Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: oakranger on February 25, 2010, 12:58:06 AM
-
I have been reading some books regarding to the post, and there is one thing that i have concluded on why Germany defeated France in six week. France, and British as well, where fighting 1914 while Germany was fighting 1940. What i learn is that France learn a lot from WWI. So much that they have books on war fare base off WWI that they where still using by 1940.
For the Germans, they dropped most concepts of war fare from WWI to developed new methods modern war fare (1940). They developed tactics using armored vehicle, mechanized, para troops/storm troops and air support. Heinz Wilhelm Guderian, who wrote a book called, “Auchtung Panzer”, advance Ernst Volckheim's armored and mechanized warfare concept and developed the Blitzkrieg. Note: it is highly argue that Volckheim is the “father of Blitzkrieg”. Germany became so advance in the battlefield by 1940 that the allies could not do.
I am sure i could be wrong with a lot but would love to get input from the rest of you guys who may understand it better than me. And sorry for bad grammar and spelling. Working on it.
-
Combined arms warfare was a lesson learned and successfully conducted in 1918 by the Allies.
Blitzkrieg was successful because of the confusion sown by the relatively small German mechanised spearheads, and the slow and ponderous reactions to them by the Allies. The German panzers certainly reacted faster and had better tactics operationally but the majority of the German forces in 1940 was still horse drawn and no more advanced than the French or British.
Tronsky
-
Combined arms warfare was a lesson learned and successfully conducted in 1918 by the Allies.
Blitzkrieg was successful because of the confusion sown by the relatively small German mechanised spearheads, and the slow and ponderous reactions to them by the Allies. The German panzers certainly reacted faster and had better tactics operationally but the majority of the German forces in 1940 was still horse drawn and no more advanced than the French or British.
Tronsky
Yes, that what i read a lot. French and British just did not get off their bellybutton fast enough to stop them. And as i put it, Germany was doing thing that the allies could not do. There is one point that i read about the Germans, all their tanks and other armors vehicle have radio communications. Where the allies have not yet practice communication like that.
I try to carefully read the whole battle plane on both sides since day one, the Germans preformed flawlessly. Germany did what the allies anticipated that they would do, but they move faster then what the allies did not except them to do.
Thax for your input. give me more.
-
Another important concept that the Wehrmact developed was the importance of utilizing armor in a new role, that of a 'penetration' force, a spearhead...rather than just infantry support. Generally, the allies had equal or superior tank designs at the start of the war, but failed to utilize them en masse, while mobile German divisions were able to penetrate allied defenses and then move to exploit the undefended areas behind the nominal battle lines.
-
Dont forget the Germans also fought in Spain, then attacked and conquered Poland, which showed them what to do and more particularly what not to do. So they had field experience before they attacked France.
-
In WWI Germany was the only country to utilize large strategic bombers. In WWII, it was the Allies that had the strategic bombers while Germany failed to produce them.
The Allies in WWI used close air support for offensive operations near the end of the war. It was Germany that perfected these tactics in WWII.
There seems to be a tendency for military planners to make up for previous failures but to forget about previous successes.
-
I always thought the children/oprhans of WW1 in France didnt have enough generations to restock their supply of fighting men. The memory of the first war probably had alot to do with it as well.
-
My Grand Father's unit was given a flower, a rifle and 5 bullets per head. When they arrived at the front, they got pined down, straffed by Stukas (he still remembers the rear gunner's outfit) ... as a group of tanks was moving around them in a wide circle to trap them. He and a friend stood up under MG fire, ran to a parked car a couple of yards away. The keys were in the inition, craked it up and drove right in front of a German tank and escaped while the whole squad got taken prisoner ... or worse. He didn't look back.
That might explain why France got her butt kicked. :old:
-
I always thought the children/oprhans of WW1 in France didnt have enough generations to restock their supply of fighting men. The memory of the first war probably had alot to do with it as well.
Had that been the case it would have applied equally to Germany and Britain.
-
I always thought the children/oprhans of WW1 in France didnt have enough generations to restock their supply of fighting men. The memory of the first war probably had alot to do with it as well.
That is true. But after WWI, France wanted all males (married or not) to fornicated with any female that lost a love one in the war or any female that has not married. So they can bare a child and help France population. Russia did the same.
However, France had the numbers, 50 division of ground troops.
My Grand Father's unit was given a flower, a rifle and 5 bullets per head. When they arrived at the front, they got pined down, straffed by Stukas (he still remembers the rear gunner's outfit) ... as a group of tanks was moving around them in a wide circle to trap them. He and a friend stood up under MG fire, ran to a parked car a couple of yards away. The keys were in the inition, craked it up and drove right in front of a German tank and escaped while the whole squad got taken prisoner ... or worse. He didn't look back.
That might explain why France got her butt kicked. :old:
Yea, he is a lucky that they did not get him. :salute Now how was he able to get away in a car with out the Germans blowing them up?
It is like i said, France was still doing 1914 war fare while Germany advance to 1940. Germany was doing things that no allies could not do at the time.
What i found interesting is how Germany used the Arden Forest to cover the bulk of the invasion. Their Blitzkrieg is only effective in flat open terrain so they could not used the blitz in the Arden forest. All they needed was to find the weakest point of the French line and used it to their advantage. And they found one, Sedan. As soon as they took it, all of France went into panic and Germany went into full throttle with their blitzkrieg.
-
You'd think so Wooley but seeing how Germany started it, they must have thought they had something going for them.
-
France, and British as well, where fighting 1914 while Germany was fighting 1940. What i learn is that France learn a lot from WWI. So much that they have books on war fare base off WWI that they where still using by 1940.
The Fall of France in 1940 had a lot to do with psychology.
You are correct in referring to 1914. The Allies were expecting to have time. Why wouldn’t the Allies use WWI as a model? They won that one.
The memory of the scale of WWI also played a part. The French (along with all major combatants) took millions of losses. For what? For being the neighbor of Imperial Germany?
The French built the Maginot Line to avoid WWI scale losses and allow time to mobilize behind it. They were being diplomatic when they decided not to extend the line to the sea and leave Benelux on the other side. One of the reasons that the French and the British got encircled was that they rushed into the Low Countries to stop the expected German advance there.
It is definitely an interesting time in history.
My Grand Father's unit was given a flower, a rifle and 5 bullets per head.
Why the flower?
What i found interesting is how Germany used the Arden Forest to cover the bulk of the invasion. Their Blitzkrieg is only effective in flat open terrain so they could not used the blitz in the Arden forest. All they needed was to find the weakest point of the French line and used it to their advantage.
The Germans used the same route in the Battle of the Bulge with much less success. This is a testament to the relative lack of preparation in 1940 when compared to the fully mobilized Allies of 1944. By 1944, Blitzkrieg had lost some of its aura.
-
Why the flower?
to be placed on their grave...
-
Rufusleaking,
You are right about the Maginot Line on why they never went up to the channel. But, there also the cost too. After Belgium declare neutrality in 1938 (i believe) France decided to continued with the line up to the channel. By 1940, they where no where near in complete it.
The used of the Arden forest and Blitzkrieg in 1940 and 1944 was a factor that German did not have air superiority, Germany will to fight was not as great, and they where facing a smarter, strong army.
-
May I offer a few more books for your reading list regarding this subject. The first book is about the Invasion of Poland in 1939. It's an Osprey Publication. It's not bad, but there are better books on the subject. (the books I'm suggesting are the ones I've read.). This book goes into some detail regarding the tactics and lessons learned during the beginning of the war. I suggest this book because it shows the "redefinition" of the tactic called "Blitzkrieg".
I think that if you look at the tactics, the Germans could very well be called the inventors of Modern Warefare. But I think there is room for a discussion there. There were also Americans who were also highly skilled tacticians. For example, General Patton.
So is the discussion truly about tactics and the use of this new type of warefare called "Blitzkrieg" or could we be talking about the morale and the lack of qualified leaders at the beginning of 1940 for the allies. You can also add to that list the political atmosphere in 1939-1940. Between the German-Soviet pact and their combined invasion of Poland, I would tend to believe that France or any other nation, would feel the cause was lost with two formidable enemies preparing for war against them.
Book link:
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Poland-1939_9781841764085/ (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Poland-1939_9781841764085/)
Two other books I would also suggest regarding the "Battle of France", but from a different perspective. (isn't that what history is all about....perspectives.) The first book is called "The Lost Hopes-Polish Fighters over France 1940".
http://www.akpro.elk.com.pl/losthopes/index.php (http://www.akpro.elk.com.pl/losthopes/index.php)
This book discusses the problems that France and it's allies faced in 1940. It details the problems with the lack of leaders and several allied units not wanting to be under French control. It also gives a brief glimpse into the morale of the French and insurmountable odds the allies faced in 1940. This book can be difficult to find. The link is from the publisher. Don't worry, it's in English (and Polish).
The second book is from the MMP Series called "GC 1/145 in France 1940". Again, this book looks more into the history of one squadron that took part in the Battle of France. I offer it only as some additional insight into what truly happened to France in 1940. Just another warning though, finding this book might be difficult. It's sold out.
http://mmpbooks.biz/mmp/books.php?book_id=80 (http://mmpbooks.biz/mmp/books.php?book_id=80)
I would also like to add that my interest in the Battle of France became the focus of my family history. In the two books I listed about the Polish Air Force in France, my Grandfather's cousin is mentioned. (The second book has his photo). He was killed flying a C-714 Caudron on June 10, 1940 during the Battle of France.
I hope that you were able to bear with my rambling and that you find these book suggestions to your enjoyment.
-
- Bad strategic planning on the part of the BEF and French high command
- Failure in creating strategic and tactical planes to fight a 'modern' war
- Lack of political will by France's chief ally to fully commit resources to defend France
Granted, these are gross simplifications as to the causes of the Fall of France but nonetheless, cited as the principle causes.
ack-ack
-
Thx i will look into the books. As far as the topic, bring up anything as to why France was defeated in six week. I say it was the France and U.K. that really never done anything as far as improving and inventing new battle tactics. This is from what i been reading. And France leadership was not much help at all. They should have attack Germany while Germany was busy playing in Poland. A perfect opportunity to change the course of the war.
-
Thx i will look into the books. As far as the topic, bring up anything as to why France was defeated in six week. I say it was the France and U.K. that really never done anything as far as improving and inventing new battle tactics. This is from what i been reading. And France leadership was not much help at all. They should have attack Germany while Germany was busy playing in Poland. A perfect opportunity to change the course of the war.
The time period after Poland and before the Battle of France was called the Phoney War for the lack of fighting on the Western border of Germany. I assume Britain and France were busying preparing for a war already in progress.
British Foreign Policy should have let the Germans take back the Polish corridor in exchange for peace... :noid
-
Thx i will look into the books. As far as the topic, bring up anything as to why France was defeated in six week. I say it was the France and U.K. that really never done anything as far as improving and inventing new battle tactics. This is from what i been reading. And France leadership was not much help at all. They should have attack Germany while Germany was busy playing in Poland. A perfect opportunity to change the course of the war.
Tactics have a lot to do with it, but you can't discount pure dumb luck.
I read of an incident where a German staff officer carrying the invasion plan in the west accidentally landed on the Belgian side of the border in heavy fog. The plans were for an invasion through Holland and northern Belgium and into northern France. Because these plans were in Allied hands, the Germans needed to improvise a new invasion plan -- and the push through the Ardennes was the result.
Had the original plan gone into effect, the bulk of the German army would have run smack into the British Expeditionary Force and a large portion of the French army as they advanced through northern Belgium following "Plan Dyle." No telling exactly what that would have meant, but most likely the Allies would have been able to stop the German advance in Belgium.
Instead, the main thrust was delivered against the most understrength and inexperienced army that France fielded in 1940. The breakthrough achieved there encircled the bulk of the Allied forces as they advanced to the Dyle river, in effect defeating them without a head on attack. Only the so-called "miracle" of the Dunkirk evacuation prevented it from being the Western Allies' Stalingrad.
-
To get a leg up on what happened, France needed to ignore Belgium's neutrality.
-
The flower was given by local womens, as stated here no one in France wanted to go to war, due to the stigmatas of WW1. The flower was probably an act of kindness to help ease the pain. Hell ... doesn't take a genius to figure out how u'll feel if u were draged away from your house, given 5 bullets and an old gun, and asked to go "fight" up north.
My GF ended up runing for a week, scavaging on what he could find till he met with a "Chasseur Alpin" unit. Spent the rest of the war playing hide & seek with the Germans, ambushing in the mountains. Made a erman officer prisoner at the end of the war ... while runing away, the German officer was runing too, they bumped into each other in a corner, my GF drew his gun first.
My other GF was in the resistance, ended up being captured, tortured and deported. Survived the "work camp", ended up being exchanged.
His brother wasn't so lucky, he ended up burning alive in a French tank that was set on fire by a German flamthrower. The crew was locked in and couldn't escape as the French officers lokced them up in so they had to fight to the death.
Sucky war for the French the BOF, far from the glorious D day stories. :salute
-
I can sum it up for Britain.
Britain, a huge naval power. Its fleet was larger than the US pacific fleet and the Kreigsmarine COMBINED. A huge amount of experience for their sailors and tonnes of modern ships including the KG5 and POW.
BUT, this had a consequence. Britain has always used naval superiority to ensure the survival of the empire, Trafalger and The Armada are just a two examples. But in the modern world after both WW1 and the wall street crash left the other two services unequipped, undermanned and untrained. Even with the modernization in response to Germany's resurgence there is no way Britain could revive its enourmous armies that it once had in the time to spare.
And as for the airforce, it was far away from the super effective air superiority weapon of 41 to 45. It had Hawker Harts and Bristol Bulldogs with the odd Fury here and there. No avgas reserves, no modern fighters or bombers and an outdated doctrine with no pilots to use it. All these things although remedied to some extent before the outbreak of war stood no chance in open combat with the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe who were fully : manned, trained, equipped and morale sky high.
-
The BEF was doing quite well vs the Germans until the French line collapsed. They then had to fall back. OK retreat, but the German advance was so fast they were trapped at Dunquerke.
-
Fascinating story Frenchy. Many of the books I've read have, for the most part, portraited the French Military as giving up at the onset of many battles.
I have always learned to look deeper into the stories and who is doing the story telling. There are many myths regarding WWII and it can be difficult to determine the facts. The Invasion of Poland and the Polish military is full of them too.
Please feel free to share more stories from your family's past.
-
Tactics have a lot to do with it, but you can't discount pure dumb luck.
I read of an incident where a German staff officer carrying the invasion plan in the west accidentally landed on the Belgian side of the border in heavy fog. The plans were for an invasion through Holland and northern Belgium and into northern France. Because these plans were in Allied hands, the Germans needed to improvise a new invasion plan -- and the push through the Ardennes was the result.
Huh, that is interesting. Why the hell would that officer would be carrying the invasion plane with him?
The French where getting many reports that Germany was starting to build up the army long their western borders. But they choose to ignore it.
-
Huh, that is interesting. Why the hell would that officer would be carrying the invasion plane with him?
Read this (http://www.powerglidertaifun.de/Taifun_1940/TaifunJan1940.htm)
-
The BEF was doing quite well vs the Germans until the French line collapsed. They then had to fall back. OK retreat, but the German advance was so fast they were trapped at Dunquerke.
with really poor communication and a lack of decisive action from the French generals stuck in their old ways it was bound to happen.
The maginot line was believed to be 'impregnable' so what did gerry do? go around it of course they ain't stoopid! In short the Battle of France was a catalogue of errors that resulted in total defeat.
As for Britain not commiting enough resources, Dowding quite rightly being a realist knew that saving France was a waste of time, even Churchill tried sending more fighter squadrons to their wreckage. Luckily Dowding called it right.
You have to remember Hitler was secretly re-arming as soon as he took over in 1933 with the intent of doing everything he did. All of those years were a massive head start and thinking he was going to be reasonable was just wishful thinking. Before Kermit chimes in yes he was a madman and a tyrant whose only goals were domination, revenge and genocide.
The hurricane squadrons did an excellent job in terms of being vastly outnumbered yet accounting for several Luftwaffe losses.
-
You have to remember Hitler was secretly re-arming as soon as he took over in 1931
:huh
-
Hitler wasn't chancellor until 1933.
-
Also, the British failed in Norway like they did in France. To blame the French for the defeat in France isn't accurate as the BEF have shared mistakes in that campaign.
-
ok ok always get that date confused with the japanese invasion of manchuria. been a few years since i looked at a textbook geez.
and kermit your signatures just go from low to the very bottom.
-
Read this (http://www.powerglidertaifun.de/Taifun_1940/TaifunJan1940.htm)
WOW, thx. Just learn something new. I can not believe they build a monument for it. But like it said, it was to remember this little known WWII event.
-
Yes, that what i read a lot. French and British just did not get off their bellybutton fast enough to stop them. And as i put it, Germany was doing thing that the allies could not do. There is one point that i read about the Germans, all their tanks and other armors vehicle have radio communications. Where the allies have not yet practice communication like that.
I try to carefully read the whole battle plane on both sides since day one, the Germans preformed flawlessly. Germany did what the allies anticipated that they would do, but they move faster then what the allies did not except them to do.
Thax for your input. give me more.
Excuse me. The French and British did not get off their bellybutton fast enough to stop them? Thank god for the US ploughing in so quickly then and saving the world just a mere four and a half years later, with their timely arrival in France. :mad:
-
The defeat of the B.E.F, has a huge amount to do with the fact that the British powers that be, seem to have one of two default settings in terms of conflict.
Setting 1: Everythings fine, now we've won we can demob 9/10 of the armed forces, stop development of weapons, we've taught the blighters a jolly old lesson they won't be forgetting any time soon. :)
Setting 2: Oh bugger :eek:
-
Excuse me. The French and British did not get off their bellybutton fast enough to stop them? Thank god for the US ploughing in so quickly then and saving the world just a mere four and a half years later, with their timely arrival in France. :mad:
I think it was Churchill that wanted to delay the invasion of France until June '44.
-
I think it was Churchill that wanted to delay the invasion of France until June '44.
wouldn't have wanted another dieppe or gallipoli....
If you didn't know he wanted to kick gerry out of N.Africa first.
-
Churchill didn't want to invade France at all, he feared the worst. He only agreed to do it under pressure from Roosevelt(Spelling?) and Stalin. He was convinced that the way into Germany and occupied Europe was via Italy and Southern France.
-
In one of the French aviation war book I read ... sadly can't remember which one ... the pilot stated that the French planes of the BOF were actually not that outclassed by the German ones, but the tactics/discipline were lacking.
He recalled many pilots taking off by themselve to patrol the skies, like they used to do in WW1. :airplane: This ideal of the gentleman fighter was the doom of many experienced pilots, totaly inadequated against the Blitz's paradigm.
-
As for Britain not commiting enough resources, Dowding quite rightly being a realist knew that saving France was a waste of time, even Churchill tried sending more fighter squadrons to their wreckage. Luckily Dowding called it right.
Recently read Michael Korda’s book, “With Wings Like Eagles.” In it, Korda tells the story of how Dowding successfully resisted sending squadrons of Hurricane Mk Is to France. Churchill wanted to help the French. The French believed the Mk Is, with their eight 0.303 guns, could stop a tank. It is obvious in hindsight that Dowding was right to keep the squadrons home, as he was right about his system of directing fighters during the Battle of Britain.
If Britain had fallen after France, it would have made the liberation of Western Europe much more difficult, and moved the Iron Curtain much farther west.
-
You have to remember Hitler was secretly re-arming as soon as he took over in 1933 with the intent of doing everything he did. All of those years were a massive head start ...
big factor. the germans had built up a big head of steam in terms of equipment, training, tactics and morale. they also had the will to succeed, fuelled by resentment over the treaty of versailles and the aftermath of WWI. and as others have mentioned, had already practised and refined their tactics by the time of the battle of france.
If Britain had fallen after France, it would have made the liberation of Western Europe almost impossible
-
Recently read Michael Korda’s book, “With Wings Like Eagles.” In it, Korda tells the story of how Dowding successfully resisted sending squadrons of Hurricane Mk Is to France. Churchill wanted to help the French. The French believed the Mk Is, with their eight 0.303 guns, could stop a tank. It is obvious in hindsight that Dowding was right to keep the squadrons home, as he was right about his system of directing fighters during the Battle of Britain.
If Britain had fallen after France, it would have made the liberation of Western Europe much more difficult, and moved the Iron Curtain much farther west.
The Iron Curtain would not have moved west at all, as the Soviets most likely would have lost the war if not for the allies creating the second front.
-
The Iron Curtain would not have moved west at all, as the Soviets most likely would have lost the war if not for the allies creating the second front.
They would have most unlikely lost the war. The turning point in the east was late 42/ early 43, in summer 43 the Wehrmacht lost completely the initiative to the Soviets, and they were advancing ever since - long before D-Day. d It just would have taken longer for them to get to Berlin.
-
They would have most unlikely lost the war. The turning point in the east was late 42/ early 43, in summer 43 the Wehrmacht lost completely the initiative to the Soviets, and they were advancing ever since - long before D-Day. d It just would have taken longer for them to get to Berlin.
The German forces had been weakened by the campaigns in France, Britain, Norway, and a few other countries in Europe and Africa. Had Germany been allowed to fight the Soviets first, they most likely would have won. All of this happening long before D-Day.
-
Excuse me. The French and British did not get off their bellybutton fast enough to stop them? Thank god for the US ploughing in so quickly then and saving the world just a mere four and a half years later, with their timely arrival in France. :mad:
I should have explain my self on that remark. The allies (French, U.K, Blegium, Holland) should have attacked Germany when they declare war on them. They had six months to do this but instead sat there and did nothing. If they have invade, it would have hurt Germany. Germany did not have a panzer division, 2 division (may be wrong on that) that guard the west while the rest where playing in Poland.
Reason why U.S. did not want to jump in the war (1940) was political reasons and they really did not have a military to support the allies. By the time they enter the war, it was decided (Politically) not to invade France in 1942 for good reasons: 1) Green U.S. was not ready to pursue a invasion into a heavy occupied France and they where busy in the Pacific, 2) U.K had their hands full in North Africa and Pacific, 3) If the allies did invade France (1942-1943) they would most likely be slaughter by the Luftwaffe that dominated the sky's over France.
-
The German forces had been weakened by the campaigns in France, Britain, Norway, and a few other countries in Europe and Africa. Had Germany been allowed to fight the Soviets first, they most likely would have won. All of this happening long before D-Day.
In your post you said "Soviets would have lost if Allies did not create the second front"
In common WW2 terminology, "The second front" refers to the Allied invasion of western Europe in 1944.
-
You know, Germany technically had fronts: East, West, South, Sea, and Air
-
In your post you said "Soviets would have lost if Allies did not create the second front"
In common WW2 terminology, "The second front" refers to the Allied invasion of western Europe in 1944.
What would you call the actions against German forces by Allied forces(excluding Stalin's men) prior to D-Day?
-
Recently read Michael Korda’s book, “With Wings Like Eagles.” In it, Korda tells the story of how Dowding successfully resisted sending squadrons of Hurricane Mk Is to France. Churchill wanted to help the French. The French believed the Mk Is, with their eight 0.303 guns, could stop a tank. It is obvious in hindsight that Dowding was right to keep the squadrons home, as he was right about his system of directing fighters during the Battle of Britain.
If Britain had fallen after France, it would have made the liberation of Western Europe much more difficult, and moved the Iron Curtain much farther west.
I have also read Korda's book. IMO, He would have you believe that Dowding stood alone on the cliffs of Dover, shaking his fists at Hitler in defiance for Queen and Country. I feel that Korda missed the point of Churchill's famous "the Few" speech. There were many nations that came to the aid of Britain during the BoB. Korda would have you believe that it was just the British and their unshaken resolve who defeated the Germans in 1940.
Your second statement, I totally agree with. If Britain had fallen in 1940, Germany would have the momentum to carry the war further. You could even speculate that had Britain fallen, would the Soviet Union have also fallen.
There are so many other books regarding the BoB. I found Korda's book "interesting" but felt that it lacked much of the historical facts you would expect. I would also add that Korda also quoted many of the myths about the invasion of Poland in 1939. Poland did not surrender in two weeks. In fact, Poland never surrendered. But if you must put a time date on their surrender, most historians will agree that Poland ceased to exist as a country on October 6, 1939.
If you want to read a few books on the BoB, I would recommend these:
"Duel of Eagles" by Peter Townsend.
[urlhttp://www.amazon.com/Duel-Eagles-Peter-Townsend/dp/0891414320][/url]
"The Few" by Alex Kershaw
http://thefewbook.com/home.html (http://thefewbook.com/home.html)
"The Forgotten Few: The Polish Air Force in WWII" by Adam Zamoyski
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forgotten-Few-Polish-Force-World/dp/1848841965/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257243463&sr=1-9 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forgotten-Few-Polish-Force-World/dp/1848841965/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257243463&sr=1-9)
Here is the website for the BoB Historical Society suggested reading list:
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/bobhsoc/books.html (http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/bobhsoc/books.html)
-
What would you call the actions against German forces by Allied forces(excluding Stalin's men) prior to D-Day?
First, it's not about what i call it but what is a commonly accepted term ever since the days of WW2. Wherever you read about "Soviets demanding the second front" or "Allies planned to create the second front" it's in the context of the Allied invasion of Western Europe. It's a standing term. I did not define that term.
Just one example: The Tehran Conference (codenamed Eureka) was the meeting of Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill between November 28 and December 1, 1943, most of which was held at the Soviet Embassy in Tehran, Iran. (...) The central aim of the conference was to plan the final strategy for the war against Nazi Germany and its allies, and the chief discussion was centered on the opening of a second front in Western Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Conference
Or see the Article about the Western Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Front#1944-45:_the_Second_Front)
Second, the campaigns in France, Britain, Norway and Africa weren't "created" by the Western allies, and even more important: They happened bevoe the Russo-German war broke out.
You can hardly call that "2nd front" when the alleged "1st one" did not even exist.
The Second Front, as created by Anglo-American Forces, was the invasion of France on 1944.
-
First, it's not about what i call it but what is a commonly accepted term ever since the days of WW2. Wherever you read about "Soviets demanding the second front" or "Allies planned to create the second front" it's in the context of the Allied invasion of Western Europe. It's a standing term. I did not define that term.
Just one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Conference
Second, the campaigns in France, Britain, Norway and Africa weren't "created" by the Western allies, and even more important: They happened bevoe the Russo-German war broke out.
You can hardly call that "2nd front" when the alleged "1st one" did not even exist.
The Second Front, as created by Anglo-American Forces, was the invasion of France on 1944.
You are correct, I used the wrong term.
Edit: Second front I was referring to was the one in Africa, not Europe. Although I was thinking more of all the battles prior to the point at which the Germans were losing in the German-Soviet front.
-
Churchill would rather foolishly be seen to keep a commitment at the expense of a larger picture, ie Fighter squadrons in France, moving troops from Africa to Greece etc
I'd recommend Len Deighton's Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain (http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-True-Story-Battle-Britain/dp/0785812083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267236861&sr=8-1) and Blitzkrieg: From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk (http://www.amazon.com/Blitzkrieg-Rise-Hitler-Fall-Dunkirk/dp/0785812075/ref=pd_sim_b_3)
Tronsky
-
Churchill would rather foolishly be seen to keep a commitment at the expense of a larger picture, ie Fighter squadrons in France, moving troops from Africa to Greece etc
I'd recommend Len Deighton's Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain (http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-True-Story-Battle-Britain/dp/0785812083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267236861&sr=8-1) and Blitzkrieg: From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk (http://www.amazon.com/Blitzkrieg-Rise-Hitler-Fall-Dunkirk/dp/0785812075/ref=pd_sim_b_3)
Tronsky
I think Churchill was holding on the the belief that he felt obligated to aid France any way that he could. Right or wrong, he made a promise to come to France's defense. In the end, I believe that no amount of material or men could have helped France in 1940 because of the lack of leadership there.
-
What would you call the actions against German forces by Allied forces(excluding Stalin's men) prior to D-Day?
The Atlantic, and the skies of W-Europe, as well as the med. The greatest amount of blood drawn from the LW was not in Russia, and the situation in the med costed the Axis steadily growing resources as well as depriving them from stocking their armies from the black Sea.
Anyway, to the original topic of the war in France.
What the French learned correctly from WWI was that a well fortified front (trenches, strongpoints, arty) would take unbearable costs to overcome, - untill there was armour. So, they devised a front that would also stop armour, - the Maginot line.
The Germans however, learning the same lesson, devised an offensive plan, which utilized speed, combination of arms, and most importantly, flanking.
10-12th of May 1940 (approx). may have been the riskiest day in Germany's war, when Guderian took his armour through the Ardennas and into the lowlands. He basically drove through, while it was not known it would work so well. As it was to be proved later, getting through that area could be one painful ride.
So, had France co-operated better with Holland & Belgium setting up defences, things could have gone the other way....or at least quite differently.
-
The German forces had been weakened by the campaigns in France, Britain, Norway, and a few other countries in Europe and Africa. Had Germany been allowed to fight the Soviets first, they most likely would have won. All of this happening long before D-Day.
allowed? your starting to sound like some dueler in the MA whining that he got ganged. Get some SA man!
After Losing the battle of Britain they were forced to deal with leaving forces on the Western front to prevent invasion. Whilst it was very unlikely without American assistance those forces were still TIED up from helping on the eastern front and with the occupations.
Also Hitler did a non-aggression pact with the soviets so why would he attack his new friends first? Betrayal much? i've always wondered where the phrase keep your friends close but your enemies closer comes from :noid
I believe if he had achieved peace with Britain he wouldn't have attacked Russia straight away. Maybe sit a couple of years and get everything in place for the Final Battle... Operation Barbarossa was rushed like an NOE horde grab but they failed to bring more than one goon.....
-
So, had France co-operated better with Holland & Belgium setting up defences, things could have gone the other way....or at least quite differently.
But Germany knew that the allies was waiting for them in Belgium and Holland. France said that it was impossible for the German Army to move through the Ardens, So much that they put so much focus on Belgium and Holland front. For the Germans, they saw that there where roads in the Arden that lead up to Sedan. And they knew that Sedan was a weak defensive point along the French line. Even if the Allies had set a better defensive in Belgium and Holland, they would have never react fast enough to the balk force of the XIX Panzer Corps (2nd Pz Div, 1st Pz Div,and 10th Pz Div.) that broke out in Sedan. As soon as the Germans got into open flat terrain, it was hopeless for the allies to stop them.
About the German plans that was captured in Belgium. I have here that there where only three documents that was readable, and not much on them. The only thing that i see about the changes that where made are quoted:
" In view of the uncertainty as to the conditions of the documents captured by the Belgium, it was decided to cancel the landing to be made by 7th Airborne Division on the right bank of the Meuse, together with the variant intended to expand the bridge-head at Ghent. In addition, apart from the detachment earmarked to capture the Albert Canal bridges and Fort Eben Emael, all remaining German airborne forces were to be kept in revserve for landings or parachute drops within the Dutch Vesting Holland defense zone."
-
My point was that the Ardennes form a formidable chokepoint. Guderian got through with speed, and was pleasantly surprized by how little resistance it was.
Oh, and Bruv, good to mention that the Wehrmacht was indeed weakened by tying up a reasonable force for the sole reason of not being at peace with the UK.
I think that peace with the UK would have won their battle in the USSR....but that is in another thread.
-
i've always wondered where the phrase keep your friends close but your enemies closer comes from
Sun-Tzu, The Art of War ;)
-
Sun-Tzu, The Art of War ;)
I did start reading that once but it was a little too heavy for my small brain :lol
-
hehe, its pretty dense but almost every line is informative. Ive just searched my pdf copy and cant find the quote or anything like it :headscratch: maybe it really was Michael Corleone's.
-
Getting back to he key of France (since the Maginot line was thought to be unpassable), the lowlands, the Germans actually learned to defend the area, and did so much better than the forces of the lowlands. Battle of the Bulge is in the same area.
Same goes with some key points of Holland, which (marginally) lead to the failiure of operation "Market Garden". Anyway, one chokepoint was enough for allied armour not to make it to Arnhem in time, and despite the paras holding on much beyond their expected time, the main point was not successful, - i.e. crossing the Rhine, which would have lead to Germany collapsing much earlier.
In short, the Germans studied speed and the importance of key points and natural obstacles, while the French were polishing static defence to the limit.
Odd enough, they failed drastically there in their advance into Russia.....
-
I have also read Korda's book. IMO, He would have you believe that Dowding stood alone on the cliffs of Dover, shaking his fists at Hitler in defiance for Queen and Country. I feel that Korda missed the point of Churchill's famous "the Few" speech. There were many nations that came to the aid of Britain during the BoB. Korda would have you believe that it was just the British and their unshaken resolve who defeated the Germans in 1940.
People often forget that up to that time Britain was the largest and wealthiest colonial empire in the past 200 years. "Britain" was effectively also Canada, Australia and a whole bunch of other colonies that rushed to her aid, not to mention the remains of the armies from every occupied country in Europe. A quick look at the RAF aces list and the fraction of Canadian / Australian/ Polish / French aces gives a rough idea. Germany did not attack a poor small island nation off the coast of Europe, they attacked what most people believed to be the world's dominant empire.
In regards to the OP, this just goes to show that Britain and France were completely unprepared for this war. They underestimated the threat, lagged in force buildup and equipment and clearly did not have proper "drawer plans" made. The speed of the German advance was a calculated gamble that counted on leaving too little time for France and Britain to gather their true potential force. I does not matter how many regiments France and Britain had if they were not deployed in the right places and ready (both in equipment and mentally) for war.
-
Britain also was about bankrupt in 1940, and rationing was already on before the BoB, - something the Germans started in 1943 (?)
Indeed Britain was the commonwealth, - for instance the pre-payment for the lend-lease deal with the USA was picked up by a U.S. cruiser, - from S-Africa.
Germany also had a good back-up in the time of the BoB, a deal with the USSR (oil and other raw materials), parters and subjects like Hungary, Austria, Romania, Italy, heck, even Spain for a bit, as well as the illgotten gains from the recently occupied countries of W-Europe and Poland before.
So, basically you could say that Dowding had every reason to worry.
-
The allies did outnumber the Germans in 1940 and they where prepared. They did have a plan but they are thinking 1914 invasion and underestimate the Arden forest that could not be passable. but but that did not matter. France and U.K where thinking 1914 not 1940.
-
Britain also was about bankrupt in 1940, and rationing was already on before the BoB, - something the Germans started in 1943 (?)
In Germany, food ration stamps were introduced August 28th 1939, followed by coupons for clothing short time later.
-
:salute all in this substantive thread.
The Iron Curtain would not have moved west at all, as the Soviets most likely would have lost the war if not for the allies creating the second front.
They would have most unlikely lost the war. The turning point in the east was late 42/ early 43, in summer 43 the Wehrmacht lost completely the initiative to the Soviets, and they were advancing ever since - long before D-Day. d It just would have taken longer for them to get to Berlin.
The fall of Britain, or more accurately, Britain coming to terms with the Nazis, would have unforeseen consequences on the Russian campaign. Lend Lease aid to Russia would have been more difficult. North Africa would not have been a distraction. Iraq would be under German influence. Who knows what else.
But, it is my opinion that eventually, Russia would defeat Germany regardless. It is a matter of scale.
Japan’s decision to strike in the Pacific was tied to the ease at which the Germans were racking up victories in 1940. How would Britain, at terms with Hitler, behave in the defense of Singapore in 1941? Some things are just too entangled to make a fair guess.
I have also read Korda's book. IMO, He would have you believe that Dowding stood alone on the cliffs of Dover, shaking his fists at Hitler in defiance for Queen and Country.
If you want to read a few books on the BoB, I would recommend these:
"Duel of Eagles" by Peter Townsend.
[urlhttp://www.amazon.com/Duel-Eagles-Peter-Townsend/dp/0891414320][/url]
"The Few" by Alex Kershaw
http://thefewbook.com/home.html (http://thefewbook.com/home.html)
"The Forgotten Few: The Polish Air Force in WWII" by Adam Zamoyski
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forgotten-Few-Polish-Force-World/dp/1848841965/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257243463&sr=1-9 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forgotten-Few-Polish-Force-World/dp/1848841965/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257243463&sr=1-9)
Here is the website for the BoB Historical Society suggested reading list:
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/bobhsoc/books.html (http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/bobhsoc/books.html)
Korda seems to be trying to clear Dowding’s name. I was unaware of the internal conflicts within the Royal Air Force regarding his defensive strategy. I do not know the source of Korda’s agenda.
Being one of those nerds with a library card, I will look up the books you have recommended when I get done with a Toland book I am reading now.
Churchill would rather foolishly be seen to keep a commitment at the expense of a larger picture, ie Fighter squadrons in France, moving troops from Africa to Greece etc
I'd recommend Len Deighton's Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain (http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-True-Story-Battle-Britain/dp/0785812083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267236861&sr=8-1) and Blitzkrieg: From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk (http://www.amazon.com/Blitzkrieg-Rise-Hitler-Fall-Dunkirk/dp/0785812075/ref=pd_sim_b_3)
Tronsky
So many books, so little time.
Thanks for the recommendations.
:salute
-
Also Hitler did a non-aggression pact with the soviets so why would he attack his new friends first? Betrayal much? i've always wondered where the phrase keep your friends close but your enemies closer comes from :noid
I believe if he had achieved peace with Britain he wouldn't have attacked Russia straight away. Maybe sit a couple of years and get everything in place for the Final Battle... Operation Barbarossa was rushed like an NOE horde grab but they failed to bring more than one goon.....
First and foremost, Hitler was a crazy S.O.B.
I believe it was the poor performance of the Red Army vs. the Finns that gave him the impression that Russia would fall easily. Stalin, another certifiable crazy, helped him by purging the Red Army in 1937.
Regarding the what-if timing of the invasion of Russia, it might have actually happened earlier without the distractions of Greece and Yugoslavia. Hitler would go after Communism eventually based on ideology.
The alternate history game is fun, but the web of events gets tangled quickly.
-
The fall of Britain, or more accurately, Britain coming to terms with the Nazis, would have unforeseen consequences on the Russian campaign.
Just to make clear: I was not referring to the BoB, but the Second Front: D-Day in Normandy.
On BoB, Operation Sea Lion and the fall of Britain: There was no way for the Germans to pull that thing off in 40/41.
-
On BoB, Operation Sea Lion and the fall of Britain: There was no way for the Germans to pull that thing off in 40/41.
One can look at this with 20/20 hindsight and declare it so. The thing is, the British did not really have the same confidence at the time. Had the RAF been dealt a more serious blow, allowing the Germans to launch an airborne assault and a seaborne invasion that had at least a modicum of success initially, there is the chance the Brits would have failed on a "psychological" basis and capitulated before it became clear to them that the German invasion was not sustainable.
Admittedly a very big "what if", but not outside the realm of possibility.
-
I believe if he had achieved peace with Britain he wouldn't have attacked Russia straight away. Maybe sit a couple of years and get everything in place for the Final Battle... Operation Barbarossa was rushed like an NOE horde grab but they failed to bring more than one goon.....
From what I have read the Germans had the opinion that they had to rush the attack on Russia.Time was on the Russians side.The longer the Germans waited the stronger the Russians would become compared to theyre own forces.The Germans felt that theyre strength at the time was going to be as good as it was going to get and the ratio would only get worse with time.
-
The Germans turned their eyes to the maps of Russia in the autumn of 1940. It was not delayed much by the BoB, but to Hitler's disappointment, the British would not come to some sort of an agreement.
It was tried to get the Spanish to co-operate in order to catch Gibraltar from land and thereby open up the shipping route from the Atlantic to the Med, and thereby hopefully to the Black Sea. There was the only part of the USSR which could be struck much sooner that from Poland, due to the latitude and difference in climate. Would have made some odd 2 months of a difference. But Franco did not co-operate, so Germany had to attack from the more northern perimeter.
Now, Russia is big, and the industrial output was getting on to a good pace. But the resources of Germany cannot be underestimated. They had under their boot more manpower than the USSR, as well as vast resources and booty.
So, in short, the British put a load to the failiure of Barbarossa in some of the following lines:
- Refusing the access to the Black Sea
- Tying up some dozens of divisions on the W Europe fronts.
- Keeping a living fight going on in N-Africa.
- Tying up HALF of the LW available on the W-Front
- Drawing a lot of LW's finest blood during the BoB and after.
- goes on forever. I think it would definately have brought the Nazi warmachine much futher and perhaps to Victory had there been peace with the UK. After all, the Generals were looking atthe towers of
-
The Germans turned their eyes to the maps of Russia in the autumn of 1940. It was not delayed much by the BoB, but to Hitler's disappointment, the British would not come to some sort of an agreement.
It was tried to get the Spanish to co-operate in order to catch Gibraltar from land and thereby open up the shipping route from the Atlantic to the Med, and thereby hopefully to the Black Sea. There was the only part of the USSR which could be struck much sooner that from Poland, due to the latitude and difference in climate. Would have made some odd 2 months of a difference. But Franco did not co-operate, so Germany had to attack from the more northern perimeter.
Now, Russia is big, and the industrial output was getting on to a good pace. But the resources of Germany cannot be underestimated. They had under their boot more manpower than the USSR, as well as vast resources and booty.
So, in short, the British put a load to the failiure of Barbarossa in some of the following lines:
- Refusing the access to the Black Sea
- Tying up some dozens of divisions on the W Europe fronts.
- Keeping a living fight going on in N-Africa.
- Tying up HALF of the LW available on the W-Front
- Drawing a lot of LW's finest blood during the BoB and after.
- goes on forever. I think it would definately have brought the Nazi warmachine much futher and perhaps to Victory had there been peace with the UK. After all, the Generals were looking atthe towers of
Yep, the Brits did a lot to hold up the German war machine to the east until the U.S. finally jumped in the twister game.
-
And once the US was in the game, the outcoma was predictable. As for the dismayed German Generals standing at the gates of Moscow and learning that Hitler had declared war on the USA, - well they did not think it was very smart. I should be able to find the exact wording.
-
And once the US was in the game, the outcoma was predictable. As for the dismayed German Generals standing at the gates of Moscow and learning that Hitler had declared war on the USA, - well they did not think it was very smart. I should be able to find the exact wording.
I bet some of German upper rank staff felt the same way too.
-
But they were scared of that....thing with a beard :D
Honestly though, the system around Hitler was quite strong. Well demonstrated after the Stauffenberg bomb issue.
Protest and die....
-
But they were scared of that....thing with a beard :D
Honestly though, the system around Hitler was quite strong. Well demonstrated after the Stauffenberg bomb issue.
Protest and die....
Yea, that is why he got into power and German people afraid to do anything to protest the war.
-
Sun-Tzu, The Art of War ;)
I thought it was Machiavelli, are u sure of that? :old: