french surrender a strategy?

sixmax · Nov 30, 2019

the french have been derided for decades for a quick surrender to germany. is it possible that the allies allowed this as part of their strategy?
the result was that germany was now forced to defend the entire french coastline. this cost germany money, material and manpower. none of which they had in abundance. (relative to the allied forces)
also, did germany blunder by not following the example of their allies japan? in the pacific japan often ceded the beach to the marines. the result was to create a logjam/bottleneck of men and material. only then did japanese forces engage the marines.
if germany had done something similar and setup a defensive perimeter around/in front paris they would have had a smaller area to hold. they could have concentrated their forces. as it was a large number of germany soldiers never engaged anyone.

MG1962a · Nov 30, 2019

sixmax said:
in the pacific japan often ceded the beach to the marines. the result was to create a logjam/bottleneck of men and material. only then did japanese forces engage the marines.

They tried the tactic once.

Taikuri · Nov 30, 2019

sixmax said:
the french have been derided for decades for a quick surrender to germany. is it possible that the allies allowed this as part of their strategy?
the result was that germany was now forced to defend the entire french coastline. this cost germany money, material and manpower. none of which they had in abundance. (relative to the allied forces)
also, did germany blunder by not following the example of their allies japan? in the pacific japan often ceded the beach to the marines. the result was to create a logjam/bottleneck of men and material. only then did japanese forces engage the marines.
if germany had done something similar and setup a defensive perimeter around/in front paris they would have had a smaller area to hold. they could have concentrated their forces. as it was a large number of germany soldiers never engaged anyone.

While at a later stage Germany had to expend a lot of resources in holding France, Germany also got access to much of France's resources and eliminated a major threat on the continent. To suggest that France's surrender was a stratagem on the allies' part is pretty harebrained, as certainly a France that doesn't fall and is a thorn on Germany's side constrains Germany to a larger extent. The prescience required is implausible.

On defending the beaches versus holding back inland, IIRC that was a point of contention among the Germans. Runstedt argued for holding back and striking back at the beach head so that the Germans could strike back with maximum concentration of forces, Rommel argued that Allied airpower could interdict any German offensive so the invasion should be stopped at the beaches. But making a defence perimeter around Paris? Why not just bypass that and let the Germans wither away alá Island Hopping?

Zip · Nov 30, 2019

MG1962a said:
They tried the tactic once.

I don't know about ceding the beach to marines but the Japanese ceded the beach to the Army at Leyte and Luzon and made their fights inland.

MG1962a · Nov 30, 2019

Zip said:
I don't know about ceding the beach to marines but the Japanese ceded the beach to the Army at Leyte and Luzon and made their fights inland.

On Iowa Jima, it was a deliberate tactic used by the defenders to lessen the impact of the onshore bombardment by concealing their positions until enough Americans were on the beach to make the greatest impact.

martin76 · Nov 30, 2019

Zip said:
I don't know about ceding the beach to marines but the Japanese ceded the beach to the Army at Leyte and Luzon and made their fights inland.

And remember Iwo Jima...

Tulius · Nov 30, 2019

sixmax said:
the french have been derided for decades for a quick surrender to germany. is it possible that the allies allowed this as part of their strategy?
the result was that germany was now forced to defend the entire french coastline. this cost germany money, material and manpower. none of which they had in abundance. (relative to the allied forces)

This idea is based on?

deaf tuner · Nov 30, 2019

sixmax said:
is it possible that the allies allowed this as part of their strategy?
[...]
this cost germany money, material and manpower. none of which they had in abundance. (relative to the allied forces)

And to lure Germany, Allies decided that having the French army annihilated (like in 1,800,000 POW, 2,000 planes and 2,000 armoured lost, 80-90 divisions vanished) is worth while, as through doing that, they can jump better in the war a bit later ...

betgo · Nov 30, 2019

It was a negotiated peace made after the French and British forces had been totally defeated. Presumably Petain and others thought it was better to make some sort of agreement than be completely conquered.

sparky · Nov 30, 2019

Silly ....
the Germans knew first hand of the fighting quality of the French soldiers , twenty years before

remember Verdun ,

Lee-Sensei · Nov 30, 2019

The French surrendering wasn’t a strategy, but they shouldn’t be mocked for it. They just weren’t prepared.

Olleus · Nov 30, 2019

Short answer: No

Long answer: No, and the idea that in 1940 a defeated France was thinking about how to make things easier for the British to liberate them 4 years is preposterous. There were no "Allies" at that point, just the UK. And the general feeling was that they would be defeated or negotiate out of the war pretty quickly.

MG1962a · Nov 30, 2019

Lee-Sensei said:
The French surrendering wasn’t a strategy, but they shouldn’t be mocked for it. They just weren’t prepared.

Oh they were very well prepared. Just for the wrong war

deaf tuner · Nov 30, 2019

MG1962a said:
Oh they were very well prepared. Just for the wrong war

MG, I think it's the best formulation of the reasons for the French fall I ever heard!

Kubis Gabcik · Nov 30, 2019

I think France deciding to surrender when it did was a wise choice as the capital was spared destruction by the Germans. France needs more respect for putting up a good fight and then resisting the German occupation.

Willempie · Nov 30, 2019

Well if it was a strategy that would explain much

sparky · Nov 30, 2019

Battle of France

French casualties
360.000 dead or wounded
2200 tanks destroyed
3000 planes

German casualties
150.000 dead and wounded
800 tanks destroyed
1.200 planes

Abraham95 · Nov 30, 2019

Kubis Gabcik said:
I think France deciding to surrender when it did was a wise choice as the capital was spared destruction by the Germans. France needs more respect for putting up a good fight and then resisting the German occupation.

Ehh. This retro-fitting of French history to pretend that the Vichy Regime was an illegitimate government doesn't impress me. It's just a way for the French to save face.

Lee-Sensei · Nov 30, 2019

Abraham95 said:
Ehh. This retro-fitting of French history to pretend that the Vichy Regime was an illegitimate government doesn't impress me. It's just a way for the French to save face.

Everyone does that. That’s in part why Dunkirk and Corregidor are lauded.

redcoat · Nov 30, 2019

Tulius said:
This idea is based on?

Lack of knowledge on the reason for France's surrender
????

Search

Search

french surrender a strategy?

sixmax

MG1962a

Taikuri

Zip

MG1962a

martin76

Tulius

deaf tuner

betgo

sparky

Lee-Sensei

Olleus

MG1962a

deaf tuner

Kubis Gabcik

Willempie

sparky

Abraham95

Lee-Sensei

redcoat

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions