Arsenal VG-33
Senior Airman
Ok, the notion that France could have made all the difference in 1939 by attacking Germany head-on and end the war then and there, is not only really tiresome but it also ignores what I believe are some very unique circumstances which France was facing. Taking these circumstances into account helps to put things into perpective rather than simply denouncing the French for not having done more to help Poland.
The one thing I believe all of us can agree on is that overall is that French tactical and strategic thinking on the battlefield was outdated. Save for a few mavericks who advocated immediate and drastic changes, the French high command as well as the political scene in Paris was quite content to let things go along as before.
(Then Colonel Charles de Gaulle had published 2 books considered somewhat avant-garde among contemporary military thinkers, and which also made him many enemies. Few people will acknowledge that Guderian actually pinched a few ideas from de Gaulle's book "The Edge of the Sword" for his own "Achtung Panzer").
I'll also add that insofar as Poland is concerned, the Non-Aggression pact between the Soviets and the Germans sealed their fate. There was nothing the French or the Brits, or the world could have done about that as it took everyone by surprise. For all the French and British knew, the Russians and Germans could have been de facto allies.
Contrary to popular thinking, the Maginot Line alone was not responsible for the budget shortfalls of French military expenditure. (In fact, there are some historians who will argue that the French military budget was not in dire straits as many would suggest. A crunch? Perhaps, but it wasn't a hopeless situation in terms of monetary spending. There was still enough to go around to aircraft amd armor productions.) Interwar France was hampered mainly by declining birthrate, thanks to WW 1, and also a lot by political squabbling by extreme right and left groups. At one point governments were changing on a weekly basis. Add this to the fact that it wasn't until 1935-36 that the French army finally began to adopt more modern equipment for their troops, more modern tank and aircraft designs as well, all of which would come too late. Nevertheless, the doctrines of Gamelin (originally trained as a staff officer) and later Weygand would mire the French army in near paralysis and indecision as the Blitz would progress.
After the German attack into Poland in 1939, France launched the ill-fated Saarland offensive, capturing a few small villages and towns, but nothing more. French troops were almost immediately caught in minefields and mine detecting equipment was not to be found. Also, the further they went into Germany, the closer they came to the Seigfreid Line. Again, contrary to popular opinion, this line was not abandoned and it's artillery was fully manned and operational. The lack of French intel in these areas only reinforced their belief that much of the German army was still there, and there was no reason to doubt otherwise. Shortly afterward the French withdrew, and I believe it probably the wisest thing they could have done given their location.
Everyone who studies the European wars from Napoleon to WW2 will tell you that the easiest way to attack Germany is through Belgium and the Lowlands. The easiest way for Germany to attack France was through Belgium and the Lowlands. No one had brought entire armored divisions through the Ardennes before, so there was little reason to believe it could be done. The Saarland region is simply one of the worst places to launch an offensive from. It is in a depression surrounded by dense forests and many streams. The Maginot Line was originally supposed to cover this area and eventually go into Belgium and connect with the famous Eben Emael fortress. Belgian neutrality prevented this from happening, and it also prevented the Allies to properly cooperate with one another in order to come up with a plan they could all agree on. Obviously, the Germans had no problem violating the neutral countries, but France could not and would not.
This then takes us back to that very interesting episode in 1936 when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, a flagrant violation of the Versailles Treaty. When this happened, the French were the only ones ready and willing to launch an invasion to expel the German army. However, wary of starting another world war, the French sought assurances that the US and UK would back them. The US said "NO". The UK, waiting to hear what the US said on the matter (nothing changes, eh?) also said "NO". Their arguement? Well, it actually made a lot of sense: The US-UK would in no way help France should she invade Germany to expel the German army from the Rhineland, because this was a percieved threat which could not be fully justified, and for France to launch herself into a pre-emptive strike could have severe ramifications for the French. (funny, how in the past 4 years, the whole concept of pre-emptive warfare has been called into question again). After that rebuttal from what she thought were her closest Allies, the French then demanded that economic sanctions be levied against Germany. Again, the answer was no. A member of UK's goverment even wondered why the German's should be punished at all for taking back what was essentially theirs to begin with. At this point, I should mention that sometimes between 1900 and 1908, there was a study within the French military command that France could not win any fight on their soil alone, and that allies would be needed. Faced with the fact that the US and UK would not follow, and quite possibly even punish France for striking, it's no wonder the French were reluctant to do anything much.
Yes, the French could have and should have revised their strategic thinking. Yes, they should have implemeted changes and modifications sooner at all levels. Yes, they probably should have paid more attention to their Class B troops as well, since they were the ones that would face the breakthrough at Sedan. Certainly, they should have been improving communications everywhere. (This flaw existed because the French were distrustful of radio communications, fearing the enemy could listen in. This many frontline troops were obliged to use public phone to relay information and orders.)
However, considering the challenges France faced on the military and geopolitical fronts during the years preceeding the war, I find it quite naive to suggest that France could have done more in 1939-40. The French, simply put, were stuck between a rock and hard place and had little choice but accept being brutally run over by a German army that, while not necessarily more modern or better equipped, simply knew what it was doing and knew what it was supposed to do from day 1. The German success in the West in 1940 was almost guaranteed before the shooting even started.
The one thing I believe all of us can agree on is that overall is that French tactical and strategic thinking on the battlefield was outdated. Save for a few mavericks who advocated immediate and drastic changes, the French high command as well as the political scene in Paris was quite content to let things go along as before.
(Then Colonel Charles de Gaulle had published 2 books considered somewhat avant-garde among contemporary military thinkers, and which also made him many enemies. Few people will acknowledge that Guderian actually pinched a few ideas from de Gaulle's book "The Edge of the Sword" for his own "Achtung Panzer").
I'll also add that insofar as Poland is concerned, the Non-Aggression pact between the Soviets and the Germans sealed their fate. There was nothing the French or the Brits, or the world could have done about that as it took everyone by surprise. For all the French and British knew, the Russians and Germans could have been de facto allies.
Contrary to popular thinking, the Maginot Line alone was not responsible for the budget shortfalls of French military expenditure. (In fact, there are some historians who will argue that the French military budget was not in dire straits as many would suggest. A crunch? Perhaps, but it wasn't a hopeless situation in terms of monetary spending. There was still enough to go around to aircraft amd armor productions.) Interwar France was hampered mainly by declining birthrate, thanks to WW 1, and also a lot by political squabbling by extreme right and left groups. At one point governments were changing on a weekly basis. Add this to the fact that it wasn't until 1935-36 that the French army finally began to adopt more modern equipment for their troops, more modern tank and aircraft designs as well, all of which would come too late. Nevertheless, the doctrines of Gamelin (originally trained as a staff officer) and later Weygand would mire the French army in near paralysis and indecision as the Blitz would progress.
After the German attack into Poland in 1939, France launched the ill-fated Saarland offensive, capturing a few small villages and towns, but nothing more. French troops were almost immediately caught in minefields and mine detecting equipment was not to be found. Also, the further they went into Germany, the closer they came to the Seigfreid Line. Again, contrary to popular opinion, this line was not abandoned and it's artillery was fully manned and operational. The lack of French intel in these areas only reinforced their belief that much of the German army was still there, and there was no reason to doubt otherwise. Shortly afterward the French withdrew, and I believe it probably the wisest thing they could have done given their location.
Everyone who studies the European wars from Napoleon to WW2 will tell you that the easiest way to attack Germany is through Belgium and the Lowlands. The easiest way for Germany to attack France was through Belgium and the Lowlands. No one had brought entire armored divisions through the Ardennes before, so there was little reason to believe it could be done. The Saarland region is simply one of the worst places to launch an offensive from. It is in a depression surrounded by dense forests and many streams. The Maginot Line was originally supposed to cover this area and eventually go into Belgium and connect with the famous Eben Emael fortress. Belgian neutrality prevented this from happening, and it also prevented the Allies to properly cooperate with one another in order to come up with a plan they could all agree on. Obviously, the Germans had no problem violating the neutral countries, but France could not and would not.
This then takes us back to that very interesting episode in 1936 when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, a flagrant violation of the Versailles Treaty. When this happened, the French were the only ones ready and willing to launch an invasion to expel the German army. However, wary of starting another world war, the French sought assurances that the US and UK would back them. The US said "NO". The UK, waiting to hear what the US said on the matter (nothing changes, eh?) also said "NO". Their arguement? Well, it actually made a lot of sense: The US-UK would in no way help France should she invade Germany to expel the German army from the Rhineland, because this was a percieved threat which could not be fully justified, and for France to launch herself into a pre-emptive strike could have severe ramifications for the French. (funny, how in the past 4 years, the whole concept of pre-emptive warfare has been called into question again). After that rebuttal from what she thought were her closest Allies, the French then demanded that economic sanctions be levied against Germany. Again, the answer was no. A member of UK's goverment even wondered why the German's should be punished at all for taking back what was essentially theirs to begin with. At this point, I should mention that sometimes between 1900 and 1908, there was a study within the French military command that France could not win any fight on their soil alone, and that allies would be needed. Faced with the fact that the US and UK would not follow, and quite possibly even punish France for striking, it's no wonder the French were reluctant to do anything much.
Yes, the French could have and should have revised their strategic thinking. Yes, they should have implemeted changes and modifications sooner at all levels. Yes, they probably should have paid more attention to their Class B troops as well, since they were the ones that would face the breakthrough at Sedan. Certainly, they should have been improving communications everywhere. (This flaw existed because the French were distrustful of radio communications, fearing the enemy could listen in. This many frontline troops were obliged to use public phone to relay information and orders.)
However, considering the challenges France faced on the military and geopolitical fronts during the years preceeding the war, I find it quite naive to suggest that France could have done more in 1939-40. The French, simply put, were stuck between a rock and hard place and had little choice but accept being brutally run over by a German army that, while not necessarily more modern or better equipped, simply knew what it was doing and knew what it was supposed to do from day 1. The German success in the West in 1940 was almost guaranteed before the shooting even started.