|
Zoltar DEXTER -> Pivotal Battle: The Battle of France (9/7/2002 3:54:53 PM)
|
The Battle of France is in my opinion the real turning point of WWII.
The French defeat made possible everything after: the Battle of Britain, Barbarossa,......
France and Britain combined outweighted Germany economically and militarly, and had vast ressources with their colonies.
The combined French and British forces exceeded the Wermacht.
http://www.sandiego.edu/~cshimp/strength1940.htm
The outcome, just before the real stuff begun in May 1940, was not so evident. The German victory is even more brillant that we usually understand it.
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_war_2/12052
but even the Germans themselves had difficulties in apprehending the Blitzkrieg
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_war_2/13140
I would like to had the following comments to what Bernard and Unknown_Ennemy said:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Unknown_Ennemy
- No spirit : agreed, most of french were not eager to die for the liberty of Poland. And worst, one of the more powerful political party at the time : the communist party, was strongly versus the war and despite being banned, covertly advocated peace since the beginning of war.
- no leader : wrong. De Gaule, Leclerc, Giraud anyone ? The only problem is that they were regarded as strange fools when war should be run by serious people.
[/B][/QUOTE]
-No spirit ? Yes and no
French soldiers, when they were correctly led, put more than a fight against the Germans. (around 100,000 casualties in 1.5 month).
Concerning the betrayal of Petain, you have to understand the French context of the time.
This arrivist seized the opportunity of the "debacle" to make almost a coup (he was appointed after a stormy arrested the parlamentaries who wanted to leave Bordeaux for North Africa to reform a government over there).
The French people, stunned by the sudden defeat (they had been told for years that there would be no war, that they had the best armies,...), humiliated by the loss of half of the country to the ennemy, trusted Petain, and accepted his "vision" and was easily bought by "...no longer suffering, we have lost..."
Just after Petain's misleading declaration, De Gaulle tried, from London, to move the French Nation by saying the evidence: France could and had to continue fighting... But only a hanfull heard his call....
-No leader ? No
French generals were intelligent but:
1- French high rank officers came from the same mould: they graduatted from the same school (usually Polythecnics, very high level education but very [B]theoretical[/B], sometimes from St Cyr). They were very conservative (as Unknown_Ennemy puts it: too independent-of-though officers were seen as highly dangerous). L'Ecole de Guerre, compulsory mid-career formation to reach upper positions, was a model of conservatism.
Consequently, as righly stated by Bernard and Unknown_Ennemy, the entire French conception of warfare (from weapon design [no radios in tanks, ridiculous autonomy for the B1Bis,...] to strategy) were based on WWI principles. But the only army with other conceptions was the Heer.
Nevertheless, it clearly denotes that most of the the French generals were theorists and no pragmatists. (it is the usual problem of French elites)
2- Agressiveness was not a sought quality. Generals were not selected for their moral strength. Pusillanimity was therefore common at that level.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bernard
[B]Also note that the Resistance really begun with the communist, after 22.06.1941.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Uncorrect. The Resistance started right after the armistice, led by catholics and people who did not accept the situation. Of course, when the communist bastards (Maurice THOREZ, their leader, was obliged to flee to the USSR in 1939 when he said that French communists had to oppose the French war effort against Germany) joigned them, the Resistance became stronger.
Just after the war, the same communist bastards exaggerated their true involvement in the Resistance. Unfortunatly, it is now the accepted version.
|
|
|
|
