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had the "Phony War" to finish building the Panzer IV, which they hardly had any of for Fall WeiB, they mostly used the outdated Panzer II and III.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France was politcally unstable and was relying on outdated weaponry.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