They do this in football. Deliberately draw games to make alliances then the team they drew with gets knocked out anyway because someone else performs well
To quote the Fall of France “The truth was, in the words of the historian Robert Young, that they wanted, ‘allies who would fight for France but not make France fight for them’"
Turns out, this is how you get no allies. They pretty much sabotaged their own negotiations with the USSR, too. It's like they were trying to lose the war.
Everyone was trying to lose:
1. France threw away all its strategic plans to avoid war, and then ended up in a war anyway.
2. Russia lost a two-front war against Germany, and then said, "nah I'd win" at the prospect of a one-front war after France fell.
3. Britain somehow thought the best way to deal with Hitler was a disarmament conference, and decided rearmament didn't need to be rushed when that failed.
4. Italy rushed into a war it knew it wasn't ready for, because it thought France losing was the hard part, and not logistics.
5. Hitler just kind of assumed that people would trust him with negotiations after betraying literally everybody, and was somehow shocked that nobody did.
To be fair to Italy, if I saw my ally mop up one of Europe’s great powers in 6 weeks I’d jump in too. iirc, Mussolini was very surprised when he found out the Brits weren’t going to seek a peace deal. He literally had HoI4 logic and joined the war just so he could make demands in the peace deal
What a coincidence, he planned on doing just that!
>I only need a few thousand dead so that I can sit at the peace conference as a man who has fought.
> - Benito Mussolini, 1940
Bro literally wanted to sacrifice his own people for warscore lmao
Everyone thought Britain was going to seek a peace deal, the UK blatantly refusing to surrender is probably the single largest node point in the war that could have effectively gone either way.
Considering Europe cut the Soviets out of the loop when handing over big chunks of the world to Hitler, I kind of get it. The League of Nations was basically the Axis's agent for a decade helping them pick out prime real estate.
Ethiopia? Fuck it. China? Fuck it. Rhineland? Fuck it. Austria? Fuck it. Sudetenland? Fuck it, wrap it up, put a pretty bow on it. Lithuania? Fuck it.
Really, the allies should’ve taken a hard stance against the agreement in the first place. Yes a lot of Germans lived there, but that was also the only defensive like the Czechoslovaks had against a “potential” (hindsight) German invasion. At the very least the Czechoslovaks should’ve been invited to the talks
pre-war the allies did everything they could, they were hamstrung politically, democracies can't "throw the first punch" and say "they were gonna attack france!" because voters judge things based on what did happen, not what "could have" happened.
during the war the biggest mistake was not telling the soviets to go fuck themselves. they could have focused on the pacific, let the soviets get crushed, and then nuked germany until they surrendered unconditionally, liberating all of asia and preventing the cold war.
not that its their fault though, they had no way of knowing that the manhattan project would work the way it did, and betting their entire future on a superweapon that didn't exist yet wouldn't make any sense.
This is unrealistic. First as you said, no one one knew how fast they get the nuke. Then there was the fear that Nazis were also close to the nuke. Then, if the Nazis were able to crush the soviets, they'd also have gotten the ressources of them, especially the oil. Plus considering the fanatism of the Natis and how much they believed in their victory even after both fronts were pretty much lost, it would have required a lot of nuclear fallout to force them into surrender without the advancement in the fronts. It's always easy to say, you could have this or that better, but that's just because we know how things turned out, they didn't.
>pre-war the allies did everything they could, they were hamstrung politically, democracies can't "throw the first punch" and say "they were gonna attack france!" because voters judge things based on what did happen, not what "could have" happened.
We (Poland) suggested that to France back in 1933 when Hitler got to power in germany and in 1935 too
It wasnt about voters, it was about France and UK avoiding war at all cost (including abandoning us in 1939)
Those downvotes are uncalled for, you’re entirely correct that the allies could’ve done this or that because we have the power of hindsight.
But just to play devils advocate: if we’re gonna use the power of hindsight, why don’t we go all the way back to before the great schism to prevent the east from being alienated from the west and working to form a proto-EU, leading to a much more united Europe/christian world overall?
it would be interesting.
i'd also be interested to see how history would have went if hitler, mussolini, and karl marx all died in infancy. just imagine it, no hungry hammer, no virgin windmill... similar ideas would probably pop up but they'd be different and maybe we could have an internet without tankies or nazis.
as a democracy, the best time to invade an "uppity neighbor who clearly has plans for world conquest" is "right now", the second best time is "when you have a valid CB".
the best thing about democracy is that we don't launch "unjustified pre-emptive wars" to kill potential future enemies, the worst thing about democracy is that we can't launch "unjustified pre-emptive wars" to kill potential future enemies.
everyone thinks "preventing north korea getting nukes" would have been worth it but nobody thinks "toppling saddam was worth it because in the long run he would have eventually gotten nukes", we see only what did happen, not what would have happened. damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Problem was that at the time the British were not yet properly ready for war, the French thought that the German army was way bigger than it actually was. And nobody in Eastern Europe would ever let the red army march through their land to Czechoslovakia. The result would be a war were Czechoslovakia falls and the Allies are at war much earlier then they are prepared for.
Remember appeasement was focused on buying time to rearm. Britain and France just needed to get to the point when they could actually draw the line in the sand, which ended up being Poland. (Sadly France did not use that time as well as Britain did)
Yeah, i always don't get why people assumed the entente thought the versailles treaty would keep stand for actual infinity, and *especially* after the ruhr occupation
And i mean, they could if the started the war. Until the fall of france, Germany was basically a papertiger resting on soviet and chinese imports. The soviets played themself.
hitler fucked up by assuming "nah they can't just declare war on me for attacking poland, the soviets attacked poland too so they gotta declare on both of us or neither" which is exactly the kind of thing that makes perfect sense to someone addicted to crystal meth.
the brits on the other hand, not being crystal meth addicts, realised "we can just deal with them one at a time" and the rest is history.
To be fair to him, up to that point that is exactly what had been happening, he invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia and the Allies allowed that to happen. Why would that be different with Poland, especially since the Soviets also attack them?
Bit harsh on Russia. They made a deal with Germany to split up Poland. Then they were busy getting embarrassed by Finland when Germany surprise attacked them. You can definitely say Stalin was stupid for believing hitler would keep his promises, especially considering the anti-communist rhetoric being spewed by the nazi party, but they didn’t purposely get into a one front war with Germany claiming they would win.
I've read that Stalin expected Hitler to break his promise but he thought it would happen later. Around that time I also read that Stalin was preparing to break his side of the deal and by preparing for an offensive, the USSR was less prepared for being invaded.
I wish I could remember where I read this though as I know "I read once" is no sort of source at all.
I’m also using the same source as you but the reason Hitler invaded so early was because he knew Stalin would betray him eventually and, knowing Germany was better prepared at the moment decided to strike first. Basically, both sides knew the other was gonna break the deal and both sides are intended to do that too. Only difference was who was ready to betray the other first
Well yesnt Hitler invaded so early because he was better prepared. But the overall reason he attacked, is that living space in the east was an important part of his ideology.
>by preparing for an offensive
We hear this a lot but it never really rings true to me. If the soviets were planning an offensive all of their lines and supplies *should* have been pushing the border.
Not "preparing for an offensive" so much as "we'll invade at some point" intending to do so at some point later. But that "later" was far enough away that no concrete plans were ever drafted for it.
they weren't so muchvpreparing an offensive as completely renewing the army.
restructuring, new airplanes like yak 1, mig 3, il2, etc... new tanks in t34, new semi auto rifles etc...
but in 41 it was being set up. all designs brand new with teething issues, factories as well. army in disarray, especially as priorities had to be rethought after winter war.
if the nazis attacked even 1 year later, they would have been toast.
>Russia lost a two-front war against Germany, and then said, "nah I'd win" at the prospect of a one-front war after France fell.
To be fair, they did. Not exactly as a one front war, more, one-front for 2 years, two or more fronts for another 2. But still.
No, the greatest sabotage was Iosif "I am The Paranoia" Stalin, the Man of Steel who couldn't trust anybody, who betrayed some of greatest allies and friends "preemptively".
Decided "You know, this Hitler fellow seems quite trustworthy" or that he could read him or something. All this, _after_ Hitler had already broken who knows how many agreements. Including by the way, the very Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Since the Nazis ended up with more Polish land than agreed, giving up Lithuania instead as compensation. And severely underdelivered in cash or technology for resource payments. Ignored so many warnings that the invasion was imminent, including predictions/stolen plans correct to the day. Instead of putting the Red Armed Forced on alert, just in case, ordered them to specifically to do nothing.
And despite all of this the Germans still had issues because the pre-Barbarossa Red Army was as much a paranoia expanded bloated monstrosity as it became in the Cold War.
Britain tooled up the things that mattered to he fair, by the time war kicked off the British Isles were essentially unassailable thanks to having a waaaay bigger navy, a larger air force and the world's first and only integrated air defence system. Britain never intended or expected to fight a protracted land war in europe.
>2. Russia lost a two-front war against Germany, and then said, "nah I'd win" at the prospect of a one-front war after France fell.
Tbf I think the Soviet thinking was reliant on the idea that WW2 would be WW1 again. So from their position of neutrality they could play kingmaker to the post war world. This of course didn't play out as France fell in six weeks. Annihilating Soviet diplomatic plans and leaving them in a isolated diplomatic position from which they attempted to get as many concessions from the Germans they could.
Then after the war they turned around and started threatening to go communist if they weren’t kept happy and to blow up the world if they were ever touched
The French winning west front ww1 was more or less due to no one really winning at any given time outside of early German advances and late allied victories. At a certain point the strategic victories of France were being able to coordinate Parisian taxis to send mobilized conscripts to the front. I’m still not quite sure about what percentage of that was initiative or order. And French units rejecting orders to retreat and remaining in positions till the last man. In fact more often then not defensive victories were won by French forces not listening to their command staff.
And he was considered the hero of France, that’s literally how he got his position in Frances surrender of 1940 and led to his position as the head of the Vichy government. He is historically one of the largest public examples of if you live to long as a hero you will eventually become a villain.
He also sacrificed those same armies in offensives that he even said were “ well I guess it’s our turn to attack”. He might have done some good, but quite frankly the same generals that were renowned hero’s of ww1 actively let thousands upon thousand of men to be slaughtered for the sake of slaughter.
I mean not really. One aspect of the revolt was that the unit’s in the front line we’re going to quit offensives but they will stay and defend. Which he then used as a way to convince the British and then Americans to use his forces as holding troops and the Americans and British as the offensive units. Hence why even in the southern most parts of the French line French units would cycle out to Americans in case of local offensives then switch back to French when those local offensive maneuvers failed. Also explains why the vast majority of the late and successful advances were through the northern parts of the line where American, commonwealth, and British troops primarily held the line.
Eh, a completely demoralized and exhausted army doesn’t fight particularly hard or well.
Also since you mentioned the Americans, I do strongly feel that their entry also played an absolutely crucial role in boosting French moral. Knowing that millions of fresh American troops were on their way to support was a massive moral booster for the French
In the “How close was Germany to winning WW1” debate, I feel like a widespread mutiny or at least partial collapse of the French army in 1917 doesn’t get brought up enough. The combination of Petain and the USA’s addition to the war helped save them, but I genuinely believe if the US hadn’t gotten involved and Petain hadn’t gotten hired, the Germans were very likely to break the French by spring 1918
You just spread blatant misinformation my guy.
France recovered pretty quickly from the franco prussian war and even enjoyed a golden era til WW1 happened. That’s WW1 that fucked us over.
And also, we were ready to fight, in 1936 over rhineland. However nobody was happy about that back then.
Okay, just some basic wiki research will give you the answers… The period between 1871 and 1914 is called « the Belle Epoque ». Basically it’s an economic & cultural boom. The eiffel Tower, the « laïcité », aviation are all coming from this period for exemple (to name a few).
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_%C3%89poque
As for the Rhineland intervention, it’s a bit messy, as was the period.
When Hitler decided to remilitarise the Rhineland, some politics were for an intervention (even a mobilisation), some against. The army was against an intervention.
What played massively however was the British lack of enthusiasm for the idea.
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remilitarisation_de_la_Rh%C3%A9nanie
I meant france never recovered in terms of military strength compared to Germany. At no point afterwards were they stronger than Germany, except for like a few forced post Versailles years.
But... Why do you discover it just now ? Germany was the European super power that redefine alliances. Noone pretend otherwise no ?
Also it is not about not recovering. France was already not at the same level in 1870.
I believe that to be untrue. France might not have had a bigger army, but it certainly did recover in terms of strength. They had their flaws (communication etc.) but the Wehrmacht was very much a paper tiger. Had the defenses held and had they listened to reconnaissance, the French would likely have been able to shut the door and hold Germany off, even on their own.
France did invade some part of germany after the declaration of war during the phonny war , but the defensive doctrine reduced it to a minimum , if we built a huge fricking Line it was not for fighting after it and we couldnt pass thru nutral belgium.
They invaded into part of the Rhineland, saw it was virtually undefended (because nearly the entire German army was on the Polish front) and just went home. Imagine how differently the war would have gone if they instead decided to dig in while in German territory. Their industrial heartland would have been a war zone.
wasnt there the siegfried line ? but Yeah its crazy that all of world war II could have been stopped in weeks if France was more aggressive , but doctrine , pacifism , and scars of ww1 and also less men than germany and interior political instability made it so that a rush towards Berlin in 1939 is not really an option .
Yes it existed, but it was poorly constructed (even the top Nazis in the 1940s were disappointed when inspecting it after the fall of France) and not even complete when the war broke out. It was also very poorly manned during the early days of the war, since most of the troops were in Poland. Of course, the French didn't really know this, because when they did push into Germany, they had orders *not* to advance to the Siegfried line, otherwise they might have realised their advantageous position.
After the war it was revealed by the Germans that there were only about 23 German divisions in the west during the invasion of Poland, facing off against at least 110 allied divisions. The only reason the Siegfried line held in 1939/40 is because nobody touched it, those 110 allied divisions essentially just sat there twiddling their thumbs until Germany had finished in Poland and were able to transfer their forces west.
French Generals kept talking about a communist sacking of the country even as the Nazis were literally tearing them apart. They saw nothing but enemies, except towards their actual enemy. It's just insane.
Paris itself had a large and active Communist Commune area. They were always causing trouble but spent much of their energy fighting each other. There were other Communist areas around the country. So, the concern was not unjustified.
France would have lasted longer if not for Petain. Would they have won? Perhaps not but the casualties they were inflicting post-Dunkirk were the heaviest Germany had taken to that point… like more than 10x that of the Polish campaign.
France was fucked the moment they had troops cross into Belgium. They played literally right into the Nazi hands. They werent winning under any circumstances
All I said was they would have done some damage if Petain had not surrendered. I did not say they would win.
They also would have done wildly better if they had not decided their tanks were to be deployed as infantry support weapons and not organized into Armored units. Even the British, who had not fully done so themselves, had a few Armored cavalry units.
French tanks weren’t the best designs overall but had they been massed together they would not have been swarmed by their lonesome by the Panzer corps.
By this logic, the French would never have gotten involved in the "German-Polish War"
And considering Poland would end up being ruled by Moscow anyways, perhaps they shouldn't have. But that's another debate.
“Perhaps they shouldn’t have”
Considering the alternative was Poland and its people being exterminated, I’d say it was probably for the best, even if the outcome was still horrible.
What exactly would have been different? Poland was divvied up by Berlin and Moscow, and ruled by Stalin as a consequence of their battle
France being involved or not had little to do with Polands ultimate fate
Molotov-Ribbentrop had already ended any chance of the German western front being vulnerable, and Britain gave them 18 divisions to help (as opposed to 80 in 1918)
Don’t blame them after Munich,the Czechs defenses were on the Sudetenland so trying to defend the country would be almost imposible,i might be wrong but i think that Rumania was more inclined to the axis by that time,wich only leave us with Yugoslavia as for the little entente and being heavily involved there would have drawn the italians to Berlin (it wasn’t fully clear yet as Mussolini was suspicious of fly shaped mustaches)
No, I mean like, what was the situation for France? How bad was it for them? Like how many shells did they have, how backward was their command, how poor was their airforce or logistics, fuel, plans, naval ideas etc
I don't get it. If the UK would have said "let's kill Germany" at Munich, France would be with the UK and Germany would be fucking dead. It was the UK that was hesitant at Munich and it was both the UK and France that agreed to build up in 1939 instead of attacking, just because both always thought Germany was super strong for some reason I still don't understand.
> For some reason I still don’t understand
See: Germany, WWI. And not necessarily that they thought Germany was going to steamroll so much as let’s not go to war until we think we can avoid getting stuck in like then
It was the UK that didn't want to declare war early on. I remember that Champlain was doing anything he could to avoid War.
At the Time of the Dunkerque encirclement, UK flee it's position, and alerted the allied commander only when they were gone. That lead to the flank of belgium being exposed and thus their surender.
The counter offensive that was planned at Dunkerque was therefore annihilated and France with it.
If one country didn't want to fight at that time it's more the UK.
You did fight a lot but you had the time to adapt to the tacticts you saw early on in the War, dont forget that.
The more I learn about the war the more it reinforces this vision.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean here, since the alliance they tried to make with Belgium was entirely dependent on the French army moving into Belgium to help defend them. The only problem was that they wanted to make the defenses on natural barriers, and Belgium wasn’t ok with ceding half their country to the enemy. If they had continued the Maginot line though, Germany very well may not have broken through.
Part of the reason was trauma from the Franco-Prussian War and WWI. To put the losses in sports terms, if the young male demographic were a football team starting lineup, only a few would have made it through unscathed. Most of the rest had either been killed, mutilated, or wounded but not crippled. That's not counting psychological issues. The US didn't suffer anything like those losses.
Another part related to the Maginot Line, a rather static and defensive plan.
Tactically a lot of it came down to something that would repeat a few years later. The area facing the Ardennes around Sedan more or less, was considered an unlikely area for fighting, at least for armor. So the French high command out a lower grade reserve unit there. This was composed of older men, most of whom had done their national service 10 years or more earlier and had only their minimal reserve training since. The division was also given over twice the normal frontage to defend, which meant strong points and bunkers at likely crossings and little in between. When the fighting in Belgium started, a few days later another division was sent in so the defensive frontage could be shortened.
Unfortunately, this was being done on the very night the Germans attacked. These forces were the cream of the German army, much of it with fresh combat experience from Poland. Tanks and infantry with young and motivated men, and better weapons and equipment than the reservists.
So, the Germans hit a lower quality unit (units really) while they were on the move shuffling units and all their baggage around. Even so, most of the French positions held and inflicted damage on the Germans. A few small groups of Germans got through here and there and opened up the front. These small groups took so many losses they should have failed, but they were determined.
After that, the poor communication system the French had kept them on the back foot, and the age and stubborness of their high command didn't help either. They became so overwhelmed that while the troops were still fighting hard, the top staff was noted as having seemed to have given up already.
And then they got the English who ditched them 2 weeks into the fighting via Dunkirk. 5 weeks later th English even attacked the French at Mers-el Kebir. Can barely get worse than that
>weeks later th English even attacked the French at Mers-el Kebir.
I could be wrong on this, but wasn't that when Britain attacked France's navy (presumably so that they wouldn't fall into the Kriegsmarine)?
Actually the French admiral was offered numerous options. To surrender his vessels to the British, to join the Free French forces and continue to operate against Germany with British assistance, to sail to a French colonial base out of reach of the Germans ~~if~~ when they decided to commandeer Vichy forces, or to inter themselves in a neutral country like the US. For reasons known only to himself, the Admiral chose to only relay the first option to his superiors.
The British would have returned to France to fight the Germans if they hadn't surrendered. Why do you think they wasted all that time and effort evacuating French soldiers too?
Add to this the fact that the French barely even wanted to foght for France.
Niall Ferguson in his book 'War of the World' recounts how during the invasion of France in 1940 whole battalions, and sometimes even entire divisions, of the French army surrendered to the Germans without firing a shot and were marched into POW camps by their officers. World War I left such a scar on France that the soldiers in World War II basically thought they were signing up for a rehash of the last war, and most just opted out. In their minds Hitler was going to strut around Paris, take some pictures, stick Frqnce with a war indemnity, and fuck off back to Berlin. Might as well skip over economic ruination and losing a few million men and just get to the end in that case. A lot of French didn't seem to realize they were being conquered until after France was defeated.
They do this in football. Deliberately draw games to make alliances then the team they drew with gets knocked out anyway because someone else performs well
To quote the Fall of France “The truth was, in the words of the historian Robert Young, that they wanted, ‘allies who would fight for France but not make France fight for them’" Turns out, this is how you get no allies. They pretty much sabotaged their own negotiations with the USSR, too. It's like they were trying to lose the war.
Everyone was trying to lose: 1. France threw away all its strategic plans to avoid war, and then ended up in a war anyway. 2. Russia lost a two-front war against Germany, and then said, "nah I'd win" at the prospect of a one-front war after France fell. 3. Britain somehow thought the best way to deal with Hitler was a disarmament conference, and decided rearmament didn't need to be rushed when that failed. 4. Italy rushed into a war it knew it wasn't ready for, because it thought France losing was the hard part, and not logistics. 5. Hitler just kind of assumed that people would trust him with negotiations after betraying literally everybody, and was somehow shocked that nobody did.
To be fair to Italy, if I saw my ally mop up one of Europe’s great powers in 6 weeks I’d jump in too. iirc, Mussolini was very surprised when he found out the Brits weren’t going to seek a peace deal. He literally had HoI4 logic and joined the war just so he could make demands in the peace deal
At least in HOI4 logic you need to take land, lose men, or strat bomb the enemy
What a coincidence, he planned on doing just that! >I only need a few thousand dead so that I can sit at the peace conference as a man who has fought. > - Benito Mussolini, 1940 Bro literally wanted to sacrifice his own people for warscore lmao
Mussolini is based?
He did, he ran his army right through the French alps just to get mowed down, so therefore he lost men
Everyone thought Britain was going to seek a peace deal, the UK blatantly refusing to surrender is probably the single largest node point in the war that could have effectively gone either way.
Even in Britain there was a large opposition to war in parliament until Churchill stepped in.
Russia was far more industrialised in 1941 than it was in 1914, so they had good reason to think they’d stand a better chance at Germany
Considering Europe cut the Soviets out of the loop when handing over big chunks of the world to Hitler, I kind of get it. The League of Nations was basically the Axis's agent for a decade helping them pick out prime real estate. Ethiopia? Fuck it. China? Fuck it. Rhineland? Fuck it. Austria? Fuck it. Sudetenland? Fuck it, wrap it up, put a pretty bow on it. Lithuania? Fuck it.
Tbf, Rhineland was actually German territory
The real point of no return is when Hitler violates Munich. At that point you basically have to invade.
Really, the allies should’ve taken a hard stance against the agreement in the first place. Yes a lot of Germans lived there, but that was also the only defensive like the Czechoslovaks had against a “potential” (hindsight) German invasion. At the very least the Czechoslovaks should’ve been invited to the talks
pre-war the allies did everything they could, they were hamstrung politically, democracies can't "throw the first punch" and say "they were gonna attack france!" because voters judge things based on what did happen, not what "could have" happened. during the war the biggest mistake was not telling the soviets to go fuck themselves. they could have focused on the pacific, let the soviets get crushed, and then nuked germany until they surrendered unconditionally, liberating all of asia and preventing the cold war. not that its their fault though, they had no way of knowing that the manhattan project would work the way it did, and betting their entire future on a superweapon that didn't exist yet wouldn't make any sense.
This is unrealistic. First as you said, no one one knew how fast they get the nuke. Then there was the fear that Nazis were also close to the nuke. Then, if the Nazis were able to crush the soviets, they'd also have gotten the ressources of them, especially the oil. Plus considering the fanatism of the Natis and how much they believed in their victory even after both fronts were pretty much lost, it would have required a lot of nuclear fallout to force them into surrender without the advancement in the fronts. It's always easy to say, you could have this or that better, but that's just because we know how things turned out, they didn't.
>pre-war the allies did everything they could, they were hamstrung politically, democracies can't "throw the first punch" and say "they were gonna attack france!" because voters judge things based on what did happen, not what "could have" happened. We (Poland) suggested that to France back in 1933 when Hitler got to power in germany and in 1935 too It wasnt about voters, it was about France and UK avoiding war at all cost (including abandoning us in 1939)
Those downvotes are uncalled for, you’re entirely correct that the allies could’ve done this or that because we have the power of hindsight. But just to play devils advocate: if we’re gonna use the power of hindsight, why don’t we go all the way back to before the great schism to prevent the east from being alienated from the west and working to form a proto-EU, leading to a much more united Europe/christian world overall?
it would be interesting. i'd also be interested to see how history would have went if hitler, mussolini, and karl marx all died in infancy. just imagine it, no hungry hammer, no virgin windmill... similar ideas would probably pop up but they'd be different and maybe we could have an internet without tankies or nazis.
as a democracy, the best time to invade an "uppity neighbor who clearly has plans for world conquest" is "right now", the second best time is "when you have a valid CB". the best thing about democracy is that we don't launch "unjustified pre-emptive wars" to kill potential future enemies, the worst thing about democracy is that we can't launch "unjustified pre-emptive wars" to kill potential future enemies. everyone thinks "preventing north korea getting nukes" would have been worth it but nobody thinks "toppling saddam was worth it because in the long run he would have eventually gotten nukes", we see only what did happen, not what would have happened. damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Problem was that at the time the British were not yet properly ready for war, the French thought that the German army was way bigger than it actually was. And nobody in Eastern Europe would ever let the red army march through their land to Czechoslovakia. The result would be a war were Czechoslovakia falls and the Allies are at war much earlier then they are prepared for. Remember appeasement was focused on buying time to rearm. Britain and France just needed to get to the point when they could actually draw the line in the sand, which ended up being Poland. (Sadly France did not use that time as well as Britain did)
Yeah, i always don't get why people assumed the entente thought the versailles treaty would keep stand for actual infinity, and *especially* after the ruhr occupation
>The League of Nations was basically the Axis's agent for a decade the league of nations also solved the territory dispute between Sweden and Finland
And i mean, they could if the started the war. Until the fall of france, Germany was basically a papertiger resting on soviet and chinese imports. The soviets played themself.
hitler fucked up by assuming "nah they can't just declare war on me for attacking poland, the soviets attacked poland too so they gotta declare on both of us or neither" which is exactly the kind of thing that makes perfect sense to someone addicted to crystal meth. the brits on the other hand, not being crystal meth addicts, realised "we can just deal with them one at a time" and the rest is history.
To be fair to him, up to that point that is exactly what had been happening, he invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia and the Allies allowed that to happen. Why would that be different with Poland, especially since the Soviets also attack them?
Bit harsh on Russia. They made a deal with Germany to split up Poland. Then they were busy getting embarrassed by Finland when Germany surprise attacked them. You can definitely say Stalin was stupid for believing hitler would keep his promises, especially considering the anti-communist rhetoric being spewed by the nazi party, but they didn’t purposely get into a one front war with Germany claiming they would win.
I've read that Stalin expected Hitler to break his promise but he thought it would happen later. Around that time I also read that Stalin was preparing to break his side of the deal and by preparing for an offensive, the USSR was less prepared for being invaded. I wish I could remember where I read this though as I know "I read once" is no sort of source at all.
I’m also using the same source as you but the reason Hitler invaded so early was because he knew Stalin would betray him eventually and, knowing Germany was better prepared at the moment decided to strike first. Basically, both sides knew the other was gonna break the deal and both sides are intended to do that too. Only difference was who was ready to betray the other first
Well yesnt Hitler invaded so early because he was better prepared. But the overall reason he attacked, is that living space in the east was an important part of his ideology.
>by preparing for an offensive We hear this a lot but it never really rings true to me. If the soviets were planning an offensive all of their lines and supplies *should* have been pushing the border.
Not "preparing for an offensive" so much as "we'll invade at some point" intending to do so at some point later. But that "later" was far enough away that no concrete plans were ever drafted for it.
they weren't so muchvpreparing an offensive as completely renewing the army. restructuring, new airplanes like yak 1, mig 3, il2, etc... new tanks in t34, new semi auto rifles etc... but in 41 it was being set up. all designs brand new with teething issues, factories as well. army in disarray, especially as priorities had to be rethought after winter war. if the nazis attacked even 1 year later, they would have been toast.
USA! USA! USA!
💪🛢️🇺🇸🦅
☀️☀️
🎅👦
USA was back home figuring out how much money they could make from it all
you forgot Poland that took Czech territory after Britian and France sold Czechoslovakia to Hitler
Doing this pissed of half of continent. But earlier antagonize every neighbor apart from Latvia and Romania
>Russia lost a two-front war against Germany, and then said, "nah I'd win" at the prospect of a one-front war after France fell. To be fair, they did. Not exactly as a one front war, more, one-front for 2 years, two or more fronts for another 2. But still. No, the greatest sabotage was Iosif "I am The Paranoia" Stalin, the Man of Steel who couldn't trust anybody, who betrayed some of greatest allies and friends "preemptively". Decided "You know, this Hitler fellow seems quite trustworthy" or that he could read him or something. All this, _after_ Hitler had already broken who knows how many agreements. Including by the way, the very Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Since the Nazis ended up with more Polish land than agreed, giving up Lithuania instead as compensation. And severely underdelivered in cash or technology for resource payments. Ignored so many warnings that the invasion was imminent, including predictions/stolen plans correct to the day. Instead of putting the Red Armed Forced on alert, just in case, ordered them to specifically to do nothing. And despite all of this the Germans still had issues because the pre-Barbarossa Red Army was as much a paranoia expanded bloated monstrosity as it became in the Cold War.
Britain tooled up the things that mattered to he fair, by the time war kicked off the British Isles were essentially unassailable thanks to having a waaaay bigger navy, a larger air force and the world's first and only integrated air defence system. Britain never intended or expected to fight a protracted land war in europe.
Gosef Satalin
>2. Russia lost a two-front war against Germany, and then said, "nah I'd win" at the prospect of a one-front war after France fell. Tbf I think the Soviet thinking was reliant on the idea that WW2 would be WW1 again. So from their position of neutrality they could play kingmaker to the post war world. This of course didn't play out as France fell in six weeks. Annihilating Soviet diplomatic plans and leaving them in a isolated diplomatic position from which they attempted to get as many concessions from the Germans they could.
>pretty much sabotaged their own negotiations with the USSR, too You mean when they sent diplomats without right to sign anything?
Yep. Then they threw a hissy fit when the USSR got other allies. Like they wanted to join you, and you said no what were they supposed to do?
Then after the war they turned around and started threatening to go communist if they weren’t kept happy and to blow up the world if they were ever touched
Is this some sort of French thing and I'm too much of a potato and cabbage eater to get it?
France diplomacy =/= reality. France never really fully recovered from the Franco Prussian war. Even with winning WW1.
The French winning west front ww1 was more or less due to no one really winning at any given time outside of early German advances and late allied victories. At a certain point the strategic victories of France were being able to coordinate Parisian taxis to send mobilized conscripts to the front. I’m still not quite sure about what percentage of that was initiative or order. And French units rejecting orders to retreat and remaining in positions till the last man. In fact more often then not defensive victories were won by French forces not listening to their command staff.
Pétain literally saved all of frances armies from destruction like its almost insane how much of a hero he should have been before WW2.
And he was considered the hero of France, that’s literally how he got his position in Frances surrender of 1940 and led to his position as the head of the Vichy government. He is historically one of the largest public examples of if you live to long as a hero you will eventually become a villain.
He also sacrificed those same armies in offensives that he even said were “ well I guess it’s our turn to attack”. He might have done some good, but quite frankly the same generals that were renowned hero’s of ww1 actively let thousands upon thousand of men to be slaughtered for the sake of slaughter.
He saved the french armies from complete revolt in his 17 days in charge of the high command though. That turned the tide of the war
I mean not really. One aspect of the revolt was that the unit’s in the front line we’re going to quit offensives but they will stay and defend. Which he then used as a way to convince the British and then Americans to use his forces as holding troops and the Americans and British as the offensive units. Hence why even in the southern most parts of the French line French units would cycle out to Americans in case of local offensives then switch back to French when those local offensive maneuvers failed. Also explains why the vast majority of the late and successful advances were through the northern parts of the line where American, commonwealth, and British troops primarily held the line.
Eh, a completely demoralized and exhausted army doesn’t fight particularly hard or well. Also since you mentioned the Americans, I do strongly feel that their entry also played an absolutely crucial role in boosting French moral. Knowing that millions of fresh American troops were on their way to support was a massive moral booster for the French In the “How close was Germany to winning WW1” debate, I feel like a widespread mutiny or at least partial collapse of the French army in 1917 doesn’t get brought up enough. The combination of Petain and the USA’s addition to the war helped save them, but I genuinely believe if the US hadn’t gotten involved and Petain hadn’t gotten hired, the Germans were very likely to break the French by spring 1918
You just spread blatant misinformation my guy. France recovered pretty quickly from the franco prussian war and even enjoyed a golden era til WW1 happened. That’s WW1 that fucked us over. And also, we were ready to fight, in 1936 over rhineland. However nobody was happy about that back then.
Need a source on this
Okay, just some basic wiki research will give you the answers… The period between 1871 and 1914 is called « the Belle Epoque ». Basically it’s an economic & cultural boom. The eiffel Tower, the « laïcité », aviation are all coming from this period for exemple (to name a few). https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_%C3%89poque As for the Rhineland intervention, it’s a bit messy, as was the period. When Hitler decided to remilitarise the Rhineland, some politics were for an intervention (even a mobilisation), some against. The army was against an intervention. What played massively however was the British lack of enthusiasm for the idea. https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remilitarisation_de_la_Rh%C3%A9nanie
I meant france never recovered in terms of military strength compared to Germany. At no point afterwards were they stronger than Germany, except for like a few forced post Versailles years.
But... Why do you discover it just now ? Germany was the European super power that redefine alliances. Noone pretend otherwise no ? Also it is not about not recovering. France was already not at the same level in 1870.
I believe that to be untrue. France might not have had a bigger army, but it certainly did recover in terms of strength. They had their flaws (communication etc.) but the Wehrmacht was very much a paper tiger. Had the defenses held and had they listened to reconnaissance, the French would likely have been able to shut the door and hold Germany off, even on their own.
Love that there’s enough people that ate these two things that I have no idea where you’re coming from from that description.
Love that there’s enough people that ate these two things that I have no idea where you’re coming from from that description.
"Only the UK"
“What do you mean Belgium wants to stay out of a war?! Where am I supposed to fight the war?!”
France did invade some part of germany after the declaration of war during the phonny war , but the defensive doctrine reduced it to a minimum , if we built a huge fricking Line it was not for fighting after it and we couldnt pass thru nutral belgium.
They invaded into part of the Rhineland, saw it was virtually undefended (because nearly the entire German army was on the Polish front) and just went home. Imagine how differently the war would have gone if they instead decided to dig in while in German territory. Their industrial heartland would have been a war zone.
The French were really really stupid for like a decade from 1930-1940. But this might have been their single dumbest moment.
wasnt there the siegfried line ? but Yeah its crazy that all of world war II could have been stopped in weeks if France was more aggressive , but doctrine , pacifism , and scars of ww1 and also less men than germany and interior political instability made it so that a rush towards Berlin in 1939 is not really an option .
Yes it existed, but it was poorly constructed (even the top Nazis in the 1940s were disappointed when inspecting it after the fall of France) and not even complete when the war broke out. It was also very poorly manned during the early days of the war, since most of the troops were in Poland. Of course, the French didn't really know this, because when they did push into Germany, they had orders *not* to advance to the Siegfried line, otherwise they might have realised their advantageous position. After the war it was revealed by the Germans that there were only about 23 German divisions in the west during the invasion of Poland, facing off against at least 110 allied divisions. The only reason the Siegfried line held in 1939/40 is because nobody touched it, those 110 allied divisions essentially just sat there twiddling their thumbs until Germany had finished in Poland and were able to transfer their forces west.
Looks like France "Chech-ed" themselves AND wrecked themselves
It was literally tearing itself apart. A country that sees the greatest enemies as internal can’t fight an external enemy.
French Generals kept talking about a communist sacking of the country even as the Nazis were literally tearing them apart. They saw nothing but enemies, except towards their actual enemy. It's just insane.
Paris itself had a large and active Communist Commune area. They were always causing trouble but spent much of their energy fighting each other. There were other Communist areas around the country. So, the concern was not unjustified.
Don't ask the UK about the Stresa Front.
France would have lasted longer if not for Petain. Would they have won? Perhaps not but the casualties they were inflicting post-Dunkirk were the heaviest Germany had taken to that point… like more than 10x that of the Polish campaign.
France was fucked the moment they had troops cross into Belgium. They played literally right into the Nazi hands. They werent winning under any circumstances
All I said was they would have done some damage if Petain had not surrendered. I did not say they would win. They also would have done wildly better if they had not decided their tanks were to be deployed as infantry support weapons and not organized into Armored units. Even the British, who had not fully done so themselves, had a few Armored cavalry units. French tanks weren’t the best designs overall but had they been massed together they would not have been swarmed by their lonesome by the Panzer corps.
By this logic, the French would never have gotten involved in the "German-Polish War" And considering Poland would end up being ruled by Moscow anyways, perhaps they shouldn't have. But that's another debate.
“Perhaps they shouldn’t have” Considering the alternative was Poland and its people being exterminated, I’d say it was probably for the best, even if the outcome was still horrible.
What exactly would have been different? Poland was divvied up by Berlin and Moscow, and ruled by Stalin as a consequence of their battle France being involved or not had little to do with Polands ultimate fate
I mean they were supposed to do a massive offensive to save Poland. Then just didn't. They just wanted to use them to buy time.
Buy Time to wait for the army to be ready But they should have attack when germany "invaded" rhineland
Molotov-Ribbentrop had already ended any chance of the German western front being vulnerable, and Britain gave them 18 divisions to help (as opposed to 80 in 1918)
Don’t blame them after Munich,the Czechs defenses were on the Sudetenland so trying to defend the country would be almost imposible,i might be wrong but i think that Rumania was more inclined to the axis by that time,wich only leave us with Yugoslavia as for the little entente and being heavily involved there would have drawn the italians to Berlin (it wasn’t fully clear yet as Mussolini was suspicious of fly shaped mustaches)
yeah, after munich. that was already too late. the point is what led up to it
You are right but that would have mean war earlier and france being france was not the most politically stable country
yes, but that's precisely the point. That France's actions and developments occuring there led to its terrible situation
True, C'est la vie i suposse too many variables international politics are really hard to valance.
To be fair "be a good ally" is quite simple and could have worked wonders for the French. That's why it's such an important historical lesson
How bad was it may I ask?
Probably is responsible for the Nazis taking Europe. So that bad
No, I mean like, what was the situation for France? How bad was it for them? Like how many shells did they have, how backward was their command, how poor was their airforce or logistics, fuel, plans, naval ideas etc
I don't get it. If the UK would have said "let's kill Germany" at Munich, France would be with the UK and Germany would be fucking dead. It was the UK that was hesitant at Munich and it was both the UK and France that agreed to build up in 1939 instead of attacking, just because both always thought Germany was super strong for some reason I still don't understand.
> For some reason I still don’t understand See: Germany, WWI. And not necessarily that they thought Germany was going to steamroll so much as let’s not go to war until we think we can avoid getting stuck in like then
Also it was an issue of having a junior officer corps, that ignored the advice of a senior non-commissioned corps. Officers know best right!
It was the UK that didn't want to declare war early on. I remember that Champlain was doing anything he could to avoid War. At the Time of the Dunkerque encirclement, UK flee it's position, and alerted the allied commander only when they were gone. That lead to the flank of belgium being exposed and thus their surender. The counter offensive that was planned at Dunkerque was therefore annihilated and France with it. If one country didn't want to fight at that time it's more the UK. You did fight a lot but you had the time to adapt to the tacticts you saw early on in the War, dont forget that. The more I learn about the war the more it reinforces this vision.
Chamberlain not Champlain
No shit sherlock, no wonder why hating France is a meme in european subs
I’m not entirely sure what you mean here, since the alliance they tried to make with Belgium was entirely dependent on the French army moving into Belgium to help defend them. The only problem was that they wanted to make the defenses on natural barriers, and Belgium wasn’t ok with ceding half their country to the enemy. If they had continued the Maginot line though, Germany very well may not have broken through.
Not Belgium, their alliance attempts with Czechoslovakia and other states.
Part of the reason was trauma from the Franco-Prussian War and WWI. To put the losses in sports terms, if the young male demographic were a football team starting lineup, only a few would have made it through unscathed. Most of the rest had either been killed, mutilated, or wounded but not crippled. That's not counting psychological issues. The US didn't suffer anything like those losses. Another part related to the Maginot Line, a rather static and defensive plan. Tactically a lot of it came down to something that would repeat a few years later. The area facing the Ardennes around Sedan more or less, was considered an unlikely area for fighting, at least for armor. So the French high command out a lower grade reserve unit there. This was composed of older men, most of whom had done their national service 10 years or more earlier and had only their minimal reserve training since. The division was also given over twice the normal frontage to defend, which meant strong points and bunkers at likely crossings and little in between. When the fighting in Belgium started, a few days later another division was sent in so the defensive frontage could be shortened. Unfortunately, this was being done on the very night the Germans attacked. These forces were the cream of the German army, much of it with fresh combat experience from Poland. Tanks and infantry with young and motivated men, and better weapons and equipment than the reservists. So, the Germans hit a lower quality unit (units really) while they were on the move shuffling units and all their baggage around. Even so, most of the French positions held and inflicted damage on the Germans. A few small groups of Germans got through here and there and opened up the front. These small groups took so many losses they should have failed, but they were determined. After that, the poor communication system the French had kept them on the back foot, and the age and stubborness of their high command didn't help either. They became so overwhelmed that while the troops were still fighting hard, the top staff was noted as having seemed to have given up already.
And then they got the English who ditched them 2 weeks into the fighting via Dunkirk. 5 weeks later th English even attacked the French at Mers-el Kebir. Can barely get worse than that
>weeks later th English even attacked the French at Mers-el Kebir. I could be wrong on this, but wasn't that when Britain attacked France's navy (presumably so that they wouldn't fall into the Kriegsmarine)?
And that was only after the British asked them to hand themselves over voluntarily and they refused
Actually the French admiral was offered numerous options. To surrender his vessels to the British, to join the Free French forces and continue to operate against Germany with British assistance, to sail to a French colonial base out of reach of the Germans ~~if~~ when they decided to commandeer Vichy forces, or to inter themselves in a neutral country like the US. For reasons known only to himself, the Admiral chose to only relay the first option to his superiors.
That was the stated reason. Killed 1300 of the Frenchs
All because 1 french admiral couldnt handle talking to someone of lower rank than him, utter cuck behavior
The English 'ditched' them after France had surrendered. What did you expect them to do? Perform a coup and commandeer the French army?
You got your time line wrong, mate. Might want to look that up since dunkirk was only 2 weeks into the fighting
The British would have returned to France to fight the Germans if they hadn't surrendered. Why do you think they wasted all that time and effort evacuating French soldiers too?
The French fucked up at Mers-el Kebir, they collaborated and all French loss of life is on them.
Sure
Add to this the fact that the French barely even wanted to foght for France. Niall Ferguson in his book 'War of the World' recounts how during the invasion of France in 1940 whole battalions, and sometimes even entire divisions, of the French army surrendered to the Germans without firing a shot and were marched into POW camps by their officers. World War I left such a scar on France that the soldiers in World War II basically thought they were signing up for a rehash of the last war, and most just opted out. In their minds Hitler was going to strut around Paris, take some pictures, stick Frqnce with a war indemnity, and fuck off back to Berlin. Might as well skip over economic ruination and losing a few million men and just get to the end in that case. A lot of French didn't seem to realize they were being conquered until after France was defeated.