The More You Know (NBC Tones) :lol:
i don’t think the history channel is that good sometimes. a lot of the shows kinda give a slant on things to make it more interesting.
anyway, the amount of men that russia lost in 1941-1942 would make any non-communist/facist country totalian country collaspse.
im not so sure. Look at WW1.
The three main protagonists lost millions of men and it took 4 years for germany to collapse and 3 for Russia.
Still, a valid point though.
soldiers AND civilians
ww1 more a bit more :gentleman-like
How so? Please explain the gentleman-ness of unresrticted submarine warfare and frontal attacks against well defended trenches?
Mustard gas anyone?? 
How so? Please explain the gentleman-ness of unresrticted submarine warfare and frontal attacks against well defended trenches?
the amount of soviet civilians killed by the etzantzgruppen was enormous. two million in just the first year.
in ww1, the major powers didn’t launch many campaigns design to kill large numbers of civilians
I’ve just finished reading through this topic, and I must say that without a doubt, a majority of the posters know little to nothing about France’s contribution to the war. Some knew a lot, but all missed looking at the big picture.
While the Resistance and the Free French were discussed half-heartedly and lightly, everyone focused on France’s capitulation in June 1940. Half of the posters here said nothing but stupid jokes or insults.
Ok, let’s look at France as a whole during the war now; does anybody here know anything about the Free French? Beyond what you can find on Wikipedia? Ok, I have to say this fact first: More French people were killed as a result of World War Two than Americans. Startling, huh? Well, let’s take a look at the numbers. Approximately 400,000 American soldiers were killed. About 253,000 French Allied soldiers were killed. Now throw in the fact that about 300,000 French civilians were also killed in the war, where comparatively few, few American civilians were, and one sees a huge difference.
The buck doesn’t stop there though. The Maginot Line and France’s early capitulation has already been thoroughly discussed, but what about the Free French? What nobody here has mentioned is this: legally, Free France was the de jure (true) government of France following June 18, 1940, while Vichy was merely the de facto government. How so? Early in the war, after regaining French Equatorial Africa, General de Gaulle wrote what is known as the Brazzaville Manifesto. In it, he proves using legal terms that Vichy and the dissolution of the Third Republic was the result of an illegal coup and that as such, he alone was the last official of France technically allowed to represent France. Upon the liberation of Paris in 1944, de Gaulle took control of the provisional government and declared continuity of the Third Republic. What does this mean, exactly? Well, to the victors go the spoils, and as such, it means that technically that the official France never surrendered; instead, France, represented by the Free French, had gone on fighting until the end. That is why France was represented as a full-fledged ally in the war, why the United States’ CIA online fact book states that France was “ultimately a victor in World Wars One and Two”, as well as why France holds a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council (the five members were the “five Allied powers”).
But that’s not all there is to say about France. Yes, the invasion of France was a disaster, and France had been conquered (though technically not surrendered). However, France’s contribution to the war does NOT stop there.
The Resistance is often glorified in Hollywood, but rarely does anyone know more of the Free French other than that they existed. What people don’t realize is that the Free French were one of the most influential Allies in the war. While initially small, they soon became one of the largest and strongest armies the Allies had. In fact, by 1944, the Free French were more powerful than the original army of France ever was. How, exactly?
Well, let’s start with the early part of the war. France split into two camps, one Allied one under de Gaulle and the technically neutral but really Axis Vichy France. Immediately, acrimony between the British/Free French and the Vichyites arose. Beginning with Mers-El-Khebir, the Allies would frequently tangle with the Vichyites (though nothing truly serious). By the end of 1940, Free France had under its control nearly all of French Equatorial (Central) Africa, as well as other territories.
Fighting would continue, such as in Lebanon and Syria, often involving Free French soldiers. However, something miraculous happened as a result of Operation Torch. The French Army of North Africa was the last real army of Vichy France, as well as the most powerful. For years, a few commanders (specifically General Weygand and later General Juin) would secretly attempt to build up their arsenals in case hostilities occured between them and the Germans. However, hostilities first rose in Torch against the Allies. After 3 days of fighting, the Vichy Army in North Africa switched back into the Allied camp under the orders of Admiral Darlan (a power-hungry, morally corrupt man who was soon assassinated). Although much of the arsenal of this army had been destroyed in Torch, it was still a significant gain for the Allies. Vichy no longer had any army under its control (oddly enough, the Vichy forces occupying Indochina often fought against the Axis). These former Vichyites and the Free French would participate in the campaigns in Tunisia. The Vichy army would be combined with the Free French in 1943 and reissued modern American weapons. Furthermore, as Free France now owned nearly the entire of the French Empire, recruitment was incredibly easy. By June 1944, there were 400,000 Free French soldiers. By 1945, there were a million, and by V-E Day there were 1,250,000.
As is noted by Simon Berthon (who is British), author of Allies at War, the Free French contributions are all too often ignored by Anglo-American historians. So, how exactly did the Free French contribute to the war?
Besides reacquiring most of the empire back for Allied use, Free French pilots had helped in the Battle of Britain. However, the first real Free French form of valor happened in 1942 at the Battle of Bir Hakeim. This is the most famous battle of the Free French: the French and Foreign Legion, vastly outnumbered by Afrika Corps armored divisions, were able to hold a small village for 16 days with only minimal support in the form of supplies from the British 8th Army. These French were one of the last at the Gazala line, their Allied counterparts had backed off temporarily, and their contribution in slowing down the German and Italian forces gave the British 8th Army enough time to rebuild and prepare for the Battles of El Alamein. El Alamein is often considered the most important of the British battles in Egypt. After the 16 days, the British were ready and ordered the French to evacuate the area. The French did so by literally blowing up their way back through the Axis lines.
Here’s the one people never seem to remember: Italy. The French were one of the most important armies in the campaign in Southern Italy. In 1944, 100,000 French North Africans were sent as the French Expeditionary Corps under General Alphonse Juin to aid in the Italian campaign. This was the campaign where the French truly shined and made up for the disasters of 1940. Unlike American and British counterparts who often lagged behind or struggled, these French soldiers were native mountain people who could much more easily handle the rough terrain. Armed with American weapons, these guys were tough. One German general wrote in his diary that these French troops, experienced in mountains, armed with modern American weapons, and trained by experienced French officers, were simply better than his own troops. Ever hear of the Battle of Monte Cassino, often considered the bloodiest battle in the western campaigns? It lasted months and took four battles to be won by the Allies, and its taking was the most significant part of the southern Italian battles. How was it taken? The Gustav Line, the German military line that was one of the strongest of the war, took months to finally penetrate and cracked. The first army to do so was the French Expeditionary Corps. The French were the first army to finally crack and ruin the Gustav Line; their actions forced the Germans to evacuate Cassino and Anzio, which allowed Polish troops to capture the monastery and American troops to march into Rome.
The French also liberated Corsica in 1943. 177 Free French commandos landed at Ouistreham on Sword Beach, D-Day. In August, Free French commandos landed in Southern France as the spearhead of Operation Dragoon. They were followed by American troops and then the French Army B (later redesignated the French First Army) under General de Lattre de Tassigny, who liberated Toulon and Marseille. These troops would continue up liberating all of Southern France and Alsace, and the French First Army was the first army to reach the Rhine River. They would also punch three holes in the Siegfried Line, the late war German version of the Maginot. While the usefulness of this operation has always been contested, Eisenhower firmly believed in its usefulness as one of the most important operations following Overlord. Speaking of which, the night before D-Day, French and British SAS troops were parachuted into Brittany to coordinate the resistance in stopping the German troops there from relocating to Normandy. The actions of the internal Resistance is often believed to have shortened the French campaign by 2 months.
The French 2nd Armored Division under General Leclerc landed in Normandy on August 1944 and led the drive toward Paris. His division would be the first to liberate Paris, and would continue on to fight under the Third U.S. Army (General Patton) in Lorraine. As someone pointed out earlier, the French 2nd Armored was the first army to liberated the Eagle’s Nest. This historical fact is a bit complicated. People get confused between Berchtesgaden, the Berghof, and the Eagle’s Nest. Berchtesgaden was a village nearby the other two, the Berghof was one of Hitler’s homes, and the Eagle’s Nest was a fortress on the same mountain (but higher) as the Berghof. The Berghof and Berchtesgaden WERE first taken by American troops, BUT the Eagle’s Nest fortress was first taken by the French; as such, yes, Band of Brothers got it wrong. In fact, the 101st Airborne Division didn’t even reach either of those three places until long after the French had arrived. The first to take the Berghof and Berchtesgaden was I THINK the U.S. 9th Infantry Division (though I may be wrong), while the French 2nd Armored took the Eagle’s Nest.
The Normandie-Niemen regiment was a Free French Air Force regiment sent to aid the Russians on the Eastern Front. Their excellent fighter skills and victories (even when at first it consisted of a battallion of only 12 pilots, though later expanded to a full regiment) made the Russians use this French regiment for propaganda purposes, even to the point that a German general declared all captured French pilots would be executed. The only Western European airforce to fight on the Eastern Front in World War Two, the much appreciated regiment received both French and Soviet awards. At the end of the war in Europe, Stalin donated the regiment’s 40 Yak 3 fighters to France, the only supplies ever given to a western ally by the USSR during the war.
French forces would continue to fight deep into Germany until the end of the war. The fact that Free France was then considered the true legal government of France throughout the entire war meant that France was represented at both the surrenders of Germany (under de Tassigny) and Japan (under Leclerc) as a full fledged ally. It is interesting to note that Leclerc was named in charge of troops in Asia against the Japanese once Germany surrendered, but that French contribution there was minimal and really unable to start. Nevertheless, there was some resistance there throughout the war, much of which was coordinated by Vichy troops.
As for the French on the Axis side? The Vichyites contributed little to the Axis efforts and in 1942 were converted to Allied and combined with the Free French. The S.S. Waffen’s Charlemagne Division consisted of only 4,000 soldiers. How does that compare with Free France’s 1,250,000? Even at the beginning of the war, Free France had 7,000 soldiers by the end of July 1940. Heck, there were British S.S. Waffen troops, so these few Nazi French can be disregarded. Besides, the 30 survivors of that Waffen division would mostly be charged with treason at the end of the war.
The battles I listed above were only those that came to the top of my head.
My point is that people need to stop stereotyping and do some research before badmouthing a country. France has every right to be proud of itself for its contribution during World War 2, even if the Vichy French State were dictatorial losers. Remember: Free France was legally the true France, and as such should be remembered more than Vichy and the Fall of France in 1940.
As for today’s French military, they’re not shabby at all either. France has one of the most modern militaries and is one of a few nations that can exert itself outside of its own borders. Sure, all those idiots who enjoy slandering people with jokes when they don’t know jack-squat about reality or history often confuse you, but don’t listen to them for a second. France’s modern military as at least as strong as Britain’s, despite what talk show hosts like Jay Leno will tell you.
Oh, and before anyone gets confused, I am American.
I don’t think that the value of the Free French is in question so much as whether their actions mitigate the behaviour of the French at home. The almost indecent haste with which jews were handed over leaves a nasty taste, particularly when one compares it to the resistance of either avowedly Fascist or more closely controlled nations to the Nazis cleansing.
While I agree that the French made a contribution to the fight, Im not so sure it was all that significant to winning the war.
Although I definately do not doubt the bravery of Frenchmen to fight for their country and have to admit that if there was no English Channel, the Brits would have ended upo in exactly the same position I think.
Circumstances Im afraid made them no more than an ancilliary.
Yes, the handing over of the Jewish was a terrible and perhaps the most disgraceful of Vichy’s actions during the war; even more despicable, however, is the fact that Petain ordered them without German influence. He did so of his own accord because he wanted sympathy from the Germans and because he too was an anti-Semite. 50,000 French Jews would be killed as a result.
However, those were the actions of the French State, i.e. the illegal government of mainland France. As such, one cannot truly blame France as a whole for it; furthermore, part of the Resistance involved towns that would herd Jewish people and try to ship them into neutral countries; thousands of Jewish people were saved as a result. Besides, if Germany had wanted to, it could have easily forced the death upon the Jewish, much like it had done to Poland.
Look at it this way: if the United States had been split into two in a future civil war, and the “illegal” government had decided to kill all African Americans, would the United States be blamed? Of course not, because it would be the illegal decision of an illegitimate government. However, the U.S. government probably would apologize for the actions of the rebels, even if it does not recognize it as a legal action. This, President Chirac did a few years ago; while the Vichy government was illegitimate, Chirac gave a speech in which he denounced the crimes Vichy did against Jewish people.
As for their contribution, Free France’s fighting was one of the most helpful to the Allied cause throughout the war (especially after 1943); however, the war most likely would have been won without their participation.
But on the same note, what if the Canadians had not participated? Or the Australians, New Zealanders, Chinese, Polish? We can say that France was not significant to the war’s victory, but we can say that of any of these Allies. But if we take them all away, then what? Fact is, a lot of these guys don’t ever get the credit they deserve, and while the war may have been winnable by the Big Three alone (some historians will refer to the “Big Four”, in which de Gaulle is the unofficial fourth), it certainly would have been much, much harder. That 400,000 death toll for the U.S. may have been much higher if those millions of other Allied soldiers weren’t there to play the role of “sidekick”. The British toll may have been even more greatly affected. Remember that for a year and a half, Britain had to bear the weight of the war without the Americans or Soviets. Their only allies at that time were those nations, Poland, the Netherlands, Free France, etc. that could donate whatever they had left to the Allied cause. These “sidekick” nations were bearing the burden of the war from the very first, and overlooking their contributions would be folly.
At the very least, the Free French contribution, as well as those of the other Allies, helped reduce the required amount of American and British soldiers that would be needed for operations, and thus helped alleviate some of the weight of the war.
One historian noted (with questionable accuracy) that the amazing part about the French is not that they achieved so much, but, given the circumstances (the fall of their nation, their dependency on America and the United Kingdom), that they had achieved anything at all.
Free French forces were highly involoved in many british campaigns such as north africa/libya. They also had a tank battalion that fought into the heart of germany at the end of the war. Plus lots of resistance of the nazi forces in southern france throughout the war.
If the French had actually known what a tank/panzer was for, and had any clue about modern combined arms warfare, then they may well have caused grief for the Wehrmacht.
Maybe if the French had continued their invasion of Germany while the Wehrmacht was still engaged in Poland instead of withdrawing after initial success, who knows?
Oh, buddy, how do I love the spin.
well, here is just a little bit of info, that may let out a little bit of your frankophile’s hot air:
Polish contribution to the Allied victory in World War 2 (1939-1945)
Poland was the only country to fight in the European theatre of war from the first to the last day of the greatest armed conflict in the history of mankind. The war began with invading Poland: first, on September 1st, 1939, by the Nazi Germany, soon after, on September 17th, by the Soviet Union. Both invaders acted in concert, upon the Ribbentrop – Molotov Treaty (concluded on August 23rd). The allies of Poland – Great Britain and France – declared war upon Germany on September 3rd, but did not undertake any efficient military actions (the so-called “Phony War”). The Soviet Union joined the anti-Nazi alliance only in the summer of 1941, when invaded by Germany. The United States, although they gave a lot of significant material aid, joined the military actions within the frames of the coalition in December 1941 when assaulted by Japan and when Germany declared war upon them.
In the Polish contribution to the defeat of Germany in the first place we notice determination and perseverance: despite the severe defeat in 1939, the Poles formed armies five more times, including four outside of their country: in France in 1939, in the United Kingdom in the summer of 1940 (after the defeat and capitulation of France), in the USSR in 1941 (the army of Gen. Anders that fought later in the South of Europe), and then again in the Soviet Union in 1943 there emerged the one that later fought at the Red Army’s side. The fifth Polish army, created at the end of September of 1939 was the conspiratorial armed force in the occupied territory. For the entire period of the war there also existed the very important “silent front” – the intelligence. Probably up to 2 millions Poles served since September 1st, 1939 to May 8th, 1945 in all the Polish military formations – regular armies, partisan troops and underground forces. In the final stage of war the Polish troops on all the European fronts amounted to some 600 thousands soldiers (infantry, armored troops, aircraft and navy), and in the summer of 1944 while entering the open fight with the retreating Germans, the armed underground numbered more than 300 thousands sworn soldiers. It can be concluded that Poland put in the field the fourth greatest Allied army.
So, I’m not even going to comment on you dismissive statements about Monte Cassino and Polish II Corps (any one of the Polish soldiers who died there was worth 10 of your Free French crowd), or even the french attitude toward Polish soldiers who came to France to continue fighting ( the favorite was “I don’t want to die for your Danzig” - arrogant and stupid, too. But your little story about FRench being the only ones fighting along the Soviets was incorrect too. And, honestly, I have not read one book in any way complimentary about the french military with a possible exception of the Free French.
Fighting would continue, such as in Lebanon and Syria, often involving Free French soldiers. However, something miraculous happened as a result of Operation Torch. The French Army of North Africa was the last real army of Vichy France, as well as the most powerful. For years, a few commanders (specifically General Weygand and later General Juin) would secretly attempt to build up their arsenals in case hostilities occured between them and the Germans. However, hostilities first rose in Torch against the Allies. After 3 days of fighting, the Vichy Army in North Africa switched back into the Allied camp under the orders of Admiral Darlan (a power-hungry, morally corrupt man who was soon assassinated). Although much of the arsenal of this army had been destroyed in Torch, it was still a significant gain for the Allies. Vichy no longer had any army under its control (oddly enough, the Vichy forces occupying Indochina often fought against the Axis). These former Vichyites and the Free French would participate in the campaigns in Tunisia. The Vichy army would be combined with the Free French in 1943 and reissued modern American weapons. Furthermore, as Free France now owned nearly the entire of the French Empire, recruitment was incredibly easy. By June 1944, there were 400,000 Free French soldiers. By 1945, there were a million, and by V-E Day there were 1,250,000.
So, the more obvious it was becoming that Hitler will likely lose WWII the more French joined in with the Allies? How heroic. But in character.
Oh, buddy, how do I love the spin.
well, here is just a little bit of info, that may let out a little bit of your frankophile’s hot air:
Polish contribution to the Allied victory in World War 2 (1939-1945)
Poland was the only country to fight in the European theatre of war from the first to the last day of the greatest armed conflict in the history of mankind. The war began with invading Poland: first, on September 1st, 1939, by the Nazi Germany, soon after, on September 17th, by the Soviet Union. Both invaders acted in concert, upon the Ribbentrop – Molotov Treaty (concluded on August 23rd). The allies of Poland – Great Britain and France – declared war upon Germany on September 3rd, but did not undertake any efficient military actions (the so-called “Phony War”). The Soviet Union joined the anti-Nazi alliance only in the summer of 1941, when invaded by Germany. The United States, although they gave a lot of significant material aid, joined the military actions within the frames of the coalition in December 1941 when assaulted by Japan and when Germany declared war upon them.
In the Polish contribution to the defeat of Germany in the first place we notice determination and perseverance: despite the severe defeat in 1939, the Poles formed armies five more times, including four outside of their country: in France in 1939, in the United Kingdom in the summer of 1940 (after the defeat and capitulation of France), in the USSR in 1941 (the army of Gen. Anders that fought later in the South of Europe), and then again in the Soviet Union in 1943 there emerged the one that later fought at the Red Army’s side. The fifth Polish army, created at the end of September of 1939 was the conspiratorial armed force in the occupied territory. For the entire period of the war there also existed the very important “silent front” – the intelligence. Probably up to 2 millions Poles served since September 1st, 1939 to May 8th, 1945 in all the Polish military formations – regular armies, partisan troops and underground forces. In the final stage of war the Polish troops on all the European fronts amounted to some 600 thousands soldiers (infantry, armored troops, aircraft and navy), and in the summer of 1944 while entering the open fight with the retreating Germans, the armed underground numbered more than 300 thousands sworn soldiers. It can be concluded that Poland put in the field the fourth greatest Allied army.
So, I’m not even going to comment on you dismissive statements about Monte Cassino and Polish II Corps (any one of the Polish soldiers who died there was worth 10 of your Free French crowd), or even the french attitude toward Polish soldiers who came to France to continue fighting ( the favorite was “I don’t want to die for your Danzig” - arrogant and stupid, too. But your little story about FRench being the only ones fighting along the Soviets was incorrect too. And, honestly, I have not read one book in any way complimentary about the french military with a possible exception of the Free French.[/quote]
Wow, you really know how to misread a post don’t you? First off, I don’t see how the Polish effort is really relevant to anything I said. The Polish are the third favorite army I like to study in WW2, so I don’t see how exactly you could have felt slandered by my supposed “dismissal” of them. Where, in fact, did I dismiss them?
Oh, I see, you say Monte Cassino. You see, if I wanted to, I could have given an entire description of the entire Italian Campaign; however, my post was on FRANCE’s contribution. I wasn’t going to go off subject and start talking of the valiant efforts of the Canadians, Polish, Brazilians, New Zealanders, etc. etc. And quite frankly, the French cracking the Gustav Line DID allow the Polish to take the monastery, as it began the gradual German pull out from the Monte Cassino area. Had the French not been around, it would have taken a lot longer for the Polish to succeed.
As for the numbers, I’m afraid there’s a flaw in the logic there. You point out that 2 million Polish soldiers fought from 1939-1945. However, that includes the troop count before the fall of Poland, as a result of which led to a drastic decline in troop count. If I had counted the overall French soldier count before the fall of France, the number would have been about about 2.5 to 3 million (1.9 million of which were taken prisoner by the Germans according to the terms of the armistice).
What exactly does this mean? Well, if at the end of the war 600,000 Polish soldiers were fighting for the allies, in addition to 300,000 resistance fighters, how does it add up?
At the end of the war, Free France was fielding 1,250,000 soldiers in Europe (little participation in the Pacific/Far East). This is not including Resistance fighters, as they were mostly disbanded or absorbed by the army by that time.
Hence we can compare the troop count: 1,250,000 vs. 900,000? It is true that Poland suffered more and dedicated more (at least I consider them to have, considering the power of their country in comparison to that of France) when compared to France, but as for OVERALL count, France takes the cake. In any case, whichever source said Poland was the fourth greatest Allied army is also neglecting the Canadians, who fielded 1,000,000 soldiers and had the fourth strongest navy in the world by the end of the war (granted, a navy is not an army, but we’re judging overall military effort, aren’t we?).
And as I knew full well about the Polish contribution in the first place (being a fan of the underdogs of WW2), it seems my statement about France helping on the Eastern Front was correct in the end anyway. Why? take a look at the original quote:
“The Normandie-Niemen regiment was a Free French Air Force regiment sent to aid the Russians on the Eastern Front. Their excellent fighter skills and victories (even when at first it consisted of a battallion of only 12 pilots, though later expanded to a full regiment) made the Russians use this French regiment for propaganda purposes, even to the point that a German general declared all captured French pilots would be executed. The only Western European airforce to fight on the Eastern Front in World War Two, the much appreciated regiment received both French and Soviet awards. At the end of the war in Europe, Stalin donated the regiment’s 40 Yak 3 fighters to France, the only supplies ever given to a western ally by the USSR during the war.”
Notice something? Yep, that’s right, “The only WESTERN European airforce.” Last I checked, Poland is NOT considered a part of Western Europe, but is looked upon usually as Eastern Europe (and Central Europe).
And you “have not read one book in any way complimentary about the french military with a possible exception of the Free French”? Of course not, since I assume you read only books in English. Naturally, the writers of such books tend to be proud of only their own native accomplishments, a fact true for any country. Hence, you won’t find much on the French other than Francophobic statements or a side mention. As the British author Simon Berthon noted, “Anglo-American historians tend to overlook the French contribution.” Of course, you may actually just not be reading about the French. If you TRIED to find books in English on them, you’ll see there’s a lot more than just negative. If you’re expecting to find much on the French when you’re only reading books that have no reason to mention them, then I don’t see the point.
And the French attitude toward Polish soldiers who were stationed in France? Sorry, but that’s a natural result of stupid nationalistic tendencies, the same problem that would plague the Allies in Italy, since so many troops of different nationalities made up the force there. If you think the Americans stationed in the U.K. were not disliked by several British civilians, and, to an even greater extent, soldiers (who were jealous of the luxuries the Americans received), then you’re sorely mistaken.
However, you also forget that only the bad reaches the media, and hence only the loud minority makes headlines. Truth is, the majority of French (and in the aforementioned scenario, British) were indifferent toward the Polish troops.
“Any one of the Polish soldiers who died there was worth 10 of your Free French crowd.”
This statement brings about, of course, the hidden truth behind your rebuttal to my post. Your francophobia and prejudice against the French caused you to disregard my post as merely an ultra nationalistic French francophile statement that was meant to degrade everyone else, when in fact it did not slant anybody else. I don’t see why you got all uppity about the Polish when I did them no wrong in my post. Of course, since you hate the French (who I obviously don’t hate), you immediately assumed I was coming up with some of that stereotypical arrogance crap the media has you believe about the French.
Sorry, but that statement about the worth of a human life was prejudice at its greatest.
Sorry, I actually don’t quite understand that statement. The first part confuses it. But in any case, as I said before, I doubt that France’s, Poland’s, etc.'s contribution would have changed the final outcome of the war. However, the fact that they fought helped reduce the amount of time the Allies took to win as well as spared lives from the Big Three.
If the French had actually known what a tank/panzer was for, and had any clue about modern combined arms warfare, then they may well have caused grief for the Wehrmacht.
Maybe if the French had continued their invasion of Germany while the Wehrmacht was still engaged in Poland instead of withdrawing after initial success, who knows?[/quote]
That’s exactly the problem. Nobody on the Allied side at the beginning of the war was prepared for the modern strategies that Germany put into effect. Instead, they relied on WW1 stuff, which were already outdated in WW1. Hence, they all got smashed. Had France invaded Germany first, the war may have been different. Unfortunately, things were not so, and we can’t blame them much either, seeing as how the rest of the world (except Germany and the USSR) were in support of the same strategies that France and Britain were using; after all, they won WW1 that way.
At the very least, you can’t blame France for being in the war from the first. Had the United States been prepared militarily and was not isolationist, and had joined the war from the first, WW2 may not have gotten very far.
Some very good points there. I believe that if there was no English Channel the UK would have been in exactly the same situation as France was. Also, if the british Army had not managed to get back to the UK, I believe that the UK would have taken terms from the Germans.