Why did France give up so easily when Germany invaded in WWII? (general, 1930's)

[msgsing]

It's a complex question that has been studied and written about by historians for many years. I think that at the heart of the matter France was still shell shocked by the carnage and destruction of the First World War. The mindless offensive operations against heavily manned and defended enemy positions that took so many lives.


World wide there was a general revulsion against WW1. In France and in the United States there was a feeling of a lost generation that died and suffered for nothing because of the stupidity of generals and political leaders. France adopted a defensive mentality and constructed the Maginot Line to hold an enemy back and even possibly deter an attacker. It didn't work and France paid a heavy price.

[DKM]

For the same reason every other country in Europe did. They had to. It was that or certain destruction. Half the army was killed or captured within a month, so what were they supposed to do? Suicide attacks? There was also a lot of French who saw the coming Reich as a good thing, a movement to fight off communism.

[djmilf]

I went over to the Wikipedia article on the Battle of France in WWII, looking for a meaningful German edge in either men or materials. The figure that really popped out wasn't the starting numbers, but rather the ending numbers.

At the end, the Axis powers had about 27,000 dead, 111,000 wounded, and 18,000 missing - a total of 156,000. The Allied powers had about 360,000 dead or wounded, twice as many. Admittedly, a portion of Allied casualties were British, Belgian, and Dutch, but France probably accounted for the bulk of the casualties, just as they accounted for the bulk of the Allied forces. If France had continued fighting (and, after Dunkirk, they were the only ones left on the Continent fighting), the terrible mathematics would have bled France dry.

[mortgageboss]

The French and largely the rest of Europe were planning on fighting the next war like the last one. They were totally unprepared for the new tactics and weapons the Germans developed. Look at the Maginot line as an example; fixed fortifications vs mobile warfare.


The poor morale of the French forces and other factors were a contributor to France's rapid loss, but the technical superiority of the Germans contributed as well.

[Katana49]

I think the French were just tired of the crap being pedaled by Renault, Citroen, and Peugeot, and were open to the idea of having Mercedes and BMW's becoming more accessible.

[hunterseat]

Because... France. Duh

[ClaraC]

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.

[mike1003]

Because that's what the French do

[Crashj007]

Originally Posted by farinello

Because French were treasoned by leadership, by pacifists, progressives...just as German people were treasoned by Von Papen, aging Bismarck, industrialists and so many others.

Many french were more terrorised of Popular Front than of Germans.

"betrayed"

[Ron61]

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.