StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Had extended all the way up to the channel? (Along the borders of Belgium etc.)

Could the Frogs have held off the Germans?

French are in general = wimp. At least, that's IMO.

Has Mike 6002 ever actually posted anything not spam? If he can't get a grip, despite all the warnings, then other means should be applied.

The Maginot Line would never have held. The allies weren't prepared for the kind of strategy the Germans used. They still thought pretty much like in WW1, with trinches and all. Barriers alone do not hold an army in modern warfare.

edit: The french aren't that wimp. They hold true in WW1. And, really, the german army had already invaded France before they surrended. The choice was between capitulation and utter destruction.

The British would have followed, if they didn't have the natural means of protection of being an island with the best navy in the world (opposed to Germany, with pratically no navy).

Colonel Olrik wrote:Has Mike 6002 ever actually posted anything not spam? If he can't get a grip, despite all the warnings, then other means should be applied.

The Maginot Line would never have held. The allies weren't prepared for the kind of strategy the Germans used. They still thought pretty much like in WW1, with trinches and all. Barriers alone do not hold an army in modern warfare.

I deleted his post. It was just spam.

BTW, the French probably still could not have held. Their air force was too weak to hold the Luftwaffe for long, and the Germans probably could have broken through in at least a few areas. Then the entire line would have been rolled up, or there would have been a race for Paris, just as there was in reality. It probably would have taken much longer, and there would have been more casualties, but the result would have been the same. The interesting question about this scenario is whether or not the Germans could then have invaded the USSR the same way that they did, and at the same time, or whether they would have stalled for another year, or even two years. Then the Soviets would have dug in further, but their winter would not have come so early.

I'm no fan of the French, but I think it's a bit unfair that they always are branded as military weaklings, given the success of the Napoleonic wars. Some of the most impressive military campaigns in history were waged during the Napoleonic era; the French invasion of Prussia, for example, was basically the 19th-century equivalent of the 20-century Nazi invasion of France.

Durran Korr wrote:I'm no fan of the French, but I think it's a bit unfair that they always are branded as military weaklings, given the success of the Napoleonic wars. Some of the most impressive military campaigns in history were waged during the Napoleonic era; the French invasion of Prussia, for example, was basically the 19th-century equivalent of the 20-century Nazi invasion of France.

Name one war that they have WON in the last hundred years. Two hundred years? THREE hundred years? Their efforts during WWI were courageous, but by far stupider than any of their principle allies or enemies. Their efforts during WWII were laughable. The French have, frankly, done so poorly in recent years that that Arc of theirs in Paris ought to be re-christened, "The Arc de Nostalgia."

Yeh and Operation Barbarossa was simular to Napoleans invasion ion that for the most pt the infanrty walked and supplies were carried by horse drawn carts.The only real movers they had were the Panzer and Panzer Grenadier Divisions but they didnt have enough .I believe one source stated that in 1943 Germany produced 2000 tanks all told

Durran Korr wrote:I'm no fan of the French, but I think it's a bit unfair that they always are branded as military weaklings, given the success of the Napoleonic wars. Some of the most impressive military campaigns in history were waged during the Napoleonic era; the French invasion of Prussia, for example, was basically the 19th-century equivalent of the 20-century Nazi invasion of France.

Considering the ENTIRE country surrendered and helped their conquerors with nary a second thought, weaklings isn't the word.

That would be impossibly expensive. France would fall even easier because it wouldn't have any sort of field army.

Master of Ossus wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:I'm no fan of the French, but I think it's a bit unfair that they always are branded as military weaklings, given the success of the Napoleonic wars. Some of the most impressive military campaigns in history were waged during the Napoleonic era; the French invasion of Prussia, for example, was basically the 19th-century equivalent of the 20-century Nazi invasion of France.

Name one war that they have WON in the last hundred years. Two hundred years? THREE hundred years? Their efforts during WWI were courageous, but by far stupider than any of their principle allies or enemies. Their efforts during WWII were laughable. The French have, frankly, done so poorly in recent years that that Arc of theirs in Paris ought to be re-christened, "The Arc de Nostalgia."

They won in WW1, WW2, and the Cold War. The three greatest conflicts of this century, which also happen to span the vast majority of it.

Sea Skimmer wrote:They won in WW1, WW2, and the Cold War. The three greatest conflicts of this century, which also happen to span the vast majority of it.

And what exactly did they do in all of them? Other did as much if not more in all of them.

I wouldn't really call losing a tenth of one's male population to a war winning, but that one is pretty debateable. That's a good point. I see them as having lost WWII TWICE--once to Germany and then a second time to the allies, and they did squat during the Cold War, losing or drawing all of the sub-wars in which they were heavily involved.

Stormbringer wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:They won in WW1, WW2, and the Cold War. The three greatest conflicts of this century, which also happen to span the vast majority of it.

And what exactly did they do in all of them? Other did as much if not more in all of them.

What's you point? France wasn't the biggest country in any of those conflicts.

In WW1 France held the majority of the Western Front thought the war and suffered the highest per capita losses of an Allied power, possibly of any power.

WW2, The French contribution was limited between mid 1940 and 1942 but was quite significant, by 1945 they had several crops of troops in the field fighting you know. French forces however fought throughout the war, proved critical in several battles in the Western Desert in 1942. They also launched the first offensive against Germany in 1939.

Cold War, France maintained a rather expensive nuclear deterrent force along with a large conventional military, and simply by existing as a democracy in Europe did much to hurt the Soviets.

Another good point. France lost practically an entire generation of young men during WWI, which surely diminished their willingness to enter into another destructive war.

Durran Korr wrote:Another good point. France lost practically an entire generation of young men during WWI, which surely diminished their willingness to enter into another destructive war.

It also left them short about 300,000 men of military age to fight in WW2, a couple extra corps could have had quite an impact on the Battle for France.

The French population would be significantly bigger today if not for the more then one million men they lost from 1914-18.

Mind you, Czech pilots who fled to France reported with some contempt that French pilots were being lax in their training routines and had taken to idle drinking because they were utterly and fatalistically convinced of German victory over France before the fact. If this is indicative of the kind of fight they were willing to put up ...

Darth Wong wrote:Mind you, Czech pilots who fled to France reported with some contempt that French pilots were being lax in their training routines and had taken to idle drinking because they were utterly and fatalistically convinced of German victory over France before the fact. If this is indicative of the kind of fight they were willing to put up ...

Yet hundred of German planes still fell to the French, even if they felt they could not win they still fought and died. Dunkirk was only possible because of the fierce French rearguard actions, which allowed the majoirty of the British to disengage and evacuate.

I might also point out that the British RAF personal at Habbaniya Iraq kept playing golf until Iraqi artillery started falling on them.

Evil Sadistic Bastard wrote: Considering the ENTIRE country surrendered and helped their conquerors with nary a second thought, weaklings isn't the word.

Like everyone else would have done in the same position.Included the UK and the US.Maybe you missed that part,but the nazi were quite good at killing people in large numbers.They did not have many options.
If hypothetically the nazi had invaded the US you would have behaved like the frenchs,despite your delusions about the opposite .Except for the resistance movement,which was also active in France.

Evil Sadistic Bastard wrote:Considering the ENTIRE country surrendered and helped their conquerors with nary a second thought, weaklings isn't the word.

Yeah... sure the the entire country got down on its knees in front of Nazi Germany. Ever heard of the "Free French," does the name Charles De'galle ring a bell? Ever seen the picture of several french women, their heads shaved (a sign of shame) in tears while resistance fighters hold up signs which (if I remember correctly) in english mean: "down with the collaborators!"?