive than their country. In vain you doubt that I am ready to give my life, for my country if necessary. Let's be realistic. More than 75 percent of all Wehrmacht troops were destroyed by the Soviet Army.
The Allies cared not about the victory in the war, they were interested in profits in the first place. Therefore, they have been negotiated with Germany on the course of the war, after which the Germans were pre-aligned to the eastern front, after which the Red Army suffered great losses. And at the time when the outcome of the war was already foregone, the Allies enter into a real war and open a second front, and in this case they could not do it without a red army. so that the Allies no could land in the Ardennes. the unprepared army of the began to attack, taking on the 170 most capable combatants of Germany.the Red Army suffered heavy losses. Because the USSR has always fulfilled its obligations to the allies, unlike the allies, who repeatedly violated these obligations and betrayed them. At a time when the USSR is fighting against fascism, the Allies are beginning to share the traffic. France worked all over the war on Germany, England was afraid for her life, so she could not help, so the United States did not want this either. Here are the realities of this war, without any emotions, based on historical facts, which can be documented. As for the First World War, with the arrival of the Russian soldiers, the course of the war was changed in favor of France. The United States entered the war as well as the end of the war. this is also a historical fact. If you have any doubt, what are the turning points in that World War? and where are these allies?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2017, 03:38 PM
 
13,429 posts, read 19,551,220 times
Reputation: 22193
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyKarast View Post
With the English? lol. that's funny. The British hid in their islands and were afraid that Hitler would want to attack Britain. But, Hitler did not want this. As soon as France surrendered, England itself began to bomb the French Fleet with fear. As for the United States, they themselves organized both world wars and naturally financed them, through international banks and corporations. During World War II, the United States financed all sides of the war on its terms. Therefore, as in the First World War and World War II, the United States enters the war only at the very end, when the winners of the war are already known. In order to get the traffic, this is real, about which people say little today
Like your response to the Macarthur thread, you do have creative and entertaining interpretations of history don't you.
You seem to totally forget about the North Africa campaign and the Pacific campaign. In the Pacific incidently, we could use the same argument about the Soviet's "hiding in Siberia and Mongolia" afraid to attack Japanese Manchuria until the winners of the war were already known. But that would be just as nonsensical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2017, 06:36 PM
 
5,114 posts, read 4,887,606 times
Reputation: 4385
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyKarast View Post
I did not talk about super people, I was talking about the fact that the Russians gave their lives for the liberation of their country, at a time when Europeans believed that their lives are more expensive than their country. In vain you doubt that I am ready to give my life, for my country if necessary. Let's be realistic.
The problem with your comparison is that Nazi Germany didn't want to destroy France, kill off its citizens, and repopulate France with Aryan settlers. The Nazis sure as heck wanted to liquidate and colonize the lands to their East. I would argue that the Russians fought to the death to defend their nation because they had no other choice.

Also, Nazi Germany would never have invaded France and then later the Soviet Union if Stalin and the Soviets hadn't backed out of their alliance with France and then struck a deal with Hitler and Germany to declare a neutrality pact and to agree to divide up Poland and the Baltic states among themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2017, 06:59 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
4,245 posts, read 1,919,877 times
Reputation: 4143
Default The roots to the politics lie in WWI

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
I recently read a really fabulous book on WWII, "Franklin and Winston". It's a long book, but every word is worth reading. A definitive history of the relationship between the two men who saved the world, especially Churchill. Fabulous.

Churchill was hugely disappointed and shocked that France put up zero resistance to the German forces invading.

The takeaway was that France was fine with Germany taking over at the time they did. Not that France was too scared/weak to fight, but that many aligned with the Nazis and so were good with their occupation.

Winston Churchill. We owe him SO MUCH. As well we owe the Brits, who lost a generation of men during WWII fighting the battle alone before Japan attacked us in Pearl Harbor and caused to finally - FINALLY - become involved.
I suggest reading The long shadow : the legacies of the Great War in the twentieth century / David Reynolds, c2014, W. W. Norton.

Subjects
World War, 1914-1918 -- Influence.
Civilization, Modern -- 20th century.
War and society.
United States -- Civilization -- 20th century.

Summary
One of the most violent conflicts in the history of civilization, World War I has been strangely forgotten in American culture. It has become a ghostly war fought in a haze of memory, often seen merely as a distant preamble to World War II. In The Long Shadow critically acclaimed historian David Reynolds seeks to broaden our vision by assessing the impact of the Great War across the twentieth century.

Length
xxix, 514 pages,

Lots of history in detail, especially the political maneuvering after WWI. An excellent read, thus far.

Yah, UK & Commonwealth fought, with grudging help from most of the Commonwealth - see WWI. & China was fighting Imperial Japan in the 1930s. & the USSR fought bravely, come 1941. There was a lot of death & destruction & suffering all around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2017, 07:12 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
4,245 posts, read 1,919,877 times
Reputation: 4143
Default An embarassment of riches

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron61 View Post
France fought the war in the only manner they could that would ensure their survival as a nation. In truth, the French Resistance did more to hamper Germany’s domination than their regular armies ever could have.
France in 1940 had the wrong tactics & strategy. They could have massed their armor & arty & ground attack aircraft & mechanized infantry to create a comparable strike force to counter the Blitzkrieg. But France didn't do that, they invested in massive static defensive works, & hoped to deter any attack by staying on the defensive.

The Western governments were discredited by the war & the peace after WWI - France wound up with a strong Legislative & a weak Executive by design. They didn't want any more Napoleons, thank you very much. But that hurt them in the run-up to WWII. There's a lot of history there, in UK & US & Italy & the USSR as well.

Even so, France fought in early WWII - but their military HQ/organization was shattered & too slow off the mark. They couldn't move fast enough, they couldn't concentrate their forces quickly enough. Germany dithered @ the beach, & with self-sacrificial courage, French & BEF forces held off the German forces long enough to evacuate most of the BEF & French military who were willing - @ the cost of their heavy weapons. They would return, to fight another day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2017, 09:27 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,310 posts, read 10,487,597 times
Reputation: 6766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
In retrospect, I think France should have moved the flag to North Africa and continued the fight, preferably under DeGaulle. Something that Chiang Kai-Shek was destined to do 9 years later.

I don't see where it was predicated on aid from the US, which at the time was hardly prepared for any kind of war. Sounds like a veiled attempt to blame their demise on us although I could be wrong.

France still had a lot of military assets at her disposal and a fairly large empire. They could have regrouped with the British and fought on. Instead they experienced more tragedies like Mars El Kebir and Operation Sword.
The French were thinking of evacuating to their North African territories (Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia) and it should be remembered that they also had a huge colonial empire to draw upon, second only to the British. If I remember right, Churchill was promising to support them and between the British Mediterranean Fleet and the French Fleet itself, the Italian Navy was no match for the Allies.

Anyway, I don't to give the impression that, like you say the French were blaming their defeat on America. Rather the French government and military were divided at the time about whether to surrender or continue the war. Some thought the French position was hopeless and wanted to surrender. But Prime Minister Paul Reynaud wanted to continue the war - if necessary in North Africa and was hoping for a last minute intervention from the USA to bolster his case.

Reynaud telegram to President Roosevelt June 15, 1940 5PM
"I feel that I should make it entirely clear that the French Government is now faced with only two alternatives, namely to sue for peace, which of course would have to be unconditional, or move to North Africa and continue the fight.
The decision ..... will depend on the nature of your reply
".*

* From the book "The Collapse of the Third Republic" by William L Shirer page 818

Roosevelt's reply of course, that he would send materials and supplies to the aid of France but could do nothing else without the Congress, was not enough to bolster Reynaud's position for France to stay in the war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2017, 10:08 PM
 
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
5,695 posts, read 3,081,450 times
Reputation: 11264
Cigarettes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


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 > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

¬© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top