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)
 
Old 11-13-2017, 07:03 AM
 
Location: State Fire and Ice
3,111 posts, read 4,836,064 times
Reputation: 848

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by markjames68 View Post
In 1939 the US was woefully armed, and the army was only the 17th largest in the world, smaller than Portugal’s.

“there were 187,893 active-duty Army soldiers as of June 30, 1939; the army ballooned to nearly 8.3 million active-duty soldiers, its record high, by the end of May 1945.”
this is of course an interesting statistic, but the war involved a minority of these 8.3 million.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2017, 07:17 AM
Yac
 
6,020 posts, read 6,859,350 times
As the thread continues, remember it's not ok to attack others. Yes, even if the version of history they present is full of propaganda and whatnot. Educate them, ignore them, report them for trolling - but don't attack them.
It's that simple.

Also remember this is not about the soviets, but about France. A ww2 topic is not an invitation to discuss anything ww2 related.
Now, back on topic, please.
__________________
Forum Rules
City-Data.com homepage
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2017, 07:36 AM
 
Location: State Fire and Ice
3,111 posts, read 4,836,064 times
Reputation: 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yac View Post
As the thread continues, remember it's not ok to attack others. Yes, even if the version of history they present is full of propaganda and whatnot. Educate them, ignore them, report them for trolling - but don't attack them.
It's that simple.

Also remember this is not about the soviets, but about France. A ww2 topic is not an invitation to discuss anything ww2 related.
Now, back on topic, please.
Yes you are right! Sorry! back to France 1939
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2017, 08:14 AM
 
Location: State Fire and Ice
3,111 posts, read 4,836,064 times
Reputation: 848
Bare facts
The Second World War, France had the 3rd largest army and number of tanks in the world, second only to the USSR and Germany, and also to the 4th naval fleet after Britain, the US and Japan. The total number of French troops numbered more than 2 million people. The superiority of the French army in manpower and technology before the Wehrmacht forces on the Western Front was unquestionable.
With the arrival of reinforcements from the British Isles - the expeditionary corps in the number of 9 divisions, as well as the air units, which included 1500 combat vehicles - the advantage over the German troops became more than obvious. Nevertheless, in a matter of months, from the former superiority of the allied forces, there was no trace - a well-trained and tactically superior army of the Wehrmacht forced eventually to capitulate France.
Possible causes of the collapse:The French command assumed that the German army would act as during the First World War - that is, it would undertake an attack on France from the northeast by Belgium. The whole load in this case was supposed to lie on the defensive redoubts of the Maginot line.
The Maginot Line, in principle, coped with its task. At its most strengthened areas of German military breakthroughs were not.
But the German army group -B- having bypassed the line of fortifications from the north, threw the main forces into its new areas, which were built on the swampy terrain, and where the erection of underground structures was difficult. There, the French could not contain the onslaught of the German troops.
In 1940, the Ministers voted unanimously and turned through a message through Spain on the cessation of the war. It was immediately accepted. By the way, Italy was disappointed, because she wanted to attack and tear off a piece to herself. But the life of the French in the occupation did not even change in practice. The Germans even allowed themselves to keep the Navy, to control their colonies, the very one that the British later bombed out.
The ministers surrendered to France. Probably they knew about the special attitude of the Germans towards them and felt that there was no point in beating up for the sovereignty of their country and in vain in their opinion the lives of the French. Although many French were going to fight, at least in the colonies, so Germany in the contract made concessions. I think it was so. Although only they themselves know , what happened. And I would like to see the opinion, from the Frenchman.

Last edited by GreyKarast; 11-13-2017 at 08:39 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2017, 08:40 AM
 
Location: Finland
24,257 posts, read 20,404,597 times
Reputation: 11103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
I happen to agree. But then again I am Jewish.

Add PM King of Canada and Churchill of Britain to your list.
Ok, good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyKarast View Post
You know 6 million dead Jews during the Second World War, this is a myth invented by the Jews themselves. The reality is that according to the population census of 1938 in all of Europe there were about 3.5 million Jews. how many left before the war how many fled during the war and so on. in reality it is not more than 2 million. At the same time, the Jews themselves (the majority) did nothing to protect themselves, but after the war, most of all scream about the death of poor Jews who cared only about their lives. The Chinese were destroyed 40 real millions as well as Russians but at every step they do not shout about it.
I'm not interested in debating numbers. 6 million or 3.5 million, doesn't make it any more justifiable or less horrible. I'm only happy that my country didn't have any part in that. Though my country too was rather antisemitic.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2017, 09:10 AM
 
Location: New Mexico
4,393 posts, read 1,976,714 times
Reputation: 4242
Default At the point of the sword

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyKarast View Post
Bare facts
The Second World War, France had the 3rd largest army and number of tanks in the world, second only to the USSR and Germany, and also to the 4th naval fleet after Britain, the US and Japan. The total number of French troops numbered more than 2 million people. The superiority of the French army in manpower and technology before the Wehrmacht forces on the Western Front was unquestionable.
With the arrival of reinforcements from the British Isles - the expeditionary corps in the number of 9 divisions, as well as the air units, which included 1500 combat vehicles - the advantage over the German troops became more than obvious. Nevertheless, in a matter of months, from the former superiority of the allied forces, there was no trace - a well-trained and tactically superior army of the Wehrmacht forced eventually to capitulate France.
...
Yah. France had more tanks, & apparently superior tanks (the heavy models) than the Germans. But both French & British militaries put their tanks into infantry formations, as kind of rolling trenches. Nor did the Allies develop combined arms assaults - tanks, mech infantry, arty, tactical fighter/bombers moving together & coordinating. Both French & British armies were long on discipline - exploitation of situations & initiative were not permitted - it was all per plan. The Germans emphasized coordination (lots of radio sets & comms networks & small-unit initiative) & flexibility.

Both French & British commands were concerned to minimize casualties - thus the French Maginot line, which functioned up to a point, but only as a fixed defensive line. The British troops were not reinforcements, by the way. The British & French high commands had worked out disposition plans well before WWII - & Britain recognized the importance of the continental Channel ports to keeping forces in the field, & they planned accordingly.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2017, 10:27 AM
 
36,543 posts, read 18,823,014 times
Reputation: 21157
Quote:
Originally Posted by brightdoglover View Post
I believe I read that some 125,000 French were killed in the six-week invasion.
I think the official figure is 92,000, although one could add the MIAs as well. Individual units fought tenaciously, but once there's no coherent battle plan - and French High Command was woefully unprepared for the speed with which the situation evolved - the campaign will be lost.

The roads being clogged with fleeing civilians didn't help matters in the slightest. It's no coincidence that the British invasion preparations involved strict orders to the civilian population to stay put.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2017, 11:15 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,420 posts, read 10,633,802 times
Reputation: 6977
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88 View Post
Yah. France had more tanks, & apparently superior tanks (the heavy models) than the Germans. But both French & British militaries put their tanks into infantry formations, as kind of rolling trenches. Nor did the Allies develop combined arms assaults - tanks, mech infantry, arty, tactical fighter/bombers moving together & coordinating. Both French & British armies were long on discipline - exploitation of situations & initiative were not permitted - it was all per plan. The Germans emphasized coordination (lots of radio sets & comms networks & small-unit initiative) & flexibility.

Both French & British commands were concerned to minimize casualties - thus the French Maginot line, which functioned up to a point, but only as a fixed defensive line. The British troops were not reinforcements, by the way. The British & French high commands had worked out disposition plans well before WWII - & Britain recognized the importance of the continental Channel ports to keeping forces in the field, & they planned accordingly.
Yes, it is kind of strange that even though the British and the French had far more tanks in WW1 then the Germans, it was the Germans who really advanced armored warfare tactics first in World War 2.

Regarding your second paragraph and to minimize casualties, I think this was part of the reaction to the horrors of WW1. Possibly there was also probably a problem with civilian and army morale. After the disasters of WW1, the enlisted men probably did not trust their generals to do the right thing. Allied generals blindly launching assaults against entrenched troops with machine guns and backed by artillery will do that sort of thing.

Maybe this effected not just the British and French armies in WW2, but I wonder if it was possibly responsible for the terrible showing of the Italians in WW2? After the ELEVEN failed Battles of Isonzo in WW1, where for 2 years the Italians launched attacks against the outnumbered Austrians, for the most part unsuccessfully and with heavy losses. Then, the 12th Battle of Isonzo resulted in a major Italian defeat with over 300,000 losses in dead, wounded and POW and the Italians were pushed back toward Venice. Not surprisingly this may have played a role with Italian army morale in WW2.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2017, 12:52 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
4,393 posts, read 1,976,714 times
Reputation: 4242
Default Promises of booty notwithstanding

Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Yes, it is kind of strange that even though the British and the French had far more tanks in WW1 then the Germans, it was the Germans who really advanced armored warfare tactics first in World War 2.

Regarding your second paragraph and to minimize casualties, I think this was part of the reaction to the horrors of WW1. Possibly there was also probably a problem with civilian and army morale. After the disasters of WW1, the enlisted men probably did not trust their generals to do the right thing. Allied generals blindly launching assaults against entrenched troops with machine guns and backed by artillery will do that sort of thing.

Maybe this effected not just the British and French armies in WW2, but I wonder if it was possibly responsible for the terrible showing of the Italians in WW2? After the ELEVEN failed Battles of Isonzo in WW1, where for 2 years the Italians launched attacks against the outnumbered Austrians, for the most part unsuccessfully and with heavy losses. Then, the 12th Battle of Isonzo resulted in a major Italian defeat with over 300,000 losses in dead, wounded and POW and the Italians were pushed back toward Venice. Not surprisingly this may have played a role with Italian army morale in WW2.
Yah. See entry 37, The long shadow. The Italian government apparently was offered sweeteners to come into the war. & they bit.

"Throughout 1916 and 1917 the Army chief of staff, Gen. Luigi Cadorna, drove his troops forward in futile offensives in the Alpine foothills along the Isonzo River, maintaining discipline by savage punishments and random executions -- until the twelfth battle of Isonzo in October 1917, better known as Caporetto, after the nearby town. The Habsburg Army had been stiffened by German storm troopers, among them an audacious young company commander called Erwin Rommel. Their surprise attack, swooping up and down the ridges, routed the bemused Italians, who fell back to within thirty kilometers of Venice: 300,000 were taken prisoner, another 350,00 deserted. Caporetto entered the Italian language as a synonym for shambolic collapse."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2017, 01:21 PM
 
36,543 posts, read 18,823,014 times
Reputation: 21157
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88 View Post
The Habsburg Army had been stiffened by German storm troopers, among them an audacious young company commander called Erwin Rommel. Their surprise attack, swooping up and down the ridges, routed the bemused Italians, who fell back to within thirty kilometers of Venice: 300,000 were taken prisoner, another 350,00 deserted. Caporetto entered the Italian language as a synonym for shambolic collapse."
Interesting fact: Rommel received the Pour Le Merite (the Blue Max) for his achievements in WWI - always a tricky bit to explain to his Italian allies in WWII.
Rate this post positively 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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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