[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



Why did France fall so easily in ww2, whereas they had been so resilient in ww1? What happened? Surely they should have learned from the schleiffen plan to protect the border with the Low Countries
>>
File: 1559703481191.jpg (184 KB, 1107x1200)
184 KB
184 KB JPG
>>6762706
French arrogance and incompetence + German military was very good compared to WW1 German military
>>
>>6762706
They sent their best troops to prop up Belgium and the Netherlands, the Germans cut them off completely and pretty much had an open shot for Paris. The French didn't have the reserves and couldn't mobilize in time, so they decided not to fight a fight they can't win and turn their cities to ruin.
The big difference is that the Russians had these reserves, and knew how to position them exactly where it was necessary.
Had the French had a backup plan, the Germans wouldn't have won.
>>
>>6762706
> Why did France fall so easily in ww2, whereas they had been so resilient in ww1?
Momentum played a larger role in WW2. With advent of mobilized armies, penetrated enemy lines could be overrun, quickly surrounding and capturing enemy armies.

> What happened?
French plan relied on military reasoning that the Germans would play their hand by trying to re-do WW1 with a decisive assault from Belgian plains, and set up their strongest armies there. A problem was that the Belgians were neutrals in late 1930s, and that France only could enter Belgium at the same moment as Germany, forcing their response to be from a mobile force.

The Germans took a huge gamble, and chose to focus their force on Luxembourg and Ardennes, a logistical bottleneck not considered plausible for a large scale invasion by France. Once they broke through, French forces failed to engage or cut off their main thrust, partly due to German army having tremendous luck in both French in competencies, and in things like accidentally stumbling upon fuel depots and so on. In a week, they advance from Luxembourg to Chanel coast, encircling Dutch, Belgian and British Armies in addition to the best equipped French Army.

> Surely they should have learned from the schleiffen plan to protect the border with the Low Countries
They did. Their plan reflected WW1 memory heavily. Just as pre-WW1 planning reflected Franco-Prussian war's memory. The Germans did not play the same hand, but a massive gamble.
>>
>>6762706

It was a fluke. It could have easily ended up in disaster for Germany. Hitler never expected to win that easily. He expected anther years-long struggle.
>>
>>6762790
>encircling Dutch, Belgian and British Armies in addition to the best equipped French Army
Why didn't they turn south and fight the German army that came through the Ardennes?
>>
>>6762706
War preparation.
The political divide prevented coherent weapon furniture, the officiers were chosen for their loyalty and not for their skills, and projects that could have saved the country were underfunded.

And communist sabotage.
And England runing away instead of fighting.
>>
>>6762760
Most importantly: the Russians had the Russian roads to defend the country and hold the line until winter, then the reinforcement came: winter.

That and polish resistance on the way.
>>
>>6762727
Was the WW1 Army bad?
>>
>>6762907
As soon as they knew what was going on they tried to. Even with all the best units stuck in Belgium the whole thing was a coin toss.
>>
>>6763015
no the ww2 army was good
>>
defeatists/traitors in power, outdated tactics

>The French High Command, already comparatively ponderous and sluggish from its firm espousal of the broad strategy of "methodological warfare", was reeling from the shock of the sudden offensive and was now stung by a sense of defeatism. On the morning of 15 May, French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud telephoned the new British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill and said "We have been defeated. We are beaten; we have lost the battle." Churchill, attempting to offer some comfort to Reynaud, reminded the Prime Minister of all the times the Germans had broken through the Allied lines in the First World War only to be stopped. Reynaud was, however, inconsolable
>>
>>6762907

>Dunkirk
>>
>>6763015
The post is only semi correct. The main difference is that during WW1 Germany fought on two fronts immediately (although Austria and Ottomans helped a lot)
>>
>>6762706
If Napoleon had commanded France in WW2, could they have won?
>>
>>6762706
Because unlike WW1, WW2 saw a large scale penetration of the French line and an inability to rush in reserves to cover the breach, yielding roughly 1/3 of their force being rendered ineffective in the space of 10 days. This in turn lead to the overrunning of the country.

>Surely they should have learned from the schleiffen plan to protect the border with the Low Countries
But they did. They mistakenly supposed that the Germans would try the same plan, with the emphasis on the Germans extreme right and the Allied line's left. The thrust through the center caught them completely off guard and what's worse, it pocketed the cream of the army.

>>6763752
That depends enormously if Napoleon's genius for early 19th century warfare translates into equal or even similar genius in mid 20th century warfare; there's every chance that it does not. It also depends on his ability to force needed reforms through.
>>
File: Maginot_line_.jpg (47 KB, 373x464)
47 KB
47 KB JPG
The French had fortified a position knows as the Maginot line.
Sheenigans happened, and Hitler walked around it. Then it turns out if you can fight your enemies, you can do a Mongol and just use your Automobiles to go to their capital and lay siege to it, far ahead of any reasonable timetable.

Now, there is a lot of other smaller reasons that contributed to the problem. But once the enemy has inhaled the Spirit of the great Ghengis Khan, its a good chance he will decapitate and burn your capital to your ground unless you have prepared in advance to deal with it.
France did not prepare in advance for combine arms warfare, with tactical goals.
>>
>>6762706
Because they were useless arrogant retards who were warned a million times over about the ardennes and did sweet FA
>>
>>6762932
>And England runing away instead of fighting.
Not copying the German Stalingrad method of losing entire armies is a good thing
>>
>>6763015
No, it was among the best in the world. The 1940 Wehrmacht was the one considered amateurish, until they suddenly weren't
>>
>>6762907
They tried, the roads were so hopelessly clogged with Belgian refugees that it was impossible to wheel about and attempt a breakout in time. Also a counter attack from the south was planned to create an escape corridor, but the day before it was set to go the French PM fired the chief of staff, and the new one cancelled the attack until he could better understand the situation. Then he attempted the exact same plan 3 days later and it failed, possibly it would have succeeded without the delay, we'll never know.
>>
File: 00fwwRUS2.jpg (52 KB, 300x465)
52 KB
52 KB JPG
>>6762706
Because Russia didn't invade to defend France in the early stage of the war unlike in WW1.
>>
>>6762932
>And England runing away instead of fighting.
This too.
>>
>>6762706
Belgians thought neutrality would save them.

France expected Belgium to have fortifications to continue the Maginot line, then they expected Belgium to to station their army at their border at least, then they expected Belgium to at least let France station their army at the border, but Belgian autism thought neutrality would mean Germany wouldn't invade them.

The entire French plan was hoping to present a united front with Belgium to stave off German aggression, but neutrality scrap of paper autism. France was hoping after the WWI German chimp out, the rest of Europe would realize the German menace and band together to get them to fuck off. France wanted an even harsher Treaty of Versailles to prevent Germany from reindustrializing. For some reason the Rest of Europe thought Germany would change for the better.

Once that plan failed, French high command wasn't really repaired for anything else and fucked up even though it could have been saved.
>>
>>6764136
They should of used guns instead of onions & baguettes
>>
>>6762706
WW1 france was shooting at a guy that was also shooting from behind his car.

WW2 france was shooting at a guy that was driving his car right into you.

Tanks were decisive.
>>
>>6764461
Last time they tried to use guns instead of baguettes we had Napoleon running around.
That said, WW2 for France was lackluster.
>>
>>6763850
>>6763854

When the fuck will people stop parroting this fucking retarded meme? Krauts had massive Numerical adventage in Fall Gelb. 135 German divisions, vs 99 Allied ones (89 French + 10 British), overwhelming adventage in aircraft (5638 vs 1377) and adventage in quality of Tanks. (70% French tanks were WW1 leftovers, unable to wage war in WW2) German tanks like Pz II and III had radio communication which made them better than their French counterparts.

Another thing people forget about is that the slaughter of WW1 practically tore the guts out of France demographically, from which they never managed to recover. Meanwhile, in 30's Krats literally set up breeding camps for their women to produce children and prepare for another war.

And just to be clear, entire '''Brilliant'''' initial strategy of Krautshits ''Bewedungkireg'' in WW2 might be summed up by Zergrushing and sucker punching weaker oponnents, right until Operation Uranus in November of 1942 when Russians first time in WW2 attacked Germans with numericaly superior forces, after which Germshits crumbled like house of cards. So there is that.

WEBM related.
>>
>>6766315
t. asshurt Polack
>>
>>6766368
t.germshit
>>
>>6764317
>France expected Belgium to have fortifications to continue the Maginot line
this was never an expectation, the high water table of belgium and the netherlands makes such subterranean fortifications impossible
>>
>>6762706
basically they fucked up really fucking bad
>>
Unlike Germany they were in a brink of a civil war , they were already in a cold civil war
>>
File: 1 (11).png (33 KB, 339x1246)
33 KB
33 KB PNG
An average IQ of French people is about 3-4 points lower, so it did play a role too.
>>
File: sqBaqsd.jpg (121 KB, 1462x2046)
121 KB
121 KB JPG
>>6762727
>German military was very good compared to WW1 German military
>>
>>6768148
This makes no sense, IQs correlate around racial and ethnic lines according to this table, I thought IQ was based on how wealthy you are?
>>
>>6762760
>>6762938
The real main difference with Russia is size.
Reminder that the Russians retreated on an area four times the size of France before being abme to stop the German advance.
>>
>>6768173
it's not an IQ table, it's converted school results into iq
nothing scientific really
>>
>>6762706
Didn't the Germans suffer heavy losses though? I heard the American losses in Vietnam over 20 years was like double the number of casualties the Germand had in three months of war in western Europe
>>
>>6768441
That's because americans love pretending figthing wars, while making other do it for them.
>>
>>6762706
>France was fighting with WW1 era tactics while the germans had developed doctrines designed exacltly to counteract them
>They made a fatal mistake by assuming that germany would not be able to move armored divitions through the ardennes forest, a mistake the germans exploited to the max and allowed them to encircle over half of the french army
>After that, there was almost no one left to defend Paris, so there was no choice but to capitulate.

The myth of france being terrible in war needs to die. They fought well and their army was more than capable of defeating germany, but one, yes ONE mistake cost them the whole war
>>
>>6768604
>They fought well and their army was more than capable of defeating germany, but one, yes ONE mistake cost them the whole war
Completely wrong. It was not "one" mistake. The mispositioning of forces and inability to react in time was the culmination of numerous mistakes. I suggest this as reading. https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/977623/1/Parker_MA_F2013.pdf
>>
>>6763922
Honestly though, Stalingrad was the last chance Germany had of winning the war. Hitler made the right choice at gambling at being able to break the encirclement. Unfortunately it didn't work.
But trust me, there was no way Germany could win at that point without taking the caucasus oil fields. The 300.000 troops he lost at Stalingrad would not have helped much in turning the tide of the war.
>>
>>6768607
>and inability to react in time
Thats everyone in WW2.
Its just that Germans did it first, and better, so they got a mythical overhand for the short while it lasted.
>>
poor birthrate, military formations still stuck in ww1.

Never say the French sucked in WW2, they were capable of overwhelming German Panzers but a few silly formation decisions and other factors led to their defeat. The Free French were very good I must say, even if the French are very ungrateful for our involvement in their liberation.
>>
>>6764317
>Belgians thought neutrality would save them
Why would they do that. Fuck, man, are the belgians retarded?! Did it save them during WWI?
>>
>>6768740
>Thats everyone in WW2.
It most definitely is not. Lines broken did not mean instant annihilation. People on every side of the war, even the fucking Italians, managed to rush reserves into gaps to make offensives painful but not annihilating. The French did not, and they did not do so primarily because of a culmination of several mistakes, but starting with a completely incorrect one that the Luftwaffe would paralyze any reserves, and that therefore there should be no real reserves. You will not see that elsewhere.
>>
>>6769100
>Luftwaffe would paralyze any reserves

Just like they did in Poland, and Early stages of Barbarossa. So yes, French were right about that. Fuck, I would even argue that it was the fucking Luftwaffe that won Fall Weiss, Fall Gelb, Fall Rot and early Barbarossa for the Germans, and not ''muh blitzkrieg''. On the Ground Germans were preety shitty until 1941. I mean, 70% of their tanks were shitty Czech tankettes, and Pz1/Pz2 ''tanks''. Pz3 was somewhat decent but still coludn't even scratch KV1 or T34. Despite their ''superior German enginerring'' They had literal horse logistics, and couldn't even make decent tank until mid 1943 while, and even then Panthers and Tigers were crappy and often unreliable. As for grunts, there are studies that conclude that in 1940 German infantry was weaker than in fucking 1914.
>>
>>6769100
The problem is then circular.
So the Luftwaffe turns out to be pretty good. So the French realized that, and gambled on that being true.
French wanted to have the war in the Maginot line, but Belgia... Belgia.... Belgia...
And then the war came, it was fought, and Germany ended up driving straight to Paris for a lot of reasons.
>>
>>6762706
They were really really gay, so very gay. Except that one borderline genius Frenchie who shot himself when his company got encircled
>>
>>6769207
>Just like they did in Poland, and Early stages of Barbarossa.
Except of course, the French had a far better airforce in every respect than Poland, and when you factor in the organizational issues, than the Soviets as well in the 1st stages of Barbarossa. The British, for instance, in that same campaign, were NOT paralyzed, and their air cover was operating at considerably greater distances than the French were between their land forces and their aerial ones.

>. Fuck, I would even argue that it was the fucking Luftwaffe that won Fall Weiss, Fall Gelb, Fall Rot and early Barbarossa for the Germans, and not ''muh blitzkrieg''.
To paraphrase Pauli, what you just said is so nonsensical I can't even assign a notion of right or wrong to it. Blitzkrieg, at least in the way that later real military academics use the term, is an operational level interaction, which includes the use of air assets.

>On the Ground Germans were preety shitty until 1941
Not really, no. They had much better inter-arm coordination than just about anyone, and a very well developed sense of initative.

>They had literal horse logistics
So did everyone. The Germans were not markedly worse than their adversaries in this respect.

> and couldn't even make decent tank until mid 1943
The panzers 3 and 4 were great tanks for their time.

>As for grunts, there are studies that conclude that in 1940 German infantry was weaker than in fucking 1914.
And if warfare was Call of Duty, this might even mean something. It does not. You know (or should know) that proper deployment of assets means a hell of a lot more than individual strength of those assets in isolation.
>>
>>6769232

>>6769232
Except that (and seriously, read that paper I linked to) the French had a ridiculous overestimate of Luftwaffe strength, by almost an order of magnitude. And techniques were developed, in fact developed rather quickly after the fall of France, to move forces even in the face of enemy air supremacy, which the Germans did not have at the time of their breakthrough. There is no reason that they could not have been developed after the observation of the fighting in Poland. But the French did not try, and possibly could not try. It was severely sub-par.
>>
>>6768755
Effectively this.

French tanks, or at least, some of them were superbly gunned and armoured but tank formations in the French Army were the same of that in WW1. Having tanks in infantry divisions rather than having separate armoured divisions that made tank movement much better during large battles like the Germans did.

And of course, the British couldn't do much to resist this because the British sent a limited number of troops and armour to France, and Britain and France really didn't have much of a strategy because the Germans reached Western Europe much sooner than they had anticipated.
>>
>>6768635
Even then it would all depend on at what point Russia had surrendered. If they wouldn't surrender after losing Moscow Germany would be less and less able to support their troops, even with the oilfields, what with the allied bombings and increasing distance
>>
>>6764214
Russia got immediately bfto at the beginning of WW1. Russia was pretty much useless until 1916
>>
>>6764317
>France expected Belgium to have fortifications to continue the Maginot lin
Fort Eben-Emael overlooked most of the important bridged one would need to cross and was considered impregnable
>>
>>6769524
They drew enough German attention to allow France time to stabilize the front.
>>
>>6762706
- very bad command and control structure at every level
- overall bad equipment
- not ready for war (France wouldn't have attacked for most of 1940)
- politically gridlocked (Clemenceau in WWI vowed to fight in the Pyrénées if needeed. No one except De Gaulle was thinking about that in 1939).
- bad luck (really)
- bad understanding of combined warfare

The strategy wasn't too bad except for the positioning of reserves. The chances that the German would be able to pierce through the Ardennes was really low.

>>6762727
I absolutely disagree on both points.

>>6762760
The battle of France was more deadly than any WWI battle which is why they surrendered.
The Russians where able to evacuate people and industrial equipment east of the Ural.

>>6763015
In no way, but the top leadership was isolated and the practice early in the war to give maximum autonomy to field commanders completely backfired and was one of the main reasons they failed to take Paris in 1914-1915.
After that their strategical situation was unsustainable but the top leadership was too military focused to reckon it.
The troops and field leadership were the best though.

>>6769524
Yes, but everyone including themselves knew that before 1914. They couldn't even build their ammunition (France made that mistake in 1870). The only way to keep them into the war after the Serbian defeat would have been to take the Dardanelles straits.
>>
>>6766315
>Meanwhile, in 30's Krats literally set up breeding camps for their women to produce children and prepare for another war.

OH BOY THOSE 9-12 YEAR OLDS SURE TURNED THE TIDE OF WAR



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.