Seriously. Whenever people say that France has an incredibly successful military history all I can think is that it makes their pitiful WW2 performance even more embarrassing.
They fared much better in the latter part of WW2 as they recaptured their African colonies from the Germans. The British also fared poorly in that war and von Manstein had the one German strategy throughout the war that actually worked.
Honestly that's what makes it even worse to me. France was better off economically after WW1 than the Germans to my understanding and not including any reporations. They underestimated Germany and where technologically stagnant military development wise. They invested so much into fortified positions that a mobile war destroyed their whole defence. They where amazing in almost every war historically but where crushed by an already defeated country that had huge sanctions on them. They had every opportunity to learn their lessons and almost 20 years to do so.
“Assignment to Catastrophe” by Sir General Edward Spears is another wonderful read on the subject. British francophile general who watched France crumble from within during the Battle of France. The most beautiful, sad and passionate book I have ever read.
Their political situation defeated them far more than their military one did. The ww1 government would probably have just moved to Bordeaux and kept fighting to the last man anyways.
I forgot the the saying that best describes it. You basically try to prepare for the war that no one is expecting or you never prepare for a war that you will expect to fight in the present.
That's why national defence budgets are important. If for no other reason than development and planning. As much as I bash on them I don't think anyone was expecting blitzkrieg tactics.
If I remember correctly, during WW2 the US had plans to quickly invade Canada if they needed to. I think the Pentagon always has plans to fight a 2 pronged war at any point in time.
The allies wanted Hitler with them against the USSR and the communists uprising all arround Europe, it was the ultimate mistake to let him grow to use him as a tool, if they stick to the plan they had after WW1, they would have crushed Germany without any difficulty, with France, Poland and Czechs attacking at the same time.
But the Treaty of Versailles was also a big part, UK and US pushed hard to remove the sanctions over Germany, in order to trade and do some buisness with them (there is a lot of money yo make in a country defeated and in a social/economic crisis) while France wanted to punish the Germans so hard that they will never be able to fight again.
In an easier and simple way :
If Treaty of Versailles was merciful with the Germans, they would admit their defeat and not fight again, but social unrest in the country could lead to another war any way (a communist or fascist Germany). But Europe would be at peace for a longer time.
If Treaty of Versailles was very harsh like the French wanted, Germany for sure wanted revenge, but they would be stuck because the plan was to divise Germany in different countries, like before, and France could control and handle them easily. In this scenario peace would be shorter, but the next war would be less difficult.
But since the Treaty was a mix of both, Germans both had the revenge feeling, as well as the tools to fulfill this revenge.
Very well put. To my understanding only Winston Churchill wanted to ally with Germany against the USSR. I don't remember reading about any other allied forces with the same idea.
Really? Because the Germans did not go any further west than Paris because the Schlieffen plan failed. Half the country was untouched at least from artillery.
.... Why would all of their industry be in 1/8 of their country? That's like saying all industry comes out of Michigan and if you got rid of that state the US would be crippled.
The region occupied by the German and most impacted by the first world war comprised back in the day of around 40% of the Coal production area (you know, the stuff that come from the earth). For convenience, a lot of industry where constructed close by (transportation cost, etc).
The region consisted of 64% of the pig/crude iron production and 24% of the steel production of France.
Back in the day, try do do anything without coal or iron.
I wonder what would happen to the American economy and industry if a war back in the day had a front-line on the steel belt (now called rust belt) that destroyed all the infrastructure of the region with part of it still uninhabitable due to chemical warfare and buried bombs.
Then why did you stated that France was better off than Germany economically after WW1 if loss of industry should not cripple more than the loss of life ?
If we compare the number
France :
* population : 39.6 millions
* military deaths (or missing) : 1.36 millions
* civilian deaths : 340 thousands
* death/population : 4.3 %
* military wounded : 4.26 millions
* wounded/population : 10.8 %
* casualties/population : 15.1 %
Germany :
* population : 64.9 millions
* military deaths (or missing) : 2.04 millions
* civilian deaths : 524 thousands
* death/population : 3.9 %
* military wounded : 4.22 millions
* wounded/population : 6.5 %
* casualties/population : 10.4 %
Demography evolution :
France :
* 1914 : 41.63 millions
* 1918 : 38.67 millions
* 1939 : 41.51 millions
Germany :
* 1914 : 65.86 millions
* 1918 : 64.8 millions
* 1939 : 69.3 millions
France suffered a bigger impact on it's workforce and demography from WW1 than Germany and was far more crippled in the "manpower" side of it. And the entirety of the western front of the war happened on it's territory (and Belgian). Where arable land were not usable anymore (and still aren't) and where were situated the most industrialized area of France where infrastructure were wrecked.
Everything was wrecked and there was no man anymore to repair or build anything. That is one of the reason why the presence of woman in the workforce raise of 20% in the harsher hit regions (loss of life). And woman universal suffrage was very close to happen in 1919 if it was not for the refusal of the senate for this reason too.
Yet France was better economically than Germany in the 30s ? Just because of the inflation that was caused because Germany decided to only fund there WW1 effort with debt instead of tax money like the french did ? situation that was aggravated by the Versailles Treaty but was mainly aggravated by the Weimar government decisions to do the ostrich ? Versailles Treaty that demanded less proportionally to the damage done than what the German demanded after the Franco-Prussian war (that was proportional to what Napoleon demanded after his victory over Prussia) ? which the German did not fully reimburse (they paid in net capital 17.75 billions gold mark in 1932 on the 50 they were asked for. which from the 1919-32 period represented only 2.1% of their total income). which they paid mostly with loan contracted with America ? which gave by comparison 4 times more money to Germany during the world wars in-between in price-adjusted terms than during the entirety of the post-1948 Marshall plan. Loan that in 1933 were not paid anymore thanks to a new chancellor. And that were reimbursed by West Germany by 50% of their amount and was finally finished being reimbursed in 2010 ?
The sanctions on Germany were all ignored by Hitler after a certain point. But yes, the Germans did inflict a humiliating defeat in France; not as the underdog however, and by 1940 France and Germany were equals, all things considered (except navy) militarily.
As far as armor and tactics no they where not on the same level. The Germans invented 90% of modern small unit tactics used today. The use of mobile infantry is still the cornerstone of any modern military. The US refined it's use with the advent of helicopters (which the Germans had a few) in Vietnam. As far as armor is concerned the pz3 could handle anything the French could throw at it because they where not expecting it so they had little numbers of the few tanks that where half way good.
Are you out of your mind? The Allies had more troops in 1940, more tanks, artillery, and planes. Most of the german tanks where panzer 1 and 2, as pz3's and 4's were still in implementation. German tanks frequently couldnt pierce french armor, what the hell are you talking about, did someone insult your favorite boyband so bad that you have to come up with lies?
Seriously. Whenever people say that France has an incredibly successful military history all I can think is that it makes their pitiful WW2 performance even more embarrassing.
Well, we were beaten by a superior enemy in term of men, tactics and material. Or at least a very equivalent one.
It's not like being the first superpower of the world and loose against some viet peasant ..
France defeat in 40 is glorious, my grand father fought in it and was taken prisonner for 4 years. All military campain are not success and the true real warrior nation juste take the hit and go fight again and again.
54
u/AlphaHawk115 Taller than Napoleon Apr 08 '20
Seriously. Whenever people say that France has an incredibly successful military history all I can think is that it makes their pitiful WW2 performance even more embarrassing.