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.
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.
Not really, ww2 happened with terrible timing for the Allies.
The great depression had cut Europe's defence budgets to the bone - armoured divisions are hideously expensive things to train.
Germany didn't just have a few years head start on rearming, they also gained a massive amount of operational experience through the Spanish civil war and other actions the Allies sorely lacked.
Towards the end of the battle of France the French and British had made great strides in narrowing the tactical gap, however by then it was too late.
Said one French statesman why they did not fight the German invasion, "The Germans always leave."
It's somewhat of a European thing. Kings will fight to move the borders, the farmers and workers kinda have to go with it, and the best they can hope for is to come back to farm or the loom with all limbs intact and hope it works out in the end.
I've traveled a bit in the Alsace/Lorraine region (lovely place, friendly people, very recommended) - for the wine, natch. As you probably know, this is a region that has histroically been very contested. And the local vintners are very stoic about the German/French thing. They have their roots with their family's vineyards, they've tended them for generations, and if the border was moved, well - that was an annoyance, but one to be taken philosophically, like bad harvest weather.
One vintner was named "Jean Hugel" and explained that it was a good name, because when the Germans arrived you were "Hans Hugel", no biggie. Although things were improving - his grandfather changed 4 times, his father twice, and he'd only changed once. (I think he might have embroidered the truth a bit, but the sentiment was real.)
I just thought of something: When the french leadership knew they were doomed why just leave all their naval vessels in port? I remember reading of how the british navy actually destroyed several of them so they couldn't be used by the Nazis. At the very least couldn't the french have sent all their naval vessels to friendly waters such as Britain so on one hand the nazis couldn't have gotten them but also on the other they could have been of some use to the allies? Seems as if the french command telling everyone to get all of their navy away from france and into friendly waters would have been the smart thing to do.
Under terms of the armistice between France & Germany, the French naval ships were to be mostly disarmed & harbored in French ports. The Allied invasion of North Africa may have prompted Germany's concern about the harbored French fleet. Out of concern that Germany would seize the ships anyway, the British had attacked French navy ships @ port in Africa. & once Germany determined to seize the French ships in Toulon, the French ordered the ships scuttled. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttl...Toulon#Context. It's not clear if the French navy decided they'd rather scuttle their ships than risk the British seizing the ships for themselves (if the French had tried to sail the ships out).
It's not clear if the French navy decided they'd rather scuttle their ships than risk the British seizing the ships for themselves (if the French had tried to sail the ships out).
Getting a large warship underway is a thousand-man operation, scuttling one isn't. And the British had boarded all French warships in British waters - oftentimes by by force - so there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the Royal Navy would either seize the ships or sink them. Hard times make for hard choices.
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."
I did not know that Rommel fought the Italians in WW1! Kind of ironic considering his role alongside the Italians in WW2.
I am just guessing that the World War 1 experience had a negative effect on Italian morale in WW2. I never read it anywhere, just a theory that I thought about when thinking about this thread. If memories of WW1 effected the British and French in WW2, why not other nations also?
Perhaps if Italy had been like the Germans and been more successful in her battles in the early part of the war, maybe morale would have built up instead of declined.
Anyway, morale was not the only problem the Italians had. Often bad leadership, outdated equipment, an inadequate supply system and too small an economy to wage such a long major war are other reasons.
In WWI they went 4 1/2 whole years sending hundreds of thousands to die to fight off Germany, yet when Germany came rolling in during WWII they hardly put up any resistance. Why did they not definitely oppose Germany and send out a message to every part of France that every man, woman and child should fight to the death to defend France? Make it so the Germans have no one within that will cooperate or talk to them in anyway shape or form, that every single man, woman and child in France is an enemy that will kill any invading German?
Numerous reasons.
France actually put up a long defensive barrier called the Maginot line constructed of concrete barricades, fortifications, and weapons installations. France was actually prepared for, and expecting, Germany to attack directly towards France, after having been attacked in World War One.
However, with such a strong defensive line, Germany merely went around it in the Netherlands and Belgium to the North, and then rushed back South towards France. Germany's Blitzkrieg in their fast tanks took Paris quickly.
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?
Russia was essentially lost but for committing scorched earth and using male and female conscripts both like cannon fodder. A retreating NATION in essence burning everything to the ground to deny the conquerors even the shelter of a horse shed to weather under.
The few Yaks Russia had were no match for even the Stuka dive bombers, not to mention the FW 190 or BF 109's. Had Russia not the seemingly inexhaustible supply of combatants being killed by the thousands who were under orders to fight or be shot by their officers, prepared to pop up out of the snow with their 6 million PPSH cheap as dirt "Papasha" submachine guns with 100 round mags and run towards the Germans in what can only be described as a "Banzai" attack to further demoralize the Germans on the eastern front who were not supplied, frozen stiff and wondering what the heck Hitler was thinking by sending them into such a barren wasteland of no use to anyone.
Russia's success was only due to the lend lease availability of some Bell Aircobras and numbers of men women and children who had no choice but to fight to the death defending their homeland or die anyway at the hands of Stalin's goons squads.
Wars of attrition are never pleasant and they are certainly not heroic when the combatants are given no choice in the matter.
Russia behaving like a giant sponge absorbing more losses than other nations had fighters was the single greatest contributor to Germany's ultimate defeat by forcing it to sustain a two or even three front war. Germany by this time had not the manpower, the war material or the resource supplies to sustain that silliness.
The second greatest contributor could be said to be the air war over Britain being essentially over and won by the time the U.S. entered the fray, but that is tied in my mind with the U.S. ability to ramp up production of everything from mess kits to B27's in numbers unparalleled since to keep the ball in play.
The Atlantic convoy crossing and the U-boat war was of huge significance as without those ships arriving in Britain, she was doomed and Russia would be speaking German today, like the rest of Europe would have and there'd have been no place for Slav's in Hitler's Europe/Asia.
Another poster said it eloquently, had the war effort been missing any one of the allies contributions, Europe would be a far different place today with only one language and nothing but blue-eyed blonds walking around. That pretty much leaves out the entire Russian DNA strain.
Russia was essentially lost but for committing scorched earth and using male and female conscripts both like cannon fodder. A retreating NATION in essence burning everything to the ground to deny the conquerors even the shelter of a horse shed to weather under.
The few Yaks Russia had were no match for even the Stuka dive bombers, not to mention the FW 190 or BF 109's. Had Russia not the seemingly inexhaustible supply of combatants being killed by the thousands who were under orders to fight or be shot by their officers, prepared to pop up out of the snow with their 6 million PPSH cheap as dirt "Papasha" submachine guns with 100 round mags and run towards the Germans in what can only be described as a "Banzai" attack to further demoralize the Germans on the eastern front who were not supplied, frozen stiff and wondering what the heck Hitler was thinking by sending them into such a barren wasteland of no use to anyone.
Russia's success was only due to the lend lease availability of some Bell Aircobras and numbers of men women and children who had no choice but to fight to the death defending their homeland or die anyway at the hands of Stalin's goons squads.
Wars of attrition are never pleasant and they are certainly not heroic when the combatants are given no choice in the matter.
Russia behaving like a giant sponge absorbing more losses than other nations had fighters was the single greatest contributor to Germany's ultimate defeat by forcing it to sustain a two or even three front war. Germany by this time had not the manpower, the war material or the resource supplies to sustain that silliness.
The second greatest contributor could be said to be the air war over Britain being essentially over and won by the time the U.S. entered the fray, but that is tied in my mind with the U.S. ability to ramp up production of everything from mess kits to B27's in numbers unparalleled since to keep the ball in play.
The Atlantic convoy crossing and the U-boat war was of huge significance as without those ships arriving in Britain, she was doomed and Russia would be speaking German today, like the rest of Europe would have and there'd have been no place for Slav's in Hitler's Europe/Asia.
Another poster said it eloquently, had the war effort been missing any one of the allies contributions, Europe would be a far different place today with only one language and nothing but blue-eyed blonds walking around. That pretty much leaves out the entire Russian DNA strain.
Do you really think that the heroism of the Soviet people can be justified by the threat of execution? You simply deny the heroism of the masses and the steadfastness of the Soviet people. this is a naive opinion. If you study the history of Russia, it always happened like this. We are the ancestors of the Scythians and Sarmatians, and have our city destroyed without looking back, under the threat of seizure. So they were built again. so it was with Moscow, under Napoleon. I advise you to read the reports from the front of 1941-45. as well as the Allied Command and Presidents. This war was not for Stalin or communism. She was for survival, her native land and her people. Therefore, the period from 1941-45 we called the fatherland. The Soviet people showed not only military feats, but also labor. Many planes were superior to the German ones, and there were a lot of them for the Germans. Tanks were built 20 times faster than Hitler thought. The Germans were stopped immediately, as soon as they entered the territory of the USSR. But, the defenders' command was young. since many experienced tsarist officers were shot during the civil war. Meanwhile, many fortifications lasted longer than the whole of Europe. For example, the Brest Fortress (it's only 8000 original numbers of Russian soldiers) could not take longer than France or Poland, while the Germans suffered more losses for the whole company in France. The fight to the last soldier is also because of death threats from the NKVD? Even in the environment, the Russians fought with great perseverance. In Europe, with the threat of encirclement, the soldiers immediately surrendered. In the USSR this did not work. It's easier to think so in the West than to acknowledge the obvious fact. And on the eastern front where Germany (soldiers of all Wehrmacht troops) suffered more than 75 percent of all losses, British pilots did not fight, like other allies.
The naval fleet of the USSR was at its height. As for the convoys of cargo from the United States. The first most of them were accompanied by the Soviet guards. The second-lend lyse First osered was for Britain. Britain, which hid on its islands. The third thing that got the ussr, most of it was old and necessary repairs. in the fourth consignment of leasing, less than 3 percent of the total production of the ussr. so that this could not change significantly the situation. but in a difficult moment. any help is needed. for all the so-called help. so do not say nonsense. the USSR would never speak German. And the largest production in the history of mankind was created in the USSR during the great national war. not in the United States.
So if the Soviet Union lost the war, it would all talk to German people including the United States of course.
The blockade of Leningrad lasted three years, but the city did not give up. Do you really think that without your stew, the Soviet people would surrender? I do not want to belittle the exploits of the British sailors, we remember that. But it was more for them. Britain and the United States saved hundreds of thousands of their soldiers and brought great profits for their countries. This was the land of liz.
This topic, about France 1939. back to it.
Last edited by GreyKarast; 11-14-2017 at 01:27 AM..
The French soldier often fought bravely and valiantly. It was his leaders who failed, both in vision and in resolve.
One example? French strategist refused to put radios in tanks that were otherwise superior to the German panzers of the day, viewing them as infantry support weapons.
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.
A lot of bad feeling
