french surrender a strategy?

It's a myth that France just surrendered because they were demoralized and didn't want to fight. The negotiated peace was the best choice under the circumstances after they were thoroughly defeated.

There were about 100,000 French killed and 30,000 Germans killed. Sure they could have continued the war and there would have been more casualties. You can compare it to the huge casualties of WWI or the eastern from in WWII, but those were usual and awful situations.

The German military was very strong and ran over a number of countries. They also destroyed most of the existing Russian Army, captured or killed men and captured or destroyed tanks etc. Russia was able to fight back due to the huge size of the country, strong leadership, US aid, and because of how the people expected to be treated if the Germans won.

Germany was defeated due to arrogance, political mistakes, and poor intelligence and diplomacy. Mainly, due to the decision to attack the Soviet Union while at war with Britain.

Actually France needed an other army to continue war.
That's what happened from 1942 (I put aside the few FFL who fought alongside the british in north Africa) with the help of the US, and an extraordinary agreement between Giraud and Roosevelt.
May-June 1940 fights were very intense, with high casualties in a very short amount of time.
From 1942 to the end of the war, french army lost as many troops as in the early stage of the war, with heavy fighting in Italy, southern/eastern France, and finally taking part in the invasion of Germany. All of this could not have occured if people where all demoralized. French army performed perfectly well against the italian troops in southern France; why is that if people were all demoralized?
Resistance was very effective during the dragoon operation. French from as far as Polynesia came to fight in North Africa.
Still, a lot of recruits were not eager to fight for the Danzig corridor in 1940, that's perfectly true, I know it from my own family. But it was the surrounding of the professional army, with the best units, which was cut off from supply lines by the german breakthru in the Ardennes, who fight the heavy part, and whose defeat was real and make the early war a total disaster leading to the armistice.
So yes, it's somewhat true that the reason why french people had to fight in 1939-40 were not that clear, and that a lot of conscripts were not eager to fight an other war with Germany. France was less prepared, with far worse leadership than the germans. Still if we take a look at the units who actually fought in 39-40, most of them were very stubborn. Just take a look at Bir Hakeim battle, at one of the worst moment for the french (country occupied, axis won everywhere, no more french army); that's not what demoralization leads to.
French surrender was not a strategy, it's the worst moment in all french military history. French plans relied on the facts that Germany and USSR would not be allied (which was quite rational...), and the fact that the German HQ would try an "all-in" strategy in the Ardennes was totally unseen.
After the armistice, there was indeed a strategy in some of Vichy's minds, which was to play the clock against Germany, trying to have the better occupation conditions for the french, while preparing a new war from north Africa (That's what Giraud worked for). But that occured only after the initial defeat during the french campaign. Relationship with De Gaulle were really hard in that time, because he was seen as being to close with the english. You have to remember that in 1940/41, lot of french officials saw France fighting on their own against the Axis. They saw the british performance in 1940 as rather poor, and giving far too few help to be really effectives and reliables. I'm not saying that was true, but that was deeply rooted in lot of french minds in thoses times.

the Gross Deutschland regiment had on its flag the honor of the battle of Stonne , the town changed hand 17 times over the three days battle
dozen of tanks from the 10th panzers were destroyed ,

I guess when one loose a war , there is no glory anywhere to be found

sparky said:

the Gross Deutschland regiment had on its flag the honor of the battle of Stonne , the town changed hand 17 times over the three days battle
dozen of tanks from the 10th panzers were destroyed ,

I guess when one loose a war , there is no glory anywhere to be found

Click to expand...

French units fought very hard... but not the French Army as a set.... how many times 300, 400, 500 French soldiers surrendered to an aged German reservist?

martin76 said:

French units fought very hard... but not the French Army as a set.... how many times 300, 400, 500 French soldiers surrendered to an aged German reservist?

Click to expand...

source for this claim? And When? Before of after the substantial defeats of May?

Some second rate frenchreaerve unts paniced early but they were up against the better German units.

pugsville said:

Some second rate frenchreaerve unts paniced early but they were up against the better German units.

Click to expand...

Me thinks they may have tried to be a stay behind force and ran out of resources or something. But an aged German reservist on the front line would say more about the German army than the French

MG1962a said:

Me thinks they may have tried to be a stay behind force and ran out of resources or something. But an aged German reservist on the front line would say more about the German army than the French

Click to expand...

Well the Germans did that in 1914, it lead to immense problems with rates of march. It did enable them put more troops in the field for the battle of the fronteirs, but large amounts of men falling out and slow mrach rates was part of the results.

One should never underestimate the role of those aged german reservists who captured whole bataillons of soldiers during the 1940 german offensive XD
If only the german HQ had thought to use them in Belgium against the french first army, such a risky plan as the Ardennes offensive would have been useless.
Or at Dunkirk, I guess it would have made the escaping of the allies simply impossible.

the French army divided their troop in two category , the A , young men bachelor good for attacks and the B troops older , often married with children
the B soldiers would fight tenaciously from entrenchment but would be reluctant to charge in open field since it was so obviously a stupid idea
further it was found that they had little respect for young lieutenants who were little more than kids to them
the A troops were young full of enthusiasm and really stupid ,
that's a perfect material for offensive action
as a matter of fact , the B units fought well even as late as June , while the A units crumbled once they lost contact with their command
the stubborn refusal of the general staff to use radio made this inevitable in a fast war of movement

as for moral the British demonstrated a great alacrity to skedaddle too , in May June their fighting record is just about as bad as the French
in fact rather worst if one take casualties as a measure of action
German would have been strolling through London by the summer , but for the best anti-tank ditch in Europe , the Channel

Why is nobody talking about Marc Bloch?

And there is

A thousand should fall

by Hans Habe.

Bloch - highly recommended and I believe still in print in English. The French Army does not come out well from Habe's account. Does anyone know when the Germans reached St Menehould and what happened there? I have the impression that Guderian was not interested in taking the place as he was hurrying on to the Swiss border, but that is not the way Habe saw it.

Isleifson said:

Combat du 12 Juin 1940 dans la Marne à POGNY

Click to expand...

This is interesting and not far from St Menehould, which was presumably attacked at the same time?

Sir Jasper said:

This is interesting and not far from St Menehould, which was presumably attacked at the same time?

Click to expand...

Correct.

MG1962a said:

I think it depends on the circumstances. Australia went to Gallipoli, and the Turks absolutely spanked us. But out of it a deep understanding of the stupidity of war, and what the ultimate sacrifice looked like to a generation.

Click to expand...

that's so true
"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives ... You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours ... You, the mothers who sent their sons from faraway countries, wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."

These famous, heart-rending words, attributed to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk . this war had no purpose . but they showed how much gentlemanly they could be in the war on both sides . respect !

Von Manstein said:

that's so true
"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives ... You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours ... You, the mothers who sent their sons from faraway countries, wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."

These famous, heart-rending words, attributed to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk . this war had no purpose . but they showed how much gentlemanly they could be in the war on both sides . respect !

Click to expand...

Well if reports are to be believed, there was a strong sentiment that most of the ANZACs liked the Turks more than their own commanding officers lol

And yes Ataturk had quite the skill with words. It is easy to understand how he became the statesmen he did after the war.

MG1962a said:

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

Click to expand...

To be fair, the best-prepared nation was the UK. It took FDR about 4 years to prepare - they began in secret in early 1939, then in 1940 really began pushing the scientific advancement (as the US military was terribly out of date still using WW1 era equipment in a lot of cases). The Tizard mission from the UK brought over the technology they needed to make microwave radar and a nuclear bomb. After the Tizard mission, the advancement of the US military was nothing short of extraordinary. Especially from the formation of the OSRD on to mid-1943 where they went from dropping explosive barrels in the water in hopes of sinking a u-boat to using high-resolution radar to track periscopes and then firing out clusters of torpedo MK-9 depth charges.

The UK had the advantage of being an island with radar; but had it not been for the fleets willing to take a bunch of hits from torpedos to deliver fuels and food, the UK would have surrendered too. I also don't think the UK would have lasted much longer than France did if the UK was adjacent to Germany on land. As well prepared that they were, the Germans still had the technology edge. It might have been a far bloodier battle, though.
The hold-out of the UK, though, can't be understated in its importance to the success of the war. Had they fallen early, if the Tizard mission hadn't occurred, who knows when Germany would come to the doorsteps of the US and other nations, maybe even Sweden and Switzerland.

Theodoric said:

To be fair, the best-prepared nation was the UK. It took FDR about 4 years to prepare - they began in secret in early 1939, then in 1940 really began pushing the scientific advancement (as the US military was terribly out of date still using WW1 era equipment in a lot of cases).

Click to expand...

That was not meant as any criticism, just an observation. it can be equally argued the Germans looked at what the French were doing and designed weapons and tactics specifically to exploit whatever weakness they sensed.

If the French had planned for the war they fought. Chances are the Germans would have used completely different tactics to nullify those decisions.

MG1962a said:

That was not meant as any criticism, just an observation. it can be equally argued the Germans looked at what the French were doing and designed weapons and tactics specifically to exploit whatever weakness they sensed.

If the French had planned for the war they fought. Chances are the Germans would have used completely different tactics to nullify those decisions.

Click to expand...

The French planned for war. They may have planned badly but they planned for it.;
The Germans did not look at what the French were doing, their doctrine evolved independently.

The French looked at ww1 and decided the answer was "methodological battle" that victory was though Artillery and massive preparation. War would be nutritional, the losses large.

The Germans looked at ww1 and decided the answer was anything but trench warfare, mobility and swift decisive opertaions and the avoidance of attritional warfare art all costs.