I'm wondering during WW2 how did poland hold out longer than Frnace. France had both britian and itself defending it. While Poland stood alone. Poland had to contend with The Soviets and the Germans. While france only had to deal with germany. So how did Poland hold out longer, France's military was superior.

Because France was supremely outmaneuvered. Germany had just built one of the greatest armies the world had ever seen, staffed by an officer corps the likes of which the world has yet to match, and armed with an offensive strategy few had even imagined, let alone seen. Poland was just the warm-up round...you know, working the kinks out of the system. France got the real deal.

The Soviets did not enter the war until the Germans had already beat Poland's military.

Poland was a training ground for France. The Germans were still sorting out the details of Blitzkreig warfare; they screwed up quite a bit in the Fall WeiB.

For France, they had the "Phony War" to finish building the Panzer IV, which they hardly had any of for Fall WeiB, they mostly used the outdated Panzer II and III.

France's main defense was the Maginot Line, they fully expected the Germans to break against it like waves on a cliff. They obviously didn't, and got the flanking of the century, quite literally.

France was politcally unstable and was relying on outdated weaponry. The end.

We had sodding useless officers, and an inept government.

Obviously the answer is clearly this:::

They're French! What did you expect.

But being a Pole/Russian (Which is sorta weird seeing as how in a way I screwed myself over more then once ;) ) I think the answer may be that the Poles didn't suffer as much in the first World War as France did. The War had only ended a few decades ago and France was still scared morally. The Poles had morale and put up a stubborn resistance.

I dont know, just my theory.

They built a big defensive line, then decided, "nah, lets not finish it, the germens are gentlemen, surely they will not attack our weak point". But..in French.

They built a big defensive line, then decided, "nah, lets not finish it, the germens are gentlemen, surely they will not attack our weak point".

They weren't atacked by Germans... they were attacked by Nazis.

I would think that Poland saw the situation they were in from a mile away and thought they'd bulk up as there are two major powers with imperial ambitions next door.

Plus I got the impression that the French eventually put all their faith in that defensive line and not in mobile defenses (tanks, infantry, etc), not taking into account that the Germans may invade the BeNeLux area to bypass the wall. And so when the Germans went around the wall, I figure the French literally asked themselves "WHAT THE HECK DO WE DO NOW?!?"

The French have made losing wars into an art form. If anyone can lose a war, it's them.

:joke:

They weren't atacked by Germans... they were attacked by Nazis.

My bad...??


Are you kidding?

"WHAT THE HECK DO WE DO NOW?!?"

"Duh, surrender, sir!"

I would think that Poland saw the situation they were in from a mile away and thought they'd bulk up as there are two major powers with imperial ambitions next door.

Plus I got the impression that the French eventually put all their faith in that defensive line and not in mobile defenses (tanks, infantry, etc), not taking into account that the Germans may invade the BeNeLux area to bypass the wall. And so when the Germans went around the wall, I figure the French literally asked themselves "WHAT THE HECK DO WE DO NOW?!?"

Well if you've ever seen that part of France at that time, there's really nothing TO defend, just rolling hills; there's no real line of defense for you to use. Once the Nazis got through the Ardennes, it was easy street right up to Paris; the French never had time to dig trenches like they did last time those plains saw war.

I would think that Poland saw the situation they were in from a mile away and thought they'd bulk up as there are two major powers with imperial ambitions next door.

Plus I got the impression that the French eventually put all their faith in that defensive line and not in mobile defenses (tanks, infantry, etc), not taking into account that the Germans may invade the BeNeLux area to bypass the wall. And so when the Germans went around the wall, I figure the French literally asked themselves "WHAT THE HECK DO WE DO NOW?!?"

France did depend on the line far to much.

The German Blitzkreig had a major weakness which the French could have used. Had they cut off the over-extended line and cut off the supply lines then the Panzers would have been isolated without fuel.

Plus, the French like most of the world made the mistake of how they managed their armors... They seperated it so as to accomadate the infantry. This negated any effect it could have had in defence as the massed German Armor cut them to shred.

I think part of it was Poland was expecting an attack, and prepared for the invasion from several directions, while France was sure the Germans would break on the Maginot Line.

To continue the French bashing, France and Poland had a MPP, so France launched the Saar Offensive into Germany after the Polish Invasion. They marched a few miles into Germany, occupied some deserted villages, and then retreated.

My bad...??


Are you kidding?



No...

I feel that though the Nazi Army was made up of Germans, the nazis were completly diffrent then the First World War Germans.

The Nazi's were monsters, the German soldiers were the remnants of a crushed society who had suffered from depression since the First Wars end.

Its like a poor man becoming rich... He gets a taste of the good life and wants more, so he grabs what he can... corrupting himself ever further.

They're French! What did you expect.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Europe_map_Napoleon_1811.png
"They're German/Italian/Austrian/Spanish/Italian/Polish/Prussian/Russian/Dutch! what did you expect."
They weren't atacked by Germans... they were attacked by Nazis.
rrrright. and these nazis came from... mars?

IIRC, Britain and France were fully expecting an attack through Belgium, thanks to the previous German attempt in the First World War. Their mistake was to expect the Germans to ignore the Ardennes region (all hills and forests, not good for armoured attacks) and hit from western Belgium, which is where the BEF was located.

Of course, Germany did push through the Ardennes, and from there could surround both the French/British divisions at the coast (leading to Dunkirk) and the troops at the Maginot line. All very sneaky and what not.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Europe_map_Napoleon_1811.png
"They're German/Italian/Austrian/Spanish/Italian/Polish/Prussian/Russian/Dutch! what did you expect."

rrrright. and these nazis came from... mars?


Shall I explain Sarcasm... I'm actually a big fan of the French.

Naxis made up the majority. Not every single German was a Nazi, sure the Germans fought the war but ultimately it would be wrong to consider every last German a Nazi.

No...

I feel that though the Nazi Army was made up of Germans, the nazis were completly diffrent then the First World War Germans.

The Nazi's were monsters, the German soldiers were the remnants of a crushed society who had suffered from depression since the First Wars end.

Its like a poor man becoming rich... He gets a taste of the good life and wants more, so he grabs what he can... corrupting himself ever further.


I think it was a different world in 1939 than it was in 1914. The first time around, we were still in the "old" world, where gentlemen fought eachother in a gentlemanly way, and you could do things like call a cease-fire and play soccer in no-man's land, and go visit the other fellows for tea, and then go back to shooting at them the next day. You could give the enemy's greatest ace a proper, respectful, military burial, and not because you were expected to, but because you wanted to.

But the old world ended with the Great War, and true modern warfare would soon take over. I don't excuse the Third Reich as being Nazis but not Germans, because the people fighting were just as much Germans as they were Nazis. Because the Nazis were a nationalist party, and not a normal poltical party, you can't seperate the two like you might be able to separate Soviet Russia and the Russian Federation.

If there is one thing that the French governments of back then should really be mocked for, it's that incredibly stupid idea that the Germans would quietly crash down on the Maginot line, and would not be bright enough to figure out, "hey! Let's go around through Belgium!".
The general mood in France in the first half of the 20th century was "incredibly arrogant and blindingly jingoistic".
The story of the Maginot line, as seen from the French side, was "If you build it, they'll come" :)

because they are french. http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/France#Military_History

Warned for flaming. Pls be nice. - KD

If there is one thing that the French governments of back then should really be mocked for, it's that incredibly stupid idea that the Germans would quietly crash down on the Maginot line, and would not be bright enough to figure out, "hey! Let's go around through Belgium!".
The general mood in France in the first half of the 20th century was "incredibly arrogant and blindingly jingoistic".
The story of the Maginot line, as seen from the French side, was "If you build it, they'll come" :)

"If you build it, They will come...

...

...

From the other way."

Did the Germans use the Line in their defence after the Allied landing of Normandy? I cant seem to recall.

because they are french. http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/France#Military_History

I was about to go on a rant but then I saw...
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/American_military_victories

Fair's fair :)

"Did the Germans use the Line in their defence after the Allied landing of Normandy? I cant seem to recall.

I think that's sacrasm, but I'll answer it literally, just in case.

The guns and defenses face the other way, towards Germany. We came from the West. You figure out the rest.

I think that's sacrasm, but I'll answer it literally, just in case.

The guns and defenses face the other way, towards Germany. We came from the West. You figure out the rest.

You'd think that once the Germans actually got control of the damn thing they'd atleast turn some of the guns around just in case...

Though Nazi planning overall seemed to suck after France fell...

The guns and defenses face the other way, towards Germany. We came from the West. You figure out the rest.

I thought it was destroyed by the Germans, myself. Wikipedia says it was actually used by them though : Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_line#German_invasion)

Again, bypassed by the attackers :p

Shall I explain Sarcasm... I'm actually a big fan of the French.

Naxis made up the majority. Not every single German was a Nazi, sure the Germans fought the war but ultimately it would be wrong to consider every last German a Nazi.
i find its difficult to hear the sarcastic tone of voice through text, myself.

right. first they are not Germans, they are Nazis, then its they are Germans who are mostly Nazis. What's so difficult about calling the troops German? it wasn't a multinational army.

i find its difficult to hear the sarcastic tone of voice through text, myself.

right. first they are not Germans, they are Nazis, then its they are Germans who are mostly Nazis. What's so difficult about calling the troops German? it wasn't a multinational army.

When I said it was the Nazis attacking I meant it in a way that the Germans were mere puppets to the greater evil... though, perhaps Im wrong.

No youre correct.

No your wrong, the nazi party was elected by the german people therefore the nazi party must have had backing by a large portion of the german populace, up until 1941/42 every German was proud to be A nazi supporter until the war ended. Initial historians after the war felt that nazi germany was comparable to stalinist russia but that is simply not the case as more modern historians have proved.

When I said it was the Nazis attacking I meant it in a way that the Germans were mere puppets to the greater evil... though, perhaps Im wrong.
the nazi party was a highly nationalistic party, and it defined nationality through race [i.e. Austrians are ethnically German, so they wanted to incorporate Austria into Germany]. even if you think that the nazi government was a conspiracy of a different sort, maybe Slovakian nationalist, you cannot deny that the army that blitzed through northern France was German almost in entirety.

I'm wondering during WW2 how did poland hold out longer than Frnace. France had both britian and itself defending it. While Poland stood alone. Poland had to contend with The Soviets and the Germans. While france only had to deal with germany. So how did Poland hold out longer, France's military was superior.

Well, actually he forgot Poland.

You'd think that once the Germans actually got control of the damn thing they'd atleast turn some of the guns around just in case...

Though Nazi planning overall seemed to suck after France fell...

But the backsides of the Line were soft, the hardspots were on the front and top of the Line. We would have met the "soft underbelly" of the Line, not the hard tortoise shell that faces Germany.

To a certain extent, the quick German victory over France could be attributed to extreme luck. The German move through the Ardennes is seen as "brilliant", but if a single French recon plane had seen and reported the massive traffic jam of German vehicles stuck in the hills/forests, it could have been an Allied turkey shoot. And even when the Germans did manage to cross and were faced with one of the weakest French reserve divisions, they were lucky to have held the beach head at Sedan from counterattack (by armoured divisions that probably could have overcome the Germans if they had been given another week to actually form into coherent units - the DCRs were brand new units).

The French had weaknesses in command, control, and communications that pre-disposed them to difficulty, but the Germans were still in an arguably weaker position when attacking in 1940.

France gambled by sprinting to the Belgian lines to shore them up, while the Germans gambled in sending their valuable panzers into a possible Ardennes deathtrap. The long-shot German gamble worked.

I say the French mindset was the problem. It was not the Maginot Line itself that was at fault, but the entire approach to the war. French defenses were still being constructed with trench warfare in mind. A handful of generals, such as Charles de Gaulle, saw this as a failure very early on, but the decision-makers in the higher echelons refused to change their approach. Once again, blame it on outdated tactics.

The Maginot Line was actually excellent as an offensive tool. By automating the defence of the land border with Germany, France was able to free up considerable manpower for offensive operations - and they did plan on going on the offensive, eventually. France had 40 million people; Germany had 70 million. Considering that the British brought almost nothing to the table in terms of land forces at the beginning of the war, France had to economize on manpower.

Another problem the French had was that they had to rush to the defense of a Belgium that did not cooperate on coordinating defenses until the Germans had already invaded. This constrained the ability of the French to mount an offensive into German territory at the beginning of the war. Had the French been allowed to station their forces along the Belgian-German border (the Belgians were still deluded into thinking they could avoid war by staying neutral), the war would have been very different.

Think of the Maginot Line as a shield, from behind which a sword can strike. Besides, French style of methodical advance was not necessarily all wrong... it is how both the Soviets and Americans ended up staging their operations.

They built a big defensive line, then decided, "nah, lets not finish it, the germens are gentlemen, surely they will not attack our weak point". But..in French.
Actually no. The Maginot Line took up a fraction of the Manpower of the French Army compared to the forces placed north of it. The plan was with the Maginot line in place, you would have the full weight of the French Military brought to bear against a German attack through Flanders. The problem wasn't that the attack didn't come through the Maginot Line, but that it didn't come through Flanders either.

Poland wasn't quite "Blitzkrieg" yet. It was more a large scale war of manouvre with the bits and pieces for the kind of Blitz used on France partly assembled. The Germans did work a bunch of things out and then used it on France. The question might just have been how fast the Germans could push things. They had picked up speed for France.
The Poles took 65.000 killed, to Germany's 16.000. The French inflicted 45.000 kills, but took 100.000. I'd say that indicates that the speed and intensity of fighting picked up considerably between the campaign in Poland and France.

France was also peculiar because it was such a clear case of outmanouvering. Had the French armies and the BEF waited at the border pure congestion there might have made things slower for the Germans. As it were the best French armies, and the only British army, disappeared out into left field once the real fighting began. I.e. they did expect the Germans to come through Belgium. That's why they went there to meet them. They didn't anticipate the Germans turning up behind them once they had done so. It's like — Pop! — "You're three best armies and your best gear just disappeared. Now you're naked on that frontline."

In any case, the French defeat came as they were unable to go on fighting. The casualty rate of the French forces was worse than the worst parts of WWI, 350.000 in a month. It was no stroll in the park for the Germans either, who took 150.000. (Figures for Poland are 200.000 Poles for 45.000 Germans.)

But there were still considerable French forces around when Pétain decided to call it quites. They were just all in absolutely the wrong places. There were plans to try to stabilise a new frontline further to the south drawing 60 divisions together that hadn't even been involved yet. The problem was time, as it would take some fifteen days, and the Germans were very intent on not lettinging up to allow the French to do something like that. In the mean time the few remaing French units in the north facing the Germans were getting creamed. It tends to happen if you have 11 divisions to confront some 100+ bearing down on you.

As for what the Germans did right and everyone else did wrong in 1940, it seems to be not just the coordination tanks-arty-airpower, but communications and initiative. The Germans constantly caught their adversaries on a break. Response time among other armies was so sluggish by the time orders for a response came down from HQ the situation had changed drastically. German frontline officers were trained to take initiatives too, in a way other armies hadn't.

Essentially the German army in 1940 ran rings around everyone else, not just the French. The British were taken for a ride just as badly.

Had the French been allowed to station their forces along the Belgian-German border (the Belgians were still deluded into thinking they could avoid war by staying neutral), the war would have been very different. Then the French should have stationed troops on the Belgian-French border, and written Belgium off as lost. It was extremely short-sighted for the French to assume that the Germans would attack the Maginot Line head on, especially since they had crossed through Holland and Belgium in WWI.

My understanding is that the original German plan was a replay of the Schlieffen plan and the Allies found out about it and the Germans found out the Allies found out about it. The plan the Germans actually used took advantage of that Allied misconception. They even invaded the Netherlands to make it look more like the original Schlieffen plan. (As it happens Kaiser Wilhelm was still alive in the Netherlands when Hitler invaded.)

It's funny how some people don't see what's in front of them. Others have pointed this out, but let me repeat it one more time for the less discerning:

France did expect a German attack through Belgium since it had already fortified the common border with Germany. What the French did not expect was Germany somehow managing to send their mechanized divisions through the Ardennes.

I've always been interested in French military history percisely because it is brilliant. In past centuries, France had been considered the ultimate in European military prowess. In the last century, they did not do so bad either. They held out in WW1 but lost WW2. They did lose in Vietnam (they were greatly outnumbered), but so did the Americans.

The Germans/Prussians didn't do so hot anyway. A brief list of wars against major powers:

Barely survived the Seven Years' War
Lost the War of the First Coalition (to France)
Lost the War of the Fourth Coalition (to France)
Won the War of the Sixth Coalition
Won the War of the Seventh Coalition (Waterloo)
Won the Seven Weeks' War
Won the Franco-Prussian War
Lost World War I
Lost World War II

A period of brilliance from the final phase of the Napoleonic Wars to the creation of the German Empire, but that's about it.

They weren't atacked by Germans... they were attacked by Nazis.

Of course they were! Not all soldiers of the Wehrmacht were nazies.

Then the French should have stationed troops on the Belgian-French border, and written Belgium off as lost. It was extremely short-sighted for the French to assume that the Germans would attack the Maginot Line head on, especially since they had crossed through Holland and Belgium in WWI.

Two problems here:

First of all, the border between France and Belgium is not very defensible. There are few natural boundaries (except for the Ardennes), and it is so swampy that it is far more expensive to build concrete fortifications. However, within Belgium there is the Alberta Canal, and other more defensible lines. It would have been far more realistic for the allies to set up a perimeter in Belgium. Also, if the French succeeded in shoring up the Belgian line, that is 300,000 Belgian troops that can be kept on the Allied side. Finally, the Germans had their own fortifications opposite the Maginot line with the Rhine as a natural defense, which meant that if the French wanted to mount an effective offensive into Germany, going through Belgium would have been far easier... not to mention the ability to threaten much of German industry.

Second, the French never expected the Germans to attack through the Maginot Line. That was the point of the Maginot Line: to redirect the battlefield away from France's vital eastern industrial centres. With that out of the question, the only "logical" place for a battle was either in Belgium or on the Belgian/German frontier. The Ardennes was such a ridiculously difficult terrain to mount an armoured defensive through, that it was quite reasonable to assume the Germans wouldn't dare. A slight error, and the German offensive could have very well failed. I mean, the terrain was so bad, they could have easily failed against a second-rate French reserve division.

now I have tons of respect for france for what it accomplished in WW1

however, Frances main plan was "lets hope the Germans dont do what they've done every time we've gone to war!"

now I have tons of respect for france for what it accomplished in WW1

however, Frances main plan was "lets hope the Germans dont do what they've done every time we've gone to war!"

Actually, they did prepare for the Germans doing what they do every time they go to war...

on second thought

*backhands the Germans*

BE ORIGINAL!

Another thing: When Germany attacked Poland, didn't they keep a large part of their force on the west front, in case of a French / British attack?

While when they attacked France, they could concentrate most of their army west, as the east was "secured"?

...
For France, they had the "Phony War" to finish building the Panzer IV, which they hardly had any of for Fall WeiB, they mostly used the outdated Panzer II and III. ...Ahh, the old myth that Germany only won due to superior weaponry...

The invasion of Poland was actually achieved using mostly Pz I's and II's. There were very few Pz III's available. However the Pz Divisions actually did have a significant number of Pz IV's. What has to be remembered though is that the Pz IV was an infantry support weapon, with a low velocity main gun. Completely useless for combating other tanks. It wouldn't be until 1942 that the Pz IV would be transformed into a platform for destroying other tanks.

The invasion of France on the other hand was a success due to the introduction of the Panzer III (not IV), which remained the workhorse of the Panzerwaffe way into 1942, even though it was initially only equipped with a 3.7cm main gun. Fast, mobile and highly manoeuvrable units, all equipped with radio and trained to use initiative instead of waiting for orders, is the main reason for their success against the technically superior French tanks.

on second thought

*backhands the Germans*

BE ORIGINAL!
They were original. General Halder wanted a repeat of the Schliefen Plan, Von Manstein created the Schickel-Shnicht we know today.

Another thing: When Germany attacked Poland, didn't they keep a large part of their force on the west front, in case of a French / British attack?

While when they attacked France, they could concentrate most of their army west, as the east was "secured"?
Oh god no. That was France's real failing. The Germans kept no more then 12 divisions gaurding the Western Front, a seriously mounted offensive would have blown clear through the Siegfried line and occupied Germany's industrial centers.

Another thing: When Germany attacked Poland, didn't they keep a large part of their force on the west front, in case of a French / British attack?

While when they attacked France, they could concentrate most of their army west, as the east was "secured"?

Not particularly. At most 30 divisions nominally, and perhaps fewer in actuality. And these divisions were all infantry, and hardly the best-equipped. Basically all of the tanks and planes made it to Poland.

You could say the Germans called the French bluff at that point, but then France might not have been ready for an offensive against even that small a force. The problem being that even though France had nominally about 90-100 (I don't remember exactly) divisions on their side of the border, the bulk of the personnel were involved in mobilizing, equipping, and training the reserves.

I was about to go on a rant but then I saw...
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/American_military_victories

Fair's fair :)

Uh, I'd like to know what kind of drugs the makers of that site are on, it must be pretty damn powerful. Wrong about damn near everything, I grant you it's probably trying to be comedic, but damn.

Uh, I'd like to know what kind of drugs the makers of that site are on, it must be pretty damn powerful. Wrong about damn near everything, I grant you it's probably trying to be comedic, but damn.

Yes, it's a joke. Go to the article "How to be funny and not just stupid", and you'll see it is a joke. I read a particularly interesting article about "The Hungarian province of Romania" and "Eastern Europe, The Gypsy Land of". :lol:

Another thing: When Germany attacked Poland, didn't they keep a large part of their force on the west front, in case of a French / British attack?

While when they attacked France, they could concentrate most of their army west, as the east was "secured"?

When did they build the Seigfried Line?

Ahh, the old myth that Germany only won due to superior weaponry...


So I was wrong. No need to be smug about it.

A point: If France, by ignoring the possibility of attack through the Ardenne, committed such a foolish mistake, why did none of its allies notice, either?

A point: If France, by ignoring the possibility of attack through the Ardenne, committed such a foolish mistake, why did none of its allies notice, either?

Because they were all too methodical, sticking to old tactical and strategic thinking. The race through the Ardennes was a logistical feat that was one of the high points of the lightning war. It certainly opened the eyes of the world. The Russians, despite having had time to see how the Germans fought, didn't do too well either, until they started using breakthrough tactics with their numerical superiority in troops and armour.

A point: If France, by ignoring the possibility of attack through the Ardenne, committed such a foolish mistake, why did none of its allies notice, either?
Because it wasn't such a foolish mistake. It was in fact a very risky gamble on the German part. The assumption was "You'd be mad to try something that could so easily backfire so badly, and since we wouldn't, clearly the Germans won't either."

Of course sending in a single division of engineers to blow bridges and block roads would have made a lot of difference. In that the French really were remiss. And since it was their forest, it wasn't as if anyone else would have had the ability to either spot the possible flaw or do something about it. It was a French call to make.

When did they build the Seigfried Line?
They started on it in the 30s, and never really finished. When American troops pushed through it there was still a lot of incomplete structures and projects, and holes in the line. The Germans didn't expect war in 39, and when they beat France, they never saw a reason to finish it.
So I was wrong. No need to be smug about it.
Well there was one area where the German tanks were much more advanced then their counterparts: communication. A platoon of French tanks was to be directed through a combination of flags and handsignals from a commander operating from an open turret Needless to say, this was rather unproductive, especially once the shooting started. At the insistence of Hurrying Heinz, every German tank, even the Pzkfw. Is had a radio.

No one noted that Polish border in 1939 was way harder to defend that French. Just take a look at map (border was really stretched):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/Second_World_War_europe.PNG/622px-Second_World_War_europe.PNG

Poland had almost 1 mln of soldiers, attackers had 2,5 mln. In my opinion it was the Polish soldier, defending his homeland, who made this Nazi-Soviet invasion so long.

One more thing (it is a typical what-if :) ): what if French and British REALLY attacked Germany on 1st September 1939, as they should according to MPP they signed with Poland? Stalin waited till 17th with his aggression of Poland. Maybe he wouldn't attack Poland then, and war would be ended in two weeks by meeting in Berlin of Polish, French and British soldiers? We would save 6 mln of Poles and countless millions of others...

Because they were all too methodical, sticking to old tactical and strategic thinking.And that means that France has an undeservedly bad reputation, since the other allies would have committed the same mistake.

Because it wasn't such a foolish mistake. It was in fact a very risky gamble on the German part. The assumption was "You'd be mad to try something that could so easily backfire so badly, and since we wouldn't, clearly the Germans won't either."Exactly my point. Blaming the French is a bad idea, when, really, it is the German tactics that should be praised.
I raise the point that the military reputation of France is greatly exaggerated. They defended themselves successfully during WWI, were outmaneuvered by an ingenius German move during WWII - one that any other country would be equally likely to fall too, under the circumstances, might I add - and, though they were beaten in Vietnam, they had fewer troops there than the US sent, and even they were beaten there.
This leaves France with a recent military history based mostly on being in the wrong position, and trying to do the best of it.
So why do Americans go on bashing the French military?


As for the Poles, they probably were expecting trouble, and had some idea of where it would come from. My opinion is that they fought well. Nevertheless, the German conquest of Poland was not unremarkable for its kind.

One more thing (it is a typical what-if :) ): what if French and British REALLY attacked Germany on 1st September 1939, as they should according to MPP they signed with Poland? Stalin waited till 17th with his aggression of Poland. Maybe he wouldn't attack Poland then, and war would be ended in two weeks by meeting in Berlin of Polish, French and British soldiers? We would save 6 mln of Poles and countless millions of others...
The British sent what they had, which was a lot more than in 1914 but still not enough. And they sent it to France and Belgium.

As for the French, in order to make a strong offensive deep into Germany it would have required a radically different military doctrine and radically different militay leadership at least a decade before the war began. It would also have meant planning a war pretty much as they had planned for France to go on the offensive in 1914. Considering what a mess that was, it's hard to blame the French for later deciding that might not be such a good idea.

Of course, it's a good idea to sign pacts and not fulfill them :) It even sounds ridiculous :)

I'm not a historian, so I don't know if this could work, but I think that in 1939 Germany was not strong enough to fight with Poland, UK and France at one time. I suppose that they could loose the war very quickly.

One more thing (it is a typical what-if :) ): what if French and British REALLY attacked Germany on 1st September 1939, as they should according to MPP they signed with Poland? Stalin waited till 17th with his aggression of Poland. Maybe he wouldn't attack Poland then, and war would be ended in two weeks by meeting in Berlin of Polish, French and British soldiers? We would save 6 mln of Poles and countless millions of others...
By my guess it would be a disaster for France, and physicaly impossible for Britain; as France had not mobilized and had only a few token divisions along the Siegfried Line, equipped for defensive Operations, and Britain had no divisions at all on the Continent of Europe, so no, I don't think it was possible to Reach Berlin within Two weeks, the British Didn't even reach France in that time, and the French mostly didn't make it to the Border of Germany by that time.

I'm not a historian, so I don't know if this could work, but I think that in 1939 Germany was not strong enough to fight with Poland, UK and France at one time. I suppose that they could loose the war very quickly.
That is of course, assuming that Poland, UK and France all were ready for the fight. As the Poles were caught with a poor defensive line, the French were caught with most of their divisions in Central France or unformed, and the British with only a token force in their home country, and most of their army half a world a way in India at he time.

OK, you may be right - it's just a what-if...
One more thing - Stalin attacked Poland on 17th September. So France and UK had 16 days to react. I think that more than two weeks is enough to mobilize an army... It's enough to reach the border by walking even...

Of course, it's a good idea to sign pacts and not fulfill them :) It even sounds ridiculous :)

I'm not a historian, so I don't know if this could work, but I think that in 1939 Germany was not strong enough to fight with Poland, UK and France at one time. I suppose that they could loose the war very quickly.

Germans were every month stronger and stronger. In 1936 was last chance to beat Germans without long fighting. They had to be prepared on help to Poland, they werent...

If I remember correctly France DID hold out longer than Poland, wasn't Poland conquered in less than a month (3weeks??) and it took 6 for France to fall?

Poland was invaded on 1.IX.1939 by Germany and 17.IX.1939 by Soviet Russia (both aggressions were without declaration of war). Warsaw fell on 27.IX.1939. Last battle of September campaign ended on 6.X.1939, so it is in total 35 days = 5 weeks.
France, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg was attacked on 10.05.1940 and it took 6 weeks until France surrendered. But it was on 3/4 June when French and British troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, so fight was shorter than a month - it was slightly more than 3 weeks... It's hard to give an exact date in this case, but if we discuss "who hold out longer", then I'm sure that Poland did...

My sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_%281939%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/animations/wwtwo_map_fall_france/index.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#The_Phony_War

Poland was invaded on 1.IX.1939 by Germany and 17.IX.1939 by Soviet Russia (both aggressions were without declaration of war). Warsaw fell on 27.IX.1939. Last battle of September campaign ended on 6.X.1939, so it is in total 35 days = 5 weeks.
France, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg was attacked on 10.05.1940 and it took 6 weeks until France surrendered. But it was on 3/4 June when French and British troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, so fight was shorter than a month - it was slightly more than 3 weeks... It's hard to give an exact date in this case, but if we discuss "who hold out longer", then I'm sure that Poland did...
There was quite a bit of fighting done after Dunkirk. Can't see why it should be discounted.

There was quite a bit of fighting done after Dunkirk. Can't see why it should be discounted.

Hmm shooting Germans on French backs are not exactly fights...Sorry, I had to:D

I think it went someting like this.

Poland: Here come the Germans lets fight.
France. Here come the Germans. Our wines better.

I think it went someting like this.
Poland: Here come the Germans lets fight.
France. Here come the Germans. Our wines better.

Casualties during the Battle of France: 360,000 dead or wounded (Allied), 155,000 (German)

If you want details:
French: 290,000
UK: 68,000
Belgium: 23,000
Netherlands: 10,000

Casualties during the Campaign of Poland: 200,000 dead or Wounder (Poland),
43,000 (German)

So, we lost 50% more men than the Poles, and made 350% more casualties, but we probably did not fight when they did. How do you suggest the German died then? To much wine consumption and they broke their necks falling drunk in the stairs?

I personally feel ashamed we did not attack Germany in september 1939. We should have done much more to help the Polish, especially as they were our most faithfull allies during the Napoleonic wars, figthing with us to the end when all the other countries were attacking us.

But don't say we did not fight when the Germans came.

Casualties during the Battle of France: 360,000 dead or wounded (Allied), 155,000 (German)

If you want details:
French: 290,000
UK: 68,000
Belgium: 23,000
Netherlands: 10,000

Casualties during the Campaign of Poland: 200,000 dead or Wounder (Poland),
43,000 (German)

So, we lost 50% more men than the Poles, and made 350% more casualties, but we probably did not fight when they did. How do you suggest the German died then? To much wine consumption and they broke their necks falling drunk in the stairs?

I personally feel ashamed we did not attack Germany in september 1939. We should have done much more to help the Polish, especially as they were our most faithfull allies during the Napoleonic wars, figthing with us to the end when all the other countries were attacking us.

But don't say we did not fight when the Germans came.

Thats the kicker right there if not 1936. How many of the French casualties were shot in the back and how many Germans died falling down drunk during the occupation?

Well Czechoslovakian soldiers who emigrated and were helping France were surprised how French quickly running away from their positions. French morale was something horrible. Leadership was also unable.

The Poland was simply to weak to expect more, but French had similiar army as Germans and they losted decisevely.

It is so very easy for the ignorant to ridicule the courage of individual French soldiers in 1940 and yet these incredibly offensive jokes are based on a total fantasy image of the French soldier. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of the French campaign should know that French soldiers fought extremely courageously, their undoing was poor political leadership, lack of any strategic insight from higher commanders and atrocious deployment in the field by divisional commanders. When considering those incidents of French troops abandoning positions before contact, it must be remembered that these were some of the newest conscript units which had been subjected to relentless air attacks whilst isolated from other supporting units. The best French divisions had been held in reserve for far too long or were out of position north of the contact line in Belgium or even Holland.

******
Casualties during the Battle of France: 360,000 dead or wounded (Allied), 155,000 (German)

If you want details:
French: 290,000
UK: 68,000
Belgium: 23,000
Netherlands: 10,000 [...]

Unfortunately, Steph, your comparison of casualties is inaccurate. One of the most incredible features of the French campaign is the enormous imbalance in KIA between France and Germany. The Allied figures are correct but the German figures are much lower.

German Losses: 27,074 KIA 111,034 WIA
French Losses: 92,000 KIA 200,000 WIA 1,500,000 prisoners

Originally Posted by Steph
Casualties during the Battle of France: 360,000 dead or wounded (Allied), 155,000 (German)

Unfortunately, Steph, your comparison of casualties is inaccurate. One of the most incredible features of the French campaign is the enormous imbalance in KIA between France and Germany. The Allied figures are correct but the German figures are much lower.

German Losses: 27,074 KIA 111,034 WIA
French Losses: 92,000 KIA 200,000 WIA 1,500,000 prisoners

German losses: 27,000 + 111,000 = 138,000, instead of 155,000, that's not MUCH lower, that's 10% difference.

France had roughly twice more casualties than the Germans. It probably have something to do with the fact we lost.
For the KIA, we have 3.5 times more than the Germans, but don't forget a defeated army has more difficulty to take care of the wounded.

German losses: 27,000 + 111,000 = 138,000, instead of 155,000, that's not MUCH lower, that's 10% difference.

France had roughly twice more casualties than the Germans. It probably have something to do with the fact we lost.
For the KIA, we have 3.5 times more than the Germans, but don't forget a defeated army has more difficulty to take care of the wounded.

You are of course correct. I was just emphasising the difference in KIA. At the time, public opinion was still terrified of another "Great War" with tens of thousands of dead per day. So for France to have been defeated with so few German dead was seen as some sort of miracle.

Unfortunately, Steph, your comparison of casualties is inaccurate. One of the most incredible features of the French campaign is the enormous imbalance in KIA between France and Germany. The Allied figures are correct but the German figures are much lower.

German Losses: 27,074 KIA 111,034 WIA
French Losses: 92,000 KIA 200,000 WIA 1,500,000 prisoners
If one includes the German MIA, the figure for KIA+MIA goes up to the 40-50.000 range. Exactly where those went, I have no idea.

Well Czechoslovakian soldiers who emigrated and were helping France were surprised how French quickly running away from their positions. French morale was something horrible. Leadership was also unable.

The Poland was simply to weak to expect more, but French had similiar army as Germans and they losted decisevely.
And the German verdict at the time was that the French army had no moral problems before they started losing the battles. The bad moral was an affect of the French being outfought. So France being defeated was not an effect of low moral among the troops at the outset.

The German experience of fighting the professional French troops around was pretty painful. Some of the conscripts were another matter.

Exactly where those went, I have no idea.
If we knew where they went, they wouldn't be missing, would they?

And don't forget that the conscript age, in 1940, was 20-25 years old, so people born in 1915-1920....
Due to the loss of WWI, and the fact many men were at war, very few babies were born at that time. And France was already demographically behind Germany.
So in 1940, we were right in the "missing years", with not enough conscripts, and no possibility to do any selection.

If one includes the German MIA, the figure for KIA+MIA goes up to the 40-50.000 range. Exactly where those went, I have no idea.

I've actually done quite a bit of research on German loss rates and casualty reporting. The trouble with German figures is that they appear to be too accurate. The oft quoted 18,384 German MIA is taken from the first initial reports taken at the time of the armistice. Later reports correctly redistribute this figure amongst the WIA, KIA and returned to unit. However, these subsequent reports can be weeks or months later and so are rarely consulted.

The German method of reporting can also be confusing as "killed" are broken down into KIA, died (natural causes), killed (accident, non combat related), Killed (combat related, not due to enemy action), died (of wounds, combat related), died (of wounds or disease, non combat related) etc, etc. These figures aren't always correctly translated and are bundled together simply as KIA.

The actual total number of "dead" resulting from combat in France, for all combatants, was much higher than the figures given by all sides. However, the snap-shot of figures taken at the armistice is a useful comparator.

And don't forget that the conscript age, in 1940, was 20-25 years old, so people born in 1915-1920....
Due to the loss of WWI, and the fact many men were at war, very few babies were born at that time. And France was already demographically behind Germany.
So in 1940, we were right in the "missing years", with not enough conscripts, and no possibility to do any selection.

so were the germans

so were the germans
Not so much, because they experienced a large demographic growth in the 19th century, that didn't happen in France.

In 1914, France population was 39.6 millions, and WWI casualties were 1,897,800 deaths. That's 5% of the population.

Germany had 2,660,897, but from a population of 64.9 millions. 4% of the population.

But an important point is France demography was weak before, and the effect was stronger than for Germany

Not so much, because they experienced a large demographic growth in the 19th century, that didn't happen in France.

In 1914, France population was 39.6 millions, and WWI casualties were 1,897,800 deaths. That's 5% of the population.

Germany had 2,660,897, but from a population of 64.9 millions. 4% of the population.

But an important point is France demography was weak before, and the effect was stronger than for Germany
The German population increase was much greater in the 20th c. as well.

The post-WWI demographic calculations from the time concluded that Germany would replace their dead in eight years. The figure for France was sixty-six...

So while there were several million more Germans around in 1939 than in 1918, the French had not even made up for the losses of WWI yet. That's where the paranoid French attitude over demographics came from, and the bloody-minded determination to try to minimize casualties at all costs.

And the German verdict at the time was that the French army had no moral problems before they started losing the battles. The bad moral was an affect of the French being outfought. So France being defeated was not an effect of low moral among the troops at the outset.

The German experience of fighting the professional French troops around was pretty painful. Some of the conscripts were another matter.

I dont know details but where foreign infantries standed, French running away. And it was their country.

I dont know details but where foreign infantries standed, French running away. And it was their country.

Maybe because foreign countries wouldn't send their conscripts to defend another's homeland?

Is everyone here that brave, anyway? I'd run away if I think it's stupid to go on fighting. I'd rather go underground and work from there.

Maybe because foreign countries wouldn't send their conscripts to defend another's homeland?

Is everyone here that brave, anyway? I'd run away if I think it's stupid to go on fighting. I'd rather go underground and work from there.

Of course its true partially. Foreign were volunteers and they usually hate Germans too much because they destroyed their countries. French armies after creation of Vichy France were also much better.

Of course its true partially. Foreign were volunteers and they usually hate Germans too much because they destroyed their countries. French armies after creation of Vichy France were also much better.

Who were these foreigners you are talking about anyway? The British? They were running away too to Dunkirk. And what happened to the French Resistance in your thinking?

As for what happened to the French frontline in 1940, I've always liked the way St. Exupéry put it:

He likened the German troops to this lethal fluid seeping in wherever there was a gap between the units of the French army. So the French army, which had been this unified "organism", started to disintegrate as the various "organs"/units in it were cut off from the "brain"/high command.

Some of them just went numb and paralysed, others into violent spasm, but the main point being that whatever they did, the French army as a coherent whole stopped working. As coordination was lost, even frantic activity was futile.

The French army was outmanouvred and outfought, but that doesn't mean it didn't put up a fight.

As for French troops' battle-qualities, the impression of 1940 was very negative. So when the Allies again picked up an entire French army in North Africa their first worry was "Is it good for anything?".

However, they used this French army in the campaign in Italy, and it turned out to be excellent. By the end of the campaign the French army was assigned some of the toughest jobs to handle with confidence.

Who were these foreigners you are talking about anyway? The British? They were running away too to Dunkirk. And what happened to the French Resistance in your thinking?
I only refer about experiences of Czechoslovak soldiers, I was not there.

I also read interview with former elite British. He told that British infantries were not fighting, only moving.

I only refer about experiences of Czechoslovak soldiers, I was not there.

I also read interview with former elite British. He told that British infantries were not fighting, only moving.
Eye-witness testimonies can't be taken at face value over other sources of information.
What people personally see tends to be unconnected incidents, what they remember of it is even less. The stuff you later pick up on tends to be what you end up understanding. These observations are very real I'm sure, but they look like classic cases of someone later interpreting something he saw in light of what he later learned.

Eye-witness testimonies can't be taken at face value over other sources of information.
What people personally see tends to be unconnected incidents, what they remember of it is even less. The stuff you later pick up on tends to be what you end up understanding. These observations are very real I'm sure, but they look like classic cases of someone later interpreting something he saw in light of what he later learned.

So you want movies and statistics?;) I admit that I havent them:D

So you want movies and statistics?;) I admit that I havent them:D
Nah, I want's it all! Movies, books, statistics, eyewitness accounts.:D:run:

It's just that there's a lot of info about how the French fought, or didn't fight, in 1940. It was a real war.

The French who "surrendered", surrendered when they did because of the circumstances they were in; presumably English people or Americans in exactly the same circumstances would have done the same. Or is the argument here seriously that being French the people acted more cowardly?! That is of course preposterous. It's fine for Americans thousands of miles away from German tanks and planes, with little comparable experience of the senseless carnage that killed , disabled or disfigured the flower of their youth, millions of young men and boys, breaking the hearts of millions more women. Oh my, faced between the choice of repeating that/dying in a useless resistance against vastly superior forces, or tolerating a temporary foreign occupation, I know what I'd do. So what, shall we give the French a hard time for their geographical position and demographic weakness, or shall we just stop being hostile to this country?

That reminds of me of something Churchill wrote in his account of the Second World War. He recalls a French commander commenting on how lucky the British were to have the Channel between them and the enemy. Churchill agreed.

The French who "surrendered", surrendered when they did because of the circumstances they were in; presumably English people or Americans in exactly the same circumstances would have done the same. Or is the argument here seriously that being French the people acted more cowardly?! That is of course preposterous. It's fine for Americans thousands of miles away from German tanks and planes, with little comparable experience of the senseless carnage that killed , disabled or disfigured the flower of their youth, millions of young men and boys, breaking the hearts of millions more women. Oh my, faced between the choice of repeating that/dying in a useless resistance against vastly superior forces, or tolerating a temporary foreign occupation, I know what I'd do. So what, shall we give the French a hard time for their geographical position and demographic weakness, or shall we just stop being hostile to this country?

Stop pretending Americans have never died in war.


How would the French have thought that the German occupation would be a "temporary" one? Every occupation should be treated as if it could be permanent, this is not an excuse, and it's just rediculous.

Sorry, you fail. Care to try again?

How would the French have thought that the German occupation would be a "temporary" one? Every occupation should be treated as if it could be permanent, this is not an excuse, and it's just rediculous.

Sorry, you fail. Care to try again?

Say the people who have never been invaded. Well, it seems you guys haven't been doing too well lately performing invasions. Unfortunately, many people are not going to ask you to try again.

@Cheezy - I believe calgacus was attacking the people who enforce the 'surrendering French' stereotype by citing their defeat in WW2 as an example. As he says, there's little any nation could have done in that situation.

Say the people who have never been invaded

I'm thinking '1812' off the top of my head, and you could probably easily argue the Civil War in that as well, given it's destructiveness.

Say the people who have never been invaded. Well, it seems you guys haven't been doing too well lately performing invasions. Unfortunately, many people are not going to ask you to try again.

Not that invading has anything to do with domestic incursions, but that's a nice troll anyhow, so I'll bite.
I'll assume you're referring to Iraq? The invasion went fine, arguably the best in history, it's the counterinsurgency that's the problem.

As for never having been invaded, perhaps you've heard of The War of 1812? Or the how about the American Civil War? As I recall, in the first one our capital was burned, not occupied, put to the torch. In the second, oh, almost a million of our contrymen died on our own soil. One state is completely destroyed, several others bear enormous scars from pitched battle. But hey, that's not really an invasion, people give up in invasions!

But we're not playing the "real life" game here, we're playing the "incessantly troll about the other nation." Your nation was beaten by the Italians. The Bloody Italians! Really, nobody gets beaten by the Italians, but you've somehow managed to make it happen.

Ooo, that feels real good doesn't it? Now we're even. Stick to the topic at hand, and we don't have to resort to childishness.

However, you never answered my original question, either: how and why would the French have opted to "tolerate a temporary occupation" they had no idea would be temporary?

@Cheezy - I believe calgacus was attacking the people who enforce the 'surrendering French' stereotype by citing their defeat in WW2 as an example. As he says, there's little any nation could have done in that situation.


I never said I disagreed with that. My jib is with his "Americans have never known war" bs.

I never said I disagreed with that. My jib is with his "Americans have never known war" bs.

Erm ... I didn't say that. :lol:

How would the French have thought that the German occupation would be a "temporary" one? Every occupation should be treated as if it could be permanent, this is not an excuse, and it's just rediculous.

Sorry, you fail. Care to try again?

In 1939 France and its senior ally the UK declared war on Germany for invading Poland (the US of course did not). France's ally was useless and abandoned her for all practical purposes, its own strategy had failed more miserably than anyone ever expected, so it agreed to a (rather harsh) armistice (not unconditional surrender). What choice did the government have? Let hundreds of thousands of people die pointlessly, or keep them alive and end France's involvement in the war?

It's hard to take seriously your objection to this. Whereas the US sat back; the world had to wait until Hitler put the world out of its misery by declaring war himself. Even then the US sat ruminating on the outskirts, while its economy doubled in size, until the Soviet Union was virtually assured of victory, and only then went, hyena like, to make sure it could scavenge as much glory as it could from the Soviet Union before the latter had finished the job.

So, are you arguing that the French were cowards for fighting, while the US were brave for sitting back? Good job there. :goodjob:

What is everyone talking about?

Poland was invaded September 1, 1939 and the last units surrendered October 6, 1939. - 36 days.

The attack on the western front began May 10, 1940 and the French signed an armistice on June 22, 1940. - 43 days

I can't see where anyone can conclude that Poland held out longer than France? I would answer the question by saying that Poland did not hold out longer than France. Both of them continued the fight with counterinsurgencies, and had "armies in exile" so to speak, all the way to the end of the war.

Not that invading has anything to do with domestic incursions, but that's a nice troll anyhow, so I'll bite.
I'll assume you're referring to Iraq? The invasion went fine, arguably the best in history, it's the counterinsurgency that's the problem.

Erm. Who's the troll here to begin with?

So you won the war, huh?

As for never having been invaded, perhaps you've heard of The War of 1812? Or the how about the American Civil War? As I recall, in the first one our capital was burned, not occupied, put to the torch. In the second, oh, almost a million of our contrymen died on our own soil. One state is completely destroyed, several others bear enormous scars from pitched battle. But hey, that's not really an invasion, people give up in invasions!

True. As I'm not American, I easily forget the 1812 war. In any case, it was nowhere near the scale and totality of WW2. And perhaps, being American, you should be reminded that the French won the Hundred Years' War and held off the Germans in WW1, and in both instances they were invaded and suffered huge losses.

If your ancestors fought bravely in the Civil War, good for them. But what has that got to do with the topic at hand anyway?

But we're not playing the "real life" game here, we're playing the "incessantly troll about the other nation." Your nation was beaten by the Italians. The Bloody Italians! Really, nobody gets beaten by the Italians, but you've somehow managed to make it happen.

I'm not French. And who gets beaten by Canadians? Nobody gets beaten by the Canadians, but you managed to make it happen in the 1812 war you mentioned yourself.

Ooo, that feels real good doesn't it? Now we're even. Stick to the topic at hand, and we don't have to resort to childishness.

However, you never answered my original question, either: how and why would the French have opted to "tolerate a temporary occupation" they had no idea would be temporary?

I never said that they thought the invasion would be temporary. There was a strong resistance movement for a reason. Anyway, what I said was in objection to the sick arrogant attitude Americans like to throw around, often despite their own historical knowledge. You guys didn't win in Vietnam and are now suffering from considerable war weariness. Face it, you're not infallible. Other nations had their moments of valour and glory too.

But we're not playing the "real life" game here, we're playing the "incessantly troll about the other nation." Your nation was beaten by the Italians. The Bloody Italians! Really, nobody gets beaten by the Italians, but you've somehow managed to make it happen.

What nation was beaten by the Italians?

I'm not French. And who gets beaten by Canadians? Nobody gets beaten by the Canadians, but you managed to make it happen in the 1812 war you mentioned yourself.





alright, you've bad mouthed canada, thus getting me involved :p anyway Canadians have an impressive record, during the first world war the Germans would avoid attacking trenches held by canadians unless it was nessicary, that attitude also carried over into WW2, Germans hated fighting us

alright, you've bad mouthed canada, thus getting me involved :p anyway Canadians have an impressive record, during the first world war the Germans would avoid attacking trenches held by canadians unless it was nessicary, that attitude also carried over into WW2, Germans hated fighting us

I was half joking :p I know about Vimy Ridge. It's not as if the Italians never did anything either.

well yeah.... Roman empire.... that was pretty impressive

well yeah.... Roman empire.... that was pretty impressive

Well, even if you don't count Romans, they still had their moments.

Well, we should look on it from that way, from 1795-1812 (approximately) France was alone against the Europe, but conquered almost all they wanted. In late 1930's and early 40's it was same with Germany. Even before that Alexander the Great accomplished similar feat, + Mongolians, + Cortez and Pizzaro, etc...

Sometimes nations/armies/generals are just invincible. Until somebody reads their tactics.

In 1939 France and its senior ally the UK declared war on Germany for invading Poland (the US of course did not). France's ally was useless and abandoned her for all practical purposes, it's own strategy had failed more miserably than anyone ever expected, so it agreed to a (rather harsh) armistice (not unconditional surrender). What choice did the government have? Let hundreds of thousands of people die pointlessly, or keep them alive and end France's involvement in the war?
Oh, believe me, we know exactly what it feels like to be abandoned by your ally in a time of war (2003, anyone?).

It's hard to take seriously your objection to this. Whereas the US sat back; the world had to wait until Hitler put the world out of its misery by declaring war himself. Even then the US sat ruminating on the outskirts, while its economy doubled in since, until the Soviet Union was virtually assured of victory, and only then went, hyena like, to make sure it could scavenge as much glory as it could from the Soviet Union before the latter had finished the job.

So, are you arguing that the French were cowards for fighting, while the US were brave for sitting back? Good job there. :goodjob:
I don't recall saying the French were cowards, when did I say that?

But why would the US get involved in 1939, anyway? It's not like it affected us, we weren't allied to France anymore than we were to Nazi Germany. It's not like we sat back and did nothing, we gave the Brits and Ruskies equipment for two years, you know, the whole "arsenal of democracy" thing? I can guarantee neither would have held out without lend-lease.

Erm. Who's the troll here to begin with? Fair enough.

So you won the war, huh? It took about a month, you could even watch in on TV. This is a discussion of combat operations, not counterinsurgency. The United States decicively won Operation Iraqi Freedom. But the meat and potatoes of this is WWII, not Iraq, so it's probably best to drop that for another day.



True. As I'm not American, I easily forget the 1812 war. In any case, it was nowhere near the scale and totality of WW2.
That's not my point. The claim was made that Americans have never known invasion, I was refuting that by the fact that our capital was torched in the 1812 War, and our land invaded.
And perhaps, being American, you should be reminded that the French won the Hundred Years' War and held off the Germans in WW1, and in both instances they were invaded and suffered huge losses. I'm aware of that, I never said the French never knew war, God knows they have. But to be honest, I don't see what they have to do with WWII anyhowneither was an occupation of any sort. If anything, both wars serve as an example of why one should resist invasion more aggresively.

If your ancestors fought bravely in the Civil War, good for them. But what has that got to do with the topic at hand anyway?
I agree. Meat and potatoes, meat and potatoes.



I never said that they thought the invasion would be temporary. There was a strong resistance movement for a reason. Anyway, what I said was in objection to the sick arrogant attitude Americans like to throw around, often despite their own historical knowledge.
There are ignorant Americans just as there are ignorant citizens of any other country.
You guys didn't win in Vietnam and are now suffering from considerable war weariness. Face it, you're not infallible. Other nations had their moments of valour and glory too.
I never said we won Vietnam OR that we were invincible. We obviously lost Vietnam if they North took over the South. What are you getting at?

What nation was beaten by the Italians?

Albania.

Oh, believe me, we know exactly what it feels like to be abandoned by your ally in a time of war (2003, anyone?).
Don't you see a little difference between sending troops to help you after an attack (Ben Laden hiding in Afghanistan, we were there and are still there), and helping you conduct an unjustified invasion, with a possibly damaging outcome, and for the moment the situation in Iraq indicates we were right to do what we did, as it unfold as we foretold.
Being ally doesn't mean "You can just invade whowever you want, we'll be there to help you".
Where was the American support in 1956 during the Suez crisis?


I'm aware of that, I never said the French never knew war, God knows they have. But to be honest, I don't see what they have to do with WWII anyhowneither was an occupation of any sort. If anything, both wars serve as an example of why one should resist invasion more aggresively.
You completly miss the point here.
First, WWII was a war completly different from others. Because the German did not play "by the rules". In the previous wars, when a side won, it get some territories, some compensation, but was not destroyed like that.
In the Napoleonic wars, when France won it got some new departments, could change the leader of a country, but we did not make Austria, Prussia, Russia, or Spain disappear from the map.
In the Crimea war, we won, got some condition from the Russian, and came back home. In 1870, we lost against Germany, lose two region (Alsace Lorraine), had to pay some reparation. In WWII, we got back these region, Germany lost its colonies and had to pay reparation, but the country was not destroyed by an evil occupation trying to kill part of its population.

WWII was different, with Holocaust, a very harsh occupation that completly wrecked France, and it took years to recover. And how, in 1940, could we know that beforehand? The reality of the Holocaust was really discovered in 1944 when the camp were freed by the allies.

Second, the French army was defeated. We still had forces south, but it was unlikely we could have inverted the disaster in the North. Some like De Gaulle, went to England to continue the war from abroad. The French Free Forces were build first from our troups in the colonies. Others refuse to stop fighting and turn to guerilla warfare, because it was not possible to continue a conventional war.

Third, when we were beaten, it was decided to turn to Petain, a WWI war hero, to negociate an armistice with the German and save us. Petain was senile and unable to do something good.

So, conclusion: We were beaten in a conventional war, with few chances to be able to invert the situation soon, we agreed to an armistice with the idea it would follow the "rules" of previous wars. But it wasn't the case, and I don't see how we could have foreseen that. And we did resist the invasion agressively by conventional means, were defeated, some withdrew to England to continue, some turn to Guerilla. The French, as part of the Armistice, had more than 1 million POW. Would you be more satisfied if we had 1 million more dead?

Now, let me ask you a question: What did you do in the Philippines when the Japanese came? You fought as much you could, then were beaten, and then withdrew what you could before coming back later.
What is the difference?


Albania.
So Albania, a tiny country, with virtually no army, is beaten by Italy, a much larger country, and you consider it to be an terrible shame for Albania?
Hey, it would be like making fun of North Vietnam, a small country, because they did not win the war and manage to get South Vietnam, defending by the strongest country on Earth

So Albania, a tiny country, with virtually no army, is beaten by Italy, a much larger country, and you consider it to be an terrible shame for Albania?
Hey, it would be like making fun of North Vietnam, a small country, because they did not win the war and manage to get South Vietnam, defending by the strongest country on Earth

Wait... so North Vietnam never reunited with South Vietnam? And the American's never lost an embarrasing war with the Vietnamese?

My god, the guy who makes the World maps is so wrong, I gotta sue his ass ASAP!!!

I don't recall saying the French were cowards, when did I say that?

You said there's no excuse not to go on fighting. But, in fact, fighting did go on. They were soldiers who fled, true. But in most wars there are soldiers who flee. Many Russians fled and were shot down by their own side. Does that prove that all Russians do not have the willingness to defend their homeland?

It took about a month, you could even watch in on TV. This is a discussion of combat operations, not counterinsurgency. The United States decicively won Operation Iraqi Freedom. But the meat and potatoes of this is WWII, not Iraq, so it's probably best to drop that for another day.

Unfortunately, most people in the world believe that the war isn't actually won yet. Like in France, there's a serious insurgency that is undermining the occupation forces' efforts to establish order and legitimacy.

That's not my point. The claim was made that Americans have never known invasion, I was refuting that by the fact that our capital was torched in the 1812 War, and our land invaded.

Not a correct claim, I admit. But it still stands that America was not the one on the receiving end of the massive beating at the start WW2. Moreover, at that point, France was alone. Britain could hardly do anything. You have no right pass judgement on the valour of the French.

I'm aware of that, I never said the French never knew war, God knows they have. But to be honest, I don't see what they have to do with WWII anyhowneither was an occupation of any sort. If anything, both wars serve as an example of why one should resist invasion more aggresively.

How much more aggressively? Your army was totally routed. The people must all charge with forks and knives and die? There was a resistance movement, for goodness sake. And there's also the Free French.

There are ignorant Americans just as there are ignorant citizens of any other country.

You sounded like that, believe me.

I never said we won Vietnam OR that we were invincible. We obviously lost Vietnam if they North took over the South. What are you getting at?

That you guys are not the mightiest warriors on earth. Or the most stalwart defenders of freedom, for that matter.

Albania.

What has that got to do with France?

Wait... so North Vietnam never reunited with South Vietnam? And the American's never lost an embarrasing war with the Vietnamese?

My god, the guy who makes the World maps is so wrong, I gotta sue his ass ASAP!!!
Open a dictonary, look for the definition of irony. Read again my post

Although the Polish did have backwards ****, (Calvary? Seriously...) they DID have nationalism and patriotism. There was more resistance, no 'Maginot Line OMFG it'll stop the Germans so we don't need to defend elsewhere in the damned country', and the blitz was only just beginning. Also, the French also had backwards technology, was caught off by surprise by the Ardene, and had BS tanks.

Don't you see a little difference between sending troops to help you after an attack (Ben Laden hiding in Afghanistan, we were there and are still there), and helping you conduct an unjustified invasion, with a possibly damaging outcome, and for the moment the situation in Iraq indicates we were right to do what we did, as it unfold as we foretold.
Being ally doesn't mean "You can just invade whowever you want, we'll be there to help you".
Where was the American support in 1956 during the Suez crisis?
That's a good comparison. I submit.


You completly miss the point here.
First, WWII was a war completly different from others. Because the German did not play "by the rules". In the previous wars, when a side won, it get some territories, some compensation, but was not destroyed like that.
In the Napoleonic wars, when France won it got some new departments, could change the leader of a country, but we did not make Austria, Prussia, Russia, or Spain disappear from the map.
In the Crimea war, we won, got some condition from the Russian, and came back home. In 1870, we lost against Germany, lose two region (Alsace Lorraine), had to pay some reparation. In WWII, we got back these region, Germany lost its colonies and had to pay reparation, but the country was not destroyed by an evil occupation trying to kill part of its population.

WWII was different, with Holocaust, a very harsh occupation that completly wrecked France, and it took years to recover. And how, in 1940, could we know that beforehand? The reality of the Holocaust was really discovered in 1944 when the camp were freed by the allies.

Second, the French army was defeated. We still had forces south, but it was unlikely we could have inverted the disaster in the North. Some like De Gaulle, went to England to continue the war from abroad. The French Free Forces were build first from our troups in the colonies. Others refuse to stop fighting and turn to guerilla warfare, because it was not possible to continue a conventional war.

Third, when we were beaten, it was decided to turn to Petain, a WWI war hero, to negociate an armistice with the German and save us. Petain was senile and unable to do something good.

So, conclusion: We were beaten in a conventional war, with few chances to be able to invert the situation soon, we agreed to an armistice with the idea it would follow the "rules" of previous wars. But it wasn't the case, and I don't see how we could have foreseen that. And we did resist the invasion agressively by conventional means, were defeated, some withdrew to England to continue, some turn to Guerilla. The French, as part of the Armistice, had more than 1 million POW. Would you be more satisfied if we had 1 million more dead?
I just want to make sure I understand this: when the French surrendered, they expected Germany to take a few territories and leave?


Now, let me ask you a question: What did you do in the Philippines when the Japanese came? You fought as much you could, then were beaten, and then withdrew what you could before coming back later.
What is the difference?
There is none.


So Albania, a tiny country, with virtually no army, is beaten by Italy, a much larger country, and you consider it to be an terrible shame for Albania?
Hey, it would be like making fun of North Vietnam, a small country, because they did not win the war and manage to get South Vietnam, defending by the strongest country on Earth
Yes, and the infant United States (my country) was beaten by the Canadians: "who gets beaten by the Canadians?" was the claim. Albania, a country another country with a less that capable army (and that poster's country) was beaten by the Italians; after all, who loses to the Italians, anyway? I was drawing a stupid parallel.





Unfortunately, most people in the world believe that the war isn't actually won yet. Like in France, there's a serious insurgency that is undermining the occupation forces' efforts to establish order and legitimacy.
We were talking about military operations, that's why I said that. We beat Iraq on the field of battle in a similarly fast way that France lost to Germany. Don't you agree?



Not a correct claim, I admit. But it still stands that America was not the one on the receiving end of the massive beating at the start WW2. Moreover, at that point, France was alone. Britain could hardly do anything. You have no right pass judgement on the valour of the French.

You said there's no excuse not to go on fighting. But, in fact, fighting did go on. They were soldiers who fled, true. But in most wars there are soldiers who flee. Many Russians fled and were shot down by their own side. Does that prove that all Russians do not have the willingness to defend their homeland?
How much more aggressively? Your army was totally routed. The people must all charge with forks and knives and die? There was a resistance movement, for goodness sake. And there's also the Free French.

In light of Steph's post, I concede the first part of this quote.

As for the resistance, I'm talking about the end of military operations themselves, when, as Steph said, they expected different terms. Obviously the Free French did not form on day 1 after the capitulation, I would expect that to happen after it became apparent the Germans weren't going to just leave.

You sounded like that, believe me.
I can't be priveleged to the intimate workings of every thing in history, I'm sure I know things that you don't, that doesn't mean you're ignorant or that you don't care, just that you didn't know. That's why we have conversations like this, to learn.


That you guys are not the mightiest warriors on earth. Or the most stalwart defenders of freedom, for that matter.
You're still putting words in my mouth I didn't say.


What has that got to do with France?


I explained that above.

I just want to make sure I understand this: when the French surrendered, they expected Germany to take a few territories and leave?

Not really, the condition of the armistice were quite harsh, in fat far harsher that what France imposed to the Germans in 1918. But it allowed France to keep a part of its territory, a fleet, and the colonies. Hitler did not want to push to far in fear France would continue the fight.
Many French people were not aware of the details of the armistice, they were not involved in the decision proces..
But Weygand, head of the French army, did not believed in the possibility to continue the fight. Paul Reynaud, the chief of government, wanted a military surrender, while the government and parliament would go to North Africa to continue the fact. But Weygand did not want the military to bear the responsability, and bullied for a global surrender. Reynaud resigned and was replaced by Petain, a former war hero. In a way, the French were betrayed by their high command.


As for the resistance, I'm talking about the end of military operations themselves, when, as Steph said, they expected different terms. Obviously the Free French did not form on day 1 after the capitulation, I would expect that to happen after it became apparent the Germans weren't going to just leave.
De Gaulle was sent by Reynaud to London, to discuss the possibility to refuse the surrender. As Churchill, he had a planetary vision, and wanted to continue to fight as long as French had troops in colonies somewhere.

The French government collapsed the 16 of june. The armistice was signed the 22 of june 1940. But in fact, De Gaulle made his famous speech asking to continue the fight ("Whatever happens, the flame of French resistance must not be extinguished and will not be extinguished”). , thus forming the Free French, the 18 of june 1940, and was tried by Vichy France for treason and condemn to death for that. But De Gaulle considered itself as the last legitimate member of the Raynaud government, and thus with the legitimacy to represent France and refuse surrender.
At first, Free French forces were very small, but grew as colonies and their troops joined their side.
The Interior French Forces (the resistance), started almost immediately after De Gaulle called. At first small and disorganized, it needed one year to organize itself. And it was not very easy, as there were many different groups: communists, De Gaulle supporter, former military personnals, even Poles, Dutch or Belgian who went to France and stayed there within the resistance.

Example:
Groupe Combat: created in August 1940, by a French captain who refused surrender, was one of the biggest resistance group.


“ Our HQ estimated that at the moment, the value of assistance brought to the countryside by the FFI represented the equivalent of 15 infantry divisions, and thanks to their assistance, the speed of our advance in France was largely facilitated by them. "

I just want to make sure I understand this: when the French surrendered, they expected Germany to take a few territories and leave?
Generally thats the Historical concensus. The German Excuse for the occupation was the need to ensure North Western Europe's security from the British. It was never a permanent peace treaty. As for what Hitler intended for France, thats a very different from what the Nazi leaders wanted out of France. Hitler wanted to create a French rump state, a nation the size of Belgium to never threaten Germany. In all likelyhood however, any other Nazi leader would have just taken back Alssaise Lorrain, and most of Central Africa.

Although the Polish did have backwards ****, (Calvary? Seriously...) they DID have nationalism and patriotism. There was more resistance, no 'Maginot Line OMFG it'll stop the Germans so we don't need to defend elsewhere in the damned country'

Well, 1) Belgium was France's ally when the Maginot Line was being constructed, and it was regarded as (rather foolishly we might think) bad faith to built such a defensive line over across the border of one's ally. Later Belgium jumped camp to "neutrality" and messed up France's strategy. 2) World War one, as you know presumably, was characterized by defensive superiority, trenches, stalemate, etc. Everyone thought this was how warfare would continue to be fought. The Maginot Line made sense in that context. Few military strategists in France or England or elsewhere predicted Blitzkrieg. This was one of the reasons Germany won so quickly.

Before writing off the French as uniquely poor fighters (which of course is intrinsically silly), everyone, remember that France was already aware it couldn't resist Germany's manpower and arms superiority for long; France only went to war with Germany because the UK did, then the UK failed to commit the necessary help, and withdrew the help it did give (the "heroic" evacuation of Dunkirk), demoralizing the French. Besides that, France and the UK combined had the same size of airforce as Germany, yet the UK refused to employ its fighters in France because Churchill wanted to save them for the Battle of Britain.

We were talking about military operations, that's why I said that. We beat Iraq on the field of battle in a similarly fast way that France lost to Germany. Don't you agree?

That's a narrow way of looking at 'military operations'. I don't think most historians view Germany as having completely subjugated France in WW2. I think it would be the same with the situation in Iraq - at this point, at any rate.

As for the resistance, I'm talking about the end of military operations themselves, when, as Steph said, they expected different terms. Obviously the Free French did not form on day 1 after the capitulation, I would expect that to happen after it became apparent the Germans weren't going to just leave.

I think Steph has shed some light on this.

I can't be priveleged to the intimate workings of every thing in history, I'm sure I know things that you don't, that doesn't mean you're ignorant or that you don't care, just that you didn't know. That's why we have conversations like this, to learn.

I agree. I just wanted to dispute the ignorant stereotype.

You're still putting words in my mouth I didn't say.

Well, you seemed to be hinting at it. I'm glad you actually weren't. But you can say something to this probable fellow countryman of yours:

Although the Polish did have backwards ****, (Calvary? Seriously...) they DID have nationalism and patriotism. There was more resistance, no 'Maginot Line OMFG it'll stop the Germans so we don't need to defend elsewhere in the damned country', and the blitz was only just beginning. Also, the French also had backwards technology, was caught off by surprise by the Ardene, and had BS tanks.

But maybe he is a victim of his own ignorance, poor fellow.

Although the Polish did have backwards ****, (Calvary? Seriously...)

Polish cavalry charging German tanks in WW2 is a debunked myth.

I know they didn't use it against tanks, but they did against some infantry.

The Polish Air Force was destroyed on the ground before they could take off, and the tanks weren't that great...

I know they didn't use it against tanks, but they did against some infantry.

Yeah, and? The German army used cavalry in WW2 as well. Their use was not "backward".

The Polish Air Force was destroyed on the ground before they could take off

That is another myth. Only a small number of aircraft meant for training were destroyed - the polish airforce remained active for the first two weeks of fighting, causing serious damage to the Luftwaffe. I will provide references if you want them.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

I never said ALL of the Polish Air Force...

The Germans did use cavalry, but not excessively, although the Polish didn't either...

I never said ALL of the Polish Air Force...

The Polish Air Force was destroyed on the ground before they could take off

Yes, but your statement is nowhere near true, since virtually none of the Polish air force was destroyed on the ground....

something I had to correct you on.

Besides, in the English language, what you said implies all of the air force, not some of it.

I forgot to implant SOME....

I believe I read somewhere (Book) that half the Polish Air Force was destroyed.

But if you really want the reason why France fell first...

The Germans wanted Polish sausages, because they tasted somewhat better. However, it took longer, because the Polish were resisting German sausages. The French had pastries and wine, which the Germans wanted BADLY. As such, they used more force and viola!

I believe I read somewhere (Book) that half the Polish Air Force was destroyed.

and I read somewhere that the world was created in 7 days...

doesn't alter what actually happened.

:p

Well, it was created by a group of historians, including one from Poland...

The Polish fell first AND faster. As much as I want to bash the French, my sense for truth and accuracy wins the day. People might actually believe the title of this thread.

Germans used horses throughout the war more than you know. (Petrol shortages were real and horses really did pull stuff back in the day. It wasn't just a movie thing.)

The French held out longer and could have kept the fight up but everyone saw what happened to Poland the year before. They realized that the gig was up after Dunkirk and tried to minimize casualties with an armistice.

To rebuttal

The Polish fell first AND faster. As much as I want to bash the French, my sense for truth and accuracy wins the day. People might actually believe the title of this thread.

Germans used horses throughout the war more than you know. (Petrol shortages were real and horses really did pull stuff back in the day. It wasn't just a movie thing.)

The French held out longer and could have kept the fight up but everyone saw what happened to Poland the year before. They realized that the gig was up after Dunkirk and tried to minimize casualties with an armistice.

Poland was invaded on 1.IX.1939 by Germany and 17.IX.1939 by Soviet Russia (both aggressions were without declaration of war). Warsaw fell on 27.IX.1939. Last battle of September campaign ended on 6.X.1939, so it is in total 35 days = 5 weeks.
France, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg was attacked on 10.05.1940 and it took 6 weeks until France surrendered. But it was on 3/4 June when French and British troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, so fight was shorter than a month - it was slightly more than 3 weeks... It's hard to give an exact date in this case, but if we discuss "who hold out longer", then I'm sure that Poland did...

My sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_%281939%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/animations/wwtwo_map_fall_france/index.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#The_Phony_War

Fighting continue in the East, until General Pretelat was forced to surrended the 22 of june.
The 6th Army fought in the Alps until the 25 of june. The garrison of the Maginot line surrendered at the beginning of July

There was also the 600 officer aspirants of the Saumur Cavalry School who just ignored the order on the 18th to lay down their arms, and in their sector, with nothing really heavier than machineguns, stopped the German panzers from crossing the Loire until the 20th, when most were dead anyway.

What is it with this fixation that somehow Dunkirk meant there was no more "actual" fighting in the French campaign?

After Dunkirk there might no longer have been any real hope of success, but the war didn't come to an end.

Just going to add a second thought:

I think the focus on comparing the Polish and French soldiers fighting the two campaigns and trying to draw conclusions about the superiority of the over the other is mistaken. They were both totally outfought by the Germans, whatever courage or cowardice they may have displayed in the process. Some fought well, others not. Some never had the opportunity.

The big difference between Poland and France — and where the Polish determination showed — was the political leadership.

The Poles without hesitation accepted a futile last stand in Warsaw itself, allowing the first partial destruction of it. The French leadership gave up Paris without a fight. More, in the French case one can't really underestimate the personal influence of Pétain himself. And Pétain started calling for asking the Germans for terms not just to spare French lives, but also because he was appaled by the destruction to the architecture of French towns. Which in retropsect looks really daft, as the level of actual destruction in 1940 was quite low.

So there is a striking difference in how the Polish leadership hung on like grim death, no matter what, and the way in which the divisions in the French leadership, and Pétains combination of defeitism and tremendous personal prestige, endlessly confused the situation for the French troops and public.

It's easier to go on fighting even a hopeless war if your leaders are unflinching.

The big difference between Poland and France — and where the Polish determination showed — was the political leadership.

The Poles without hesitation accepted a futile last stand in Warsaw itself, allowing the first partial destruction of it. The French leadership gave up Paris without a fight. More, in the French case one can't really underestimate the personal influence of Pétain himself. And Pétain started calling for asking the Germans for terms not just to spare French lives, but also because he was appaled by the destruction to the architecture of French towns. Which in retropsect looks really daft, as the level of actual destruction in 1940 was quite low.

Well, you have that to thank for the beauty of France today. I can somewhat understand why they wanted to preserve their historical cities as much as possible. I would have been horrified too if I was in their position.

But, ultimately, I think shock and some sympathy for the Germans were the main reasons for the quick 'surrender'. The French leadership couldn't believe they were losing so quickly and so decisively. It was highly demoralising, and rather than face the vain destruction of their country and a massive loss of life, and since there was some sympathy for the Germans (both the country and its political system) anyway, why not end it as peacefully as possible? There was the precedent of the Franco-Prussian War, after all. France survived that.

We can't really compare France with Poland or Russia. France had more to lose from a destructive war. It had a history as a great power, which it would likely have been unable to recover if it had been totally destroyed. As it is, it never really recovered.

There was also the 600 officer aspirants of the Saumur Cavalry School who just ignored the order on the 18th to lay down their arms, and in their sector, with nothing really heavier than machineguns, stopped the German panzers from crossing the Loire until the 20th, when most were dead anyway.

What is it with this fixation that somehow Dunkirk meant there was no more "actual" fighting in the French campaign?

After Dunkirk there might no longer have been any real hope of success, but the war didn't come to an end.

My point exactly. The fighting didn't stop there. Your post is much clearer about it, though.

The poles are being held to the standard of the last units surrendering in the capital (nobody left in a position to sign a peace), but the French are held to the standard of when their main army was encircled and realized they weren't going to win, regardless of how many armies they had left.

The poles knew the game was up much earlier than Oct 6. Invasion of Poland started September 1. The main Polish Army was encircled by September 19th with final surrender of encircled forces September 22... 3 weeks.

The Polish fell first AND faster. As much as I want to bash the French, my sense for truth and accuracy wins the day. People might actually believe the title of this thread.

Germans used horses throughout the war more than you know. (Petrol shortages were real and horses really did pull stuff back in the day. It wasn't just a movie thing.)

The French held out longer and could have kept the fight up but everyone saw what happened to Poland the year before. They realized that the gig was up after Dunkirk and tried to minimize casualties with an armistice.

Exactly, I've been reading this thread and been wondering when someone with half a brain would turn up and say that the whole thread is based on a false premise. A mere 4 pages...how, lame.

The French who "surrendered", surrendered when they did because of the circumstances they were in; presumably English people or Americans in exactly the same circumstances would have done the same. Or is the argument here seriously that being French the people acted more cowardly?! That is of course preposterous. It's fine for Americans thousands of miles away from German tanks and planes, with little comparable experience of the senseless carnage that killed , disabled or disfigured the flower of their youth, millions of young men and boys, breaking the hearts of millions more women. Oh my, faced between the choice of repeating that/dying in a useless resistance against vastly superior forces, or tolerating a temporary foreign occupation, I know what I'd do. So what, shall we give the French a hard time for their geographical position and demographic weakness, or shall we just stop being hostile to this country?

Hilarious.

The French had their Ardennes Front pierced, were too slow to stop the Germans exploiting the gap despite formidable river barriers and failed absolutely to launch any form of counter-attacks. The only resistance of any significance was the British RTR attacking Rommel near Arras, but apart from that it was plain sailing.

Once the flank was turned the whole rush into the Low Countries left the best fighting units cut off and that turned into a mass retreat with little or no effective resistance possible.

With the best forces in an untenable position escape was the only course and by this stage there wasn't the forces in position to defend for long the new front. Throwing in more of the British Airforce would have been to waste more units when the game was up for France.


What is damning though is the French Navy stayed in port and Britain had to either seize or sink much of it in ports such and Alexandria and in N.Africa. The French could have sent those forces to fight with the British, but oh no, they were just fine with peace and sitting out of the War. Had French Algeria and Morocco not gone Vichy then the Italians wouldn't have had a hope in hell of developing any threat on Egypt, that theatre would have been snuff out quickly.

The reason the French didn't fight to their potential was atrocious and aged leadership, poor tank tactics (not massed, but in ones and twos), once again (as in WW1) a flawed plan in response to German invasion, this time not at least attacking, but rushing into the Low Countries and presenting an open flank and most of all...who wanted to die for France this time around? The French people didn't care enough about how their country had been led and didn't think what they had was worth another 5.6 million dead and their armies surrendered in droves despite having the equipment to fight the Germans effectively.

With the best forces in an untenable position escape was the only course and by this stage there wasn't the forces in position to defend for long the new front. Throwing in more of the British Airforce would have been to waste more units when the game was up for France.

You are right that at that stage it would be of little use. But before the attach most of the RAF should have been deployed to france. The german success in establishing a bridgehead at Sedan was only possible because they were allowed to have air superiority there. France needed the RAF in the battlefield, but the british refused to deploy most of it to France. Had they done so the french line at the Meuse would probably have held until reinforcements arrived.


What is damning though is the French Navy stayed in port and Britain had to either seize or sink much of it in ports such and Alexandria and in N.Africa.

True, they were lucky that Hitler was too dumb to seize and use it.


The reason the French didn't fight to their potential was atrocious and aged leadership, poor tank tactics (not massed, but in ones and twos), once again (as in WW1) a flawed plan in response to German invasion, this time not at least attacking, but rushing into the Low Countries and presenting an open flank and most of all...who wanted to die for France this time around? The French people didn't care enough about how their country had been led and didn't think what they had was worth another 5.6 million dead and their armies surrendered in droves despite having the equipment to fight the Germans effectively.

Oh yes, they cared so little that they set up the resistance and kept harassing the germans at great cost to themselves...

The BEF turned tail and fled across the channel, when they could have tried to fight their way south, whatever the cost (they would be destroyed, but the french might gain the time to stabilize a new front). Abandoned, the french surrendered, what could the british expect? What could they presume to demand?

The BEF turned tail and fled across the channel, when they could have tried to fight their way south, whatever the cost (they would be destroyed, but the french might gain the time to stabilize a new front). Abandoned, the french surrendered, what could the british expect? What could they presume to demand?

You are a dreamer. The French stabilizing? They had no intention of fighting. Destroy the BEF and RAF and get the same result anyway? What is the sense in that. Churchill had to look after number 1 and because he did the British won the war. Dunkirk was seen as a massive victory when the British really needed one.

And how was Hitler going to capture French ships in North Africa? He tried to capture the french fleet when the Germans invaded Vichy but iirc most of it escaped or was scuttled before the Germans got there.

You are a dreamer. The French stabilizing? They had no intention of fighting. Destroy the BEF and RAF and get the same result anyway? What is the sense in that. Churchill had to look after number 1 and because he did the British won the war. Dunkirk was seen as a massive victory when the British really needed one.

And how was Hitler going to capture French ships in North Africa? He tried to capture the french fleet when the Germans invaded Vichy but iirc most of it escaped or was scuttled before the Germans got there.

Not a victory, as Churchill warned "we must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations".

In general though it would have been idiotic not to withdraw the BEF and most of the isolated French forces. Having botteled the Anglo-French force the German tanks had already moved on to attack France propper so it would have been remaining for pride not strategic interest. The pounding the RAF and the RN took evacuating the troops was unsustainable and would have been taken defending the Dunkirk Pocket.

You are a dreamer. The French stabilizing? They had no intention of fighting. Destroy the BEF and RAF and get the same result anyway? What is the sense in that. Churchill had to look after number 1 and because he did the British won the war. Dunkirk was seen as a massive victory when the British really needed one.
Dunkirk was putting a brave face on defeat.

And it started because the British unilaterally decided they had had enough.

The French, the new High Commander Weygand, was calling for the French and British forces trapped to launch an offensive to break out of their pocket and join up with the remaining French troops to the south. The British simply ignored this and began planning their withdrawal.

There isn't much sour grapes over this decision simply due to the fact that a break-out might have been possible, but then again maybe not, which would have been a total disaster. And even if successful, the British-French forces would still have been in one hell of a bad position.

So once it was clear the British were buggering out, the French chipped in what they could in the plan. They were getting their men out as well, so there's little wonder. The French contributed the three divisions, 40.000 men, who held most of the perimeter, and some 400 French vessels to help with the evac. Dunkirk was 40% a French affair. Strangely this keeps being omitted in the British version of events.

A large body of French were also evacuated from Dunkirk, you left that out too - oh wait we didn't write every little thing.

There were other British units fighting in France apart from those in Dunkirk, the British also landed additional forces after Dunkirk, oh no mention of that either.

You are a dreamer. The French stabilizing? They had no intention of fighting. Destroy the BEF and RAF and get the same result anyway? What is the sense in that. Churchill had to look after number 1 and because he did the British won the war. Dunkirk was seen as a massive victory when the British really needed one.


Yes, probably continuing to fight would not have prevented the fall of France, and it would be a costly mistake.
But anyone who agrees with this assessment cannot also complaint that the French surrendered - if fighting was pointless, negotiating an armistice was the logical option.


And how was Hitler going to capture French ships in North Africa? He tried to capture the french fleet when the Germans invaded Vichy but iirc most of it escaped or was scuttled before the Germans got there.

That was too late. He could have demanded them in the terms of the armistice... the new french government, some of whose members felt betrayed by the british, would probably have complied after some negotiation. Training new crews would be possible in time to use them against britain if the germans decided to finish off the western fronts before moving east. Good thing they didn't attempt this, else they just might have managed to invade britain before the US entered the war, of force it to accept a peace treaty leaving nazi Germany in control of continental Europe.

Hitler's great mistake was that he never really intended to fight a war against britain, that didn't fit with his demented plans. The british were lucky.

A large body of French were also evacuated from Dunkirk, you left that out too - oh wait we didn't write every little thing.
I think "They were getting their men out as well" qualifies, to quote myself.:)

And 40% of the effort hardly constitutes "a little thing".

Of course they were bloody furriners I suppose, so clearly they shouldn't count à la the logic of Dr Johnson.:mischief:

It might be worth adding that in a futile attempt to persuade the French that the British still supported them Churchill sacrificed the 51st Highland Division. It escaped the Dunkirk affair by virtue of being on the Maginot line at the time, and was then ordered to Normandy to support the 10th Army, where it was ordered to hold an area 4 times longer than was normal. If I remember rightly no official attempt was made to withdraw it, and the one brigade which did escape capture did so more by good fortune than any specific plan by the high command. The other two brigades were forced to surrender on June 12th.

Yes, probably continuing to fight would not have prevented the fall of France, and it would be a costly mistake.
But anyone who agrees with this assessment cannot also complaint that the French surrendered - if fighting was pointless, negotiating an armistice was the logical option.
The feelings of the French was a mix of "We won't surrender, but we can't go on like this".

And then almost simulatenously they got Pétain stepping up to the government and asking the Germans for terms, and de Gaulle calling for continued resistance from London.

Now, it wasn't a secret that Pétain and de Gaulle were pretty close. De Gaulle served under Pétain as a junior officer in WWI already when Pétain was just a colonel in charge of an infantry regiment. De Gaulle was later comissioned as the ghost-writer of Pétain. Pétain even overrode the teachers of the St-Cyr, jacking up de Gaulle's grades to a level that would ensure him a military career on par with the promise Pétain saw in him.

So a lot of Frenchmen saw Pétain-de Gaulle as a clever double act: The old guy asks for terms to get the Germans off our backs and to stop killing us right now. And you send the young man off to rally the troops to fight on. Brilliant!

So lots of Frenchmen in 1940 were entirely in favour of both Pétain and asking for terms, and for de Gaulle and for fighting on at the same time.

The feelings of the French was a mix of "We won't surrender, but we can't go on like this".

And then almost simulatenously they got Pétain stepping up to the government and asking the Germans for terms, and de Gaulle calling for continued resistance from London.

Now, it wasn't a secret that Pétain and de Gaulle were pretty close. De Gaulle served under Pétain as a junior officer in WWI already when Pétain was just a colonel in charge of an infantry regiment. De Gaulle was later comissioned as the ghost-writer of Pétain. Pétain even overrode the teachers of the St-Cyr, jacking up de Gaulle's grades to a level that would ensure him a military career on par with the promise Pétain saw in him.

So a lot of Frenchmen saw Pétain-de Gaulle as a clever double act: The old guy asks for terms to get the Germans off our backs and to stop killing us right now. And you send the young man off to rally the troops to fight on. Brilliant!

So lots of Frenchmen in 1940 were entirely in favour of both Pétain and asking for terms, and for de Gaulle and for fighting on at the same time.

The more I get of the French side of the picture, the more it makes sense to me.

Hilarious.

The French had their Ardennes Front pierced, were too slow to stop the Germans exploiting the gap despite formidable river barriers and failed absolutely to launch any form of counter-attacks. The only resistance of any significance was the British RTR attacking Rommel near Arras, but apart from that it was plain sailing.

Once the flank was turned the whole rush into the Low Countries left the best fighting units cut off and that turned into a mass retreat with little or no effective resistance possible.

With the best forces in an untenable position escape was the only course and by this stage there wasn't the forces in position to defend for long the new front. Throwing in more of the British Airforce would have been to waste more units when the game was up for France.


What is damning though is the French Navy stayed in port and Britain had to either seize or sink much of it in ports such and Alexandria and in N.Africa. The French could have sent those forces to fight with the British, but oh no, they were just fine with peace and sitting out of the War. Had French Algeria and Morocco not gone Vichy then the Italians wouldn't have had a hope in hell of developing any threat on Egypt, that theatre would have been snuff out quickly.

The reason the French didn't fight to their potential was atrocious and aged leadership, poor tank tactics (not massed, but in ones and twos), once again (as in WW1) a flawed plan in response to German invasion, this time not at least attacking, but rushing into the Low Countries and presenting an open flank and most of all...who wanted to die for France this time around? The French people didn't care enough about how their country had been led and didn't think what they had was worth another 5.6 million dead and their armies surrendered in droves despite having the equipment to fight the Germans effectively.

I don't quite know what point you're trying or think you're trying to make, nor what is supposed to be hilarious. :crazyeye: As far as I can see, all the sensible stuff you're saying you're repeating from one of my posts.

Anyways, if you think the French should have fought more, then fine; but the French had to live with the consequences of such a decision, consequences well beyond the imagination of someone from your world. They weren't living in a Hollywood movie of Goodies vs Baddies, where the Goodies always win and sacrifice, to the back-drop of violin music, is always rewarded with triumph and a hot girl. :lol: Also, though it seems to be Anglo-Saxon custom to expect other nations to be slaughtered and destroyed on their behalf while you twiddle your thumbs in contemplation, I think most other people can forgive the French not doing so. :goodjob:

My point was clear, that given the appalling situation our forces had been put into and the lack of fight in the French the British had to get out and were lucky to do so.

This idea that France failed due to lack of British effort was what I found laughable given it wasn't through numerical disparity that the then substantial and well thought of French-Army collapsed but atrocious tactics, strategy, deployment and zeal.

Many French did fight on and De Gaulle kept part of the French Empire fighting, but no-one with the clout to bring North Africa or the fleet at Toulan came over which showed the depth of defeatism. That the French collaborated so willingly with the deportation of the Jews also showed a very sinister aspect of their society in that period, hell for all his faults Mussolini did not pander to this Nazi practice.

Unlike France Britain kept on going when we too could have cut and run, made a treaty with Hitler (hell he was offering German troops if need be to preserve our Empire) but instead we fought on alone in an official sense together with our Empire. The French had that same luxury, an Empire that Hitler couldn't really touch and so little of it came over to the Free French and that was shameful. Being disasterous in the field being one thing, not showing the stomach to fight such a bunch of gangsters as the Nazis, another.

Unlike France Britain kept on going when we too could have cut and run, made a treaty with Hitler (hell he was offering German troops if need be to preserve our Empire) but instead we fought on alone in an official sense together with our Empire. The French had that same luxury, an Empire that Hitler couldn't really touch and so little of it came over to the Free French and that was shameful. Being disasterous in the field being one thing, not showing the stomach to fight such a bunch of gangsters as the Nazis, another.

The Nazis, a bunch of gangsters? That could be new definition for underestimation!
The french couldn't keep fighting from their empire any more that the british could. With their country effectively held hostage by Germany they had very few options. In a similar position the british would also have sued for peace.

The Nazis, a bunch of gangsters? That could be new definition for underestimation!
The french couldn't keep fighting from their empire any more that the british could. With their country effectively held hostage by Germany they had very few options. In a similar position the british would also have sued for peace.

Not so the Polish.

Not a victory, as Churchill warned "we must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations".


True, but because of Dunkirk, the British had soldiers to send to North Africa, Italy and eventually France. Not to mention a possible defence of Britian.

If they all got captured in France perhaps Churchill may have wanted to talk peace (although I doubt it).

Yes, probably continuing to fight would not have prevented the fall of France, and it would be a costly mistake.
But anyone who agrees with this assessment cannot also complaint that the French surrendered - if fighting was pointless, negotiating an armistice was the logical option.

But you can logically complain that the French should have marched into Germany at greatest possible speed once hostilities broke out- The germans were very weak in the west while they were fighting in Poland. Instead of waiting 9 months for the Germans to make the move.

Not so the Polish.
Because for the Poles, for reasons of history, knew that for them it was a matter of national survival, or not.

Not so the French.

Not so the Polish.
Oh, they could hardly continue the fight from their colonies, could they?

Many French did fight on and De Gaulle kept part of the French Empire fighting, but no-one with the clout to bring North Africa or the fleet at Toulan came over which showed the depth of defeatism. That the French collaborated so willingly with the deportation of the Jews also showed a very sinister aspect of their society in that period, hell for all his faults Mussolini did not pander to this Nazi practice.

Unlike France Britain kept on going when we too could have cut and run, made a treaty with Hitler (hell he was offering German troops if need be to preserve our Empire) but instead we fought on alone in an official sense together with our Empire. The French had that same luxury, an Empire that Hitler couldn't really touch and so little of it came over to the Free French and that was shameful. Being disasterous in the field being one thing, not showing the stomach to fight such a bunch of gangsters as the Nazis, another.
I think you've got it backwards. The collapse of the "moral compass" of French society, the defeatism etc., was an effect of the defeat, not the cause of it.

The French might not have had a particulary visionary idea about how this war was going to turn out, but the moral failure really was an effect of being outfought and defeated.

1940 was this huge existential question posed to the French as a whole: "What does it mean?" Which in turn meant that the rest of WWII for the French was a matter of coming up with an answer to that poser, which would simultaneously answer what France was supposed to be.

At this point you are chastising the French for the Vichy attempt at an answer even becoming a possibility. It became one because unlike the British the French didn't have the luxury of having a safe base to retreat to. (Weygand in Vichy service worked at rebuilding one in Algeria, hoarding planes and vehicles and hoping to use them against the Germans in better times, which came around.) The French and British situations in 1940 were simply not comparable.

I'm not advocating that not fighting on was a good choice. The Free French and de Gaulle in a way saved the soul of France by refusing defeat like they did. I'm simply pointing out that for France the defeat in 1940 was a ctaclysmic event that threw massive doubt on everything the French thought of themselves and their society in a way I can't see the British have ever had to face.
One can of course take a very British perspective on the whole matter, one of the "If I were a horse", but then one isn't really interested in what the horse/French actually went through and just assume they should have reacted as you assume you would. And then one tends to end up very close to the view that national succes or failure somehow is a question of virtue — the "moralistic school of history" (i.e. virtue is a main causal agent of history).

As for the Poles, for historical reasons as much as anything, they knew it was a fight to the death over Polish national survival. For the Poles it's always been a matter of national survival. This wasn't what faced the French, no matter what one thinks of the Vichy. It's a whole lot easier to be stalwart when you know there is no choice. All the French options may have been poisoned in some way, but the Germans were giving the French choices and opportunities the Poles could never dream of:
Some kind of unoccupied France, keeping its empire, navy intact (which the Germans couldn't really take over should it chose not to allow it) and not forced to join the Axis war effort. On balance everyone in retrospect agrees it wasn't worth it, but it was very clever of the Germans to offer enough to tempt at least parts of the French political leadership.
It's like with the French navy. It would have steamed to allied ports asap had the Germans simply decided to try to liquidate France. The confusion arose when Germany chose not to, and instead offered this rump-France looking enough like the real thing to confuse people.

That's where the confusion over what was the right thing to do among the French after 1940 comes from. The Vichy generals in North Africa in 1943 were delighted to be back on the right side of the conflict again, and for Pétain and Laval having refused to join Vichy France to the Axis war effort. It may be twisted and warped in every way, but the Vichyists considered this to be a sign of moral fibre of the highest order.
The Free French of course considered many of the Vichyists as simple traitors who should be lined up and shot. The Vichyists returned this with at worst thinking the same about the Free French, and at best that they were a bunch of dangerous adventurers or possibly mercenaries in British pay.
For the French WWII really did become a conflict over who represented France and of what France was supposed to be.

From our perspective the good guys won in the end. The argument here is one over why there should have been a conflict over it at all, if the French had just kept all their marbles. They lost those because of the defeat in 1940, not because the were somehow more morally deficient than most nations around. They all had internal divisions that might have surfaced and been exploited if they had been landed in that kind of situation. Thankfully they weren't.

In conclusion, whether any of this convinces you or not, you are oversimplifying the situation the French found themselves in after 1940, and I think you've got the causality of the French failure and confusion backwards.

Unlike France Britain kept on going when we too could have cut and run, made a treaty with Hitler (hell he was offering German troops if need be to preserve our Empire)...

"offering" German troops to "preserve" the British Empire... I can't believe nobody caught this joke. :)
:lol:

He "offered" to "preserve" Austria, Czechia, and Poland. The French took the offer after their army was destroyed and Paris was gone. After seeing what happened to the other offers of preservation, I think Britain would have only taken that offer after their Government fled to Ottawa.

Hitler had a passion for the British Empire, a respect for it, so much so I fully believe he saved the BEF at Dunkirk by holding off the Panzers which could have snuffed out our forces before they had a defensible perimeter at Dunkirk.

You should do abit of reading about the miracle of Dunkirk and also about Hitler's views on England.

I think you've got it backwards. The collapse of the "moral compass" of French society, the defeatism etc., was an effect of the defeat, not the cause of it.


I would also place as evidence the total failure to take the War to Germany between September 1939 till the invasion of France. When Poland was being invaded little was done, little zeal and little aggression was shown towards Germany...the French were just counting the days till they'd get attacked.

But you can logically complain that the French should have marched into Germany at greatest possible speed once hostilities broke out- The germans were very weak in the west while they were fighting in Poland. Instead of waiting 9 months for the Germans to make the move.
I would also place as evidence the total failure to take the War to Germany between September 1939 till the invasion of France. When Poland was being invaded little was done, little zeal and little aggression was shown towards Germany...the French were just counting the days till they'd get attacked.
I've adressed this point previously. While I used to make this criticism of French policy, it should be recalled that France couldn't mobilise its forces. France was caught quite by surprise by the invasion, and hadn't mobilised it forces. It declared war on September 3rd, giving it exactly two weeks before the Soviet invasion of Poland. During those two weeks, it would have needed to bring troops to the German border from all across France, called up its reservists, organized said reservists into new divisions, establish an entirely new chain of command, and build up the stocks of spare parts, ammunition, food, clothes, gasoline and animals, necessary to launch the invasion, and then made an offensive with such gains as to be able to divert the German war effort from Poland.
Britain of course is no help in this matter because most of their troops are spread out across the British Empire, as far away as Singapore, and could never reach France by that time. Once those two weeks were up, there was essentially no hope for saving Poland.
Hitler had a passion for the British Empire, a respect for it, so much so I fully believe he saved the BEF at Dunkirk by holding off the Panzers which could have snuffed out our forces before they had a defensible perimeter at Dunkirk.

You should do abit of reading about the miracle of Dunkirk and also about Hitler's views on England.
This view of the Dunkirk landings I generally disregard. Not only declining to spare the BEF, Hitler gave orders to the Luftwaffe to crush the dunkirk evacuation force. According to his intellegence reports, the Stukas had prevented almost all of the BEF from crossing back to England, instead drowning or burning to death as the Luftwaffe's dive-bombers ripped the evacuation force to peices. This of course, we know is untrue, but this is what Goering was telling Hitler at the time, and what Hitler fully believed. If he wanted to spare them, he obviously would have spoken up.
As for the Panzers, Hurrying Heinz had succeeded in trapping the BEF, but he left behind all his logistics, artillery support, and infantry support. Any attempt to crush the BEF with the panzers would have been very touch and go, with a serious risk of losing the encirclement.

France was politcally unstable and was relying on outdated weaponry. The end.


So was Poland!!

I\'m sorry if this has already been said, but to the best of my recollection, from the commencement of active hostilities on 10 May 1940 to the surrender of the Third Republic on 22 June of that year, one would think that the French held out longer than the Poles (1 September - 6 October; the latter date is being a bit generous, as Warsaw\'s surrender on 27 September concluded active resistance).

The fact that both nations maintained active armies (the Poles had troops that fought in Italy and a Parachute Brigade in the British Army, as well as many pilots who fought with the RAF after the surrender in 1939; the Free French had units that fought in North Africa, at El Alamein, a Free French unit (2nd Armored division, under Leclerc) liberated Paris, and Free French made up part of Devers\' Army Group in 1944-5) throughout the entire war seems to indicate that both fought equally well. Both also maintained very active resistance movements throughout the war; the French Resistance was the most effective in Western Europe, and the Polish one was sufficiently strong to seize Warsaw in late 1944 before they were betrayed by the USSR and were defeated.

The myth of the Polish cavalry charge and its subsequent defeat by German tanks is just that, a myth (the Poles actually had quite a few light tanks, but they were spread out and not even close to a match for the newest panzers) - I personally would attribute their more rapid collapse to encirclement, due mainly to the German acquisition of Slovakia and the Sudetenland, as well as their position in East Prussia. The French collapse can be attributed mainly to the loss of their First Army Group with the evacuation at Dunkirk, which was an immense moral blow to their armed forces. The subsequent defeat of France south of the Somme (in June 1940) was a foregone conclusion, as most knew in both the French and British governments and the German high command.

I've adressed this point previously. While I used to make this criticism of French policy, it should be recalled that France couldn't mobilise its forces. France was caught quite by surprise

By surprise?

If the French leadership had been paying any sort of attention to what was going on in Germany for the past 10 years they would have had plenty of time to prepare. Did they not read Mein Kampf?.. Did they not witness the anschluss?.. or the annexation of the Sudetenland? As well as Hitler's constant talk of lebensraum.. the anti-jewish bs going on in germany..

There were plenty of warning signs.. you'd have to be stupid not to see them.

I would also place as evidence the total failure to take the War to Germany between September 1939 till the invasion of France. When Poland was being invaded little was done, little zeal and little aggression was shown towards Germany...the French were just counting the days till they'd get attacked.

By surprise?

If the French leadership had been paying any sort of attention to what was going on in Germany for the past 10 years they would have had plenty of time to prepare. Did they not read Mein Kampf?.. Did they not witness the anschluss?.. or the annexation of the Sudetenland? As well as Hitler's constant talk of lebensraum.. the anti-jewish bs going on in germany..

There were plenty of warning signs.. you'd have to be stupid not to see them.

And Britain was raring to go to war over these? In fact, Churchill was almost alone among his peers in calling for British rearmament in response to the German menace.

Your memories are so clearly selective, they're laughable.

I would also place as evidence the total failure to take the War to Germany between September 1939 till the invasion of France. When Poland was being invaded little was done, little zeal and little aggression was shown towards Germany...the French were just counting the days till they\'d get attacked.
Actually, attempts were made in September 1939 by the French Army to crack the Siegfried Line. The French, though, realized that they would have no chance on that kind of ground into the teeth of the Siegfried Line fortifications, against a far superior enemy (numerically at least, and that was what counted). Given that the Franco-British plan hinged on the German offensive into Belgium, it would be silly to waste your men in fruitless attacks against the Germans on the Rhein, Saar, and Rheinland-Pfalz when the Germans would just go smashing through the Belgians and reenact the Schlieffen Plan anyway - something that was denied the French by their unwillingness to violate Belgian neutrality.

Up to May-June 1940, French actions on the Western Front were entirely reasonable. It was the fact that their timing was off in the Ardennes that doomed them to failure.

And Britain was raring to go to war over these? In fact, Churchill was almost alone among his peers in calling for British rearmament in response to the German menace.

Your memories are so clearly selective, they're laughable.

I cant believe, I cant imagine that these countries were so naive. :crazyeye:
But I am so young and I am not from these countries.

Slow re-arnament and appeasement in my opinion cannot be attributed to just the "ostrich" effect, incompetence or cowardice. The effect of WW1 really has to be considered. I don't think Chamberlin or his counterparts were morally or physically cowardly but there was a palpable sense developed from experiences in the Great War that modern warfare brought excessively high loss of life. I think it influenced many of the politicians of the period into believing that war was only to be undertaken as a very last resort, after all other avenues had been exhausted.

Actually, attempts were made in September 1939 by the French Army to crack the Siegfried Line. The French, though, realized that they would have no chance on that kind of ground into the teeth of the Siegfried Line fortifications, against a far superior enemy (numerically at least, and that was what counted).


Numerically?

What is this nonsense, in September 1939 AD Germany was fully intent upon Poland and deployed the vast bulk of her force for a quick resolution. The Anglo-French had far more forces on that front and any transfer east to west would have taken time and disrupted the invasion of Poland. Your claim that anything other than a desultary fondle was made upon the German frontier during that time is false. At best your numerical claim is based on counting German forces deployed in the East, at worst, ignorance.


As for Aelf I don't see why my quote and Warpus's are put together, your point was separate to mine. You can fully fail to perceive a problem, but that doesn't stop you taking resolute action when the time of crisis arises. What can be said taking both those quotes properly is not only did France and Britain ignore the warning signs and the easy opportunity to crush Hitler with the Rhineland reoccupation, Anchluss or Munich but that no effort was made to take it to Germany in September 1939 AD when the gloves were forced off and from then till the defeat of France - where was the bombing of the Ruhr?

Sure Britain weren't particularly aggressive, but they were junior partners (due to France having on paper the best army in Europe, whilst the British was tiny) and the French had the say in what happened on the continent (given it did concern them more) even down to whether the RAF could bomb Germany. The judgement call was that of the French, not of British Generals.

[QUOTE=Dachspmg;5393900]the French Resistance was the most effective in Western Europe[QUOTE]

Western Europe...pfft, you comparing it to what? Holland? Belgium?

Well that is bound to be hard given population, relative distance from Germany and terrain. Hahaha, you wasted time writing that...really, I'm staggered, I was there thinking the Danes had done it better, all four of them :rolleyes:

One thing we can agree on Dachspmg is that had the French been able to move quicker on countering the German Ardennes offensive on the Meuse then perhaps they could have prevented disaster and prolonged the fight.

The idea of waiting for the German hammerblow whilst that hammer was beating on the Poles was daft, the idea of not taking the war to the Ruhr by air just showed that the French were playing at War and weren't serious of taking Germany down. That they didn't in any real sense attack Germany during September 1939 AD and let their Empire and Navy surrender along with France concluded a series of actions showing no resolve to actually beat the Germans. They were just waiting to get beaten from the outbreak of War onwards.

The French mistake was getting involved in September 1939 AD in WW2, a War their tactics and their resolve were not up to given the will of their opponents. Churchill for all his many faults and all those that stood by his decisions and even put him in office had that resolve to fight the War, to spend the blood and money and win, despite all the risks.

This view of the Dunkirk landings I generally disregard. Not only declining to spare the BEF, Hitler gave orders to the Luftwaffe to crush the dunkirk evacuation force. According to his intellegence reports, the Stukas had prevented almost all of the BEF from crossing back to England, instead drowning or burning to death as the Luftwaffe's dive-bombers ripped the evacuation force to peices. This of course, we know is untrue, but this is what Goering was telling Hitler at the time, and what Hitler fully believed. If he wanted to spare them, he obviously would have spoken up.

As for the Panzers, Hurrying Heinz had succeeded in trapping the BEF, but he left behind all his logistics, artillery support, and infantry support. Any attempt to crush the BEF with the panzers would have been very touch and go, with a serious risk of losing the encirclement.

Losing the encirclement? With constant reinforcements, near total air superiority, doesn't seem likely. The British weren't sat on Dunkirk in possession with a sturdy defense when the panzers came knocking. It only needed a push for the port and the position would have been very sore for the British and at worse a minor repulse for the Germans if unsuccessful in denying the port.

I've talked at length about this in early threads, but I'll put to you that Hitler did not rebuke Goering for the failure to stop the BEF getting out given his promises and spoke of not wanting to damage British honour which he felt would force the British to fight on to clear in addition to speaking of the need to preserve the British Empire. All just in the early aftermath of Dunkirk.

Hitler put the brakes on and didn't stick the knife in when he had the BEF at his mercy. By the time he took the brakes off enough of our forces had reached the coast to solidify the defense and make it harder going - as to be expected with near on half a million men are closing on the position to get out of flatville Europe.

What is this nonsense, in September 1939 AD Germany was fully intent upon Poland and deployed the vast bulk of her force for a quick resolution. The Anglo-French had far more forces on that front and any transfer east to west would have taken time and disrupted the invasion of Poland. Your claim that anything other than a desultary fondle was made upon the German frontier during that time is false. At best your numerical claim is based on counting German forces deployed in the East, at worst, ignorance.
By early November at the least, the Allies were numerically inferior; but before then, they did have a window of nearly 2 months where the numbers were about 5 French to 1 German on the Western Front. However, the French had not built up the necessary superiority on the actual field; the Saar offensive, beginning 7 September, was conducted initially with 11 French divisions. They soon canceled the offensive and blatantly lied to the Poles about their intentions and accomplishments in the west. That, fair enough, was inexcusable. However, the French were leery about going in with news of each fresh Polish collapse; the World War I mindset kicked in anew when they stumbled into mines in the Warndterwald. Experience in the past war, in nearly this exact location, had shown that whenever the French, spurred on by initial success, continued the offensive, they were caught out of position and decisively routed by the Germans (see the Battle of the Ardennes, August 1914). The practices of the last war had ingrained themselves deeply into the French mindset, after all.

Let's look at the effects of an immediate, full-on French offensive in September, though. The comments of German generals notwithstanding, the French could theoretically put 110 allied divisions into the Saar and the Rheinland in September. Opposition from the German troops over there would be stiff, despite being outnumbered (at this point, about 4 to 1); however, the Franco-British army had serious deficiencies in supply and they were technically (i.e. on the technical level of combat) inferior to the German troops. The individual soldiers wouldn't be particularly happy about leaving their Maginot Line havens, and much of the top brass wasn't comfortable about taking the offensive. OKW would probably panic at least a little bit and order perhaps an entire Army west to help contain the onslaught; that would certainly hurt the war against the Poles, but wouldn't really save them. Soviet involvement in the dismemberment of the Polish nation is doubtful, but could still theoretically occur. Poland will still fall by late September 1939.

However, the Allies may very well be in Frankfurt am Main by that time. Nazi Germany is faced with an uphill campaign to clear them out. Strategically, the Allies had two options with regards to the attack into Germany: they could launch the main blow into the Rheinland and mask the Rhein itself with a few Armies or even the Maginot Line itself, or they could launch their general offensive everywhere, hoping to take advantage of the lack of German preparedness. In the former case, the Germans would be best served by an attack on the Rhein flank, hoping to crack the Maginot Line at some point; as they actually managed to do this is June 1940 (Witzleben's 1st Army broke through near Sarrebourg), they ought to in this TL as well, with a collapse slightly more disastrous than OTL. In the latter case, the Franco-British troops are so spread out that another offensive along the same lines - i.e. through Baden-Württemberg and across the Rhein - will actually have more success, especially since the Maginot Line will not really be manned by the time the German panzer corps of Guderian, Hoth, and Reinhardt enter Strassburg and exploit further. Britain and France are again cut off in the Rheinland, and forced to either surrender or enter internment in Belgium and the Netherlands, both of which remain neutral because Hitler isn't a complete idiot yet. The war ends in early 1940, and Hitler goes back to his old tricks of annexing small countries that can't stand up to him.

As for Aelf I don't see why my quote and Warpus's are put together, your point was separate to mine. You can fully fail to perceive a problem, but that doesn't stop you taking resolute action when the time of crisis arises. What can be said taking both those quotes properly is not only did France and Britain ignore the warning signs and the easy opportunity to crush Hitler with the Rhineland reoccupation, Anchluss or Munich but that no effort was made to take it to Germany in September 1939 AD when the gloves were forced off and from then till the defeat of France - where was the bombing of the Ruhr?

Sure Britain weren't particularly aggressive, but they were junior partners (due to France having on paper the best army in Europe, whilst the British was tiny) and the French had the say in what happened on the continent (given it did concern them more) even down to whether the RAF could bomb Germany. The judgement call was that of the French, not of British Generals.

IIRC, Neville Chamberlain lead the whole appeasement movement. Trying to evade culpability, eh?

"No, no, we were only a tiny nation with no political influence to speak of, especially when compared to the illustrious French! What world-spanning empire and what navy are you talking about? Our empire was populated by natives (not Englishmen, who were all that mattered) and a navy is not armed force. An airforce is even less." :rolleyes:

Has there ever been any discussion here on what might happen if the german offensive through the Ardennes was successfully blocked in 1940?

Ad in newspapers 1940.

For sale. 1 Million ex french army rifles. Only dropped once. Please contact Rommel at.....

IIRC, Neville Chamberlain lead the whole appeasement movement. Trying to evade culpability, eh?


And he was the one that ended that little roadtrip once he discovered through his actions that Hitler didn't live up to treaties made. No other nation stood up to the plate, especially not those Nations right on the border with most to lose.

And he was the one that ended that little roadtrip once he discovered through his actions that Hitler didn't live up to treaties made. No other nation stood up to the plate, especially not those Nations right on the border with most to lose.

AFAIK, they ended that road trip together. There was talk of war right after the invasion of Poland. Little was done, that is true, but the British did as little as the French. They certainly weren't any better.

Has there ever been any discussion here on what might happen if the german offensive through the Ardennes was successfully blocked in 1940?
I don\'t know, but let\'s see: there\'d have to be some wild preconditions for that to occur, for example Huntziger\'s 2nd Army and Conde\'s 3rd Army would need to be moving into the Ardennes in the morning of 10 May just like the Germans were, and there would need to be significantly more troops there. The Germans had the preponderance of mass on their side: Army Group A (G. von Rundstedt) contained five armies (2 (Weichs), 4 (Kluge), 9 (Blaskowitz), 12 (List), and 16 (Busch)), as well as a truly gigantic amount of panzers, organized in three corps, those of Guderian, Reinhardt, and Hoth. Opposing that, the French had in the immediate vicinity part of the 1st Army Group (H. Billotte), the operable parts of which were the 2nd Army (Huntziger) and the 6th Army (Touchon). Part of the 2nd Army Group (Pretelat) was also available in the form of the 3rd Army (Conde). So, first off, the French are outnumbered. Secondly, they have very small reserves: even if they were to halt Heeresgruppe A initially, say in the first few days at Sedan, the French Army would mainly be concentrating on advancing against Heeresgruppe B (F. von Bock) in Belgium and the Netherlands, as was their predetermined plan. A renewed German push would have been able to break through the French army and complete Sicklestroke with either a smaller or larger bag, depending on the French reaction.

However, let us say that both France and Germany decided to make their main push through the Ardennes and to relegate Belgium to a secondary section of the front - highly unlikely given prewar occurrences and psychology (remember, the French tried the offensive in the Ardennes in World War I; didn\'t work out), but altogether possible, especially if Gamelin had been a NESer. Neither side would theoretically have numerical superiority; the Germans would have to rely on their technical superiority and overall better training of both staff and soldiers. Undoubtedly, the German drive with von Kleist\'s panzer group would have been redirected to a more profitable section of front, such as to tear through the Belgians, which would have become the boundary between the French and British armies. The fall of the Netherlands would also be hastened due to the withdrawal of support from the French 7th Army (Giraud, later Frere). In this event, von Kleist would have seen himself transferred to Heeresgruppe B, and von Bock would have had to make the decisive move. The \"bag\" would be more limited, but the British would end up at Dunkirk again, but with less French troops from the 1st Army Group there to guard their retreat and sacrifice themselves, conceivably the British would never have been able to bring off Dynamo, and would see the collapse of their land forces. von Kleist\'s drive would continue to the Channel ports, and the defeatism that was already creeping through the French government would continue; Paris wouldn\'t be left uncovered, as the French would have to withdraw from their Ardennes salient to keep from being pocketed by von Bock\'s sweeping wing on the right. Paris would fall in mid-June, and France would surrender; Hitler, having wiped out the British Army quite effectively, wouldn\'t need to care about air superiority to break into Britain, and the completion of Sealion in August/September would see the end of Britain and the ascendancy of a German puppet fascist state under Oswald Mosley. Victory for the Third Reich, and doom for Europe. Oh joy.

In short, it\'d be quite better for Hitler, barring other unforeseeables.

Damp, Holland falling faster isn't really possible hehe - Holland lasted 5 days, they couldn't have fallen any faster tbh! You'll bomb us? We surrender!

Damp, Holland falling faster isn\'t really possible hehe - Holland lasted 5 days, they couldn\'t have fallen any faster tbh! You\'ll bomb us? We surrender!
One day less, then, if that\'s what makes you happy. I meant not the surrender of the government but the withdrawal of Allied troops from Dutch soil.

By surprise?

If the French leadership had been paying any sort of attention to what was going on in Germany for the past 10 years they would have had plenty of time to prepare. Did they not read Mein Kampf?.. Did they not witness the anschluss?.. or the annexation of the Sudetenland? As well as Hitler's constant talk of lebensraum.. the anti-jewish bs going on in germany..

There were plenty of warning signs.. you'd have to be stupid not to see them.
Yes but he never said "Hey guys, I'm going to invade on September 1st, 1939, just so you know". Of course France regarded Hitler as a threat, they did prepare for the innevitable war, but what were they to do? Have the French army on high alert for 6 years straight? They made preperations, but they were still caught without their reservists called upon, without their forces deployed for an offensive, without organized stocks for an offensive, etc.
Theres a difference between being ready for war and being ready to launch an offensive.

Thoughts I would add my bits to the thread.

My Grandfather served as a artillery servant throughout the "Phony War" and the German offensive in May 40.

They had no Radio (kind of unthinkable for artillery duh?), relying on motorcycle messenger and later on horse.

The French Army was literally a mess with advanced weaponry and also relying on out dated logistics. The French tanks were some of the most modern and finest equipment you could find at the time.

SOMUA S35 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOMUA_S_35)
Char B1 Bis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_B1_bis#Char_B1_bis)
Panhard_178 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panhard_178)

The French cavalry was nothing to be shy of.

French war planes and pilots weren't that bad either. The BF-109e (emil) was of course better in every aspects than the most readily available plane the MS-406 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-406) but it did not stopped the French pilots to shot down more Germans planes (not couting the planes destroyed on the ground wich obviously turn the numbers in favour to the Luftwaffe). The H-75 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_Hawk_75) was also in use, American plane, lacking fire power but a very good plane in its time. The Dewoitine 520 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewoitine_D.520) alas arrived too late but did pretty good and held the first wartime record with its pilot in shooting down 4 enemy fighters in a single mission (against Italians).


You can't blame it on France because of its equipment, it was overall better than their German counterpart. You can however blame it on the High Command. Gamelin particulary and then Weygand.

You can't blame it on France because of its equipment, it was overall better than their German counterpart. You can however blame it on the High Command. Gamelin particulary and then Weygand.

Quite Right. The French were still prepared to fight WWI. The French generals were the same ones (Gamelin particulary and then Weygand) who were major figures in WWI. They had no concept of "modern mechanized warfare".

True, the French tanks were better than the German, but they used them for infantry support in penny packets, not in mass like the German panzer corps were used. And the French command and control system was twenty years out of date. The French linear tactics of WWI could not cope with the Blitzkreig tactics of the Germans.

The Dewoitine 520 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewoitine_D.520) alas arrived too late but did pretty good and held the first wartime record with its pilot in shooting down 4 enemy fighters in a single mission (against Italians).

But the Italian Air Force was held off from Malta by three biplanes. With the best will in the world Faith, Hope, and Charity were a long way from the state of the art and they still knocked the stuffing out of the Italians.

Humm, off to post in the amasing battles thread...

EDIT - Charity, Chastity whatever.

I hope that someone posted somewhere in this thread that the poles themselves put up a pretty good fight. They were by no means the pushovers they are often made out to be.

Another overlooked fact is that the Wehrmacht wasn't as technologically superior to their opponents as they are generally held to be. The idea that the polish campaign was a bunch of panzers aided by stuka's tearing apart a county defended by lancers is a fable.

The polish had the political and military will to fight to the bitter end. The french, it turned out, did not. The germans also were incredibly lucky in hitting upon the right way to crack france open. Their original invasion plans were not the blitzkrieg affair we know at all. That was a change of plan very late in the game, done only because the allies had captured the original plans. The ease of France's fall surprised the germans every bit as much as it surprised everyone else.

So there are many factors involved.

Sorry for the bump, but it seems like a very interesting topic.

France was prepared for the war. Poland wasn't. France had better military. Poland was still fighting on horses. France just dealt with Germany with the help of Britain. Poland faced both Germany and Russia alone. I see no reason how Poland could've lasted longer then France. I guess this is where the french jokes from america come in.

Sorry for the bump, but it seems like a very interesting topic.

France was prepared for the war. Poland wasn't. France had better military. Poland was still fighting on horses. France just dealt with Germany with the help of Britain. Poland faced both Germany and Russia alone. I see no reason how Poland could've lasted longer then France. I guess this is where the french jokes from america come in.

Shall we start to come up with jokes about how Poles can't or don't read?

i read. i didn't read pages 4-7 but i read most of it.

i read. i didn't read pages 4-7 but i read most of it.

Well, then you should have found some good answers to question posed in the OP and not made some ignorant (nationalistic) remark.

I don't have time at the moment to filter through this whole thread -- promise to later -- but here is a short article I wrote a while ago concerning an aspect of this question:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=62527

I'll try to comment more later.

Well, the conclusion was that the Poles in fact did NOT hold out longer than the French, even from every reading of the facts. Some people were taking the title of the thread as truth for quite a few posts, until someone mentioned that the French actually lasted more days from the time the border was crossed, to the time the main fighting army was crush, to the time the capital fell... every metric, the French held out longer.

I don't understand how nations fighting for survival ON THE SAME SIDE are arguing who lost faster. The difference was a matter of weeks at most, and the other side was prepared for a much larger war than everybody suspected. The fact that the nations right next to Germany were knocked out of the war in the first full year of fighting should bring everyone out to a larger picture of that conflict. Both sides had an army, fought pretty valiantly, and were all sunk because the other side struck FAR quicker than anyone dreamed.

Shall we start to come up with jokes about how Poles can't or don't read?
Well I can tell the one about the man selling the television set who knows hes selling it to a pole. :mischief:

I also found it funny that the Pole commented that his compatriots were still fighting on horses. Well, so was most of everyone else, to some extent. Did the Polish charge tanks with their cavalry? No.

I also found it funny that the Pole commented that his compatriots were still fighting on horses. Well, so was most of everyone else, to some extent. Did the Polish charge tanks with their cavalry? No.

Yes they did charge at tanks
I check Wikipedia and there were 16 Calvary charges during the war, and most of them were oddly sucessful

From wiki:
September 1 - Battle of Mokra - 19th Volhynian Uhlans Regiment took by surprise the elements of German 4th Panzer Division, which retreated in panic. During the charge, lances were used.
September 1 - Battle of Janów - 11th Polish Legions' Uhlans Regiment on a recce mission encountered a similar unit of German cavalry. Lieut. Kossakowski ordered a cavalry charge, but the enemy did not accept the battle and after a short clash the Germans withdrew[1] towards their positions.
September 2 - Battle of Borowa Góra - 1st squadron of the 19th Volhynian Uhlans Regiment encountered a squadron of German cavalry in the village of Borowa. A charge was ordered, but the Germans withdrew[1].
September 11 - Osuchowo - 1st squadron of the 20th Uhlans Regiment charging through[1] the lines of German infantry in order to avoid encirclement. Negligible losses on both sides, the Poles broke through.
September 12 - Kałuszyn - 4th squadron of the 11th Polish Legions Uhlans Regiment charged overnight at the German positions in the town of Kaluszyn. Despite the fact that the charge was an effect of a mistake (the Polish infantry commander issued a wrong order which was understood as a charge order while the cavalry was meant to simply move forward), it was a success. With heavy casualties on both sides, the town was retaken[1] in the early morning.
September 13 - Mińsk Mazowiecki - 1st squadron of the 2nd Grochów Uhlans Regiment charged German infantry positions, but was repelled by German MG fire and artillery.
September 13 - Maliszewo - 1st squadron of the 27th Uhlans Regiment was engaged in heavy fighting in the vicinity of the village of Maliszewo. After the Germans were beaten[1] and started to retreat towards the village, the Poles charged, took the village and large number of German prisoners of war.
September 15 - Brochów - elements of the 17th Greater Polish Uhlans Regiment charged towards the German positions to impose fear[1] on the German infantry. However, soon before reaching the range of enemy weapons, the uhlans dismounted and continued their attack as infantry. The assault was successful.
September 16 - Dembowskie - a platoon from the 4th squadron of the 17th Greater Polish Uhlans Regiment charged towards a small German outpost located around a foresters' hut. The small number of Germans withdrew[1].
September 19 - Battle of Wólka Węglowa - Most of the 14th Jazłowiec Uhlans Regiment (without MGs and AT platoon) was ordered to probe the German forces near the town of Wólka Węglowa. After elements of 9th Lesser Polish Uhlans Regiment joined, the group was ordered to charge through the German lines to open the way towards Warsaw and Modlin for the rest of Polish forces withdrawing from the Battle of Bzura. The Poles charged through the German artillery barrage and took the German infantry by surprise[1]. Polish losses were high (205 killed and wounded), the German losses remain unknown, but the Polish unit broke through and was the first to reach Warsaw after the Battle of Bzura.
September 19 - Łomianki - recce squad of 6th Mounted Artillery Detachment charged through the German lines in the town of Lomianki and paved[1] the way for the rest of the unit to Warsaw.
September 21 - Battle of Kamionka Strumiłowa - 3rd squadron of the 1st Mounted Detachment (improvised) charged through German infantry preparing to assault the Polish positions. The preparations were paralysed and the Germans withdrew[1].
September 23 - Krasnobród - 1st squadron of the 25th Greater Polish Uhlans Regiment charged towards the town of Krasnobród. With heavy casualties, the Uhlans reached the hill on top of which the town was located. A unit of German organic cavalry from the German 8th Infantry Division counter-charged from the hill, but was repelled and the Poles captured the town and took the HQ[1] of the division, together with its commander and ca. 100 German soldiers. 40 Polish combatants previously taken prisoner by the Germans were freed.
September 24 - Husynne - reserve squadron of the 14th Jazlowiec Uhlans Regiment (some 500 sabres), reinforced with an improvised cavalry unit of the police and some remnants of divisional organic cavalry, was ordered to break through the Soviet infantry surrounding the Polish positions in the village of Husynne. The charge was lead by the mounted police, and the Soviet forces withdrew in panic[1]. However, soon the attack was stopped by a strong Soviet tank unit. Casualties similar on both sides.
September 26 - Morańce - 27th Uhlans Regiment charged a dug-in German infantry battalion in the village of Morańce twice. Both charges were repelled with heavy casualties (Poles lost 20 KIA and circa 50 WIA, German losses remain unknown). After the second charge the Germans sent an envoy with a white flag and, after a short discussion with the Polish commander of the Nowogródek Cavalry Brigade, the Germans withdrew[1].

Yes they did charge at tanls

First, spell properly. Then, show me where exactly they charged at tanks :rolleyes:

September 1 - Battle of Mokra - 19th Volhynian Uhlans Regiment took by surprise the elements of German 4th Panzer Division, which retreated in panic. During the charge, lances were used. Considered charged at tanks even though it was a sneak attack. Unless somehow my Singapore education can lead me to misinterpret Panzer for Tank. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_4th_Panzer_Division

Hey look! It is a tank division. Well Ill be, the Singapore Education did something right. I am shock and apalled!

Immediately after entering the Polish territory, on September 1, the division was stopped by the Polish Volhynian Cavalry Brigade under Col. Julian Filipowicz and engaged in heavy fighting of the battle of Mokra.

September 1 - Battle of Mokra - 19th Volhynian Uhlans Regiment took by surprise the elements of German 4th Panzer Division, which retreated in panic. During the charge, lances were used. Considered charged at tanks even though it was a sneak attack. Unless somehow my Singapore education can lead me to misinterpret Panzer for Tank. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_4th_Panzer_Division

Hey look! It is a tank division. Well Ill be, the Singapore Education did something right. I am shock and apalled!

You're not off the hook yet :lol:

Take a look at this from the very article you linked to:

The German tanks proved to be inadequately armoured and the Poles inflicted heavy casualties on the German unit and repulsed most of its units, which lost roughly 160 armoured fighting vehicles in the battle (between 70 and 100 of them being tanks), mostly to Polish-made Bofors 37 mm anti-tank artillery and Kb ppanc wz.35 anti-tank rifles.

They did not quite charge at the tanks with their lances, did they?

I remember Steph lamenting recently that you don't read or verify your own sources. Seems like it's definitely true.

First, spell properly. Then, show me where exactly they charged at tanks :rolleyes:

You just told me to show you where the charge horses at tanks not where they won an entire battle only with horses. You say I dont read my own sources, I say you forget what you say.

You just told me to show you where the charge horses at tanks not where they won an entire battle only with horses. You say I dont read my own sources, I say you forget what you say.

They used AT rifles and artillery and that means they did not charge the tanks. Charging tanks with horses armed with lances is a very stupid idea that only retards can think of.

They used AT rifles and artillery and that means they did not charge the tanks. Charging tanks with horses armed with lances is a very stupid idea that only retards can think of.

Then why would hell did Wiki post it under one of the fifteen Polish Calavry charge that took place when Germany invaded Poland?

I checked The Battle of Mokra, and for the fun of it read through it. (something my usless Singapore Education does not teach)

Counter-attack and the "Charge"
The 21st Armoured Battalion under Maj. Stanisław Gliński, equipped mostly with Polish TKS tankettes was ordered to counter-attack the village, along with the cavalry squadron of Captain Jerzy Hollak. In the clouds of smoke of the burning village, the Polish units accidentally drove right in the middle of a German tank column. Although the Polish tankettes were no match for some of the German tanks and the cavalry was very vulnerable to tank fire, the confusion in German ranks prevented the German commander from responding quickly enough. The Polish units managed to break through the German column with negligible losses and seized the forest to the Northwest of Mokra. This manoeuvre is sometimes referred to as a charge of Polish cavalry on German tanks, although no charge was planned nor executed. Nevertheless, the German tanks again lost orientation and the column withdrew from the village, again leaving it in Polish hands. The tanks withdrew to their initial positions in Wilkowiecko, leaving behind the infantry supporting the failed assault. German losses were high and a large number of German troops were taken prisoner.

At the same time, also at 1000, the positions of the 4th Battalion of the 84th Infantry Regiment were attacked by a detachment of German mechanized infantry. After initial clashes the Polish 11th and 12th Companies withdrew deeper into the forest. Colonel Filipowicz ordered the 2nd Mounted Rifles to counter-attack and strengthen the positions between the 21st and 84th regiments. Also the 10th Company managed to charge the enemy and retake the positions lost only a couple of minutes earlier. By 1200 the fighting in the centre and in the south of the Polish positions was over. The fighting in the forest on the northern flank was ended after the 19th Regiment successfully withdrew.


Well, although no charged was planned I am pretty sure they did not trot into the village because they The Polish units managed to break through the German column with negligible losses and seized the forest to the Northwest of Mokra. So, together with Polish infanty, the Polish Calvary charged into a row of Germans and Tanks in an complete suprise attack which was also an accident. So there, they charged into a stupid panzer. You can't say I am still wrong Aelf

Cavalry riding in tankettes, not on horses! Ah, now I get it. It's a nomenclature thing, not a horse thing! Motorized cavalry drove right into the center of a tank column (quite by accident) so they call it a cavalry charge. They used lances, too, hmm? I'd bet they were in the back of the truck, (excuse me, tankette) used for herding the prisoners afterwards.

Misdirection in text is SO easy! How much you wanna bet it was propaganda after the fact? The german propaganda filmmakers probably even staged a reenactment with horses and lances. There was a war on, you know. Gotta write new polish jokes. :groan:

Then why would hell did Wiki post it under one of the fifteen Polish Calavry charge that took place when Germany invaded Poland?

I checked The Battle of Mokra, and for the fun of it read through it. (something my usless Singapore Education does not teach)



Well, although no charged was planned I am pretty sure they did not trot into the village because they The Polish units managed to break through the German column with negligible losses and seized the forest to the Northwest of Mokra. So, together with Polish infanty, the Polish Calvary charged into a row of Germans and Tanks in an complete suprise attack which was also an accident. So there, they charged into a stupid panzer. You can't say I am still wrong Aelf

Cavalry riding in tankettes, not on horses! Ah, now I get it. It's a nomenclature thing, not a horse thing! Motorized cavalry drove right into the center of a tank column (quite by accident) so they call it a cavalry charge. They used lances, too, hmm? I'd bet they were in the back of the truck, (excuse me, tankette) used for herding the prisoners afterwards.

Misdirection in text is SO easy! How much you wanna bet it was propaganda after the fact? The german propaganda filmmakers probably even staged a reenactment with horses and lances. There was a war on, you know. Gotta write new polish jokes. :groan:

Okay reread the paragraph but ignore the words not underline. Also pay special attention to the two words in bold

The 21st Armoured Battalion under Maj. Stanisław Gliński, equipped mostly with Polish TKS tankettes was ordered to counter-attack the village, along with the cavalry squadron of Captain Jerzy Hollak.

Misdirection in text is SO easy!

He you want more proof that they used horses
Go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mokra
Press Ctrl + F
Type Horse

They used AT rifles and artillery and that means they did not charge the tanks. Charging tanks with horses armed with lances is a very stupid idea that only retards can think of.

Hey! i learned something new today!

No seriously. Poland didn't have much weapons modern weapons to use like france did. So even myself thought that they actually did charge with Horses.



Edit: I wondered if i can find my great-grandfather's name in there. He led a Calvary Division against the Germans.

. You can't say I am still wrong Aelf
Oh yes he can, from your own quote and own bolding

no charge was planned nor executed
What part do you not understand in this sentence?

Oh yes he can, from your own quote and own bolding


What part do you not understand in this sentence?

From my first post, I qouted from Wikipedia 15 calvary charges into German troops. Why did it include the one where it said the 14th Ulhan Division ran into 4th Panzer division.

Why, if you were to read the post I qoute from the Battle of Mokra. Even though it said no charge was excueted, it said that the infantrymen and calvary launched a counter-attack, got confused and rammed into German tanks. What did they do if they did not charge? Nicely trot there for Germans to kill? No they charged straight into the middle column of the German tanks and disoriented the German Tanks who panicked and withdraw.

How can you still not agree that Polish horses charged straight into panzers?

I have proof that German tanks took a Polish village
I have proof that Polish Calvary did go into the village and take it back.
If you were to launched an attack with calvary how would you do it?
Walk in? or charge?

What "proof" do you have exactly? I have seen no proof that the Poles charged tanks.
They charged infantry, or cavalry, not tanks.

Your "proof" of the battle of Mokra clearly said the tanks where destroyed by
mostly to Polish-made Bofors 37 mm anti-tank artillery and Kb ppanc wz.35 anti-tank rifles.

Find me somewhere it says the Polish cavalry charged on horse with lance against tank.

Hey! i learned something new today!

That's good. Don't worry, I like Poles much better than I like Singaporeans already ;)

The poles did not charge tanks with Horses. They used Calvery for transportation. If i remember correctly, My great-grandfather just rode the horses near the battle, got of the horses and started shooting the germans.

I have proof that German tanks took a Polish village
I have proof that Polish Calvary did go into the village and take it back.
If you were to launched an attack with calvary how would you do it?
Walk in? or charge?
You sir, fail calvary tactics of the WWII era. You dismount and attack on foot.

I suppose you think Malaysia fell to Bicycle charges as well?

I have proof that German tanks took a Polish village
I have proof that Polish Calvary did go into the village and take it back.
If you were to launched an attack with calvary how would you do it?
Walk in? or charge?
BTW, your argument has very little logical value.

By the same logic:
I know a castle was taken by knights during the Middle Ages.
I know knights were mounted on war horses.
Therefore, I have proof knights charged up the ladders to storm the walls, riding their war horses.

What "proof" do you have exactly? I have seen no proof that the Poles charged tanks.
They charged infantry, or cavalry, not tanks.


Your "proof" of the battle of Mokra clearly said the tanks where destroyed by
mostly to Polish-made Bofors 37 mm anti-tank artillery and Kb ppanc wz.35 anti-tank rifles.

Find me somewhere it says the Polish cavalry charged on horse with lance against tank.
I believe you were trying to say "They charged infantry, or tanks, not horses"

I am once, again going to show you the two lines, which has said they charged calvary into tanks in my previous posts which you somehow overlooked.

One, from Wiki's Battle of Mokra page
The 21st Armoured Battalion under Maj. Stanisław Gliński, equipped mostly with Polish TKS tankettes was ordered to counter-attack the village, along with the cavalry squadron of Captain Jerzy Hollak. In the clouds of smoke of the burning village, the Polish units accidentally drove right in the middle of a German tank column.

Two, from Wiki's Polish Calvary page
...there were 16 confirmed cavalry charges during the 1939 war. Contrary to common belief, most of them were successful... ...Other cavalry charges of 1939 were as follows:

September 1 - Battle of Mokra - 19th Volhynian Uhlans Regiment took by surprise the elements of German 4th Panzer Division, which retreated in panic[2][4]. During the charge, lances were used.


They are the same scenario.

Your "proof" of the battle of Mokra clearly said the tanks where destroyed by mostly to Polish-made Bofors 37 mm anti-tank artillery and Kb ppanc wz.35 anti-tank rifles.

Wrong again Steph. They were equipped with tankettes which were, according to Wiki, no match for some of the German tanks. Also instead of destroying the tanks, they caused them to withdraw. My proof is here:

The 21st Armoured Battalion under Maj. Stanisław Gliński, equipped mostly with Polish TKS tankettes was ordered to counter-attack the village... ... though the Polish tankettes were no match for some of the German tanks... ... Nevertheless, the German tanks again lost orientation and the column withdrew from the village

It was later to lose some 160 tanks from the units you said later. Which you took from 4th Panzer Division page then my actual proof!

Now my second qoute has stated the lines "16 confirmed cavalry charges" meaning there were people on horses that ran into something. It then tells you one of the examples of the 16 charges. It states that a calvary division surprise a German Panzer Division. Since it was under confirmed cavalry charges. Well Ill be, it charge into a tanks

One, from Wiki's Battle of Mokra page


Two, from Wiki's Polish Calvary page
All you have shown is why Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable & contradictory source.

You sir, fail calvary tactics of the WWII era. You dismount and attack on foot.

I suppose you think Malaysia fell to Bicycle charges as well?

Yes most cavalry units dismount on foot to fight but they did charge without dismount at enemy ranks

From Wiki's Polish Cavalry page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry

September 15 - Brochów - elements of the 17th Greater Polish Uhlans Regiment charged towards the German positions to impose fear[1] on the German infantry. However, soon before reaching the range of enemy weapons, the uhlans dismounted and continued their attack as infantry. The assault was successful.

This was under the cavalry charges, it was the only one that said they dismounted. Meaning the other charges never stop running at enemy, mostly infantry.

I believe you were trying to say "They charged infantry, or tanks, not horses"

No, contrary to you, I do not "try to say", I say. The problem is you don't try to read what I say. Or perhaps reading teaching is on par with history in Singapore education system?


I am once, again going to show you the two lines, which has said they charged calvary into tanks in my previous posts which you somehow overlooked.

You can quote them as many time you want, but you know, I read them the first time. Perhaps after a dozen times you'll start to do the same?


Wrong again Steph. They were equipped with tankettes which were, according to Wiki, no match for some of the German tanks. Also instead of destroying the tanks, they caused them to withdraw.

You are mixing two quotes here.


Now my second qoute has stated the lines "16 confirmed cavalry charges" meaning there were people on horses that ran into something. It then tells you one of the examples of the 16 charges. It states that a calvary division surprise a German Panzer Division. Since it was under confirmed cavalry charges. Well Ill be, it charge into a tanks
No. You don't read your own sources. If you read the details, you'll find there was no charge on horse against tank. If was either charge on horse against German cavalry of infantry support. Or cavalry unit equipped with tankettes, or anti tank rifles, or Bofors 37mm gun against German tanks.

I'll tell you a secret:


It's not because a unit is called "cavalry" it always fight on horse with lances. And it's not because a unit is called "panzerdivision" it has ONLY tanks in it. It also has infantry support.



This was under the cavalry charges, it was the only one that said they dismounted. Meaning the other charges never stop running at enemy, mostly infantry.
One again you fail to grasp the basis of logic.

Here is what you say:
- There is a list of 15 charges.
- For one charge, they said they dismounted.
- Therefore, in the 14 other charges they did not dismount.

I'll give a simple analogy so you can see the problem in your logic.
- I have a list from 15 inhabitants of Singapore, including Arronax.
- The entry for one guys (not Arronax) says: Limited historical knowledge, doesn't read his own links, poor debating skills. He's the only one with this entry.

As he's the only one with such entry, the others do not have it. So can you conclude that the others have opposite characteristics, and therefore Arronax is an history buffs, always read carefully the links he provides and is a good debater?

No. You don't read your own sources. If you read the details, you'll find there was no charge on horse against tank. If was either charge on horse against German cavalry of infantry support. Or cavalry unit equipped with tankettes, or anti tank rifles, or Bofors 37mm gun against German tanks.

No there were two Polish division in that attack, the The 21st Armoured Battalion equipped with Polish TKS tankettes along with the 19th Volhynian Uhlans Regiment that used horses, also I bolded that one bit a damn dozen times it clearly said "right in the middle of a German tank column". There was also no infantry in the taking of the village the assualt was with only the 4th panzer division.

[edit] Assault
At 1000 the Germans started an assault of the northern flank, but were repelled from most positions with significant losses on both sides. 15 minutes afterwards the German 4th Panzer Division repeated the attack, this time with artillery support and air cover. The assault was planned in three directions:

1. Towards the positions of the 19th Regiment and to the north, in order to outflank the brigade
2. Towards the village of Mokra itself, with approximately 100 tanks and AFVs
3. Towards the weakened 4th Battalion of the 84th Infantry Regiment
The northern assault was carried out quickly. Under the cover of heavy fire, the German tanks managed to break into the forest and secured a road leading across the railway line to the village of Izbiska Duże, to the north of the Polish headquarters. At 1030 the Polish 4th squadron of the 19th Regiment was attacked from behind and pushed out of the forest. This threatened the Poles with separation of 19th and 21st Regiments. Colonel Filipowicz ordered the 19th Regiment to withdraw to the other side of the railway, but the way was already occupied by German tanks and the unit was effectively surrounded. However, the Polish defence was reinforced by the arrival of the Armoured train No. 53, which arrived to the battlefield in the very moment the German tanks were crossing the railway line. It stopped in the middle of the German column and opened fire from all guns. The German column was dispersed and retreated with heavy losses, while the 19th Regiment crossed the rail road under cover of the armoured train. Although it suffered heavy losses, it managed to regroup on the other side.

Simultaneously, an attack on the main positions of the 21st Regiment near the village of Mokra was started. German tanks managed to outflank the 4th squadron of the Regiment from the north, at the same time attacking it frontally. In the result, the Polish defenders were pushed out of the forest and heavy fights for the village itself started. The Germans lost four tanks to the Polish 2nd Artillery Battalion firing from across the rail road, but the 4th battalion was in retreat, fighting for almost every house in the village and suffering heavy losses. Again the day was saved by Armoured train No. 53. It arrived to the area just on time and opened fire from the distance of almost 2.5 km, which was beyond the effective range of German tank guns of the time. Also, the 12th Uhlans Regiment was moved to the area to reinforce the 21st.

There isnt a single mention of infantry.

Tell you what Steph, why dont you tell me what happened at the Battle of Mokraw and support it with proof, then I will either agree with your points or type to you what I think happen with proof.

I bolded that one bit a damn dozen times it clearly said "right in the middle of a German tank column".
Last attempt, if you can't understand it your are hopeless. From your very link where you bolded a dozen times your now infamous "German tank column"

"the Polish units accidentally drove right in the middle of a German tank column. Although the Polish tankettes were no match for some of the German tanks and the cavalry was very vulnerable to tank fire, the confusion in German ranks prevented the German commander from responding quickly enough. "

You see? They are speaking of tankettes that are driven, not horses that are ridden.

In case you don't know the difference, here is a Polish Tankette
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/TK-3.jpg/180px-TK-3.jpg

And here is a horse.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Mangalarga_Marchador.jpg/250px-

A bit later:

"This manoeuvre is sometimes referred to as a charge of Polish cavalry on German tanks, although no charge was planned nor executed"
I've put the sentence in red, as it seems you missed it when I simply increased the size?


There was also no infantry in the taking of the village the assualt was with only the 4th panzer division.
I fail to see any reference to a cavalry charge either in your quote. What do you try to prove exactly? That Germany used tank in Poland? Weren't you trying to prove Polish cavalry charged German tanks initially?

Beside, when you say it was done "only with the 4th panzer division"
http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/011_germany/39_organ_army/39_pz-04.html

The division in 1939 included one "Schützen-Brigade", which are motorized infantry.


Tell you what Steph, why dont you tell me what happened at the Battle of Mokraw and support it with proof, then I will either agree with your points or type to you what I think happen with proof.
I have nothing more to say than what is described in the link your provided. The big difference between you and me is I did read them.

Last attempt, if you can't understand it your are hopeless. From your very link where you bolded a dozen times your now infamous "German tank column"

"the Polish units accidentally drove right in the middle of a German tank column. Although the Polish tankettes were no match for some of the German tanks and the cavalry was very vulnerable to tank fire, the confusion in German ranks prevented the German commander from responding quickly enough. "

You see? They are speaking of tankettes that are driven, not horses that are ridden.

In case you don't know the difference, here is a Polish Tankette
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/TK-3.jpg/180px-TK-3.jpg

And here is a horse.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Mangalarga_Marchador.jpg/250px-

A bit later:

"This manoeuvre is sometimes referred to as a charge of Polish cavalry on German tanks, although no charge was planned nor executed"
I've put the sentence in red, as it seems you missed it when I simply increased the size?


I fail to see any reference to a cavalry charge either in your quote. What do you try to prove exactly? That Germany used tank in Poland? Weren't you trying to prove Polish cavalry charged German tanks initially?

Beside, when you say it was done "only with the 4th panzer division"
http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/011_germany/39_organ_army/39_pz-04.html

The division in 1939 included one "Schützen-Brigade", which are motorized infantry.


I have nothing more to say than what is described in the link your provided. The big difference between you and me is I did read them.

Are you telling me that after the 4th Panzer Division took the village of Makrow, the Poles counter-attacked with the 21st Armoured Battalion and the 19th Ulhan Cavalry Vohliyson Regimeny both equipped with tankettes that broke German lines and successfully drive back the 4th Panzer Division out of the village of Mokraw.

I need to confirmed you are telling me this. A simple yes or no would do

I cannot answer with a simple yes or no, as there is a ten char limits.

However, the answer is no.

But it is not the point anyway.

Whats the point?

That Horse-Mounted lance wielding Polish cavalry did not charge German tanks.

Well I dont think they were weilding lances. Most likely guns, wielding lances is a stupid German propaganda

Wrong Again. Winged Hussars never carried guns, Hussars may have, but i don't recall on it. But i don't think Poland was using Hussars even in WW1.

Maybe another form of Calvary was, but i don't know.

Wrong Again. Winged Hussars never carried guns, Hussars may have, but i don't recall on it. But i don't think Poland was using Hussars even in WW1.

Maybe another form of Calvary was, but i don't know.

No they used the Volhynian Uhlans, equipped with 75mm guns, tankettes, 37mm AT guns, 40mm AA guns, anti-tank rifles and other pieces of modern weaponry.

Hussar are a common horse unit used between the 16th century from central Europe to the rest of Europe and to its final decline in WW1 I think.

This has sort of went OT

My Grandfather served as a artillery servant throughout the "Phony War" and the German offensive in May 40.

They had no Radio (kind of unthinkable for artillery duh?), relying on motorcycle messenger and later on horse.


I remember Len Deighton's book on the invasion on France. He said Gamelin didn't want a radio in his HQ, for fear of being detected and bombed. When asked how long it took him to send an order to the front, he replied "three days".

(Note: I'm going from memory here).

Well, that's paranoia for you. :p

Wow three months later you guys are still going at it.

There still exist people who think that polish cavalry charged german tanks? :crazyeye:

*sigh* yes
And some even think the guy with the spear can indeed destroy a tank

:spear:

I actually read in a history book the poles had lancemen charge the german tanks and that they were crushed. This is false?

I actually read in a history book the poles had lancemen charge the german tanks and that they were crushed. This is false?

Actually, the Polish army singlehandedly won WW2 on unicorns.

everything is either:

A. Propaganda by the Germans
B. Jokes made in US.

They used AT rifles and artillery and that means they did not charge the tanks. Charging tanks with horses armed with lances is a very stupid idea that only retards can think of.

Then it makes sense that the Poles would do it doesn't it?







Heheh.....

Then it makes sense that the Poles would do it doesn't it?







Heheh.....

Oh your so dead...

also you shouldn't be laughing. Apearentally 49 % of people in America aged 18-24 think that India is the worlds biggest Muslim Population.

And 1/3 of our children can't place their finger on Louisiana on a US map. And check Chaser's War on Everything for the 'Americans are Stupid' clip/episode. ;)

Well, I think it was just timing that the poles lasted longer...The French weren't in a good state to fight at the precise moment hitler invaded. Pretty much it. The poles, I didn't even know the Nazis encountered any resistence during invasion...

Well, I think it was just timing that the poles lasted longer...The French weren't in a good state to fight at the precise moment hitler invaded. Pretty much it. The poles, I didn't even know the Nazis encountered any resistence during invasion...

There was more resistance in Poland than there was in France, that's for sure..

And you'll have to remember that Poland was attacked from not only the West, North, and South, but also the East...

Has anyone pointed out that Poland didn't last longer than France?

Actually, yes it did. Poland lasted for a month, France only two weeks. :)

and in entire history, from the first slavs who inhabited the Vistula river, to now are all poles. (how much are we talking here? 2000 years ago? ) so in both ways France lasted longer.

besides @ Dutch King. We were alot weaker then the french. they had equipment etc. We didn't. And we were just a state for 20 years before WW2 started.

From the wiki entry on World War II:

On May 10, 1940, the Germans invaded France and the Low Countries. The British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and the French Army advanced into Flanders and planned to fight a mobile war in the north, while maintaining a static continuous front along the Maginot Line further south. This was foiled by an unexpected German thrust through the Ardennes, splitting the Allies in two. The BEF and French forces, encircled in the north, were evacuated from Dunkirk in Operation Dynamo. France, overwhelmed by the blitzkrieg, was soon forced to sign an armistice with Germany on June 22, 1940, leading to the direct German occupation of Paris and two-thirds of France, and the establishment of a German puppet state headquartered in southeastern France known as Vichy France.

Fun fact: The Polish surrendered at the Battle of Kock.

Actually, yes it did. Poland lasted for a month, France only two weeks. :)

No, the Battle for France lasted around two months, a month longer than the Polish Campaign.

You know how France and Poland agreed to provide assistance to each other n case that one of them was attacked?

Well, when Operation Overlord (liberation of northwest Europe) took place, a considerable amount of Polish forces contributed to the invasion. So the Polish lived up to their end of the bargain.

How about the French? :D

You know how France and Poland agreed to provide assistance to each other n case that one of them was attacked?

Well, when Operation Overlord (liberation of northwest Europe) took place, a considerable amount of Polish forces contributed to the invasion. So the Polish lived up to their end of the bargain.

How about the French? :D
A French squadron was flying for the Soviet Airforce, so I suppose you could include them in the Soviet "liberation" of Poland.

Or we could just conclude Poland got screwed in every way imgainable in WWII.

Yeah, the Polish provided armor support, and helped close the Falaise Gap by taking and defending Hill 262 with some Canadian help (Although they came late in the battle)

And France did help liberate their own country. :mischief:

The only thing I don't understand is why Poland and not France first? ;)

Yeah, the Polish provided armor support, and helped close the Falaise Gap by taking and defending Hill 262 with some Canadian help (Although they came late in the battle)

And France did help liberate their own country. :mischief:

The only thing I don't understand is why Poland and not France first? ;)
Hitler didn't expect France and England to react. So he had his force overwelmingly arrayed to the east.

Oh your so dead...

also you shouldn't be laughing. Apearentally 49 % of people in America aged 18-24 think that India is the worlds biggest Muslim Population.

You must be kidding.:lol: India has the 2nd largest Muslim population in the world. What you probably meant was that Americans think that the majority of people in India are Muslims.;)

Remember there are over 1 billion people in india. Given a small % are Muslims still makes out to be a huge number.:mischief:

Oh your so dead...

also you shouldn't be laughing. Apearentally 49 % of people in America aged 18-24 think that India is the worlds biggest Muslim Population.

Hey man we could take survey's in your country. But 49% of the people don't have phones.

Has anyone pointed out that Poland didn't last longer than France?

Phony war doesn't count.