|
Post by Terrordar on Apr 16, 2009 3:54:45 GMT
Figured I'd start a new thread for everyone to start along with. As moderator I figured it'd be interesting to visit this.
Many of our British board members, and by British I mean Elliot, and by many I mean him. Have argued to me before that France fell because of many internal issues during the second world war, but most of all a lack of willingness to fight.
I start this thread with an argument, that France had the willingness to fight, but had been undermined by its leaders for nearly ten years, lead to disastrous military policies.
French Colonels abandoned their men in early battles. The Maginot line was never extended to the sea do to fearing Holland would become neutral if they did (and what do you know, they did anyway). France also had a problem with many of their own political heads not being in power very long. On top of this, any General in France who attempted to modernize the army's operations and tactics was sacked by the General's Staff.
Even the Prime Minister of France pushed for reform, and was labeled as a cook. French tanks, which at the time were vastly superior to German ones, were dispersed as a result, and could not operate as a valid fighting force.
France's soldiers in many cases, fought until the end. And in may cases surrendered. but can you blame them for such surrenders, when betrayed so thoroughly by their leaders, political, military, social, or otherwise?
I personally put forth the idea that France in the second World War. Is a victim not of its people, or of the spirit of the French people, but is a victim of their leaders, both recent and in the past up until that point, leading to their spiraling decline.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 16, 2009 4:17:39 GMT
It's a good theory, Terror, and for the French army it may be true - but for the French navy and air force it is demonstrably not so. Both could easily have crossed to Britain but neither did. The French sunk one of their own fleets rather than fight (Though one submarine captain defied the order to scuttle and joined us) and we (The Brits) had to sink the other to keep it out of the hands of the Germans.
There were more American pilots in the Battle Of Britain then there were French pilots - at a time when the US was not yet involved in the war. That says it all. There were vastly more Polish pilots, and they had a difficult and dangerous job even getting to Britain. While the BoB is often portrayed as a British victory, the pilots who flew up so bravely to fight the might of the Reich actually came from many nations. Sure, most were Britons, but a significant number were not. French pilots, however, were in single figures.
While I agree that leadership was a huge problem for the French, possibly a greater problem was the sheer number of French people who had at least some sympathy with the Nazis. It's why the French resistance was pretty much useless in most parts of France - the Germans found it really easy to find informers and penetrate the cells.
Under the Vichy govt, though, there is no doubt you are right - the French were most definitely the victims of their leaders, who sold them out at almost every turn.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Apr 16, 2009 6:02:37 GMT
It is true that French tanks were in no way inferior nor less in number than German ones. But they were tactically seen as infantry support and thus dispersed along the front. In both the French and the British Army there had been strong advocates for consolidating tank forces into strong mobile fighting units; their publishings have been read with interest by a certain Guderian, among others - speak of the prophet not being heard in his own country.
As to the Maginot line - there has been an extension of fortifications into Belgium and the Netherlands. The French part had been vociferously promoted as 'impregnable' - mostly, I gather, to justify the horrendous cost to the own tax payer.
It was of course unfair of the German main strategists to actually believe that the line was an obstacle and simply circumvent it - by such unheard of means as parachutists in the north and running tank units through the Ardennes, which are mountaineous - while 'everybody' knew that tanks only operate in open field!
And on top of all, they used something called 'air force' actually as a striking force supporting ground troups and not only as reconnaissance.
|
|
|
Post by morallybankrupt on Apr 16, 2009 7:26:27 GMT
Military history is replete with soldiers getting screwed over by corrupt or incompetent "leadership." It was said of the British in WWI that they were lions led by donkeys. I can easily believe it of the French in WWII.
Of course, Glance A'Lot is absolutely correct as well: the Germans very quickly realized the options that tanks and the airforce offered. The Maginot Line was a very, very good idea-- in the early 20th Century, when tanks were sent in to mop up any remaining resistance, and planes did not interact with ground troops unless shot down.
Would a revolutionized (mind the small-r there) French army have been defeated by the Germans? Probably, yes. What would the effect of a longer French war have been on the course of the war? That's much trickier.
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Apr 16, 2009 7:41:01 GMT
It's okay though, America saved the day!
We're the best, I know.
You can thank us later.
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Apr 16, 2009 9:56:49 GMT
Except you know, the Soviet Union really won the actual war.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 16, 2009 10:08:04 GMT
Another view is that Hitler lost it...
Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 16, 2009 10:09:10 GMT
MB...
A longer French hold out? That's a very good question. There'd almost certainly have been no Dunkirk, as the British and French armies would have been far too committed to allow the British army to retreat as easily or as fast as it did. On the other hand, a serious defeat in France may have allowed the remnants of both to cross the channel.
A serious holdout, though, would have allowed Australia, Canada and the other far-flung parts of the British Empire time to field their armies, too. That may not have been so good for Germany. The Germans took France so easily because (As Glance has said) they were using tactics that were utterly revolutionary to everyone else.
It would also have helped if the guns on the Maginot Line could have been turned round, but for some reason the French generals (In clear proof of Terror's analysis of them) had obviously decided that any German assault on them would be full on from the front... Rather reveals the limits of thir OWN abilities, there...
I think the most likely outcome would have been a weakened Reich having to face a Russian invasion as Stalin saw his chance and pounced first while Hitler's army was still tied up. 'Allies' at that point or not, the Germans & Russians always hated each other, so that was always only a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Apr 16, 2009 10:10:09 GMT
Lets nto forget, the British troops were using outdated tactics as well.
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Apr 16, 2009 10:14:37 GMT
Let us also not forget that Germany would have completely dominated Africa had Italy not failed miserably at their little role.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 16, 2009 10:32:53 GMT
Ube...
There is definitely some truth to that. Germany had by far the better generals and - in most areas - the better weaponry for much of the war. Hitler was even able to recruit a fair number of troops from conquered nations to augment his own forces. The Croats supported him in the Balkans (Mainly as an excuse to massacre Serbs, but still: how times change there, eh?), many Austrians and Dutch were strongly if not completely sympathetic to his cause; units from many areas of the British Empire flocked to his cause as a way of fighting for the freedom of their own nations... He had some pretty serious options, if he had fully utilized them. The ratbag in charge of Ireland at the time was totally a supporter and would have doubtless declared for Hitler if he'd dared - and if his countrymen wouldn't have lynched him if he did!
Whatever can be said about the Irish, good or bad, they knew where the right side was in that war and many of them joined the British army to help put a stop to Hitler. And I do mean many - there were several Irish regiments, not to mention pilots and members of the navy. If the French were the members of the Allies whose status was debatable (It's certainly arguable that WW2 was a civil war for them), then the Irish people were the silent partners whose honourable contribution is too often ignored.
If Hitler had attacked Russia as a liberator rather than a conqueror, he could probably have enlisted massive numbers of Russians to his side - certainly the White Russians and the Cossacks and probably a lot more who were sick of Stalin's evil (Yes, the irony is not lost, there). But instead he went into 'more brutal than Stalin' mode, so lost all potential support.
In truth, though, his biggest blunder was declaring war on America, post-Pearl Harbour. Not that the wily Roosevelt wouldn't have wangled a way to support Britain somehow, I'm sure, but with the US and Britain running convoys to Russia, the Russians held out through the Winter - one of the most pivotal moments in the war - and were more than able to strike back in Spring; their production raised to levels Germany could not match.
And that's without American production, which outstripped even the Russians. Germany lost the shooting war primarily because they had already lost the most important parts - the production war and the recruitment/PR war.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 16, 2009 10:40:27 GMT
Lets nto forget, the British troops were using outdated tactics as well. Absolutely. When I said the Germans were superior to EVERYONE else in that regard, I meant it We were rubbish. The campaign in France was really one of the most colossal failures in our history, with only the triumph of Dunkirk - a victory of the British fighting spirit rather than anything military - meaning we avoided utter defeat. Let us also not forget that Germany would have completely dominated Africa had Italy not failed miserably at their little role. The Italians didn't want to fight Britain in the first place. We helped Garibaldi unify their nation and they've never forgotten. They actually fought like lions once they came over to our side. But Il Duce wanted to strut the stage and grandstand far beyond his abilities - or his people's tolerance. The Italians hated what Hitler was doing to the Jews, too, and actually sheltered as many Jews as they could in both Italy itself and the Italian controlled sector of France. Where Vichy was an active partner in the Holocaust, the Italians opposed it very firmly.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Apr 16, 2009 16:05:50 GMT
Absolutely. When I said the Germans were superior to EVERYONE else in that regard, I meant it
Nice, but you do some allied strategists injustice. As I said, there were ideas, strategies and concepts galore - what it lacked, was acceptance and adoption.
The reason?
Well - you won yourself to death!
When on the losing side, and equipped with a rather well educated and trained general staff, it's easy to re-think tactics and dare try something new. When you're on the winning side, why should you tamper with a 'winning' system? The arrogance of success leading to stagnation. The British Empire especially is a multiple example, both militarily and economically.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 16, 2009 16:17:48 GMT
True that. You know the worst part? It was a British military strategist that came up with the way to use tanks that the Germans then adopted to such amazing effect. The British military establishment wouldn't even listen.
Britain only ever starts getting decent generals under serious pressure. The establishment HATES real talent with a vengeance. They don't play by the same rules as everyone else, you see - not 'one of us'.
It's why most of our best generals throughout history have been aristocrats who bought their way to the post. The only people who've bucked the trend have been those who could bring the govt down if sacked, like Nelson.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Apr 16, 2009 16:29:16 GMT
The only people who've bucked the trend have been those who could bring the govt down if sacked, like Nelson. Or those who DID bring down the government, like Cromwell?
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 16, 2009 16:37:17 GMT
Cromwell would have gotten nowhere without Fairfax, who created the New Model Army for him... but still, there's a lot of truth in that... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 16, 2009 16:52:08 GMT
If Hitler had attacked Russia as a liberator rather than a conqueror, he could probably have enlisted massive numbers of Russians to his side - certainly the White Russians and the Cossacks and probably a lot more who were sick of Stalin's evil (Yes, the irony is not lost, there). But instead he went into 'more brutal than Stalin' mode, so lost all potential support. I once heard my brother argue that if Hitler hadn't turned towards Russia when he did and instead would have invaded the Brittish Isles then he'd won the war. Because your defences were weak at that point according to him. Instead he turned towards Russia and gave you the chance to come back, which you did. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 16, 2009 17:03:14 GMT
Hitler couldn't invade until he broke the power of the Royal Navy. Good as the German navy was, we would have obliterated them. Don't forget that one of the main reasons he wanted Italy in the war was because of their superb fleet (Which the RN promptly sank). The RN has broken every invasion fleet since 1066.
That's why the BoB was so important: once the RAF was broken, Hitler could have destroyed the docks and harbours at will. With no infrastructure to support the RN, we would have been stuffed.
The reasons why he turned towards Russia were, I suspect two-fold: he thought Britain was isolated and incapable of attacking, however well we defended (Which at that point was true) and he wanted to hit Stalin before Stalin hit him first.
Also, Hitler would have vastly preferred an alliance with Britain to war with us. He was actually an Anglophile, believe it or not.
|
|
|
Post by morallybankrupt on Apr 16, 2009 22:38:43 GMT
It's true that Hitler didn't want to fight the British, because he saw them as fellow Aryans, but I've heard that his position on the Russians changed a few times. Initially he wanted to destroy them, and then he wanted to finish up in western Europe before facing them, and then at one point he was open to a genuine alliance with them, and only then did he return to his first position.
The reason for the last shift (IIRC) was that Churchill tried to get the Russians into the war against the Germans. Stalin refused, and sent Hitler the letter as a show of good faith. Hitler, being an extremely paranoid little man, thought that Stalin was trying to blackmail him.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 17, 2009 0:36:31 GMT
ROFL! I never heard that, MB. Makes perfect sense, though, I have to admit!
Trust between tyrants must be pretty thin on the ground, I guess ;D
|
|