Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Motherland on November 02, 2009, 04:24:16 PM
-
Would it have been possible for France to have ended WWII if they would have jumped on Germany while Germany was still in Poland instead of waiting to take the defensive?
-
Would it have been possible for France to have ended WWII if they would have jumped on Germany while Germany was still in Poland instead of waiting to take the defensive?
Probably, honestly. Germany did not have enough military to defend against the very large French army while they were bogged down in Poland. Even if France had lost in the end, it would have massively changed things going forward.
-
The frech would have done well to not stop buidling the zegot line at the belgium border
-
The frech would have done well to not stop buidling the zegot line at the belgium border
The Maginot Line?
-
Probably, honestly. Germany did not have enough military to defend against the very large French army while they were bogged down in Poland. Even if France had lost in the end, it would have massively changed things going forward.
I agree 100%.
-
The frech would have done well to not stop buidling the zegot line at the belgium border
I've never heard of the Zegot line, but if you mean the Maginot Line it was connected to Belgian defenses, and Germany actually attacked the line...
Probably, honestly. Germany did not have enough military to defend against the very large French army while they were bogged down in Poland. Even if France had lost in the end, it would have massively changed things going forward.
That's how I've begun to figure...
It's interesting that there seems to be a prevailing myth that Germany had a massive army from the outbreak of the war.
-
The evidence says that Germany was unprepared for a French offensive that the French were unwilling to make. There's a saying that France went into both world wars with the wrong mentality. In WW1 they wanted to attack when they should've defended. In WW2 they wanted to defend when they should've attacked.
-
They had what? 900,000 enlisted troops + 5 mil reservists, about 1000 a/c 25% of which were bombers. IIrc Very few effective tanks, certainly nothing that could stand up to the wermacht. I dont think they could have done it. The german army made mincemeat of them anyhow, the maignot line and all.
-
They had what? 900,000 enlisted troops + 5 mil reservists, about 1000 a/c 25% of which were bombers. IIrc Very few effective tanks, certainly nothing that could stand up to the wermacht. I dont think they could have done it. The german army made mincemeat of them anyhow, the maignot line and all.
France had tanks equal to or better than the Panzer IIs fielded by the Germans. I can't recall if Panzer IIIs were numerous in the invasion of May 1940, but even these were not monsters.
The French did not deploy their armor in concentrations large enough to counter the point of attack of the massed German armor. The defeat of France was as much psychology as tactics. The French had had enough war as of WWI. They built the Maginot Line (wtf 'zegot?') to fight a similar lengthy war of attrition. Diplomacy kept them from putting the Belgians on the outside of this snug little wall. So, they left the door open, with the strategic plan to rush into Belgium. Which they did, along with the BEF. Which was cut off by the attack through the Ardennes. Then Dunkirk. Fall of Paris. ...
There is no end to 'what if' scenarios. Giving up the Sudetenland (Munich Agreement), reoccupation of the Rhineland, Einstein time traveling to assassinate Hitler ..., if only I hadn't married my first wife ...
-
The German military was not capable of fighting a two front war at that time. Frankly, had they known the French and British would actually declare war on them for going into Poland they probably would not have. They thought it was a bluff. If they were caught off guard by war being declared, imagine their shock if that declaration had been swiftly followed by France, mobilizing as fast as possible, mimicking a blitzkrieg to Berlin, supported by whatever the British could add to the majority French effort.
Yes, in reality there are multiple things that blocked such an action being possible, but that is not the purpose of running "what if" mental games.
-
someone has to say it so I might as well.........
I dont think France had their white flag factory fully operational until after 1939
-
someone has to say it so I might as well.........
I dont think France had their white flag factory fully operational until after 1939
Go. To. Hell.
Actually, just read some history books about the subject. :aok
-
France would have steamrolled Germany's armor divisions....if they drove in reverse. :t :rofl
-
France would have steamrolled Germany's armor divisions....if they drove in reverse. :t :rofl
You need to learn some history too. You're woefully ignorant.
-
certainly nothing that could stand up to the wermacht. I dont think they could have done it. The german army made mincemeat of them anyhow, the maignot line and all.
The more and more I read about the German conquests and campaigns, the more I get the feeling that their successes (especially in the West) was as much a matter of luck and the fact that they introduced concepts that no one had really explored fully before and embraced them fully, catching their enemies off guard (as was the case in Poland and France, and to a lesser extent in the USSR). The German Army seems have been overstretched through the majority of the war (not just after Barbarossa). You can see that in the event that the Blitzkrieg failed neither the German Army nor the Luftwaffe were capable of fighting any other type of war. Certainly if Galland's word means anything from the Battle of Britain on, the Jagdwaffe was far overstretched. The Luftwaffe was never cut out to fight any battle other than the Blitzkrieg.
This is why I wonder about France invading Germany. I just can't imagine that they could have fought a defensive war against France, especially. with the majority of their forces in Poland.
-
Czechoslovakia was a major manufacturer of machine guns, tanks, artillery, and had a modern army of 35 divisions.
But somehow its always about France.
-
You need to learn some history too. You're woefully ignorant.
Has nothing to do with history. It's a French joke. If I said the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor would you still miss the point? My gut feeling...yes
I guess I should have labeled the sarcastic parts for the clueless
-
But it's a joke that got old years ago, and has far more to do with contemporary antagonism between France and the USA than with any character flaw of the French, real or perceived. And as for what actually happened, once their only ally left the continent, and their capital was occupied, surrender was not a cowardly act. Still, if De Gaulle had been head of state, there's no way they would have surrendered when they did.
-
Has nothing to do with history. It's a French joke. If I said the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor would you still miss the point? My gut feeling...yes
I guess I should have labeled the sarcastic parts for the clueless
That "joke" gets posted in every thread that involves the French and has for almost a decade. Yet somehow people still think it is the height of comedy.
Anaxogoras is spot on about it being more about modern US-France relations than anything else.
-
That "joke" gets posted in every thread that involves the French and has for almost a decade. Yet somehow people still think it is the height of comedy.
Anaxogoras is spot on about it being more about modern US-France relations than anything else.
I'll be civil about this. I understand your point. As for it being about modern French-American relations...I could care less...because I'm not a politician. I can count on less than one finger how many times I have had to deal with the French on a country level (note***that was sarcasm). So continue to wrap yourself in the French flag and preach to me (note***more sarcasm). On a side note I am Scotch/Irish/Dutch/German plus either Italian or Greek ancestory so if you called me a violent, drunken, pot-legalizing Nazi who didn't know who my father is do you think I would jump on a soapbox and complain? Probably not because I'd think it was funny and a rather good dig.
Now I will answer the OP's question for real. If the French military had been allowed to mobilize in a timely matter they would not have been over-run so completely. The were bogged down by their governments lack of action until it was too late. By the time they tried to defend themselves a large part of their aircraft and armor was already scrap at the bottom of bomb craters or captured. I do not think they could have defeated Germany alone due to their lack of modernized equipment. But they could have held Germany off until their allies could mobilize. ie. Britain or the US. However it is unlikely that the US would have every mobilized if Japan hadn't initiated hostilities in the Pacific. French eventually would have fallen but not without Germany expending alot of armament and men to accomplish it. (note***this is merely opinion since I do feel the need to enroll in a college course on French politics and military history pre-WW2)
I labeled all sarcasm and opinions for you. :pray
-
France (and the British Expeditionary Force) took several major blows from the German forces, both land and air.
They were never really given a chance to get back on their feet again. They were bloodied, bruised and broken, and kept that way. There was no stable front line, all was chaos, leadership in total disarray.
Germany had operational control of airspace. France lost their best chance before they ever got started.
Turn that around the other way, if it had been Germany that got pounced on hard by the French.
Yes it might have changed things. But changed enough?
However fact remains that the French leadership was not ready for that kind of attack, in fact I doubt they ever would have been ready. No matter how long Germany gave them.
Look how long it took the US to recover from the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor!
And they really didn't follow that attack up, not like they should have.
End result would have been the same.
Hitler attacked the west at least 4 years sooner than he should have if he'd been any kind of military commander.
But in the end I think it would have made little difference to France.
However, if Germany had waited, they would have IMO had an even better advantage with tanks, and probably aircraft. Not to mention a much more effective Navy.
A lot of the things we point to that things seemed to "pivot" on, were in fact developed as a direct result of what happened. How they would have played out if you change the circumstances is anyone's guess.
-
That "joke" gets posted in every thread that involves the French and has for almost a decade. Yet somehow people still think it is the height of comedy.
If "people" still think it is the height of comedy...what's keeping it from being the height of comedy? :headscratch: The armed bears?
-
If "people" still think it is the height of comedy...what's keeping it from being the height of comedy? :headscratch: The armed bears?
Are they back?!!? :noid
:bolt:
-
Would it have been possible for France to have ended WWII if they would have jumped on Germany while Germany was still in Poland instead of waiting to take the defensive?
When is the paper due? :devil
-
If "people" still think it is the height of comedy...what's keeping it from being the height of comedy? :headscratch: The armed bears?
No, it's Man-Bear-Pig.
-
France was still in WW1 tactical mode, and would have never adapted in time to the new style of warfare introduced by the Germans. Plus you can't win a war anyway if the soldiers don't even want to be there. :old:
<edit>
As an example, I recall accounts of French pilots taking off alone to go patrol the front/capitol, like they did in WW1. Few came back, but it was what a gentleman fighter was supposed to do. :airplane:
-
France was still in WW1 tactical mode, and would have never adapted in time to the new style of warfare introduced by the Germans. Plus you can't win a war anyway if the soldiers don't even want to be there. :old:
very true.
Beyond that, well, I'll just expand on what others have mentioned. Maybe the biggest revolution in German arms was the emphasis on fast reaction and decentralized control, which was almost the exact opposite of the French command system. If interested, I found the book Strange Victory -- Hitler's Conquest of France http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Victory-Hitlers-Conquest-France/dp/0809088541/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257265034&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Victory-Hitlers-Conquest-France/dp/0809088541/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257265034&sr=8-1) to be enlightening. In a nutshell -- when the French and German armies came to grips initially, the French pretty well kicked butt; but the German strike force working through the Ardennes found the exact time window it needed, breaking out after the French MLR had moved into Belgium but before adequate blocking reserves had been positioned at the Ardennes outlet.
Once the Germans had flanked the MLR, the confusion and fluidity of battle meant the fossilized French command structure simply couldn't cope. German unit commanders used their initiative faster than the French could figure out what was happening, much less react to it. As for French courage, and the Maginot Line -- sections of the line held out even after general surrender was ordered, and when the Germans tried to assault the positions (even from the poorly configured rear) the garrisons inflicted horrific German casualty rates.
-
The Germans pioneered decentralized command in WW1. It's one of the factors that we have to appeal to in order to explain the greater effectiveness per man and per dollar of the Central Powers. That the French didn't learn from the experience may have something to do with the high score sociologists give them for deference to authority (UK, USA, and even Germany all score lower).
-
I am sure that Germany could have been defeated "IF" France, Britain, Belgium, Denmark and Norway all attacked Germany at once.
-
Czechoslovakia was a major manufacturer of machine guns, tanks, artillery, and had a modern army of 35 divisions.
But somehow its always about France.
Czechoslovakia wasn't so much beaten as betrayed. The Munich "peace for our times" agreement gave Germany the Czech's prepared defensive lines and the physical defenses of the mountain ranges, so when the attacks came there was no way defense could be successful.
But you're right that the West tends to focus on ourselves too much. Very few people consider WW2 to have started with the China incident, except for the Chinese who were invaded!
-
FYI, this the sort of data I'm referring to when I mentioned deference to authority:
http://www.clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/power-distance-index/ (http://www.clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/power-distance-index/)
Ignore their economic interpretations of the data, as the data itself is neutral on that point.