1. USA
2. Russia
3. Germany
4. Uk
5. Italy
France and what should be done about it.
-
But on the international stage, the french screwed the pooch
After it was agreed with the joint declaration of war on germany by the UK and France, it was decided…
“Neither power shall surrender to germany unless the other consents to that surrender.”
When the german blitz cut off the Brits at Dunkirk and the road was open to Paris; what happened? Did france ‘need’ paris? was it their industrial base?, agricultural center? No…it was their cultural center, and when it was seriously threatened they surrendered, without even asking their allies or putting up resistance.
They caved to the Germans, and the Brits resented them for it, and the French resent the british for evacuating. In an alliance of convenience, driving a wedge bettwen the two parites (in this case the german blitz) is the best way to win. Divide and conquer so to speak.
France is looked down upon because, they could have fought on, it would be a struggle, a struggle for their country, however in surrendering they hoped their “nation” would be preserved, albeit under German occupation. The city of lights survived and so did millions of frenchmen, the musems and statues all endure to this day. But what does it say about a country not even willing to take up arms to protect its treasures, its people? a government that gives in to occupation, to survive as a nation in bondage. And herin lies the question, if the french didnt stand and fight for their own country, what does that say about it, is whatever cultural value it has worth fighting for? worth dieing for? Or are the french so progressive that they realize that these treasueres had to survive becuase they are so valueable, and surrender was the only option.
-
Welcome, UN Spacy. Thanks for sharing that.
Was that an actual welcome or a sarcastic welcome? O_O
But on the international stage, the french screwed the pooch
After it was agreed with the joint declaration of war on germany by the UK and France, it was decided…
“Neither power shall surrender to germany unless the other consents to that surrender.”
When the german blitz cut off the Brits at Dunkirk and the road was open to Paris; what happened? Did france ‘need’ paris? was it their industrial base?, agricultural center? No…it was their cultural center, and when it was seriously threatened they surrendered, without even asking their allies or putting up resistance.
They caved to the Germans, and the Brits resented them for it, and the French resent the british for evacuating. In an alliance of convenience, driving a wedge bettwen the two parites (in this case the german blitz) is the best way to win. Divide and conquer so to speak.
France is looked down upon because, they could have fought on, it would be a struggle, a struggle for their country, however in surrendering they hoped their “nation” would be preserved, albeit under German occupation. The city of lights survived and so did millions of frenchmen, the musems and statues all endure to this day. But what does it say about a country not even willing to take up arms to protect its treasures, its people? a government that gives in to occupation, to survive as a nation in bondage. And herin lies the question, if the french didnt stand and fight for their own country, what does that say about it, is whatever cultural value it has worth fighting for? worth dieing for? Or are the french so progressive that they realize that these treasueres had to survive becuase they are so valueable, and surrender was the only option.
I don’t think my first posts here should consist of derailing a thread. If the moderators view it as inappropriate, then I apologize in advance.
1. Yes, Paris is the cultural, economic, and industrial center of France. Without Paris there is no France.
With that being said, let me, again, quote from that pamphlet in response. I’m not exactly in the mood to give a sophisticated answer at the moment, so I’ll let it do the talking.
@112:
78. “The French didn’t put up a real fight against the Germans. They just let the Heinies walk in.”
No one - least of all the French themselves - will try do deny the enormity of the defeat and the humiliation France suffered in 1940. French military leadership and strategy was tragically inadequate. But this does not mean that the French did not put up a “real fight”.
In the six week Battle of France, from May 10 to June 22, 1940, the French lost, in military personnel alone, 260,000 wounded and 108,000 killed. A total of 368,000 casualties in six weeks is not something to pass off lightly.
Yes, the Germans gave the French a terrible beating. But it took the combined strength of the United States, Great Britain, Soviet Russia, Canada, etc., to beat the Germans. It’s asking rather a great deal of France to match such strength against hers.
@112:
76. “The French have no courage. Why can’t they defend themselves against the Germans ?”
Maybe it would be better to ask, “Why don’t the Germans pick on someone their own size ?”
Modern warfare is not simply a matter of courage. A great lightweight can’t lick a great heavyweight - even if he has courage to spare.
Hitler threw the manpower and industrial resources of over 80,000,000 Germans against 40,000,000 Frenchmen. The French did not have, and could not have had, the military and industrial power to beat Germany. (For instance, for the past hundred years France has not had enough coal, especially coking coal, to supply her peacetime needs. French iron ore normally flows to Germany’s Ruhr valley for smelting, just as the ore of Minnesota goes to the coal and limestone area of Pittsburgh.)
France was beaten by Germany because Germany was enormously superior to France in manpower, equipment, resources, armament, and strategy. Germany had the incalculable advantage of having planned an offensive, Blitzkrieg war - while France, which wanted peace desperately, devoted its energies and training entirely to defensive measures. (That’s why they built the Maginot Line.) The few advocates of modern mechanized armies (such as General de Gaulle) were like voices crying out in the wilderness. German propaganda, and “fifth column” activities financed from Berlin, helped to demoralize and confuse a nation that didn’t want war in the first place.
The French lost 1,115,000 men and women, military and civilian, in dead, wounded and disabled. That is an enormous loss for a nation of 40 million. (The United States military casualties, up to V-J Day, were about 1,060,000 in dead and wounded.
I know you might be thinking “stop quoting from that stupid pamphlet”. Well, trust me, it puts what would normally be an enormous rant into something the average GI could have understood.
-
@UN:
Germany had the incalculable advantage of having planned an offensive, Blitzkrieg war - while France, which wanted peace desperately, devoted its energies and training entirely to defensive measures. (That’s why they built the Maginot Line.) The few advocates of modern mechanized armies (such as General de Gaulle) were like voices crying out in the wilderness. German propaganda, and “fifth column” activities financed from Berlin, helped to demoralize and confuse a nation that didn’t want war in the first place.
I think its safe to say that France both helped and hurt the allies, but the biggest problem the France had is what is stated above, they had little appetite to fight a fight that desperatly needed to be fought. They were defensive minded and they entered a fight without the desire to win.
-
@UN:
Welcome, UN Spacy. Thanks for sharing that.
Was that an actual welcome or a sarcastic welcome? O_O
I assure you I was quite sincere.
-
you arent deraling the thread, on the contrary, you are enriching it.
However, you are on the soap box for france now, so be prepared to see some flack come your way.
Emperor_Taiki is right, in the most simplest terms “France helped and hurt the Allies” For every free french soldier somewhere, there was a Vichy soldier somewhere else, for every partisan there was a collabirator, there were as many ships of the french navy with the allies as were scuttled in port.
The invasion of poland was a win win for Germany, either it gets half of poland for itself, or it gets half of poland AND forces France and the UK into war with it. A War Germany wanted for revenge after what happened in WWI
Do not think I demeane the French or their sacrifice during WWII, however I do frown upon thier choice to give up so quickly. There is honor in fighting a losing battle, you earn the respect of who is fighting you, much like what the US did to Japan, as the war dragged down, we hated the Japanese, but respected their fighting spirt
The Germans had nothing to respect about the french.
-
you arent deraling the thread, on the contrary, you are enriching it.
However, you are on the soap box for france now, so be prepared to see some flack come your way.
Emperor_Taiki is right, in the most simplest terms “France helped and hurt the Allies” For every free french soldier somewhere, there was a Vichy soldier somewhere else, for every partisan there was a collabirator, there were as many ships of the french navy with the allies as were scuttled in port.
The invasion of poland was a win win for Germany, either it gets half of poland for itself, or it gets half of poland AND forces France and the UK into war with it. A War Germany wanted for revenge after what happened in WWI
Do not think I demeane the French or their sacrifice during WWII, however I do frown upon thier choice to give up so quickly. There is honor in fighting a losing battle, you earn the respect of who is fighting you, much like what the US did to Japan, as the war dragged down, we hated the Japanese, but respected their fighting spirt
The Germans had nothing to respect about the french.
The Germans had nothing to respect about the French until the Battle of Bir Hakeim.
Actually, even before Hakeim, Hitler himself said the French are, after the Germans, the best soldiers in Europe.
What he said after Bir Hakeim:
@Adolf:
You have heard, gentlemen, what Koch recounts. It is a new proof of the thesis I’ve always supported; namely, that French are still, after us, the best soldiers in Europe. France will always have the possibility, even with its current birthrate, to raise a hundred divisions. We will definitely, after this war, have to set up a coalition able to militarily control a country capable of such impressive military feats.
Rommel had some good things to say too:
On the 11th, the French garrison was about to receive its death-blow. Sadly for us, the French did not wait for us. Despite all the security measures we took, they managed to leave the fort, under the command of General Koenig, and preserved most of their men. Thanks to obscurity, they headed southwest and rejoined the 7th British Brigade. Later on, we would notice that where the French broke through, my encirclement measures had not been correctly set up. Once again, proof that a French commander, determined not to throw its guns away at the first opening, can work miracles, even if the situation seems desperate. In the morning, I visited the fort, site of ferocious battles; we had long waited for its fall. Fortifications around Bir Hakeim included, among others, 1,200 dug combat emplacements for infantry and heavy equipment.
Hitler ordered for the Free French prisoners Rommel got to be executed, an order that he refused. I mean, he even allowed French prisoners and German soldiers to have the same water ration.
Emperor_Taiki is right, in the most simplest terms “France helped and hurt the Allies” For every free french soldier somewhere, there was a Vichy soldier somewhere else, for every partisan there was a collabirator, there were as many ships of the french navy with the allies as were scuttled in port.
Actually, after Operation Torch, and with the subsequent Axis occupation of Vichy France, all Vichy forces in Africa, the Armée d’Afrique, joined the Allies. With the Vichy military also dismantled at that point, there was a lot more Free French than Vichy soldiers.
But the collaborator part is quite true. Fascist Frenchmen served the Wehrmacht, specialized units even serving in the Eastern Front. In the Resistance you could never tell who was a Gestapo rat. The Allies did see the squabbling Resistance as valuable assets, but they still feared they wanted more to do with their own political gains than the ultimate defeat of Germany.
That’s true in some ways. But although yes, the French did get their butt kicked, I can see why. WWI, the Western Front anyway, was fought on French soil. By the end of the war Northern France looked like the surface of the moon, except with more guts, dead people, and corpse-eating rats. It wasn’t a politically unified nation and the military continued to think 1918. They got Alscace-Lorraine back. Yay! Now let’s not fight anymore, we got what we want, we don’t want another Verdun.
I personally find one to frown on a nation giving up so quickly a little odd when the French Army was severely hampered by its own government and leadership.
-
Quote from: Adolf Hitler
You have heard, gentlemen, what Koch recounts. It is a new proof of the thesis I’ve always supported; namely, that French are still, after us, the best soldiers in Europe. France will always have the possibility, even with its current birthrate, to raise a hundred divisions. We will definitely, after this war, have to set up a coalition able to militarily control a country capable of such impressive military feats.The tread is fine and not sidetracked, but who and where did anybody with the name "adolf Hitler’ posted?
He cant have that name!
-
Touting being one of the first modern democrocies, the French Government should be “of the people, by the people, for the people”
In WWII the french government threw its people under the bus
Let me reitterate, I dont despise the french, or the french fighting spirt….I regret the fact that when it came time for them to “put up theri dukes” and fight, they only went one round with the germans and threw in the towel
in boxing, you look down upon the man who throws in the towel
However; you feel bad for, yet respect the man who stays in the ring, against the odds and loses fair and square, even if its a TKO -
@Imperious:
Quote from: Adolf Hitler
You have heard, gentlemen, what Koch recounts. It is a new proof of the thesis I’ve always supported; namely, that French are still, after us, the best soldiers in Europe. France will always have the possibility, even with its current birthrate, to raise a hundred divisions. We will definitely, after this war, have to set up a coalition able to militarily control a country capable of such impressive military feats.The tread is fine and not sidetracked, but who and where did anybody with the name "adolf Hitler’ posted?
He cant have that name!
He posted it on June 1942 :P
-
@Imperious:
Quote from: Adolf Hitler
You have heard, gentlemen, what Koch recounts. It is a new proof of the thesis I’ve always supported; namely, that French are still, after us, the best soldiers in Europe. France will always have the possibility, even with its current birthrate, to raise a hundred divisions. We will definitely, after this war, have to set up a coalition able to militarily control a country capable of such impressive military feats.The tread is fine and not sidetracked, but who and where did anybody with the name "adolf Hitler’ posted?
He cant have that name!
Erwin Rommell also posted.
-
I think Hitler deserves a smite at the least
-
I think Hitler deserves a smite at the least
I am sure Aldertag will be the man to do it. :-D
-
@Brain:
I think Hitler deserves a smite at the least
I am sure Aldertag will be the man to do it. :-D
I still haven’t figured out how to yet
-
@Brain:
I think Hitler deserves a smite at the least
I am sure Aldertag will be the man to do it. :-D
I still haven’t figured out how to yet
You can’t give karma until your 100th post
-
@Brain:
@Brain:
I think Hitler deserves a smite at the least
I am sure Aldertag will be the man to do it. :-D
I still haven’t figured out how to yet
Ohhhhh hahah
You can’t give karma until your 100th post -
I know there was a response in there somewhere.
-
Yes there was. I err…. did that on purpose.
-
I meant to do that.
-
Touting being one of the first modern democrocies, the French Government should be “of the people, by the people, for the people”
In WWII the french government threw its people under the bus
Let me reitterate, I dont despise the french, or the french fighting spirt….I regret the fact that when it came time for them to “put up theri dukes” and fight, they only went one round with the germans and threw in the towel
in boxing, you look down upon the man who throws in the towel
However; you feel bad for, yet respect the man who stays in the ring, against the odds and loses fair and square, even if its a TKOAnyway to get back on subject, I agree with this statement.
-
I think the French just had a diffrent picture in how the next war would be fought…They stayed stationary and being the winner of WW I ,having a respectful Maginotline-Defence and thicker armored Tanks and better piercing rounds gives you some good hope that the next conflict will be solved well in your favor…BUT, what the Germans exercised in modern warfare at that time (blitzkrieg) was as they said breathtaking and everything above their imagination…I wouldn’t give the French bad credit for that. Everybody was stunned!..It took Stalin a couple of month to realize that he was invaded, by that time the Invaders were allraedy on their way to Kiev…
Suggested Topics
