certainly not, but I must admit I've had other things on my mind those past few days. Bear with me.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
certainly not, but I must admit I've had other things on my mind those past few days. Bear with me.
OK, French air forces wasn't equal to German... I doesn't mean their artillery was left absolutely helpless. Russians were kicking Nazi ass despite Luftwaffe's air superiority in the east front almost to the end of war...
I think French had enough fighters for such cover.
The only practicable French avenue of attack against Germany was between Moselle and the Rhine. As drawn in 1815 this border was demarcated to be defensible against the French. The Germans possessed the high ground. The sector also contained the most heavily fortified section of the Siegfried Line. But the German fortifications were so far from the border that French artillery shelling them would be subject to German counterbattery fire.
The French actually went on the offensive in 1939. But Operation "Saar" that went in on Sep.7 was "complete fiasco" (Eddy Bauer). The French captured seven and half miles of territory in front of the Siegfried Line against a very skilful German delaying defence. Of the 14 French divisions in the sector only eight were used. The Germans fielded ten divisions against hem.
The major offensive on the Siegfried Line was planned for Sep.17. - the seventeenth day of mobilization. It never got off the ground because the Polish campaign was over by then. But German analysis of the preliminary bombardment found taht the bunkers of the Siegfired Line were proof against 155 mm shells and that the French 210 and 280 howitzer shells failed to as much harm as they could have because they did not have delaying acxtion fuzes. More seriously mucgh ofthe French artillery ammunition was too old and did not explode.
No British forces arrived in France before the beginning oF October.
In September 1939 the Luftwaffe outnumbered the Armee de l'Air two to one, with 1125 SE fighters vs 425, 195 TE fighters vs 90 and 1180 bombers vs. 698. The Germans also had 406 dive bombers (Ju-87)/ground attack aircraft[Hs-123).
Only 8 of the 698 French bombers were "modern". The rest were obsolescent early 30s designs. Ninenty pct of the German SE fighters were Bf 109Es that were superior to the MS 406s that formed the biulk of the French fighter force in the autumn of 1939.
I just don't know were you got the idea that France equalled Germany in the number of fighters available in 1939.
France may have had a large number of fighters in reserve, tied down to protect strategic targets in the hinterland. But they were tied down because France did not have the large scale anti-aircraft defense system the Germans possessed.
Last edited:
On the Eastern Front nobody had air superiority after the summer of 1941. But the Russians always were able to gain local superiority over the sectors where they intended to attack.
For what happens to armies fighting without air superiority read any account of the fdighting in France in 1940 or 1944.
Including Stalingrad???
You should rather mention Fall Weiss (Polish Campaign) or Barbarossa instead Fall Gelb..., '44 no doubt. In France '40 Germans haven't got overwhelming air superiority from the beginning of the campaign. Despite that they managed to fool French out not counting on precise calculation how many gun shells can approach their lines or not (I know - those statistic tabels look impressive in any book about the matter...), but acting bravely and risky with Blitzkrieg.
Hm, I read that French offensive met practically not response, but Gamelin decided to cancel it due to a lack in the reconnaissance of German forces. It would be strange - French to meet in Saar 10 German divisions of total amount of 15 in the entire western front. And those 15 divisions were reserve ones, when ALL first line units wer engaged in Poland, consider their military value...
I've read somewhere (although I don't remember the source) that the french army lost 35 men during the "Saar offensive", mostly due to car accidents and fatal diseases. Can anyone prov e it right or wrong?
Cheers
As I said earlier. On the East Front both sides could achieve control of the sky over the actual battlefield. Thi8s tactical control is different from the operational control achieved with air superiorty, where the enemy is denied the ability to use airspace at all.
The German army was simply better than the French in waging war in 1940.
The German 1st Army had 17 divisions. 7 of these were active (1.Welle) formations. In addition there was a division's worth of active troops manning the Siegfried line.
Throwing the Germans out of the Siegfried Line would in fact have required the entire French active army of 54 divisions - just to get the required 3-1 odds.
As I said initilally. Gamelin should not have misled the politicians.
If he had not France might not have declared war - but that is another story.
Ok, to summarize my point of wiev - the French and the English did not obey their obligations towards Poland.
That is it!
EOT
That is it!
EOT
There is only one valid principle in internationl politics:
Salus publica suprema lex.
... or, do not count on allies to save your skin when you paint yourself into a corner.
If I wrote what I think about Polish interwar foreign policy I would become your mortal enemy. So I won't.
Suffice it to say that the Western allie ssuffered from delusions of grandeur in 1939-40.
Salus publica suprema lex.
... or, do not count on allies to save your skin when you paint yourself into a corner.
If I wrote what I think about Polish interwar foreign policy I would become your mortal enemy. So I won't.
Suffice it to say that the Western allie ssuffered from delusions of grandeur in 1939-40.
So what do you need them for? To make some ministers more busy?
Oh please do, I'd probably agree with you (as long as you don't think Poland was imperialistic swine oppressing Ukrainians, Jews, Afroamericans and German minority.
Totally right, general sir.
Cheers
If I wrote what I think about Polish interwar foreign policy I would be banned from this forum for bad language. So don't hesitate. Most of us, Poles, recognize the fact that our politicians are usually total shit.
Well, it is easy to reproach Polish interwar politicians nowaday...
In a matter fact they were walking on a very thin ice manouvring between two powers, trying to keep the balance.
But say me what could be their alternative policy:
1. Probably the best solution would be the alliance with Czechoslovakia and Hungary. The problem is that while Hungarians were rather open for such idea, Czechoslovak goverment rather relied on... French assistance for the war opportunity. Besides the relations between our two countries were very cold due to Czech agression on so-called Zaolzie in 1920 and subsequent their anti-Polish policy in this area.
2. "Brotherhood help" of Soviet People would end like it really did in 1945 an such solution was unacceptable for Poles. I think it is not hard to understand...
3. To ally with French and UK, hoping that Hitler would not dare to begin war in such conditions. We know how it finished.
4. The best (least exhausting and devastating our nation) alternative would probably be the alliance with... Germany (many times proposed by Hitler) against Soviet Union, at the cost of some provices required by Hitler. It is the only mistake of our poliicians in mentioned period not to choose such alliance...
In a matter fact they were walking on a very thin ice manouvring between two powers, trying to keep the balance.
But say me what could be their alternative policy:
1. Probably the best solution would be the alliance with Czechoslovakia and Hungary. The problem is that while Hungarians were rather open for such idea, Czechoslovak goverment rather relied on... French assistance for the war opportunity. Besides the relations between our two countries were very cold due to Czech agression on so-called Zaolzie in 1920 and subsequent their anti-Polish policy in this area.
2. "Brotherhood help" of Soviet People would end like it really did in 1945 an such solution was unacceptable for Poles. I think it is not hard to understand...
3. To ally with French and UK, hoping that Hitler would not dare to begin war in such conditions. We know how it finished.
4. The best (least exhausting and devastating our nation) alternative would probably be the alliance with... Germany (many times proposed by Hitler) against Soviet Union, at the cost of some provices required by Hitler. It is the only mistake of our poliicians in mentioned period not to choose such alliance...
Exactly. I've began to loathe almost every history book and evey wwii movie simply because they present Poles as stupid people who went after tanks with cavalry. Wow. Hitler's propaganda works wonders even today. In light of todays view on Hungary and Romania, and how nobody ever says how they joined sides with Germany, and nobody ever gives them sh*t about this, I say screw it, Poland should've sided with Germany. They were given this proposal in 1936 but refused. If only I could turn back time.
In the past ten years everyone started to blame Poland for killing so many Jews. Every movie shows Poles trying to help Germans out with killing Jews. I have nothing against Jews but this can really piss you off. It's like they built concentration camps in Poland because the Poles let them. Oh GOD. It's like whether the Poles fought for or against the Germans almost doesn't matter. If the country that suffered the most is going to get such bad press it might as well have sided with the Germans. The press might actualy be less cruel... because it's less cruel to Hungary and Romania.
Poland lasted longer than France. Poland fought against both Germany and Russia in 1939. They were the only country to sign a 'conditional surrender'... France signed 'unconditional surrender'. How about the rest of those countries Germany took over by force?
Polish idealism looks so blindly to the West that it forgets the countless times they were stabbed in the back. In part, it's their own fault because the West was more rational and less idealistic, but honestly, someone should've got the idea by the 17th century with the stupid wars against Sweden. Did Poland not realize that France and whoever back there is just too far away to help poor old Poland? Did they not realize that they simply don't care? I know, when I play EU and have an alliance with some distant country, I'm not going to go out of my freakin way and help them out. They should've came out with EU back then in the 17th C, I say. In 1807 we had the chance to fight for Aleksander against Napoleon, in 1813 we had the chance to betray Napoleon like Austria and Prussia, but we didn't and we got nothing. But history books don't scorn Prussia or Austria for 'betraying' a leader and forfitting their honor. No! They only speak of Polish uprisings that were quickly suppressed. As if no-one cared.
And historians here, or at least at the U of O, are garbage. I had one say Napoleon's allies invaded Poland in 1807... I almost pooped a brick.
Another actualy knew about some Polish reforms and the constitution, and even after frequent and educating conversations with me, spoke only and very briefly about Polish partitions. This was a fourth year 'Napoleonic Era' class (~400 level). But still, the teacher taught as much about Poland in this very specified period of time when something could be said about Poland, as any high school teacher. In fact, I heard more about Poland in highschool history classes. The worst hurt is when someone knows and doesn't say. The one thing this 'professor' didn't know was about the Polish Education Reform in 1773 that centralized all schools. Preceded Prussia to some extent, yes? Preceded all nations with popularizing the motto 'To make Poles citizens'; actualy, this notion was first used by Stanislaw Konarski in the early 1700's. This preced everyone. But no, I got nothing on this topic. I spit on the history curriculum of this university. I'm fairly certain it's like this in 99% of universities here. What's more funny is that the professor said that he'll focus on other countries and events that you don't normaly hear about, but that were important. HAHAHAHAHA. Eat me.
I'm not stupid either. I never raised my hand like a mad man and started to lecture the class on Poland and how he's wrong. Oh no, no need to make the rest of the class solidify their notion of Poles as raging lunatics with bent sabers, hehe.
In conclusion. England and France should've attacked, but hey, I'm absolutely not suprised they didn't.
Regards
In the past ten years everyone started to blame Poland for killing so many Jews. Every movie shows Poles trying to help Germans out with killing Jews. I have nothing against Jews but this can really piss you off. It's like they built concentration camps in Poland because the Poles let them. Oh GOD. It's like whether the Poles fought for or against the Germans almost doesn't matter. If the country that suffered the most is going to get such bad press it might as well have sided with the Germans. The press might actualy be less cruel... because it's less cruel to Hungary and Romania.
Poland lasted longer than France. Poland fought against both Germany and Russia in 1939. They were the only country to sign a 'conditional surrender'... France signed 'unconditional surrender'. How about the rest of those countries Germany took over by force?
Polish idealism looks so blindly to the West that it forgets the countless times they were stabbed in the back. In part, it's their own fault because the West was more rational and less idealistic, but honestly, someone should've got the idea by the 17th century with the stupid wars against Sweden. Did Poland not realize that France and whoever back there is just too far away to help poor old Poland? Did they not realize that they simply don't care? I know, when I play EU and have an alliance with some distant country, I'm not going to go out of my freakin way and help them out. They should've came out with EU back then in the 17th C, I say. In 1807 we had the chance to fight for Aleksander against Napoleon, in 1813 we had the chance to betray Napoleon like Austria and Prussia, but we didn't and we got nothing. But history books don't scorn Prussia or Austria for 'betraying' a leader and forfitting their honor. No! They only speak of Polish uprisings that were quickly suppressed. As if no-one cared.
And historians here, or at least at the U of O, are garbage. I had one say Napoleon's allies invaded Poland in 1807... I almost pooped a brick.
Another actualy knew about some Polish reforms and the constitution, and even after frequent and educating conversations with me, spoke only and very briefly about Polish partitions. This was a fourth year 'Napoleonic Era' class (~400 level). But still, the teacher taught as much about Poland in this very specified period of time when something could be said about Poland, as any high school teacher. In fact, I heard more about Poland in highschool history classes. The worst hurt is when someone knows and doesn't say. The one thing this 'professor' didn't know was about the Polish Education Reform in 1773 that centralized all schools. Preceded Prussia to some extent, yes? Preceded all nations with popularizing the motto 'To make Poles citizens'; actualy, this notion was first used by Stanislaw Konarski in the early 1700's. This preced everyone. But no, I got nothing on this topic. I spit on the history curriculum of this university. I'm fairly certain it's like this in 99% of universities here. What's more funny is that the professor said that he'll focus on other countries and events that you don't normaly hear about, but that were important. HAHAHAHAHA. Eat me.
I'm not stupid either. I never raised my hand like a mad man and started to lecture the class on Poland and how he's wrong. Oh no, no need to make the rest of the class solidify their notion of Poles as raging lunatics with bent sabers, hehe.
In conclusion. England and France should've attacked, but hey, I'm absolutely not suprised they didn't.
Regards
Geeez! ...and I 've heard some western historian who said that French stopped their Saar offensive because they meet hard resistance
Sokowolaki,
Would fighting for Alexander have resulted in a Polish state? At least Napoleon made a start of restoring Poland, and his disaster in Russia was not something he planned on.
Are you blaming Polish history solely on alliances with distant countries? I would have thought the Polish nobility deserves "villain of history" award for their hand in the destruction of the nation.
Would fighting for Alexander have resulted in a Polish state? At least Napoleon made a start of restoring Poland, and his disaster in Russia was not something he planned on.
Are you blaming Polish history solely on alliances with distant countries? I would have thought the Polish nobility deserves "villain of history" award for their hand in the destruction of the nation.
Originally posted by EUfan
Geeez! ...and I 've heard some western historian who said that French stopped their Saar offensive because they meet hard resistance
Do you know where artillery support for the "offensive" came from? From France, and the offensive stayed within range of that fixed artillery.
No one wants to look the reality of combined arms war in the face. Let's say the offensive continues, Germany has to withdraw troops and aircraft from Poland. Does that save Poland? No, but it does condemn those French troops to death as soon as the Luftwaffe show up.
BTW did anyone ever find a source document with the assurance of an offensive. I know it was floating around the HOI forum, but that thread seemed to disappear.