French surrender

General WWII and Reenactment Topics Only. Post anything else in Off Topic, please.
User avatar
Gren-Schell
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:08 pm
Location: Henham, Essex

Re: French surrender

Post by Gren-Schell »

I think that their defeat can be contributed to one thing ...Blitzkrieg
It's not real... it's called re-enacting!
kiler
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Poland

Re: French surrender

Post by kiler »

Problem was of a psychological matter. French "didn`t want to die for Gdańsk (Danzig as Germans name it)" as their papers wrote in the summer of 1939. They prefered to sacrifice Czechoslovakia in Munchen in 1938 just not to fight. They prefered to believe in German propaganda, that Polish are persecuting German minority then to defy Germans and opose their unjustified demands. Their psychic was heavily damaged after WWI casualities. I think that even after September 1939 they still believed that sacrificing Poland just like earlier Czechs will mollify Hitler and war won`t be necessary. Their morale was really weak at the beggining of campaign, and got even worse when it turned out that their magnificent Maginote line proved useless. From the memoirs from 1940 campaign you can read that the only ones who wanted to fight in France then were British from BEF, French colonial soldiers and Poles.

But strangely, French were treated as victors of WWII. I even heard the story that on the day of signing Germany unconiditional surrender, German general who was signing it asked ironically: "What French are doing on the other side of the table, they should sign this document with us".
John Wilson
Posts: 2058
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Britain
Contact:

Re: French surrender

Post by John Wilson »

Stigroadie wrote:So it's not because, as Homer* once said, that they are 'cheese eating surrender monkeys'?
[*It was Willie but Homer makes it sound high brow]
And not the pasta eating ones we usually deride? Well maybe it's a thought...
94-87 Ich bedauere nichts
57-93 Either put me in jail or kill me
John Wilson
Posts: 2058
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Britain
Contact:

Re: French surrender

Post by John Wilson »

Gren-Schell wrote:I think that their defeat can be contributed to one thing ...Blitzkrieg
? That crap veggie type punk band who weren't as good as Blitz? :wink:
94-87 Ich bedauere nichts
57-93 Either put me in jail or kill me
Irland-redaktion
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:44 am
Location: DERRY

Re: French surrender

Post by Irland-redaktion »

George formby explains it all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1LbDTMLDKk
Image
Hans Gowert
Posts: 2753
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:20 pm
Location: Afra

Re: French surrender

Post by Hans Gowert »

i did warn
Peiper

Re: French surrender

Post by Peiper »

In my opinion and as stated previously, the Germans invented a new type of warfare called "Blitzkrieg",
without going in to too much detail the French and us British were not ready or prepared for such
a War, us Brits sent over the BEF which consisted mainly of TA members and were sent ill equipped with
Bren gun carriers and WW1 Lee Enfields for this new type of warfare and were basically sent to fight in
their nightshirts.

The Germans had already praticed their new tatics on the killing grounds of Spain so knew what
they were about, also they were equiping themslves for War since the early 30's and the European
powers did nothing to stop them, the reason why the French chucked in the sponge in my opinion
after the Brits "baled" out at Dunkirk the French were left demoralised and as stated without proper
leadership, there is more to it such as political reasons etc as iam just touching the tip of the ice
berg,

What annoyed me was not the actual surrender but the fact that most French had turned Vichy,
if it wasn't for the Free French army and resistance forces i reckon this would have been a bad mark
against them in terms of joining forces with the Nazi's, but then after 44 most civillians declared they
were resistance anyway and basically jumped on the band wagon, basically this is a complicated issue
and needs studying properly as said above iam only touching on the subject.

Regards Pipes :D
Villy Vassel
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:12 am

Re: French surrender

Post by Villy Vassel »

John Wilson wrote:
Villy Vassel wrote:What were the main reasons for the French defeat in WW2 ? Political, Militarial, or both ? on paper they had a bigger and better Armed forces than the Germans so what went wrong ? , it still remains a bit of a mystery to me , Villy Vassel
I don't think anyone will ever know. A bigger armed force does not equate to winning, but you claim they were better(on paper), obviously they weren't.
Battles and wars throughout the ages have been won and lost by small bands of fighters routing the warlords and vice versa.
I'm quite sure many generations of historians and researchers have mulled over this and they must have come to the same conclusion....Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, that's life.
THANKS FOR THE SENSIBLE COMMENTS . I agree on the fact that larger Armys do not always win Battles , Agincourt OR Bannockburn for example . Villy
Peiper

Re: French surrender

Post by Peiper »

Villy Vassel wrote:
John Wilson wrote:
Villy Vassel wrote:What were the main reasons for the French defeat in WW2 ? Political, Militarial, or both ? on paper they had a bigger and better Armed forces than the Germans so what went wrong ? , it still remains a bit of a mystery to me , Villy Vassel
I don't think anyone will ever know. A bigger armed force does not equate to winning, but you claim they were better(on paper), obviously they weren't.
Battles and wars throughout the ages have been won and lost by small bands of fighters routing the warlords and vice versa.
I'm quite sure many generations of historians and researchers have mulled over this and they must have come to the same conclusion....Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, that's life.
THANKS FOR THE SENSIBLE COMMENTS . I agree on the fact that larger Armys do not always win Battles , Agincourt OR Bannockburn for example . Villy
The French may have had a larger army but most of these were conscripts who had been drafted a few months before so
weren't up to the same calibre as the German forces, also they were poorly equipped with WW1 weaponary, the Lebel and
Hotchkiss for example, also as stated were relying on their formidible Maginot line but didn't consider that the Germans
would go round it lol, that's what you get for putting all your eggs in one basket!

Also i think the French were relying on us Brits to yank the iron out the fire while we infact as i said earlier were poorly
equipped ourselves, basically no one expected the speed and strength of the attacking German Armed forces!

Pipes :D
User avatar
Peter Bauer
Posts: 450
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:24 pm
Location: Oita, Japan
Contact:

Re: French surrender

Post by Peter Bauer »

Villy Vassel wrote:
I don't think anyone will ever know. A bigger armed force does not equate to winning, but you claim they were better(on paper), obviously they weren't.
Battles and wars throughout the ages have been won and lost by small bands of fighters routing the warlords and vice versa.
I'm quite sure many generations of historians and researchers have mulled over this and they must have come to the same conclusion....Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, that's life.
THANKS FOR THE SENSIBLE COMMENTS . I agree on the fact that larger Armys do not always win Battles , Agincourt OR Bannockburn for example . Villy
Well there's a closer example of that, the Finnish-Russian Winter War. The reasons for the Russian loss in that war have largely been ddiscussed already, but in that war a smaller army defeated a bigger one, just a little before the Germans attack on France.

But I personally don't know enough of the reasons why the French lost. In school they just basicly skipped this part and said they lost because of Blitzkrieg and trusting the Maginot-line too much.

I own a copy of british "The War Illustrated" from december 9th, 1939 and in that they talk ALOT about Maginot line and it's importance... well, I guess they were atleast partly waiting for something different than Blitzkrieg.
Image
Franz repper
Posts: 5732
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:41 pm
Location: TAMPERE FINLAND
Contact:

Re: French surrender

Post by Franz repper »

Herr Peiper your wrong and your right !!
The British army was equiped better then the German army at that time , It was one of the few fully motorised armys at that time . The tanks Infantry Tank Mark II or known as the Matilda II was far better than the Panzer I,II and in some ways the Panzer III . The Germans used the tank as a weapon in its own right were the French and the British used it as a infantry support weapon like WWI we should of listend to Liddell Hart ! the father of the Panzerwaffe and Blitzkreig was Heinz Guderian who used the tank as a weapon in its own right
The Friench and British Generals were still fighting WWI tactics and the French Generals would not or could not change to the way of Blitzkreig
ImageImageImageImageImage
Peiper

Re: French surrender

Post by Peiper »

Thanks for your response Franz :D
My appologies if my information was incorrect i am only going by what ive read and
what ive been told (By my Grandfather who was a Sergeant at Dunkirk with the TA
Staffordshire Btl)

Although seeing as though this information refers to "TA" i imagine regular Units
such as the Guards, Dragoons etc would be better equipped, even though the TA
were part of the first fully trained British Units that Britain had ready at that time
and were the first Units dispatched to France with the B,E,F.

Regards Peiper.
RudyWerner
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:56 pm

Re: French surrender

Post by RudyWerner »

Franz repper wrote:Herr Peiper your wrong and your right !!
The British army was equiped better then the German army at that time , It was one of the few fully motorised armys at that time . The tanks Infantry Tank Mark II or known as the Matilda II was far better than the Panzer I,II and in some ways the Panzer III . The Germans used the tank as a weapon in its own right were the French and the British used it as a infantry support weapon like WWI we should of listend to Liddell Hart ! the father of the Panzerwaffe and Blitzkreig was Heinz Guderian who used the tank as a weapon in its own right
The Friench and British Generals were still fighting WWI tactics and the French Generals would not or could not change to the way of Blitzkreig
I was going to mention about the superious qualities of the British and French tanks at this stage. All the books I have on Totenkopf recount how the AT unit was pretty much wiped out by the Matildas simply driving over the top of the 37mm PAKs, the shells pretty much bouncing off the armour. The Char B1 was a bit of a beast compared to the Panzers too, even if it was stunted by the positioning of its main gun.
User avatar
Steiner
Posts: 536
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:28 pm
Location: Dorset

Re: French surrender

Post by Steiner »

Some brief thoughts…

Following years of stoking the fires of discontent caused by the Treaty of Versailles, the Germans had high motivation to fight and take revenge; the French - from the top of the government right down to the soldier on the field - did not. The German tactics of punching through enemy lines and encircling huge areas during the Polish campgain seems not to have been noticed by the Allies. Therefore, instead of ordering troops to fight through the weak sides of the encirclements, the French high command panicked and ordered retreats. This action was repeated until capitulation. The relative strengths of the French in numbers of troops and quality of armour were nullified by poor tactics and defeatism coming from the top. The BEF on the other hand were considered a very well-trained force - however, when surrounded with their backs to the sea, and with their only ally admitting defeat far too early, there was little else they could do but retreat.
"Stop that!!! Careful with my J-J!"
Villy Vassel
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:12 am

Re: French surrender

Post by Villy Vassel »

Peiper wrote:Thanks for your response Franz :D
My appologies if my information was incorrect i am only going by what ive read and
what ive been told (By my Grandfather who was a Sergeant at Dunkirk with the TA
Staffordshire Btl)

Although seeing as though this information refers to "TA" i imagine regular Units
such as the Guards, Dragoons etc would be better equipped, even though the TA
were part of the first fully trained British Units that Britain had ready at that time
and were the first Units dispatched to France with the B,E,F.

Regards Peiper.
Hello my Grandad was at Dunkirk he had joined the Artillery but ended up as a Sergeant in the catering corps , many of my Mothers Uncle's joined the TA in the late 30s and were the first to go , They all thought it would be fun to get 2 weeks off in the summer for Training , little did they know what was coming :| , I was in the TA myself in the early 80s just as the Falklands kicked off VILLY
Post Reply

Return to “Anything WWII!”