french surrender a strategy?

Lee-Sensei

Ad Honorem
Aug 2012
2,138
colonels are very junior officers , he got bumped late to brigadier , which is where the superior officers group start
A Colonel is a field officer. Junior officers are the ranks that still command troops on the front lines. They go up to Captain generally. Some countries have Senior Captains, but I’m not sure if they’re Junior officers or field officers. Once you reach the rank of Major, you’re usually in command of enough troops that you’re generally put in the rear. So he was neither a Junior officer or a Senior officer at the start of the war. Like you said, Senior Officer ranks begin with Brigadier Generals.
 

Lee-Sensei

Ad Honorem
Aug 2012
2,138
I believe his intention was to get to North Africa and try to organize a Free French force capable of continuing the fight. Unfortunately it did not work out for him :(
Most of France’s industry is in the North, so they were already in a bad position. If France had been able to hold off the Germans and continue the fight as they had in WW1, I honestly think that De Gaulle could have made it to the rank of Field Marshal.
 

MG1962a

Ad Honorem
Mar 2019
2,211
Kansas
Most of France’s industry is in the North, so they were already in a bad position. If France had been able to hold off the Germans and continue the fight as they had in WW1, I honestly think that De Gaulle could have made it to the rank of Field Marshal.
Yeah I dont think the French were ever going to win. The French air force was absolutely decimated in the early stages of the war. And as we discovered trying to conduct any military operation without at least contested air superiority is a short cut to a quick death :(
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,932
I believe his intention was to get to North Africa and try to organize a Free French force capable of continuing the fight. Unfortunately it did not work out for him :(
The initial plan he was involved with was the rather fanciful idea of an outright Franco-British Union.

Jean Monet, later one of the principal brains behind what has become the EU, came up with that one in tandem with UK FO operatives. Eden seems to have been in on it. The de Gaulle was won for it, who had been dispatched by Reynaud to handle the negotiations with Churchill. De Gaulle apparently did get Churchill onboard as well, and then returned with it to Reynaud, who was intrigued, and minded to fight on.

But by then things in France were going down in the toilet fast, CiC Weygand wanted Reynaud out and Pétain in, and Pétain couldn't wait to go to the Germans and ask for terms.

I've seen nothing indicating de Gaulle had any intentions about North Africa. The decision to hop on a plane to London was a bit of snap one when it had become clear that everything had collapsed.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,817
Spain
France surrender because it's army was annihilated. Not because some psiho-pu-pou-collectictive-IDW.

A nation that suffers of all "Freudian-Socialistic-ilnesses" You suggest doesn't see it's soldiers marching dozens of miles by night and fighting by day, and for weeks. It doesn't rebuilt an army outside its lost territory, an army that fights bare-footed as its allies don't believe in them any longer, it doesn't rise from dead up to being one of the victors.

France was demoralizated after so much years of socialism and after 1914 - 1918 experiences... It was said by Petain and it was written by De Gaulle. French Army was not annihilated.... French Army was surredered... From September 1939 and the Phoney War....
France didn´t win the War....by political issue... they were in the chair.. in fact, War was won by the BIG THREE... Not dear... THREE are not France... but SOVIET UNION, UNITED STATES and UNITED KINGDOM...that´s the reality.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,799
France was demoralizated after so much years of socialism and after 1914 - 1918 experiences... It was said by Petain and it was written by De Gaulle. French Army was not annihilated.... French Army was surredered... From September 1939 and the Phoney War....
France didn´t win the War....by political issue... they were in the chair.. in fact, War was won by the BIG THREE... Not dear... THREE are not France... but SOVIET UNION, UNITED STATES and UNITED KINGDOM...that´s the reality.
The French amry fought reasonably well in teh actual fighting. They did not just surrneder until after they were beaten. And teh failings were command & control, doctine and straegy rather than fighting spirt of Morale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frog33inUK

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,817
Spain
The French amry fought reasonably well in teh actual fighting. They did not just surrneder until after they were beaten. And teh failings were command & control, doctine and straegy rather than fighting spirt of Morale.
Well... I would say Polish army fought with hight Morale vs Germany and Soviet Union... but 3.000.000 men´s army surredered in 42 days...not even Irak in 2003!!!!

French suffered around 60.000 dead and 120.000 wounded... means 6% casualties...I can imagine what you would write if that it would have happened to Italian army....in the battles of the Frontiers... French army consisted by 1.000.000 men.. and suffered 210.000 KIA and WIA... 21% Casualties....in August 1914!

So.... it is clear...
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,799
Well... I would say Polish army fought with hight Morale vs Germany and Soviet Union... but 3.000.000 men´s army surredered in 42 days...not even Irak in 2003!!!!

French suffered around 60.000 dead and 120.000 wounded... means 6% casualties...I can imagine what you would write if that it would have happened to Italian army....in the battles of the Frontiers... French army consisted by 1.000.000 men.. and suffered 210.000 KIA and WIA... 21% Casualties....in August 1914!

So.... it is clear...
Totally different sort of warfare. It;'s simply irrleevan.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,817
Spain
Totally different sort of warfare. It;'s simply irrleevan.
Ok We simply have different point of view..nothing more....I know for you... French never lost morale... that only happened to Italians and Russians.... and of course.... French soldiers in 1940 were far better than Italian and Russians soldiers...When French won battles as Magenta, Solferino, Austerlitz... is because they are the Best on Earth... when they were conquered in 42 days (Saddam Hussein lasted more time)... it is because bad luck.... because as you well know.. French never demoralized....

I agree with you... Paris resisted better than Moscow... and everybody know the siege of Reims was thougher than the siege of Leningrad.... and yes, Puigsville.. of course, I agree with you... Stalingrad never fought as good as Lyon...that´s what German wrote in their personal diaries.... France was a Hell for German Army! The Tomb of the German invicibility!

I know, I know.... Russian front..according with your words "It ´s simply Irrleevan"...and it is not right to compare Russia and France... but yes Italy and France... right?

Regards:

I agree with you... Without France it would have been impossible the allied victory in WW2.. Am I dreaming or in the real history?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,799
Ok We simply have different point of view..nothing more....I know for you... French never lost morale... that only happened to Italians and Russians.... and of course.... French soldiers in 1940 were far better than Italian and Russians soldiers...When French won battles as Magenta, Solferino, Austerlitz... is because they are the Best on Earth... when they were conquered in 42 days (Saddam Hussein lasted more time)... it is because bad luck.... because as you well know.. French never demoralized....

I agree with you... Paris resisted better than Moscow... and everybody know the siege of Reims was thougher than the siege of Leningrad.... and yes, Puigsville.. of course, I agree with you... Stalingrad never fought as good as Lyon...that´s what German wrote in their personal diaries.... France was a Hell for German Army! The Tomb of the German invicibility!

I know, I know.... Russian front..according with your words "It ´s simply Irrleevan"...and it is not right to compare Russia and France... but yes Italy and France... right?

Regards:

I agree with you... Without France it would have been impossible the allied victory in WW2.. Am I dreaming or in the real history?
Again with the putting words and ideas which I did not write.

I listed areas responsible for the French defeat in 1940. I did not say it was bad lack. Command and Control, Leadership, Strategic decison making, Doctrine, Commications. were all factors in the defeat in may 1940. In the initail part of te campaign the French fought fairly well. Once the noetrhne forces had been cut off and the French army had lopst most of it's btter units andthe odds were tilted a dgree of demoralization set in. But that was AFTER teh French army had been substainially beaten. It was not teh cause of the defeat but a consequence of it.

You subscribed the French defeat to 4 year of socialism,. Hmm wel lRusisan and leningrad had many more years of much more through "socialism" so why wer ethe Russian not more demoralised?

1914 and 1940 were radically different types of warfare. The comparison I was objecting to was a temporal one. 1914 compared to 1940.

In 1914 Armies were mostly rfilemen. In 1940 they were mostly support troops. The defeat of the frontine troops leads to the surrender of rear areas and support troops which are now the bulk of the forces. Comapring casultiy ratios teh entire army in 1914 and 1940 is not actually comparing apples with oranges. (let alone apples with apples)
 
  • Like
Reactions: martin76