Myth: France surrendering so easily to the Germans?

[unmerged(88345)]

Let's blast some Myths by the numbers by the way, that will be easier and quicker. I'd like to recall before bedtime that German KIA during the Campaign of France and Low Countries, roughly one month, amount to 3,5 times the number of the African Campaign, which lasted 2 years and half - keeping in mind that African Campaign KIA losses are still lower than the "comparatively quick" Polish Campaign... So much about "long tough campaigns" I'd say, and our Polish friends will probably share that view... It's not because you do not resist a whole year that you don't give a fight
Another comparison? French Campaign German KIA losses are roughly equal to those of the Italian fightings from Husky (July 43) to November 1944... Well actually, if I take Feldgrau.com's numbers as a reference, the French and low countries campaign was the fourth most murderous in terms of German KIA after the Eastern Front, the Western post-D-Day Front and the Italian Front - and when it comes to a duration/KIA ratio, it may be (by not that much) the worst one, even before the gigantic 1,419,728 KIA, 47 months-long and 3000km-wide Eastern Front...

You would obviously expect Germany to not lose many men in the Mediterrean because Germany had, at the most, 9 divisions in Africa as opposed to the 120-140 it brought forth against France. Also, Germany lost 4 million on the Eastern front not 1.4 million. And, of course, using a duration:KIA ratio is a great way to reward countries that fight briefly and then surrender. Of course, the casualty per day calculation is more than 2:1 in favor of the Eastern Front. Given that you are the one talking about myths you should be wary of spouting uninformed nationalist propaganda.

 

[unmerged(18602)]

You would obviously expect Germany to not lose many men in the Mediterrean because Germany had, at the most, 9 divisions in Africa as opposed to the 120-140 it brought forth against France.

Yeah no kidding? It's just that I expected way higher losses in Africa - as you see, apparently the Allies did put up a fight in North Africa, something they most probably didn't when they fought in France, as the campaign lasted only one month, right...?
I mean, you tell me they needed THAT many units just to parade into France and the low countries? I wonder why, maybe they had to fight then...?

Also, Germany lost 4 million on the Eastern front not 1.4 million.

Chap, people get CAPTURED too, especially on the losing end, and tend to die in captivity somewhere on the way to Siberia... Well AFAIK of course, I wasn't there myself to check.

But actually my numbers aren't right - they don't take into account "home front" losses, as the numbers stop at November 1944 - then yes Eastern Front indeed is undoubtedly the most murderous one on a month-basis then. Do you feel so much cleverer now? ^^

Given that you are the one talking about myths you should be wary of spouting uninformed nationalist propaganda.

Ho yes that's mostly pro-French or nazi propaganda we're dealing with here, Feldgrau.com being known for being a fundamentally biased website infiltrated with French traitors...
http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

And, of course, using a duration:KIA ratio is a great way to reward countries that fight briefly and then surrender.

Now, "of course", what is THAT supposed to mean? That countries who fight briefly and then surrender fire more accurate bullets than others? :rofl: :wacko:

Of course, the casualty per day calculation is more than 2:1 in favor of the Eastern Front

And where are YOUR numbers tiger?

Ho man, are you serious about dealing with history or what? Get real and go beyond Myths then. They are here to be destroyed, that's what they're made for...

I just can't understand how, 60 years later, people still believe that the German army didn't have to fight for France and the Low Countries - truth isn't anywhere as cool eh? The same with everything else in that definitely myth-ridden conflict... I have nothing against romanticism as long as it stays outside on the doorstep when it's all about history. But sometimes you must get realistic, or we're not going anywhere...

 

[unmerged(88345)]

Yeah no kidding? It's just that I expected way higher losses in Africa - as you see, apparently the Allies did put up a fight in North Africa, something they most probably didn't when they fought in France, as the campaign lasted only one month, right...?
I mean, you tell me they needed THAT many units just to parade into France and the low countries? I wonder why, maybe they had to fight then...?

In Africa, neither side committed many resources, because it was not that important a theater.

Chap, people get CAPTURED too, especially on the losing end, and tend to die in captivity somewhere on the way to Siberia... Well AFAIK of course, I wasn't there myself to check.

But actually my numbers aren't right - they don't take into account "home front" losses, as the numbers stop at November 1944 - then yes Eastern Front indeed is undoubtedly the most murderous one on a month-basis then. Do you feel so much cleverer now? ^^

According to my figures, 300,000 died in Soviet capitivity. That doesn't change much in terms of the overall figures.

Now, "of course", what is THAT supposed to mean? That countries who fight briefly and then surrender fire more accurate bullets than others?

Ever heard of "war exhaustion"? It is very real- as countries lose their best soldiers and equipment they fight worse.

And where are YOUR numbers tiger?

Ho man, are you serious about dealing with history or what? Get real and go beyond
Myths. They are here to be destroyed, that's what they're made for...

I just can't understand how, 60 years later, people still believe that the German army didn't have to fight for France and the Low Countries - truth isn't anywhere as cool eh? The same with everything else in that definitely myth-ridden conflict... I have nothing against romanticism as long as it stays outside on the doorstep when it's all about history. But sometimes you must get realistic, or we're not going anywhere...

It's not that Germany didn't have to fight. It's that it had a pretty easy time, because of its superior military leadership and morale and because it got lucky. When are beaten after only a month and a half something is horribly wrong with your ability to fight. That is a very difficult point to dispute, though you can try all you want to argue it.

 

[unmerged(47135)]

It's not that Germany didn't have to fight. It's that it had a pretty easy time, because of its superior military leadership and morale and because it got lucky. When are beaten after only a month and a half something is horribly wrong with your ability to fight.

Looking at the early war track-record, something was horribly wrong with the ability to fight of everyone but the Germans.

Which again begs the question why France should be singled out for special approbation? Seeing how the most and hardest fight the Germans got involved with before trying to take on the Soviet Union, was with said France.

Except of course in the sense of "easy" as in "successful" you've just introduced.

 

[unmerged(18602)]

In Africa, neither side committed many resources, because it was not that important a theater.

Or maybe rather because they couldn't, logistically speaking - how can one expect the Axis to commit more forces while they were already unable to support those they had there?
And talking about resources, I suppose you leave Torch out of the picture right...?

Ever heard of "war exhaustion"? It is very real- as countries lose their best soldiers and equipment they fight worse.

Well, if I follow your thinking, the French and low countries theater not being that demanding and dangerous, the figures should have been much lower, right? I mean, the Germans didn't have time to "fight worse" if I understand your people's point?

And where are YOUR numbers tiger?

Er... Are you really reading my messages? I start to have doubts about it...

http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

When are beaten after only a month and a half something is horribly wrong with your ability to fight.

I saw no-one here, especially not the French contributors, arguing against the fact that French military resistance was a big failure, mainly for leadership and doctrinal reasons, who are you fighting in your head? Or rather should I ask you what is exactly your point?
A failure surely, but certainly not when it comes to motivation on a tactical level. Unlike what certain doubious people wanted to imply, French troops (and their allies) fought, got killed, and killed, all in all in the most KIA/time-costly campaign the Germans (and the Allies most probably) fought on the western front. French soldiers were willing to defend their country, as far as we know, paid the price, and were unlikely "welcoming the Germans with open arms" like Ive seen here and then.

Most of contributors to this thread, still, have doubts about the idea that any other western nation, in Spring 1940, would have behaved better in Fall Gelb conditions than the French did. I tend to concur... And I still wonder why this should be an issue in here, and where people think they are getting to when they endlessly repeat like parrots old clichés about a battle they obviously know nothing about in details... Do you?

 

[unmerged(62241)]

I saw no-one here, especially not the French contributors, arguing against the fact that French military resistance was a big failure, mainly for leadership and doctrinal reasons, who are you fighting in your head? Or rather should I ask you what is exactly your point?
A failure surely, but certainly not when it comes to motivation on a tactical level. Unlike what certain doubious people wanted to imply, French troops (and their allies) fought, got killed, and killed, all in all in the most KIA/time-costly campaign the Germans (and the Allies most probably) fought on the western front. French soldiers were willing to defend their country, as far as we know, paid the price, and were unlikely "welcoming the Germans with open arms" like Ive seen here and then.

/QUOTE]


Don't you think that doctrine and leadership affect motivation? Was French morale as high as it was in 1870 or 1914? Do you truly think that motivation was uniformly good?

Do I qualify as a "dubious" person?

 

[Pero Coveilha]

Doctrine and leadership probably affect motivation in some way. When it is actualized in action, or absence thereof, when the average soldier realizes that he and every allied force is overwhelmed by the enemy, that is when it is already too late, it surely changes his motivation to win, and changes his fight into a desperate one (and desperate it was indeed). But it's more of a step result than a cause of the defeat.

Now I don't recall the BEF, which shared the overall land doctrine of the french army and was under french HQ's leadership, fared any better than the french troops in general in May 1940. This had nothing to do with a supposed poor fighting spirit of the Nation, as it as been proved a few months later during the Battle of England, and the rest of the war.

 

[TeutonicKnight]

Looking at the early war track-record, something was horribly wrong with the ability to fight of everyone but the Germans.

Which again begs the question why France should be singled out for special approbation? Seeing how the most and hardest fight the Germans got involved with before trying to take on the Soviet Union, was with said France.

Except of course in the sense of "easy" as in "successful" you've just introduced.

Because of all the former people Germany took over, France was the only one that could be called a "power."

You hear all kinds of reasons why France fell most of which is fluff: She lost a whole generation of youth in WW1, Germany lost more and some land to boot. While Germany had more in manpower to lose, people are implying that because France lost a lot of people it had a negative effect on their ability to fight while summarily dismissing the same for Germany who lost more in tur. This while over all numbers favor the allies during the German offensive.

While I do not subscribe to the "France is a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys" it was a monumental failure of the French leadership to check the Germans and save their own country. To me the failure of the French came not from its soldiers, but from the political turmoil from within France and its leadership to not exactly keep current with modern doctrins.

 

[gagenater]

Because of all the former people Germany took over, France was the only one that could be called a "power."

You hear all kinds of reasons why France fell most of which is fluff: She lost a whole generation of youth in WW1, Germany lost more and some land to boot. While Germany had more in manpower to lose, people are implying that because France lost a lot of people it had a negative effect on their ability to fight while summarily dismissing the same for Germany who lost more in tur. This while over all numbers favor the allies during the German offensive.

While I do not subscribe to the "France is a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys" it was a monumental failure of the French leadership to check the Germans and save their own country. To me the failure of the French came not from its soldiers, but from the political turmoil from within France and its leadership to not exactly keep current with modern doctrins.

The note about France loosing a generation in WWI is not fluff. The fertility rate in Germany was much higher than it was in France during the period in question - say 1900 to 1945. IIRC Germany already had more people by the mid 20's than they had before WWI. France wasn't close to catching up until the very eve of the war. So it is in fact a relevent factor. Germany had a bigger advantage in Military age men at the start of WWII than they did in WWI at least in a direct comparison of France vs. Germany. The Ratio for Germany did get much worse later, but only after they declared war on the USSR.

 

[unmerged(47135)]

You hear all kinds of reasons why France fell most of which is fluff: She lost a whole generation of youth in WW1, Germany lost more and some land to boot. While Germany had more in manpower to lose, people are implying that because France lost a lot of people it had a negative effect on their ability to fight while summarily dismissing the same for Germany who lost more in tur. This while over all numbers favor the allies during the German offensive.

Because it isn't about who lost the most, but about who managed to replace the losses the fastest.

1918 demographics indicated that the UK would replace their loest manpower in 12 years, Germany would do it in 8, but France would need all of 66 years to do it. And those calculations turned out to hold as well.

That's your relevant frame of reference for understanding the role of the Lost Generation problem for France in 1940. The lack of new Frenchmen to make up for the dead in comparison with in particular Germany.

 

[unmerged(47135)]

Because of all the former people Germany took over, France was the only one that could be called a "power."

That was the sentiment in 1940 for sure. You are aware of the absolute national psychological crisis the events of 1940 caused for the French?

Poland might qualify as a "power" though. Not least because the Poles prior to the war were pretty convinced they could at least stop and hold the Germans, making it a long war. On paper it certainly wasn't too unrealistic.

And the "inability" of everyone but the Germans to put up an effective fight was still there for everyone to see. It still wasn't just the French.

 

[TeutonicKnight]

The note about France loosing a generation in WWI is not fluff. The fertility rate in Germany was much higher than it was in France during the period in question - say 1900 to 1945. IIRC Germany already had more people by the mid 20's than they had before WWI. France wasn't close to catching up until the very eve of the war. So it is in fact a relevent factor. Germany had a bigger advantage in Military age men at the start of WWII than they did in WWI at least in a direct comparison of France vs. Germany. The Ratio for Germany did get much worse later, but only after they declared war on the USSR.

I completely understand what you are saying. My point was that France was not alone she had colonies and she had allies, which is why said "allies"instead of just France when comparing opposing forces. And why I believe it was more to do with leadership rather than at lower levels. Good competant leaders would have had contingency plans in order to use all of France's resources but they didn't.

 

[TeutonicKnight]

Because it isn't about who lost the most, but about who managed to replace the losses the fastest.

1918 demographics indicated that the UK would replace their loest manpower in 12 years, Germany would do it in 8, but France would need all of 66 years to do it. And those calculations turned out to hold as well.

That's your relevant frame of reference for understanding the role of the Lost Generation problem for France in 1940. The lack of new Frenchmen to make up for the dead in comparison with in particular Germany.

Like I said to Gaeg, I understand completely the context in which the lost generation is used. However, France had its allies as well and the numbers held in their favor not Germany. The comparison of absolute numbers would only come into play in a war of attrition such as the Eastern theater, but that never came to fruition because of the fast and decisive victory in which Germany attained.

Germany attained that victory through a much more modern concept of war, which is truely how France lost.

 

[unmerged(47135)]

Like I said to Gaeg, I understand completely the context in which the lost generation is used. However, France had its allies as well and the numbers held in their favor not Germany. The comparison of absolute numbers would only come into play in a war of attrition such as the Eastern theater, but that never came to fruition because of the fast and decisive victory in which Germany attained.

Germany attained that victory through a much more modern concept of war, which is truely how France lost.

That's undoubtedly the major cause, yes.

But this demographic info is fundamental for understanding how pre-both WWI and WWII France worked. It was crucial when France decided how and how not to fight in WWII. There was half a century of compunded Demographic Crisis Mentality spread among all Frenchmen. It was an obstacle to adopting this more modern concept of war, since such required adopting things completely counter-intuitive to the French WWI experience. That wasn't "fluff", that was a real political issue, even if outlandish in any context but 1930's France.

Attempts were made pre-WWII to find some way of dealing with thise sense of constant crisis. Like the Greater France concept, where the colonies were counted as well, meaning "France" in that sense was estimated at 110 million people to Germany's 80 million. But it would seem those kinds of mental exericises never really convinced the French public.

 

[germanguy]

I think the answer quite simple.

The French goverment was in a fragile state.
Most of the French generals were left overs from WW1.
Bad strategy and tactics. They still had Trench warfare in their heads.
They believed in the Maginot line too much.
They used their tanks in penny packets.
And not so good morale among the troops.

They were soundly beaten!

Just my thougths.