french surrender a strategy?

Aug 2013
190
Finland
The French army was so slow and cumbersome in making decisions and communicating them that by the time any orders came to the troops, or intelligence coming to the commanders, it was often outdated. Orders were usually relayed by telephone (where the lines could be cut) or by messenger. The reaction times were sometimes so slow that the British were frustrated about their allies not apparently doing anything.

In contrast the Germans often made swift decisions by local commanders, ignoring orders from above if an opportunity presented itself and relayed their orders far quicker by radio.

The disparity in response times just added more to the chaos, well captured in the stories about French commanders driving around for hours trying to find each other to get confirmations for orders, all while German tanks pushed further and further west even sometimes ignoring orders from their own HQ to stop and wait for the infantry.

For all of their problems, when the French did manage to meet the Germans in engagements that their doctrine had prepared them for, they performed rather well, even with all their problems with logistics, training and equipment.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,958
San Antonio, Tx
Hardly exclusive to the British. Look at the Alamo, Serbian retreat through Albania, the Battle of Kosovo (Not really declared a victory but heavily romanticised with stories that are more fiction than fact and propagated as a symbol of ''bravery'' and ''heroism''.), Napoleon published an entirely fictional report claiming Trafalgar was a great victory, the American government tried to convince the nation in 1815 that the War of 1812 was ''a complete American victory'' and surprisingly succeeded, the Battle of Borodino is sometimes argued to be a Russian victory etc.

There are many cases of many nations romanticising their defeats and sometimes even spinning them as victories. Dunkirk is a bad example of this because it can be considered a British victory as the British achieved their objective of withdrawing the B.E.F. with the good majority of it surviving.
Uh, I live in SanAntonio, Texas, and we know and understand that the Battle of the Alamo was a take-no-prisoners defeat.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,958
San Antonio, Tx
the Gross Deutschland regiment had on its flag the honor of the battle of Stonne , the town changed hand 17 times over the three days battle
dozen of tanks from the 10th panzers were destroyed ,

I guess when one loose a war , there is no glory anywhere to be found
Yeah, there’s no honor in war at all. What little there may be is to be found in the defence of one’s own country against an invader.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,958
San Antonio, Tx
To be fair, the best-prepared nation was the UK. It took FDR about 4 years to prepare - they began in secret in early 1939, then in 1940 really began pushing the scientific advancement (as the US military was terribly out of date still using WW1 era equipment in a lot of cases). The Tizard mission from the UK brought over the technology they needed to make microwave radar and a nuclear bomb. After the Tizard mission, the advancement of the US military was nothing short of extraordinary. Especially from the formation of the OSRD on to mid-1943 where they went from dropping explosive barrels in the water in hopes of sinking a u-boat to using high-resolution radar to track periscopes and then firing out clusters of torpedo MK-9 depth charges.

The UK had the advantage of being an island with radar; but had it not been for the fleets willing to take a bunch of hits from torpedos to deliver fuels and food, the UK would have surrendered too. I also don't think the UK would have lasted much longer than France did if the UK was adjacent to Germany on land. As well prepared that they were, the Germans still had the technology edge. It might have been a far bloodier battle, though.
The hold-out of the UK, though, can't be understated in its importance to the success of the war. Had they fallen early, if the Tizard mission hadn't occurred, who knows when Germany would come to the doorsteps of the US and other nations, maybe even Sweden and Switzerland.
Germany was not as advanced as some of these posts claim. In jet technology they weren’t any more advanced than the British. They had v-1s that couldn’t be aimed except at a large, huge city; same for V-2s. If only they could have been aimed with precision but that was years away. The Germans had a weak air force completely unsuited to attacking Great Britain.It didn’t take long before the lumbering STUKAs were withdrawn from the battle of Britain. The idiotic notion that no 4-engine bombers should be designed for the Luftwaffe meant that the Germans would never possess the “throw-eight” of British and later US bombers over Europe. Not too mention, the Luftwaffe had almost no “loiter-time” over GB before they had to turn back to refuel.

British SONAR technology pretty much defeated the Kriegsmarine in its fight against the U-Boat. There were never enough ocean-going submarines to begin with and the British were building corvettes and smaller destroyers at breakneck speed. British radar technology defeated the Luftflotte and allowed them to be there when the enemy arrived. The British always met the Luftwaffe which really pissed the Germans off. That “Chain Home System” that the corpulent Goering dismissed, was his undoing.

Plus, of course, the British had the Americans who basically gave the British whatever they needed militarily at absolutely no cost to them, a decent payback for the advanced technology that the British handed over to the US in exchange. And then there was the Royal Navy which prevented the Germans from making any landings along the British coast.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,958
San Antonio, Tx
Absolutely not.
Vichy was totally illegal and illegitimate.

Pétain was supposed to propose a project for a new constitution, to be discussed and voted on by Parliament, nothing more.
There's a myth about him being given full powers by Parliament in July 1940.

He wasn't given anything, he just grabbed power and disposed of Parliament permanently.

His act was utterly unconstitutional, thus illegal and illegitimate.
I quite agree.