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.
To be fair the German lightening warfare technique caught many off guard
But to defend the French on this point -a country I lived in for many years -is difficult
Law enforcement and military is not their strong suite
Music and art -second to none
❤️❤️❤️
"The lightning victory in France thus emerged not as the logical endpoint of a carefully devised strategic synthesis, but as an inspired, high-risk improvisation, a 'quick, military fix' to the strategic dilemmas, which Hitler and the German military leadership had failed to resolve up to February 1940."
- Wages of Destruction by Prof Adam Tooze.
France invested heavily in the Maginot Line defense during the 1920's and 30's. This basically dictated that the Allied strategic battle plan would be purely defensive. France spent the interwar years building and maintaining a large standing army that would man fixed fortifications. French planners were rigid in their convictions that a future war would be fought exactly like WW1, and that defense favored offense in minimizing casualties. France never developed a serious offensive strategy to invade Germany. So, in keeping with their defensive approach, this gave Hitler a free hand to invade other countries and territories with little threat of Allied intervention.
When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, the Allies on paper were strong enough to have invaded Germany from the west and dealt a decisive blow. German generals have even gone on record admitting to such effect. But, in keeping with their defensive philosophy, the Allies chose to sit back and do nothing, waiting for the inevitable German attack.
France invested heavily in the Maginot Line defense during the 1920's and 30's. This basically dictated that the Allied strategic battle plan would be purely defensive. France spent the interwar years building and maintaining a large standing army that would man fixed fortifications. French planners were rigid in their convictions that a future war would be fought exactly like WW1, and that defense favored offense in minimizing casualties. France never developed a serious offensive strategy to invade Germany.
In fairness, it must have been difficult to look at WWI and not draw the conclusion that well-built defense systems would dominate warfare for decades to come.
St. Helena of course, a British island possession in the South Atlantic.
I am about as much of an anglophile as anyone, but the battle of Waterloo was indeed, as Wellington was quoted " a close run thing."
The Allied army was exhausted and had suffered very heavy casualties by the evening of June 18th, and many of the Belgian & Dutch units had fled the field or were in quite shaky condition, some of the British units were on their last legs.
Of course, Marshal Grouchy did not perform his task of keeping Blucher's Prussians at bay, and their arrival on Napoleon's right flank was decisive, along with the British repulse of the last French infantry assault. Waterloo COULD have been a French victory, the issue was long in doubt.
Even if Napoleon had been victorious at Waterloo, over his two fiercest enemies, I have to think he may have had a difficult time facing the oncoming Russian and Austrian armies.
However, he had defeated those armies in years past; who knows what would have occurred in 1815?
Napoleon's army was certainly not the caliber of those of 1805-1812.
It is easy for the intellectually lazy to make light of French martial prowess, or lack there of, but it is just not historically accurate.
St. Helena of course, a British island possession in the South Atlantic.
I am about as much of an anglophile as anyone, but the battle of Waterloo was indeed, as Wellington was quoted " a close run thing."
The Allied army was exhausted and had suffered very heavy casualties by the evening of June 18th, and many of the Belgian & Dutch units had fled the field or were in quite shaky condition, some of the British units were on their last legs.
Of course, Marshal Grouchy did not perform his task of keeping Blucher's Prussians at bay, and their arrival on Napoleon's right flank was decisive, along with the British repulse of the last French infantry assault. Waterloo COULD have been a French victory, the issue was long in doubt.
Even if Napoleon had been victorious at Waterloo, over his two fiercest enemies, I have to think he may have had a difficult time facing the oncoming Russian and Austrian armies.
However, he had defeated those armies in years past; who knows what would have occurred in 1815?
Napoleon's army was certainly not the caliber of those of 1805-1812.
It is easy for the intellectually lazy to make light of French martial prowess, or lack there of, but it is just not historically accurate.
I agree with you. The French have a long history of military prowess going all the way back to the Frankish kingdom. Clovis, Charlemagne etc. The Franks were not known as sissy’s that is for sure. Charlemagne created an empire that controlled a large portion of Western Europe. During the imperial period the French built a very large empire. They could not have done this if they were weak. The 20th century damages the image of France severely, really the events of 1940 literally destroyed their reputation. The existence of Vichy France is an insult to their history.
I’ll choose to see France as that nation who’s Navy helped us secure our independence in America at Yorktown. I see what our country did to liberate France in 44 and 45 as a repayment for what they did for us in the revolution. We should stop rubbing WW2 in their faces. It has been 75 years since that ended.
To be fair the German lightening warfare technique caught many off guard
But to defend the French on this point -a country I lived in for many years -is difficult Law enforcement and military is not their strong suite
Music and art -second to none
❤️❤️❤️
France is one of only three countries on the planet (out of roughly 200) that possesses a blue water navy with global force projection ability.
It's not on the level of the United States Navy, which can undertake multiple naval engagements around the globe simultaneously. But - like the UK - it can project its naval force anywhere on the oceans. This is based not only on its fleet, which isn't the 2nd/3rd largest but which includes a modern aircraft carrier (not some old one purchased from a superpower that didn't want it) and multiple amphibious assault ships, but on its widely-distributed system of bases all over the world in French possessions or shared/leased in other sovereign states (often former French colonies) to sustain such operations. The other ~197 countries of the world (including states such as Russia and China) do not possess this ability. And France regularly engages in foreign military actions, with 35,000+ troops deployed overseas at present.
Simply put, France punches well above its weight militarily. Thus, your premise that France's performance in World War II is due to some inherent French deficiency in military operations is demonstrably wrong.
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.
