Battle of France (1940)

[oakranger]

You know, Germany technically had fronts: East, West, South, Sea, and Air

[Kermit de frog]

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?

[Obie303]

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

"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

Here is the website for the BoB Historical Society suggested reading list:
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/bobhsoc/books.html

[Lusche]

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


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.

[Kermit de frog]

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.

[-tronski-]

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 and Blitzkrieg: From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk

 Tronsky

[Obie303]

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 and Blitzkrieg: From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk

 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. 

[Angus]

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.

[Bruv119]

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 

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.....

[oakranger]

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."

[Angus]

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.

[RTHolmes]

i've always wondered where the phrase keep your friends close but your enemies closer comes from

Sun-Tzu, The Art of War

[Bruv119]

Sun-Tzu, The Art of War

I did start reading that once but it was a little too heavy for my small brain 

[RTHolmes]

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   maybe it really was Michael Corleone's.

[Angus]

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.....