So why didn't Britain and France invade Germany in 1939

Pancho35 said:

Wow, just wow. I have never ever thought about this. Even after all the appeasement it wasn't too late if the French had just showed a bit more courage and initiative.

And like an above poster said, the British and French didn't truly declare war on Germany because of Poland, if they did they probably would've made an attempt to actually save it. No they declared war because Germany was becoming too strong and upsetting the balance of power.

Sometimes I wonder if Britain and France were so different than Germany, and if it weren't for war crimes like the Holocaust sparking such sentiments as good vs. pure evil, would World War 2 just be understood as your standard European imperialistic war.

Click to expand...

Maybe...

Richard Stanbery said:

I doubt the French could have mounted and sustained an offence if they had wanted to. They just didnt really have the logistical system for it. Much of it was still horse drawn, as was much of the artillery.

The BEF was fully motorized then, but small. And I dont think they could have drawn thier supplies from the French because the French ssytem wasnt set up for that. So, a creeping, small offensive was possibly about all the French could do, which is what they did.

It would have probably been a situation where they would have to stockpile supplies for a week or two, then attack a few miles and halt. Then the supply depots would have to be set up a little closer, more transport routes added, and a build up, then another attack. And so it would have gone. much along WWI standards, logistically speaking. And that if the Luftwaffe didnt object.

The Germans system was much better suited to offence, though much of it was also horse drawn then. The Germans were better off in keeping most of the panzers supplied, but even they had thier limitations in 1940, frontal units outrunning thier supplies. Luckily for them, the French and British were so disorganized by constant Luftwaffe attacks that they couldnt capitalize on that when it happened.

Click to expand...

In 1939, the German army was clearly not prepared to attack France, and that is why, amongst other things, the attack was postponed several times.
If the allied had attacked in September 1939, the Germans would have been wiped out.
The problem was that, in 1939, Germany managed to produce enough tanks and planes, etc to be ready for the following year, while the French were still messing around.
Their best production rate for tanks and planes occured between April and June 1940, when it was already too late, and a lot of the new equipment (B1bis and S35 tanks, D520 fighters) could not be delivered to the units.
On 10th of May 1940, the best French fighter, the D520, the only one which could beat the Me109, with better manoeuvrability though slightly slower, had been delivered to only 1 squadron, which meant that, on the day of the German attack, the French Air Force had only 36 modern fighters in service! More squadrons were equiped in the following weeks though, but not enough to stop German air supremacy.
And yet, they managed to shot down around 1100 German planes in 50 days or so! Another key thing is that, every time D520 fighters met Me109, the French shot down more Me109 than they lost D520.

An explanation of the French lack of preparation and fighting spirit amongst the elite can be found in a book plublished recently from Annie lacroix-Riz, which gives a broader view on the decisions which led to the final catastrophe.

For example, during the late 1930's, some people, amongst the financial, political and industrial elite favoured Hitler as opposed to the Socialist goverment in place. They also hated communism so much that, again, they favoured Hitler who was seen as a rampart against the "reds".

That is why, for example, French steel and bauxite was sold to German industrial companies, while French factories did not produce modern tanks and planes, although everyone knew that war was ahead.

If I remember correctly, the last shipment of French raw materials to Germany took place in April or May 1940. Raw materials which were used to build the tanks and planes that invaded Poland, Checoslovakia, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France.

According to what some historians say, part of the French (and British) elite worked to prevent the war from happening too soon and hindered their own country's war effort to protect their interests, as Germany was, during the 1920' and 1930's a very big client, where they had made huge investments.

This was also true about Americans companies, like IBM, Ford and GM who had factories in Germany.

Even though some people refuse to believe this kind of facts, German testimonies prove that this was an embarrassing truth, as civilians pointed out that, during bombardments of Germany, the safest places were the Ford and GM factories, which were never bombed, while their city was flatenned...

Ford CEO during the war was awarded a medal in the 1930's by the German ambassador, and he also had a portrait of the fuhrer in his office... Hitler himself pointed out that he liked Mr Ford, as it was nice and easy to "do business with him"...

I think there are a lot of inconvenient truths about the attitude of Western governments towards Germany in the 1930's and early 40's, and the explanation of the absence of reaction to the invasion of Poland should not be justified merely on a too commonly and easily accepted pacifism amongst the population.

I think to properly look at this issue you have to go all the way back to the Franco-Prussian War. The war saw the complete humiliation of the French Army in a war that it had a chance of winning. It saw the lose of a large number of French officers and thinkers, crippling a whole generation of military planners. What then happened was the Dreyfus case and the massive amount of humiliation it brought upon the French army. So heading into WWI the French Army had an officer core that was either to old or to young for the challenges of a new type of warfare. The result was death and mutiny for many French servicemen. The French were barely able to suppress mutiny in the army. Follow this by the complete humiliation of Frances goals of guaranteeing itself against future German military assault at the Versailles Conference. So the political class of the period was one that had little faith in the army that won WWI and had saw its motions for support against Germany falter. Also, the military leadership of the time remembered the failures of the past war and that breed caution. That's why the French built the Maginot Line. The whole mentality of the French civil and military establishment was against conflict. The British shared this antipathy towards war. Although they were a great power, their resources and strength were spread across the globe and could not be mobilized very quickly.

jlbryant said:

I think to properly look at this issue you have to go all the way back to the Franco-Prussian War. The war saw the complete humiliation of the French Army in a war that it had a chance of winning. It saw the lose of a large number of French officers and thinkers, crippling a whole generation of military planners. What then happened was the Dreyfus case and the massive amount of humiliation it brought upon the French army. So heading into WWI the French Army had an officer core that was either to old or to young for the challenges of a new type of warfare. The result was death and mutiny for many French servicemen. The French were barely able to suppress mutiny in the army. Follow this by the complete humiliation of Frances goals of guaranteeing itself against future German military assault at the Versailles Conference. So the political class of the period was one that had little faith in the army that won WWI and had saw its motions for support against Germany falter. Also, the military leadership of the time remembered the failures of the past war and that breed caution. That's why the French built the Maginot Line. The whole mentality of the French civil and military establishment was against conflict. The British shared this antipathy towards war. Although they were a great power, their resources and strength were spread across the globe and could not be mobilized very quickly.

Click to expand...

You are going a little too far here.
Mutinies only happenned in 1917 amongst a few divisions, and mainly for very specific reasons; soldiers were ready to die for their country, but they started refusing to die for nothing in sutpid frontal attacks that had no chance of success. There were some who were pacifists for political reasons (communist sympathisers or party members) but most soldiers did want to fight the Germans, they just did not want to waste their lives for nothing, and asked for more consideration from High Command.

The whole of civil and military establishment was not against conflict.
And it's not really a question of being against conflict.
When you spend more than four years in trenches, lose 1.45 Million men, understandably people would not run to the next war against the same ennemy whith a big smile on their face.
You can't really blame the for that!
It's more a question of dertermination, regardless of what you want or don't want.
Some of the political, industrial and financial elites didn't want to fight germany (as in the UK), some officiers in High Command also, mainly for political and financial reasons, but the great majority of soldiers were determined to fight, and fight they did, even though they were let down by everyone else.
Troops which were commanded by officers of character continued to fight after the 17th of June, when Marshall Pétain announced that they should cease to fight.
They kept on fighting after the 22nd of June, when the Armistice came into force. Some kept on fighting up until July, when the last Maginot fortress surrendered on the 10th, threatened by the new French government, when the Germans threatened the latted of cancelling the Armistice.

Theres one major factor to consider. The British knew their own strength and it was pitiful. Despite the insults, Chamberlain had honestly tried for peace but had seen through Hitler and ordered rearmament from 1937 but our airforce was weak, front line monoplane fighter didnt become available till 1939 and generally supplied till 1940. At the time the Germans were sending Me109s into Spain under 'private contract' the RAF had a grand total of 4 monoplane fighters.

Our tank strength had been built to send small orders to car manufacturers and keep capability through the recession not to build an effective fighting arm, apart from the Mathilda 1 which was poor the rest of our tanks were appallingly bad.

We had some good units, our motorised infantry was excellent and well practiced though short on trucks and our communications had potential but overall our military was small, short on weapons and short on supplies.

At the same time the Germans had made a point of showing the world movies of their mass tank parades, mass aircraft parades, mass infantry parades and so on. We knew the Germans were heavily armed, well trained and aggressive and technologically ahead of us. Watch any of the Goebbels and Rieffenstahl movies to see what i mean.

We didnt figure out till later that it was all propaganda, their massed modern tanks were the same training models going round the parade several times and they were fatally weak, that their aircraft were technologically lacking and their supply system sucked or that while our motorised units were good the Germans were drafting civilian vehicles and still pulling their artillery with horses.

We fooled ourselves into thinking they were a stronger opponent than they were and it cost us.

As for Britain and France no different from Germany, i like to think the lack of government secret police and spies, enforced youth mobilisation and mind control, concentration camps, political armies, murder of the disabled, theft and murder of minorities and the repression of political dissent are minor differences between them and us.

Oh, and the concentration camps?

Did i mention racial segregation?

Secret police torture of political enemies and...oh, anybody they felt like?

You know, little differences!

Nemowork said:

Theres one major factor to consider. The British knew their own strength and it was pitiful. Despite the insults, Chamberlain had honestly tried for peace but had seen through Hitler and ordered rearmament from 1937 but our airforce was weak, front line monoplane fighter didnt become available till 1939 and generally supplied till 1940. At the time the Germans were sending Me109s into Spain under 'private contract' the RAF had a grand total of 4 monoplane fighters.

Our tank strength had been built to send small orders to car manufacturers and keep capability through the recession not to build an effective fighting arm, apart from the Mathilda 1 which was poor the rest of our tanks were appallingly bad.

We had some good units, our motorised infantry was excellent and well practiced though short on trucks and our communications had potential but overall our military was small, short on weapons and short on supplies.

At the same time the Germans had made a point of showing the world movies of their mass tank parades, mass aircraft parades, mass infantry parades and so on. We knew the Germans were heavily armed, well trained and aggressive and technologically ahead of us. Watch any of the Goebbels and Rieffenstahl movies to see what i mean.

We didnt figure out till later that it was all propaganda, their massed modern tanks were the same training models going round the parade several times and they were fatally weak, that their aircraft were technologically lacking and their supply system sucked or that while our motorised units were good the Germans were drafting civilian vehicles and still pulling their artillery with horses.

We fooled ourselves into thinking they were a stronger opponent than they were and it cost us.

As for Britain and France no different from Germany, i like to think the lack of government secret police and spies, enforced youth mobilisation and mind control, concentration camps, political armies, murder of the disabled, theft and murder of minorities and the repression of political dissent are minor differences between them and us.

Oh, and the concentration camps?

Did i mention racial segregation?

Secret police torture of political enemies and...oh, anybody they felt like?

You know, little differences!

Click to expand...

Yes, it is true that both France and Britain were late to produce modern fighters and tanks compared to Germany. As I mentioned earlier on, the French had only 36 modern D.520 fighters in May 1940, the only capable of outmatching the Me109 (with the Spitfire of course)
French B1bis and S35 tanks were excellent but too few and spread out instead of gathered in well organised armoured divisions (DCR and DLM were good, not as well organised as German Panzerdivisions)

All Brit tanks lacked AT firepower, even though the Mathilda had good armour.

Germany was objectively slightly better than the Allies in 1940, with more men, but what made the difference was not really the quality (or lack of it) of tanks and planes etc, but organisation and the doctrine used, and in this respect, the Germans were much more efficient and "ahead" of us.

As for what you mentioned at the end of your post, i'm not quite sure I understand what you mean.

Do you mean that France and Britain could also be "nasty" ?

There was no racial segregation in France, and we had black MPs in Parliament.

About concentration camps, I agree that Britain cannot teach any lessons to anyone, as they invented them during the Boer war, neither can the French, as they also used camps when Spanish refugees arrived in southern France in the late 1930's, and later the Vichy government, although it was then less surprising, considering the kind of regime it was.

English isnt your first language is it? I was getting a bit sarcastic on Panchos point that Britain, France and Germany were morally relative apart from the Holocaust. I could have worded it a bit better, i was trying to say that while Britain and France had their flaws and political mistakes they were still democracies, they werent militarised police states that used war widows and teenagers to spy on their neighbours or used state resources to imprison, torture and repress minorities and political enemies without trial.

Theres a lot of moral difference between a Democracy based on law and a dictatorship based on the whim of an all powerful boss.

Nemowork said:

English isnt your first language is it? I was getting a bit sarcastic on Panchos point that Britain, France and Germany were morally relative apart from the Holocaust. I could have worded it a bit better, i was trying to say that while Britain and France had their flaws and political mistakes they were still democracies, they werent militarised police states that used war widows and teenagers to spy on their neighbours or used state resources to imprison, torture and repress minorities and political enemies without trial.

Theres a lot of moral difference between a Democracy based on law and a dictatorship based on the whim of an all powerful boss.

Click to expand...

It is my second first language , but as you said, you could have worded it a bit better!
I hadn't read Pancho's post, hence the misunderstanding.

They'd just had an entire generation exterminated or maimed.

Yes, it is true that both France and Britain were late to produce modern fighters and tanks compared to Germany. As I mentioned earlier on, the French had only 36 modern D.520 fighters in May 1940, the only capable of outmatching the Me109 (with the Spitfire of course)
French B1bis and S35 tanks were excellent but too few and spread out instead of gathered in well organised armoured divisions (DCR and DLM were good, not as well organised as German Panzerdivisions)

All Brit tanks lacked AT firepower, even though the Mathilda had good armour.

Click to expand...

The British Hurricane was also a match for the ME109 in 1940 although not as elegant or famous as the Spitfire it made up the bulk of the British fighter command before and during the Battle of Britain.
Not all British tanks lacked AT firepower, the 2 Pdr was a good armour piercing weapon (better than the 25mm Hotchkiss and 37 mm Bofors they also used as towed guns and better than the 37mm German weapons) but with Poor HE performance when it did finally get some form of HE round after the fall of France.
The problem was a lack of ammunition for the 2 pdr (some units were overun without firing a shot as they had nothing but practice rounds) and the fact that some of the cruisers were sent to France without guns (some without real turrets having wooden mockups instead with the promise they would be made up later in France). This meant some of the crews never had a chance to fire the weapons before they were in combat (some gunners had never seen the 2 pdr before having been trained on various old Medium tanks with 3 pdr guns). Not to mention some dodgy reliability issues with the drive trains.
The Matilda 2 were in very short supply and relied on a special close support version with a 3" howitzer to fire smoke. Their armour was very good and only the German 88mm Flak 18 could deal with them. They were equipped with a 2 Pdr and Besa mg.
The Matilda 1 had an attempt to give them a limited anti-armour capability by some having their .303" Vickers mg replaced by .5" Vickers mg.
The light tanks were useless as anything more than recce or liason though (even the Pzkpfw II had heavier armament)

French armour suffered alot from one man turrets and poor tactics, most being used in penny packets.

A lot of interesting facts about preparations and armaments, defensive lines and weakness. Still the overarching imperative to not attacking Germany... has to be political will.

Economic
To understand the minds of these military thinkers we have to look to their masters the politicians... and their masters the industrialists. Even the Vatican at the time saw Hitler as a champion against the godless communists of the 1930s. The capitalist world was in turmoil by 1939 and had faced ten years of negative growth. Ford had the wrong idea completely, he thought that nations could produce their way out of depression, when in reality his very system had impoverished his own consumers and there was not enough working people left to buy good coming off production lines, while those still working were too scared to spend money.

Political
With this background in mind we turn our attention to French, American and British industrialists... many of whom were openly Nazi sympathizers, and after all, Hitler was pointed in the right direction for their liking. Even the King of England and his American de facto wife seemed somewhat sympathetic, after the fall of his close relatives the Kaiser and the Tsar some twenty years before, who could blame him for some admiration of Hitler at that time. The working class in Europe (even Germany) was on the verge of changing sides. There were so many mixed messages coming out of Britain, France and the US that Hitler did not fear a war with them. In fact many of the messages were encouraging him to break his agreement with Stalin (which he did when it suited him) and go for the Russian throat. The whole idea of Britain and France declaring war on Germany was, I think, a front. They had no real intention of helping Poland; they were just sending a message to Hitler to stay away from France, who by then had fascists on almost all Southern and Eastern borders, Italy, Spain and Germany.

Some soldiers in France may have felt one way or the other too. They may have been Nazi sympathizers and therefore not wanted to fight, or alternatively some could have read the socialist propaganda and believed they were cannon fodder for another war of the profiteers, (which they were).

One thing is for sure: the initiation of WW2 was not without with doubts and uncertainties. And absolutely not a cut and dried, right and wrong war that we see it as today. For the most part Hitler made sure Paris was not to be damaged and the Werhmacht, for the most part, treated the French within the bounds of human reason perhaps because they loved to lord it over the French and watch them squirm. It was not until we began to hear of the vast destruction of unionists, Jews and Gypsy populations that Hitler began to be demonized as a monster. It was always in him to become the monster he hated. And he was always going to take France; for that was from where he and his brothers had retreated in disgrace 21 years before.

He should have read more Nietzsche… look long into the abyss…

I have read in many sources that German ammunition stock was largely depleted after Polish Invasion of 1939.
Below is a Wiki quote in this regard;

“While writing the directive, Hitler had assumed that such an attack could be initiated within a period of at most a few weeks, but the very day he issued it he was disabused of this illusion. It transpired that he had been misinformed about the true state of Germany's forces. The motorized units had to recover, repairing the damage to their vehicles incurred in the Polish campaign; ammunition stocks were largely depleted”

Edward said:

I have read in many sources that German ammunition stock was largely depleted after Polish Invasion of 1939.
Below is a Wiki quote in this regard;

“While writing the directive, Hitler had assumed that such an attack could be initiated within a period of at most a few weeks, but the very day he issued it he was disabused of this illusion. It transpired that he had been misinformed about the true state of Germany's forces. The motorized units had to recover, repairing the damage to their vehicles incurred in the Polish campaign; ammunition stocks were largely depleted”

Click to expand...

There is also a debate amongst historians today, after the book from Karl Heinz Freiser was published, about whether it was possible for the French army to continue the fight from North Africa.
As Mr Freiser states, supplies of the German army were extremely low, from 15% to 40% of the necessary amount of petrol, ammunition, transport trucks etc, and they would have been unable to pursue their advance for at least 2 to 4 weeks.
If the French had pulled out all their remaining forces south behind the Maginot line, which hadn't been broken through, they might have had the time to gather their strenght also.
Considering that the Italian attack was successfully repelled by the French in the Alps and that the French Navy was still intact in the Mediterranean, it is a probable alternative, I think.

rehabnonono said:

A lot of interesting facts about preparations and armaments, defensive lines and weakness. Still the overarching imperative to not attacking Germany... has to be political will.

Economic
To understand the minds of these military thinkers we have to look to their masters the politicians... and their masters the industrialists. Even the Vatican at the time saw Hitler as a champion against the godless communists of the 1930s. The capitalist world was in turmoil by 1939 and had faced ten years of negative growth. Ford had the wrong idea completely, he thought that nations could produce their way out of depression, when in reality his very system had impoverished his own consumers and there was not enough working people left to buy good coming off production lines, while those still working were too scared to spend money.

Political
With this background in mind we turn our attention to French, American and British industrialists... many of whom were openly Nazi sympathizers, and after all, Hitler was pointed in the right direction for their liking. Even the King of England and his American de facto wife seemed somewhat sympathetic, after the fall of his close relatives the Kaiser and the Tsar some twenty years before, who could blame him for some admiration of Hitler at that time. The working class in Europe (even Germany) was on the verge of changing sides. There were so many mixed messages coming out of Britain, France and the US that Hitler did not fear a war with them. In fact many of the messages were encouraging him to break his agreement with Stalin (which he did when it suited him) and go for the Russian throat. The whole idea of Britain and France declaring war on Germany was, I think, a front. They had no real intention of helping Poland; they were just sending a message to Hitler to stay away from France, who by then had fascists on almost all Southern and Eastern borders, Italy, Spain and Germany.

Some soldiers in France may have felt one way or the other too. They may have been Nazi sympathizers and therefore not wanted to fight, or alternatively some could have read the socialist propaganda and believed they were cannon fodder for another war of the profiteers, (which they were).

One thing is for sure: the initiation of WW2 was not without with doubts and uncertainties. And absolutely not a cut and dried, right and wrong war that we see it as today. For the most part Hitler made sure Paris was not to be damaged and the Werhmacht, for the most part, treated the French within the bounds of human reason perhaps because they loved to lord it over the French and watch them squirm. It was not until we began to hear of the vast destruction of unionists, Jews and Gypsy populations that Hitler began to be demonized as a monster. It was always in him to become the monster he hated. And he was always going to take France; for that was from where he and his brothers had retreated in disgrace 21 years before.

He should have read more Nietzsche… look long into the abyss…

Click to expand...

Yes, A lot of people from the industrial and financial elite in the UK, the US and France saw Hitler as a rampart against the "reds", and theyy were also if not admirers, at least "interested" in what he had done in Germany with wages, the disbanding of the Unions, etc.
But the main thing, by far, is that the UK the US and the French elite ahd huge interests and investments in Germany, therefore, their interests were not compatible with a political desire to attack on Germany. They did all they could to hinder the French war effort to prepare for the fight, and they directly and indirectly favoured Hitler's actions by supplying him with the raw materials he needed to build his army.
This happenned until early 1940 and sometimes even after France was invaded. Exxon and Texaco supplied petrol, Ford and GM built engines and other things that were used in trucks, tanks, planes, ITT built the radio systems used in tanks and planes, etc French companies supplied them with steel, bauxite (necessary to make aluminium) etc.
All these people knew very well that, by supplying Hitler they were helping him with his war effort, but financial interests and hatred of socialism/communism helped to "convince" them to make an anti-patriotic choice.
Politicians had little influence to prevent such things from happening anyway.
Socialist had won elections in 1936 and some people, amongst whom were the financial and industrial elite, plus some officers and politicians, did subscribe to the slogan "rather Hitler than the Popular Front".

About the soldiers being nazi sympthisers, I don't think so. Some high rank officiers were, yes.
But the vast majority of simple soldiers were patriots and did fight, event though they were sacrificed by an incompetent cast of officers leading the French High Command.

About the soldiers being nazi sympthisers, I don't think so. Some high rank officiers were, yes.
But the vast majority of simple soldiers were patriots and did fight, event though they were sacrificed by an incompetent cast of officers leading the French High Command.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you are saying Frog, but I know there were Nazi soldiers in France who previously served in the French army and actually fought for the Nazis because they preferred to fight rather than rot as POWs. In ‘44 many Nazi collaborators running from the allies volunteered for the SS as well. I may be making a big thing out of nothing because I don't actually know exactly how many took up arms, but I remember watching a documentary made by the British some time in the 80s featuring a Frenchman who had lost his arm and eye fighting for the Nazis and had re-enlisted with one arm and one eye. When asked why he had done this he said in French "mediocrity", he didn't want to fade away into mediocrity.



He was I think, in the Waffen SS Charlemagne division.There were I think a few regiments from France that fought against the Soviets and in fierce fighting were reduced and then disbanded and folded into the SS Charlemagne Division which was no more than perhaps a couple of brigades at best (about 8000 men).

Ironically they were betrayed by Himmler who assured their commander they would not be sent to the Russian front, where they might fight their brothers. They were eventually destroyed by the Soviets in Poland after being thrown up against four Soviet infantry divisions and two tank brigades. By all accounts they fought very well (for two lightly armed brigades) and managed to stop the tanks with Panzerfäuste, but losses were in the order of 75%.



Even more ironically some of the survivors returned to Berlin and were actually the last men defending Hitler’s bunker on May day 1945. As a final insult to Stalin, they held out until May the 2nd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33rd_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_Charlemagne_(1st_French)

I also remember the massive hoax company of germans.
They showed high speed production of bombers (every 15 minutes new He111 rolled out the line, flyed up and came back outside the view of french delegation, sat down and entered to the line hangar from the backside for to rolled up again to the frenchmen) and superabilities of their fighters (hoax of He100 and He113).
So french afraided of thousands german bombers over Paris.

rehabnonono said:

I agree with most of what you are saying Frog, but I know there were Nazi soldiers in France who previously served in the French army and actually fought for the Nazis because they preferred to fight rather than rot as POWs. In ‘44 many Nazi collaborators running from the allies volunteered for the SS as well. I may be making a big thing out of nothing because I don't actually know exactly how many took up arms, but I remember watching a documentary made by the British some time in the 80s featuring a Frenchman who had lost his arm and eye fighting for the Nazis and had re-enlisted with one arm and one eye. When asked why he had done this he said in French "mediocrity", he didn't want to fade away into mediocrity.



He was I think, in the Waffen SS Charlemagne division.There were I think a few regiments from France that fought against the Soviets and in fierce fighting were reduced and then disbanded and folded into the SS Charlemagne Division which was no more than perhaps a couple of brigades at best (about 8000 men).

Ironically they were betrayed by Himmler who assured their commander they would not be sent to the Russian front, where they might fight their brothers. They were eventually destroyed by the Soviets in Poland after being thrown up against four Soviet infantry divisions and two tank brigades. By all accounts they fought very well (for two lightly armed brigades) and managed to stop the tanks with Panzerfäuste, but losses were in the order of 75%.



Even more ironically some of the survivors returned to Berlin and were actually the last men defending Hitler’s bunker on May day 1945. As a final insult to Stalin, they held out until May the 2nd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33rd_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_Charlemagne_(1st_French)

Click to expand...

I was talking about 1939/1940 only.
And I stand my point; the vast majority of French soldiers were patriots determined to fight, and very few were nazi sympathisers.
Some didn't want to fight becasue they were communists, but the core of Nazi sympathisers in the French army were officiers of high rank.

Later on, anti-bolchevism helped convince some Frenchmen to enlist in the LVF to fight against the "reds", then later on again SS units were created by the Wehrmach to allow foreigners to fight in the German army.
Some of the French soldiers in the LVF and Charlemagne division were former soldiers, and some were fairly "new" soldiers.
You have to bezar in mind that hatred of communism was often stronger than hatred of nazism, in many countries that formed the Allies.
This was by no means a specifically French situation.
Have a look at the American Bund for example.
The problem is that, with the defeat of France and establishment of the Vichy regime, the people who wished to change their country's institutions and social system according to that of Hitler managed to do so, for a time, whereas in the US or UK, they couldn't, and the official manichaean version of history in these countries concealed such facts for obvious embarrassing reasons for a long time.

OpanaPointer said:

France advanced a few miles into Germany, then hunkered down. England didn't have the forces to invade anybody.

Click to expand...

Lord Haldane, a British official of exceptional caliber and foresight had , way back, initiated the planning on the set up that will be ready in just such an eventuality and the BEF was conceived. It was supposed to be assembled and deployed for just such an emergency. Why did not the British Army activate the BEF in 1939 March when guarantees were given to Poland by Britain and France ?