Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
While I agree the whole decision was made under coercion, I'm not entirely sure it was a coup.
Please don't feel my post as chauvinistic as that debacle from 1940 and its consequences with Petain is probably the most shameful episode in French History, but I just remember everyone that France wasn't alone in that debacle, the Brits lost as much then as they won during world war 1. It's only thanks to the channel that they survived.
Now of course this being said, even during the debacle, De Gaulle was already pressuring the government to continue the fight from Algiers, a decision which was refused because it was considered as abandoning the people from Metropolitan France (but which would have been the right choice). Churchill did continue the struggle. The French did not... they were invaded that's right, but still. They could have and that's not what they decided.
From that point, we can still wonder "why" the Generals ignored what Colonel De Gaulle was telling them.
De Gaulle actually talks about it deeply in his memories, and from what I read, there was even within the French and British army a strong reluctance to start a new war all over again. That doesn't mean both countries ignored neither the risk to get attacked nor the danger of new warfare, simply that they were thinking defensively, not offensively.
And despite that violent revolution and civil war, the Germans didn't take their advantage to go get Moscow. The Germans were probably as much releaved to get rid of their Eastern front than were the Soviets, it's true they were quite busy on the Western front, so that doesn't really prove anything.Yes, after a violent revolution plus a civil war happening at home.
Had Moscow not been accidentally burnt, Napoleon would have wintered there, and Alexander I would have made a humiliating peace after the winter. The scorched earth policy was designed to keep Napoleon from Moscow, not, as is often thought, to starve his army. That policy failed at Borodino.
This assumes that Germany possessed the capacity to seize Suez. They didn't.
Additionally, despite the myth of German "wonder weapons," most of the German equipment produced during the war was qualitatively inferior to that of their enemies. Even the Soviets produced better tanks than the Germans, and the British produced better ships and planes, in addition to making more of them.
In short, Germany was making less planes and ships than the UK, the planes and ships they were making weren't as good as those made by the UK, and while the German army was larger and better, it didn't possess the transports to actually get it to the UK, or even across the Mediterranean to cut off Britain from its Empire.
It seems you have very little idea how capturing and pillaging of city looked like.Lol you just crack me up.
So after a painful journey to finally reach Moscow, the lousy French soldiers would accidentely set fire to the city, destroying everything that could make them survive!!! Do you seriously learn that joke at school?
I had no intention of ever posting here again, but what the hell:I doubt Moscow had enough food to supply Napoleon's Army for a spring campaign, even if the french successfully pillaged the whole city. The scorched earth policy would still force him to withdraw, especially as the russians still kept a large army after Borodino and could easily prevent the french from either foraging or keeping supply lines from Poland.
They didn't possess the capacity to seize France either. The french army had better equipment, larger numbers, the advantage of defending a well fortified front, a powerful ally with its own expeditionary force deployed there, control of the seas... oh, wait, they were defeated! Turns out that the impossible sometimes does happen, and then it becomes "obvious" that it could happen.
That was uneven during the war, you shouldn't make such broad comparisons. The germans also took much longer to turn their industry fully towards war, it might have happened sooner.
I guess the Africa Corps just materialized across the Mediterranean?
I don't take issue with your general arguments but, really, do try to avoid such broad statements. WW2's evolution was not so deterministic as you paint it.
Lol you just crack me up.
So after a painful journey to finally reach Moscow, the lousy French soldiers would accidentely set fire to the city, destroying everything that could make them survive!!! Do you seriously learn that joke at school?
It's happened literally hundreds of times in history. The German army on the Western Front in WWI may well have failed to capture Paris in 1917 because the soldiers 'liberated' a store of Scotch Whiskey from a BEF supply depot, and refused their officers blandishments to move until they were well and truly hammered. Which made them less than effective when confronted by the French counterattack.It happened in Persepolis.
I can't say I learned either version in school. The minutiae of your continental wars are less important than the big picture events. While Napoleon is undoubtedly interesting, it's the Congress of Vienna that gets greater attention.
Then please provide some English-language sources, as I have literally never read anything that proves, one way or the other, who started those fires.The plan of Napoleon's great army was to winter in Moscow. The Russians knew it, everybody knew it. The city had already been evacuated by Count Rostopchin who took out all the food supplies before the French arrived.
But the city hasn't been burnt then. It's been burnt 3 days after the arrival of the French, with multiple fires being simultaneously set in different districts of the city. The city has been burnt at 75%, it wasn't just a small accidental fire. All witnesses say it wasn't by accident anyway so I'm even surprized this could emerge as a topic. Rostopchin's plan was to prevent Napoleon's troops to be able to winter in the city. And the plan turned successful because of the fire, forcing the French retreat to happen in the winter. This is all well-documented.
The plan of Napoleon's great army was to winter in Moscow. The Russians knew it, everybody knew it. The city had already been evacuated by Count Rostopchin who took out all the food supplies before the French arrived.
But the city hasn't been burnt then. It's been burnt 3 days after the arrival of the French, with multiple fires being simultaneously set in different districts of the city. The city has been burnt at 75%, it wasn't just a small accidental fire. All witnesses say it wasn't by accident anyway so I'm even surprized this could emerge as a topic. Rostopchin's plan was to prevent Napoleon's troops to be able to winter in the city. And the plan turned successful because of the fire, forcing the French retreat to happen in the winter. This is all well-documented.