In WW2 Why DID the French surrender so easily?

[Derek Smith]

Bluebarge said:

Derek, you present an awful lot of ill-informed opinion and conjecture as "fact". We've crossed swords on another thread where your apparent dislike of people who speak a different language appears to have clouded your opinion somewhat.

I've no doubt you've reason to be proud of your family's efforts during the war, but that's no excuse to cast aspersions on the fighting spirit of other nations, based on limited or no knowledge at all.

Er, I think you will find that my original post was in defence of the French, and quite clearly.

I am by no means zenophobic (apart from them from Togo but that goes without saying).

The fact that the French had lots of casualties, fought a few days after Dunkirk, were bombed before, during and after D-day and had people knocking on their door has absolutely no relevance to my argument.

Had the French fought on they would probably have had a worst fist of it than they did by surrendering.

I'm not suggesting it is fact. I know enough about history to know that it is just my opinon, as your stance is yours.

So the question is not how much the French suffered but would they have suffered more if they'd fought the Germans and surrendered unconditionally.

You say: anyone else who thinks the French let the BEF down, I've not said that and don't think that. If anything I think the British army let the French down. They certainly went back on promises.

I didn't suggest the French didn't fight nor that their troops were inferior.

You last sentance is thrown in for what reason? It has no relevance to my argument.

The capitulation of the French in WWII was a sensible move. It is my opinion of course. And, of course, it could be wrong and I accept that but if you want to argue the point, which I am more than happy to do, in fact I would enjoy doing so, then bring up something that suggests the French would have been better off if they had fought on, and do not bring in irrelevances.

[s2art]

grumbledoak said:

Derek Smith said:

There seems little doubt that if the Germans did get a foothold in the country we would have fought them on the beaches (let's face it we didn't do much fighting in France), the landing grounds, the fields, the streets and places like that but London, well that's a bit iffy.

The scenario was run as a war game with as many original people as could be found. Germany stood no chance of invading us; they would have had very inadequate boats for the crossing and negligible air support due to range once they got here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion

Edited by grumbledoak on Monday 13th December 17:35

You understate the case a little. In fact if the Germans had been foolish enough to attempt Sealion they would have suffered a defeat of biblical proportions, perhaps enough to have fired up the French to continue the fight. Even without the French gaining some heart, Sealion would have shortened the war, not least by Germany having lost the Rhine barges their internal economy was rather dependent on, and not mentioning the virtual destruction of both the LW and KM coupled to the loss of something like 100,000 or more of their best troops.

[tank slapper]

While the British Army was not in the best shape following Dunkirk, the Royal Navy was still the most powerful navy on the planet. Germany had no way to gain superiority of the air, or of the sea. Both are necessary in order to mount and sustain an invasion. When you look at what it took to establish the beach-heads on D-Day, the German plans are laughable in comparison.

[Parrot of Doom]

youngsyr said:

I believe it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that we would be speaking German now.

Perhaps it is, since conquering nations tend not to impose their language on their captives.

[s2art]

Derek Smith said:

The capitulation of the French in WWII was a sensible move. It is my opinion of course. And, of course, it could be wrong and I accept that but if you want to argue the point, which I am more than happy to do, in fact I would enjoy doing so, then bring up something that suggests the French would have been better off if they had fought on, and do not bring in irrelevances.

The question is rather if the French could fight on competently. They had more tanks, and rather good ones for the time, they had a good Airforce which seemingly disappeared in France and reappeared in Algeria and the like. Its always been a puzzle to me about what happened to the French Airforce, doesnt seem to be discussed much.
Given the proviso that the French Generals raise their game and grow a pair, then the most likely scenario would be similar to WW1; bogged down in trench style warfare, waiting for Britain to get its act together.

[Derek Smith]

tank slapper said:

While the British Army was not in the best shape following Dunkirk, the Royal Navy was still the most powerful navy on the planet. Germany had no way to gain superiority of the air, or of the sea. Both are necessary in order to mount and sustain an invasion. When you look at what it took to establish the beach-heads on D-Day, the German plans are laughable in comparison.

I'm not sure that the North sea fleet would have made its way down the Channel with any degree of impunity. Further, there have been enough histories to suggest that the so-called Battle of Britain was by no means the forgone conclusion that some say. Certainly the breaking off of the attack on the [now] radar towers was not a good move.

But I agree that there was little chance of a successful seaborne attack on the UK by Germany in 1940. Not often reported is the fact that there was a considerably and not unsuccessful bombing attack on the barges that had been brought to the coastal harbours and canals. But I'm not sure as sophisticated organisation would have been required as the D-day landings and there was no established defence similar to what the Germans had. My father, in the RA, was being trained for rapid deployment of a field gun and then for it to 'advance' backwards.

But Hitler was looking elsewhere of course and was not all that fussed about us.

[JagLover]

s2art said:

Given the proviso that the French Generals raise their game and grow a pair, then the most likely scenario would be similar to WW1; bogged down in trench style warfare, waiting for Britain to get its act together.

Indeed

The French may have fought poorly in many battles, Sedan foremost amongst them. But both the performance and size of the British army for most of the early war period was also very inadequate. With the forces we had available in 1940 if we had shared a land frontier with Germany we would have fallen just as easily.

[Negative Creep]

I think the will to fight vanished very quickly after the Maginot Line was breached. The German advances were so rapid a sense of inevitability seemed to take over the country. For all that is said about deGaulle in 1940 his proclamation to fight on was pretty much ignored. However I feel it's unfair to label the French as cowards - there were plenty of people in Britain in favour of a negotiated peace and plenty of willing collaborators in every occupied country. The resistance movement was pretty much non existent early in the war but by the time of D Day there were groups in the South that were in pretty much open warfare against the Germans.


As for an invasion of Britain, it would not have worked. Even if the Luftwaffe gained local air superiority the RAF could have pulled its fighters back north of London. The Royal Navy would have most likely decimated the invasion fleet, or cut them off at the bridgehead. The invasion craft were nothing more than river barges so would have been useless at sea.

[Ross1988]

I read a book about the battle of Britain, in which it states, the French were screaming out for planes, Sir Hugh Dowding disagreed upon sending the squadrons as there would be very poorly co-ordinated, have no supply train and generally be useless, Churchill disagreed, as he wanted to be seen to do something to help our French allies, I think this set the precedent for the rocky relationship between Dowding and Churchill.

I'm not confident the French air force was all that, or maybe they had good pilots and poor/small quantity of planes or vice versa.

[audidoody]

Derek Smith said:

If you ignore what happend to Jews, homosexuals and such, life wasn't too bad for the French. In theory only roughly half of Franch was under German occupation. Whilst they complained about lack of food they had a much better diet than those in England. And they weren't bombed, nor were their cities reduced to rubble, their infrastructure destroyed. Nor were they in debt to America after the war. They did not lose a high proportion of their youth, their shipping and such. They would not even have lost their navy if the British hadn't decided to use it as target practice. However, what is irrifutable is that they were all round much better off surrendering than carrying on fighting. Unless, of course, you were Jewish, leftish, homosexual, had mental problems . . .

Oui .. mais en dehors de l'infrastructure, la dette, le régime alimentaire et d'expédition

Qu'ont fait les Nazis FAIRE POUR NOUS?



(Avec des excuses à 'La vie de Brian')

Edited by audidoody on Monday 13th December 19:05

[Dogwatch]

Eric Mc said:

Ah - but you don';t know about the secret German plan to parachute towels onto the beaches at Folkestone and Rye which would have meant that the defenders would have been unable to hold that ground. As we know, a German towel on an area of beach grants automatic occupation rights to that piece of land.
A number of German aircraft were adapted to carry special towel dispensers.

Mein Gott!! Was there no end to their fiendish tricks? And I thought it was just nuns disguised as paratroopers they had to worry about.

[Crafty_]

Ross1988 said:

I read a book about the battle of Britain, in which it states, the French were screaming out for planes, Sir Hugh Dowding disagreed upon sending the squadrons as there would be very poorly co-ordinated, have no supply train and generally be useless, Churchill disagreed, as he wanted to be seen to do something to help our French allies, I think this set the precedent for the rocky relationship between Dowding and Churchill.

I'm not confident the French air force was all that, or maybe they had good pilots and poor/small quantity of planes or vice versa.

I think Dowding was more concerned with having enough planes to defend the UK rather than poor co-ordination, he was overruled at least once and had to send planes, finally he compromised on forward stations sending planes out to patrol the French coast from the UK.. didn't work that well but Churchill finally understood what Dowding was on about.

The impression I get is Dowding understood how effective the chain home system would be long before anyone else and realised he needed the planes to make it work.

[crankedup]

Bluebarge said:

Ask Santa for a decent book on the subject, like this one
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fall-France-Invasion-Makin...

The fact that you have been "led to believe" a load of tripe, demonstrates the dangers of asking an internet forum for the answers on this type of topic

On almost any bloody topic other than motoring.

[crankedup]

tank slapper said:

The wiki article on the battle of France is actually quite comprehensive, and worth a read.

I don't usually hold much store with Wiki, but this time they seem pretty much on it.

[MK4 Slowride]

In short the Germans went through Belgium as Belgium opposed to building the Maginot line on the French/Belgium border so the Germans went through Belgium as they did in WW1. When the Germans were getting close to Paris the French surrendered to save Paris from the guaranteed destruction other European cities had suffered at the hands of the Nazis.

[pacman1]

youngsyr said:

If it weren't for that stretch of water and a very narrow victory by a very select group of people in the Battle of Britain, I believe it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that we would be speaking German now.

Indeed.
But it makes you wonder why they bothered..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249303/Th...

[Flintstone]

Eric Mc said:

...ghovernment...

Bit posh?

MK4 Slowride said:

In short the Germans went through Belgium as Belgium opposed to building the Maginot line on the French/Belgium border so the Germans went through Belgium as they did in WW1.

Come again?

Edited by Flintstone on Monday 13th December 20:29

[Negative Creep]

pacman1 said:

youngsyr said:

If it weren't for that stretch of water and a very narrow victory by a very select group of people in the Battle of Britain, I believe it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that we would be speaking German now.

Indeed.
But it makes you wonder why they bothered..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249303/Th...

I presume you are aware of the large numbers of foreign nationals who fought and died for the RAF in said battle?

[pacman1]

Negative Creep said:

pacman1 said:

youngsyr said:

If it weren't for that stretch of water and a very narrow victory by a very select group of people in the Battle of Britain, I believe it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that we would be speaking German now.

Indeed.
But it makes you wonder why they bothered..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249303/Th...

I presume you are aware of the large numbers of foreign nationals who fought and died for the RAF in said battle?

Yes, I am. But weren't allied forces a group of sovereign nations, each with a common interest in keeping their individual nations intact?
I fail to see your question has a bearing on what many consider a woefully lax immigration policy that has been persued by the last government, to which this article alludes to. (sorry, thread hijack was not my intention)
Do you see no irony at all?

[ellroy]

youngsyr said:

thatone1967 said:

they were Cheese eating surrender monkeys?

Probably worth noting that we Brits were also involved in the defence of France and also had our ases handed to us by the Germans at the same time.

Rubbish.

The fact of the matter was the Germans initially went through the Ardennes, not believed to be able to be done at pace at the time. They thus hit the hinge between the BEF and the French and avoided the Maginot line as well. The French then started retreating at a rate of knots rarely seen, before or since. As stated elsewhere, this was often without firing a shot!

The BEF lines of supply went back to the channel ports, while the French lines headed back towards Paris.

As a result the choice the BEF faced was quite simple. Retreat towards the Belgian coast and hope the French could counter attack and then attepmt to link up again or stay put and be completely routed.

A bad strategic situation, that was actually handled relatively well in a tactical sense.

It was only after the severing of the allies front that the Germans hooked round the maginot line with more troops.

Edited by ellroy on Monday 13th December 21:49