The Fall of France 1940

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The war would have been over in November 1918 with or without the US...

 

[renrich]

I come late to this discussion and I reckon that the question of whether the US tipped the balance toward the Allies in WW1 is not the salient question in this thread but my opinion is that the US's entry into the war was of primary influence and the war may have ended quite differently if Wilson had kept us out of the war. I subscribe to the notion that if the US had not entered the war, a negotiated settlement would have taken place between the Allies and the Central Powers, both of whom were exhausted, the Russian Revolution would have not happened and WW2 would have been avoided.

 

[pbfoot]

Not to brag but if you research the last 100 days of WW1 but Canada did more with less then the US
In this time, the Canadian Corps' four over-strength Divisions of 100 000 men, defeated and/or put to flight 34 German Divisions, roughly one quarter of the German forces fighting on the Western Front.
In contrast, the American Expeditionary Force of 1.2 million men is credited with defeating 46 German Divisions in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive.
The Canadians advanced forther captured more men and guns then the US . Ludendorff would agree as he called it the Black day for the German Army

 

[drgondog]

Not to brag but if you research the last 100 days of WW1 but Canada did more with less then the US
In this time, the Canadian Corps' four over-strength Divisions of 100 000 men, defeated and/or put to flight 34 German Divisions, roughly one quarter of the German forces fighting on the Western Front.
In contrast, the American Expeditionary Force of 1.2 million men is credited with defeating 46 German Divisions in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive.
The Canadians advanced forther captured more men and guns then the US . Ludendorff would agree as he called it the Black day for the German Army

I AM aware of the Canada contribution, particularly at Arras.

I'm minded that somewher I read that at any one time through the end of the war that GB had an average of 800,000 troops in theatre and in a short time the US put 1,000,000+ boots on the ground, did a pretty fair job with green troops at Meuse-Argonne, and was re-inforcing the AEF at 10,000 per day from a 4,000,000 man draft pool.

But I guess it was of no significance in the outcome - either psychologically or materially. Ah well, we tried but I wonder why we were needed if everything was over whether we showed up or not?

 

[pbfoot]

I AM aware of the Canada contribution, particularly at Arras.

I'm minded that somewher I read that at any one time through the end of the war that GB had an average of 800,000 troops in theatre and in a short time the US put 1,000,000+ boots on the ground, did a pretty fair job with green troops at Meuse-Argonne, and was re-inforcing the AEF at 10,000 per day from a 4,000,000 man draft pool.

But I guess it was of no significance in the outcome - either psychologically or materially. Ah well, we tried but I wonder why we were needed if everything was over whether we showed up or not?

I wasn't deriding your contribution but many times things get overlooked . The AEF definately put a different spin on the outcome .

 

[AL Schlageter]

Found this neat site on the AEF.
About.com: http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/dbc2.htm

 

[Freebird]

The two links you've provided: the Battle Campaigns is interesting, albeit with very general and non-specific information, at least in my view. I'm not really certain why you've brought up a Vichy related website, since it deals mostly with post-1940 battle French regime and society, and nothing with what we're discussing. Could this be the same Vichy that we, the USA, gave diplomatic recognition to almost immediately after the armisitice and in doing so, ignored the fledgling Free french movement?


freebird , and others -

It is quite clear we have reached an impasse regarding the battle of France in May-June 1940, as it appears neither you or I will convince the other of our viewpoints. We're going to have to agree to disagree on the specifics of the day-by-day operations of the Allied retreat, and what their consequences were.

I am going to maintain my original assertion that the British were a great deal responsible for the Belgian collapse, as well as the encirlcement of the remnants of French 1er Armee in Lille. I feel I have provided much evidence, much of it researched by renowned historians in the past 10 years, which support my assertions and I've posted them clearly for all to see.

Arsenal, I don't see that you have quoted any source that says the BEF, pulled out of its own accord, without consulting the Allies. The link I posted from "German War Machine" confirms that it was Gamelin who ordered the retreat, not Gort. Your Quote from Mosier is an opinion of what Gort THOUGHT, not what the BEF did on the 16th 17th 18th. (ie. "It would SEEM that Gort was pessemistic...)

I also feel that recently (past 10-15 years), there have been many works written disputing, and even proving false the recieved wisdom of the past 60+ years. Quite naturally, you're just as passionate in argueing otherwise from your perspective, and I can respect that. I commend you for keeping the debate civil, which I unfortunately cannot say the same for other forums I participated in.

Yes lets try to keep the debate civil!

Nevertheless, it is my emphatic belief that the French and Belgian recieved undue criticism in the battle of 1940, despite their many fault elsewhere, and yes there were plenty of them. That said, I can see why in a forum with mostly US/UK members, there are many who choose to view the role of the British in that battle as completely faultless, which in my view, is flat wrong and smacks of revisionism. Bad relations between France and the USA over the Iraq issue, in my view, only exacerbated these myths and false rumors to suit many people's already existing prejudices.

In conclusion, I thank you for the debate, and I would encourage others views works written by 2nd and even 3rd parties to the war to recieve a comparative outlook of the overall situation in order to better understand what really happened. By doing so, I discovered that one can easily seperate the myths from the reality.

Arsenal I thank you for your recommendations of other good sources, I will be interested to read them. I do have an open mind, and I will see what they have to say.
So, for the time being (and barring anything statement which I find so ridiculous that it merits a response), I'm taking a break from this particular discussion and going back to reading about airplanes.

Before the "Fall of France" thread wanders to far down memory lane back to 1918... LOL!

Here is an interesting "what if" thought, in June 1940 the French cabinet took a vote on whether to accept the German armistice, or to keep fighting from Algeria the colonies. If I remember correctly it failed by one vote!

If they had decided to keep fighting, with British help they might have been able to pull 20 - 40 divisions into N. Africa (minus tanks equip. of course), most of their remaining air force, and the French Navy (fourth largest in the world at the time)

Imagine how this would change the dynamics of the war! France and Britain would clear the Italians out of N. Africa within months, and the Japanese position would change too, remember that they used bases in French IndoChina to launch their attacks on Malaya Siam in Dec 1941

 

[Marcel]

I come late to this discussion and I reckon that the question of whether the US tipped the balance toward the Allies in WW1 is not the salient question in this thread but my opinion is that the US's entry into the war was of primary influence and the war may have ended quite differently if Wilson had kept us out of the war. I subscribe to the notion that if the US had not entered the war, a negotiated settlement would have taken place between the Allies and the Central Powers, both of whom were exhausted, the Russian Revolution would have not happened and WW2 would have been avoided.

Good point, although I question if the Russian Revolution would not have happened

 

[plan_D]

The U.S troops made the war end a lot sooner and the brave men laid down their lives for France (Britain was in no position of danger). But nevertheless, with 20/20 hindsight I think that if that war had continued without the U.S then Germany would have collapsed under the next armoured offensive of the Allies.

 

[renrich]

The theory is and it is just supposition of course that if the war had had a negotiated end in 1917, the Russian Army would have remained intact and loyal to the Czar and a revolution could not have been successful.

 

[Glider]

Imagine how this would change the dynamics of the war! France and Britain would clear the Italians out of N. Africa within months, and the Japanese position would change too, remember that they used bases in French IndoChina to launch their attacks on Malaya Siam in Dec 1941

I had never thought of that before but its a very good point. With Italy out of the war and maybe some of her ships added to the French Navy life could have been very different.

On the plus side the extra ships would have been very useful in the Far East although lacking carriers they would still be limited. The extra British troops freed up would also be invaluble in building up the defences in Malaya.

On the Down side German would have had more troops available for the attack on Russia that might have made a difference.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

But I guess it was of no significance in the outcome - either psychologically or materially. Ah well, we tried but I wonder why we were needed if everything was over whether we showed up or not?

Dont take me wrong. It certainly had a psycological effect and a material effect on the German's to know that there are tons of fresh troops on the Battle Field.

At first the US forces were used to augment British and French forces in there lines.

The war however still would have been an allied victory with or without the US and it would have ended around the same time. The German military was on the brink of mutiny. Hell in Oct. 1918 parts of the German Navy mutinied. The German people were pressuring there government for peace after suffereing 6 million casualties.

Allied Victory was inevitable.

Again I am not trying to downplay the US involvment. I am proud of the US contribtution, especially having served with the 1st Infantry Division which dates its liniage to the US Expeditionary Force of WW1.

 

[Freebird]

I had never thought of that before but its a very good point. With Italy out of the war and maybe some of her ships added to the French Navy life could have been very different.

On the plus side the extra ships would have been very useful in the Far East although lacking carriers they would still be limited. The extra British troops freed up would also be invaluble in building up the defences in Malaya.

On the Down side German would have had more troops available for the attack on Russia that might have made a difference.

I don't know if it would be any worse off for Russia. The Germans would still have wasted 3 months bailing out Musso' in the Balkans, I think the Germans would have been very nervous leaving a large French army air force in Algeria, they might have to leave another 10 - 15 divisions + LW in France just in case. + bombing Italy from n. Africa would soften her up, the Germans might have to send the LW to help protect Italy

 

[kool kitty89]

On the WWI topic, Wilson's 14 points would have almost definitely prevented WWII, but of course the European allied nations were more interested in villanizing Germany (and Austria as well) and demanding reparations and division of territory. (as well as intrest of installing colonial governments in former German territories)
Unlike WWII no country was specifically at fault for the war (and there was no real immoral or evil enemy or threat to defeat), or the were all at fault for creating the tangled web of secret alliances which were supposed to prevent war as deturrents. (you could blame Germany for attacking Russia, wich was the major trigger which activated the alliances and resulted in the global conflict; but again it was mainly the whole alliance mess that created the situation-which was just a matter of time to erupt)

On another note, the war may have taken a different turn if Germany had been able to sucessfully conduct unrestricted submarine warfare from the start. (which would have happened if US political issues not caused Germany to limit the submarines; a result of the British puting millitary supplies--illegaly mind you-- on civilian transports which happened to be carrying some American passengers)

 

[Freebird]

On the WWI topic, Wilson's 14 points would have almost definitely prevented WWII, but of course the European allied nations were more interested in villanizing Germany (and Austria as well) and demanding reparations and division of territory.

Wilson's 14 points were unlikely to prevent WWII. It was not France the European Allies who blocked the 14 points, the US Senate refused to ratify it. In any event, I don't see how France was wrong for demanding reparations, as it was France that was invaded and had its land destroyed by the war, not Germany or the USA.

Unlike WWII no country was specifically at fault for the war (and there was no real immoral or evil enemy or threat to defeat), or the were all at fault for creating the tangled web of secret alliances

??? France was invaded by Germany, regardless of alliances this was an act of war. The prime culprit was Austria-Hungary which invaded Serbia.

On another note, the war may have taken a different turn if Germany had been able to sucessfully conduct unrestricted submarine warfare from the start. (which would have happened if US political issues not caused Germany to limit the submarines; a result of the British puting millitary supplies--illegaly mind you-- on civilian transports which happened to be carrying some American passengers)

Sorry, there is nothing illegal in putting American war supplies on British ships. According to cruiser rules they could be sunk by the U-boats. If US citizens disregarded the warnings not to sail into a war zone, then they would risk swimming around in the Atlantic.

It was perfectly legal under American shipping regulations for British ships to carry rifle cartriges and other ammunition. Under the "cruiser rules", the Germans could sink a civilian vessel only after guaranteeing the safety of all the passengers; since Lusitania (like all British merchantmen) was under instructions from the British Admiralty to report the sighting of a German submarine, and indeed to attempt to ram the ship if it surfaced to board and inspect her, she was acting as a naval auxiliary, and was thus exempt from this requirement and a legitimate military target. By international law, the presence (or absence) of military cargo was irrelevant.

 

[kool kitty89]

I know the senate didn't ratify the 14 points, but this was after revisions, it didn't get that far along with the allies either.(they didn't ratify the treaty of Versailles either, by which time only 3 of the points were used aniway) In its original for it may have been likely to be ratified by the US senate. (except for the isolationalists who still disliked the entry of the League of Nations and the entry to the war in the first place) Either way the final treaty had deviated so much from the original plan the failure to ratify it then is understanable. And the whole mess with the senate at the time needed to be handeled differently to compomise realisicly on the subjct; which would have been changed anyway for the treaty of Versailles which, by then, still wouldn't be ratified by the US senate either way.

It was an idealistic and realitively unbiased plan which was not wildly popular at the time (though the Germans were realitively enthusiastic about it), it may not have kept Germany from trying to rebuild its previous empire (which may not have been as fractured anyway) but it probably would have facilitated the continued control by a realitively moderate government and prvented the rise of the Nazi regime. Reparations may have been fair to France, but the way they were handled was poor and the 14 points had a very good plan (in terms of economic and diplomatic stability) for the reconstruction of ravaged Europe.

The difference was: point 8. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all. instead of direct monetary reparations.


On the U-boats, I was talking about attacks on British civilian passenger ships carrying British millitary supplies which also happened to be carrying some American passengers. (of course, at the time the public and the US government didn't know of the millitary cargo, had they their reaction may have been more twards Britain than Germany) In the case of the Lusitania this factor was technically irrelivant as: Under the "cruiser rules", the Germans could sink a civilian vessel only after guaranteeing the safety of all the passengers; since Lusitania (like all British merchantmen) was under instructions from the British Admiralty to report the sighting of a German submarine, and indeed to attempt to ram the ship if it surfaced to board and inspect her, she was acting as a naval auxiliary, and was thus exempt from this requirement and a legitimate military target. By international law, the presence (or absence) of military cargo was irrelevant. In which case, neutral civilian pasengers were there at their own risk, as the Germans tried to war the US public with failed newspaper adds.


Of Austra-Hungary's invasion of Serbia, this may have not been the correct reaction to the assination, but I can see many other powerful countries with large empires doing the same under the circumstances. And as said, it was the whole mess of secret treaties that made entangled war just a matter of time. (inless all of the treaties were made no longer secret or the whole 'Blance of Power' diplomatic situation was revised)

And the War with, and subsequent invasion of, France was a diect resuld of the declaration of war on Russia due to France's alliance with Russia.