French Performance in WWII.

Toasty

Old Guard
Joined
Nov 30, 2001
Messages
3,877
Location
Tampa, FL
I'm actually not here to bash it. I'm here to defend it.

Has anyone here ever read "Stange Victory" by Ernest May? It provides an excellent diagnostic of Hitler's victory over France, suggesting that France's moves were actually completely logical and that while the French command did make some devastating errors no branch of it or the military was performing absolutely horribly as so many of us like to think. This has also been connected with my knowledge from William Lawrence Shirer's "The Collapse of the Third Republic : An Inquiry into the Fall of France in 1940" and Piers Brendon's "The Dark Valley : A Panorama of the 1930s". With these three major sources, plus what I have picked up, the French military in WWII would have done very well had it been correct in its expectations of the German attack.

The French spill of blood in WWI had maintained a large psychological effect on the political figures of France in the 1930s. The administrations of Leon Blum, which chose for it's non-involvement in the Spanish Civil War, and Edouard Daladier for it's acceptance of the "appeasement" blueprint as provided by Neville Chamberlain. However, a great deal of the French population came to resent more and more the policy of appeasement, starting with the Rhineland remilitarization in 1936. ""It is your last chance. If you do not stop Germany now, all is over," words spoken by the Foreign Minister Pierre-Etienne Flandin represented for a larger part the feelings of France.

Despite this, the praised celebration of Munich, Daladier was reported to step off his plane to a crowd of largely mid-40s gentlemen while muttering under his breath "the dicks."

Ernest May takes a great deal of notice to the valiantry, despite the overwhelming circumstances, of the French fighting forces. Beginning in mid-May the soldiers were forced to fight by day while still retreating by night, but were still sooner to give there lives than surrender; a nearly equal number of French soldiers were killed May-June 1940 than to the whole of U.S. casualties in the Korean War.

General Gamelin, whom had worked with General Joffre and had mentored in his ways, had estimated that French conscription and training would not be fully complete until as late as 1942. Whether this is a correct assessment or not we can't say today, but as the chief of staff of national defense he controlled the French armies along the German-Belgian frontier. He also assessed that the Germans would not attack out of fear of the French armed forces. The German operation, codenamed Plan Yellow to May's sources, was actually drawn out by him on a napkin at a state dinner--Gamelin, however, scrapped the idea for his block in Belgium after the Polish invasion.

As the "phony war" ended and the real war broke out on May 10, 1940, Gamelin appeared to be correct as German forces sped across the borders of Belgium and France under the pretense of protecting them from allied agression. Gamelin then, accordingly, ordered the advance of the mass, and best of, French and British forces into Belgium.

The Maginot Line was here used not, in fact, to keep the Germans out but to shorten the border in which the fighting could take place. The French knew that the Maginot line would not alone keep back the Germans and simply planned to fight in Belgium; a total of 72 divisions stood on the Franco-Belgian border in 1940 while 15 remained in the Maginot line.

The strategy, which has often been termed as a "gate," required that there be a hinge for the gate, that being the Ardennes forest. The Ardennes, overgrown with plant life and with few, thin bridges was thought to be impassable by modern tanks and infantry-carrying armoured vehicles. The French, however, never actually tested it.

On the 17th, German forces sped through the Ardennes. Caught completely offguard, with Panzer columns heading to the rear, the bulk of the French and British armies are trapped in Flandres and are evacuated at Dunkirk--a loss of 300,000 troops, minus the two-fifths of the French army that has been destroyed. French military capacity has been estimated to be at 40% at the end of may; 10% after the fall of Paris.

Now you know a little more about why the French did what they did and how the war went about. Were they really that useless, or did they make a logical decision to an illogical answer?
 
Regardless, they still lost, despite having superior and more tanks and a large (although quality-wise lesser) air force. The French were simply out-strategized and unprepared for the new form of warfare.

Hello, Toasty. :) Long time no see.
 
You refer to the need for a "gate", ie the Ardenne, and that this area's capacity to act in this way was not tested properly. This must demonstrate a severe lack of adequate planning and initiative by the high-command.

Think of how little would have been need to make it ACTUALLY impassible. A few observer units and some engineers/demolition squads posted on those bridges and some lightweight fortifications, obstacles etc on the roadways with a couple of decent units to hold them (a fraction of the total forces available).

Anyone failing to make sure that the element of their startegy on which it all hangs was truly going to work in that way is a fool. I know this doesn't reflect on the fighting capacity of the typical French soldier, but it puts your assessment of the High Command as a fairly sound body back a bit.
 
I think the key lesson that should be learned from Military history is that "impassable" terrain, isn't. History is filled with examples like this.
 
Rodgers --
Aye, that is true. However, I think we can fairly say that most nations so underdogged as the French were (despite their expectations, the high command did realize that there was a deficiency, or at least Gamelin) would not want to spend time worrying about something that was practically assured as "impassable." Given the situation, most other armies in Europe at that time wouldn't have inspected or reinforced it, either.
The Ardennes was too thickly forested for French tanks, they were sure--why wouldn't it be for Germans? It's easy to make hindsight, but just as Hitler did in Germany, it made sense.
 
Yeah, it is a bit too easy I suppose. I like the rest of your thread though - the French DO get a bit of a rough ride for their performance (as if us Brits managed any better - and we only had a short front to hold:confused: ). I guess fighting hard is just not enough to get by.

I read that the whole French strategy was flawed due to the fact that the ideal defensive line, on the North Sea to Ardenne stretch, that it was propsed the BEF and French forces would hold, was located largely in Belgium itself and therefore could not be occupied until Germany had invaded and Belgian neutrality revoked or they called for help. Until then, both forces were to sit and wait for something to happen.

If true, that doesn't seem so bright from purely strategic point of view, but I'm sure they all fought like lions when they got there.
 
I have a sincere question here. Why didn't the French just extend the Maginot line all the way across the Belgian border with France as well? From what I understand the French DID want to build it up between the Belgian and German borders, but were refused permission by the Belgians....they could have just as easily totally encompassed their own border. Btw, my signature is just a fluke, I really did already have it before this thread was started.
 
It's okay Johnny--I had a laugh at that joke myself.

France didn't complete the Maginot line to the Channel for several reasons, mostly diplomatic and economic. Since you know the Belgian refusal to extend the line into Belgium, I'll just say this about it: if the French were to extend it into Belgium, most of (if not all) of the fighting would take place there. Ironically, it did anyways, but the Belgians didn't have Maginot there to help them out.

France was hit later in the Great Depression than most nations, and got licked by it real good. France, which had a largely internally-based economy, was not hit so hard by import price rise. Often called the "happy little isle" before the mid-30s, France did sustain rather well, despite inflation of the Franc. Of course, this meant that France had a much shorter recovery time than most nations after the depression, especially when compared to Hitler's Germany. For the extension of the Maginot line to the channel, nearly twice as long as the forts in Alsasce-Lorraine, the French coffers were empty.

Also, there was a great deal of what to do about Belgium. With the Maginot line set up firmly across Alsasce-Lorraine, the Germans would almost undoubtedly have to violate Belgian neutrality in order to seriously attack French soil. If the line was completed across Belgium, it would put Belgium on the sacrificial altar of Nazism, along with Austria and Czechoslovakia. If the Belgians were isolated, they might not even put up a fight and let the Germans come right on through, let alone make any coordinate planning in case the Germans did try and make a move.

Rodgers,

Yes, that was a major flaw. Despite several attempts by both Daladier and Chamberlain, King Leopold refused to make any coordinated planning (still hoping to cling to neutrality and have the storm pass right by). However, had the Germans invaded as it was supposed, it would have made a bigger impact than it did in the war. The Germans came through Luxembourg and South-Western Belgium, and the brunt of the allied forces never even faced them head-on.

Another couple of things that May seemed to hit on in his book was the large lack of British support, and the failure of both armies to react quickly. In 1939, the most the BEF could offer the French was FIVE unmotorized divisions and one-hundred planes. Also, when the Germans broke through the Ardennes on the 17th, Gamelin didn't move and continued to fight in Belgium for two more days. This cost the French a huge amount of reactionary time, and on the 19th, Gamerlin was sacked.
 
Ah well, that answers that then. Thanks :). Basically it looks like then, a great deal of blame (not really the right word, but oh well) would lie at the feet of the Belgians. But then again, who really anticipated the rapid rise of Hitler?
 
Why blame the Belgians? We're only a small country. We didn't mean anything in the international theatre.
Our king just tried to guarantee neutrality in the hope that Hitler wouldn't invade our country.
Also, I think we hold the German army up for 18 days, so that some allied troops could escape via Dunkirk.
 
Blame is indeed a very poorly chosen word and I apologize for using it.

I guess it would be better to say that, in 20-20 hindsight, I really wish the Belgians had allowed the Maginot Line to have extended across their border :)
 
I think that a lot of excuses hsave been made here.

The Brits and French defeated the Germans in WW 1.
The Brits and French became complacent and stopped
thinking while the Germans thought hard and re-organised.

When WW2 started the Germans were better trained
(at all levels from private to chief of staff); they had qualitatively better equipment (reliable fast panzers were better than
slow heavily armoured british and french tanks).

When the Germans invaded Poland, the British and French
did nothing on the Western front. They should have attacked Germany but were pyschologically locked in defensive mode.

The demonstration of German skills with combined arms:
mobile divisions incorporating armour, mobile infantry
and mobile armour supported by air support; i.e. the
blitzkrieg in Poland was completely ignored.

Numerous mistakes were made.

(1) The Ardennes could have been defended with
chain saws; simply cutting down large trees
would have slowed the Germans by a day or two.

(2) Attempts to maintain an obsolete WW1 style line
were made.

(3) There was no proper mobile allied strategic reserve.

There is much discussion about the Maginot Line.

If it had been extended along the Belgium/French
or the Belgium/German border, would in my opinion
have made no long term difference at all.

The Germans were qualatively far superior and would
have broken through anone way or another.
 
Edward, your statements tell me that you only skimmed over my post. Please, read it before you comment.
 
Originally posted by Toasty
In 1939, the most the BEF could offer the French was FIVE unmotorized divisions and one-hundred planes.

The British divisions were actually much more heavily motorised the equivelent German formations (the Germans were reliant of horse transport throughout the war!).
 
I actually posted this in another thread some time ago, but it fits here:

"The German plan drawn up by Manstein called for Army group B to attack Holland and Belgium, with the hope the allies would commit their mobile forces in this area to assist Belgium, and for Army group A to move through the Ardennes forrest to a point roughly from Sedan to Dinant, which were to be reached on D+5 (may 15th, which ended up being the same day Holland surrendered), and to cross the Meuse River at that point, splitting the allied forces and rupturing the allied front.

To accomplish this goal, Runstedt, CIC of Army group A had as his strike element the bulk of the Nazi mobile forces, Namely Panzergruppe Kleist (which consisted of XIX Panzer Corps under Guderian, 1st,2nd,10 Panzer+ XLI Panzer Corps under Reinhardt, 6th and 7th Panzer {which was comanded by Erwin Rommel, later to gain fame in the western desert}) and the right shoulder of the crossing was XV Panzer Corps under Hoth,(which consisted of 3rd, 4th, and 5th Panzer divisions).

The enemy before the Germans in this area was made up of reservists, (which come in to grades, a&b, a being superior), of the "b" grade (55TH division near Sedan, reinforced by 71 Div, and 9th army under Corap near Dinant which included the 18th division.
None of the French formations were fully equiped, and they lacked AT guns, AA guns, and aircover, and the French commander in chief, Gamelin, was in a headquarters without radio or phones!
This fool didn't even keep a strategic reserve, he committed his reserves to Belgium under the "Dyle Manuver" on May 10th, dooming his best forces to being cut off.

As a result, the BEF (which WAS a match for the Heer, dispite what Curt thinks, as it was totally mobilized and well led on a divisional level) and the best mobile French forces were cut off from the rest of France, and esentially doomed.

A new commander, Weygand took over, but a third of France's strength was gone, and even though he came up with a good battle plan (fortified hedgehogs), he lacked the troops to porperly protect Paris, and in phase two of the attack (after Dunkirk) in June, the Germans overran the rest of France.

The Germans took as many losses in the 6 week campaign as they would take in the first 6 weeks in Russia, roughly 500,000 Killed, wounded and prisoner.

If this campaign is studied heavily, one realizes that the French never really had a chance, their infantry weapons were inferior, their artillery antiquated, their AT and AA guns to few in number, their leadership at all levels was poor, 2 thirds of their forces were poorly motivated (and France did have Communist agitators spreading defeatism, believe it or not!), their airforce was inferior in both numbers and equipment, all in all, even with the fine Somua and Char-B tanks, they had far to many deficits to survive that spring in 1940."
 
I think that it's a great dishonor to forget the Frenchmen who died fighting the Germans in 1940...

I hope this serves as a deterrent to those who would post some silliness here.

The French airforce was in fact superior to the Luftwaffe in numbers, but their training was very poor. And their tanks (Although better on paper) were truly not very effective for the type of battle they were about to be faced with.
 
I read all the posts before posting.

The original question:

"Were they really that useless, or did they
make a logical decision to an illogical answer?"

makes no sense.


For the Germans to attack through the Ardennes
was not 'an illogical answer'.

It was a very logical answer for the Germans
because the French did not expect it and therefore
had very weak defenses there.
 
If you want a good example on why attacking through the Ardennes wasn't considered a good idea, read an account of the Battle of the Bulge.
In 1944 the German advance through the Ardennes was greatly hindered by the areas rough terrain and lousy roads. The difference between 1940 and 1944 was that in '44 the (weak) defenders were there to use the terrain to their advantange, while in '40 the Ardennes were all but undefended.
 
Back
Top Bottom