Could France have survived?

I nevertheless think that the Narvik expedition affected the morale, not because of the quantity of troops, but because of the consequences of this useless expedition, especially becasue the Germans were beaten on the field and the job was not finished off there. Those who were sent there were among the best forces and they were sent in vain and sacrificed. In mid June a train convoy with French and British troops who had just returned from Norway and were near Rennes exploded. This was totally occulted to the public (just like the Lancastria drama) but over 2000 Narvik veterans (of whom many British troops) were burnt alive in this convoy. It truly affected the morale of those who were aware of the news (the French troops who were hoping to stabilize a front in Bretagne and the British moving to Nantes )

 

They also tried to bomb the bridges by bombers but courage alone was not enough. The Germans had fighters and AA guns everywhere.

RAF Bomber Command - Timeline of events

"German army pushes forward across the River Meuse into Belgium. RAF Battle and Blenheim bombers (of the AASF based in France) suffer very heavy losses in daylight attacks trying to halt the German advance. Two airmen, F/O Garland and Sgt Thomas Gray, flying a single-engine Battle, awarded posthumous Victoria Crosses. 75% of the force are lost. Blenheims flying from bases in England to attack the advancing Germans also suffer huge losses. By the end of 14th May, 107 Sqn had not a single serviceable aircraft."

 

Not only COULD it have survived, it SHOULD have! 2 or 3 million troops and a defensive system unrivaled anywhere (the Maginot Line) presented a large problem to us when we went back in there, so why didn't they hold it! Sure would have appreciated it there, Frenchies.

 

You sure are simplifying things a bit mate, not mention showing your age with such a grammatically sound post.

 

Maybe,remember :German losses in Fall Gelb:16000 a week;in Fall Rot:32000 a week and France having no allies; if the BEF had be able to retreat to the south and made contact with the French ? Were the dies cast after Fall Gelb? Maybe not.

 

I'm not convinced that after fighting their way through the advancing germans the remainder of 7 divisions (plus 3 divisions worth of labourers) would have been able to make a meaningful difference - losses in such a manouvre would likely have been very high given the relative inflexibility and lack of experience of the BEF. If the French 7th Army had been kept in its original strategic reserve role instead of being sent up to the north that would likely have been more significant. The two together might have been enough to tip the scales, but honestly I think the Allied approach of a forward defence was too flawed and the Allied armies too sluggish to hold the Germans. More forces in the south would probably have slowed the Germans and cost them more casualties, but I don't think it could have stopped them.

For an army of 3 million committed to an all-out offensive, losing under 500 men a day doesn't seem too bad, especially as most of them were wounded and might recuperate. The allies were certainly losing a lot more, so the arithmetic seems to favour the germans all the way.

 

Bonedome:I think you forgot a zero ,the German losses were 32000 ! a week ;sadly enough we have no loss figures for the allies after Fall Gelb and no material loss figures ,but Frieser in "the blitzkrieglegend" gives for divisions 120 for France and the UK and 120 for Germany in may 1940;a great superiority for France and the UK in artillery,tanks and aircraft .The allies could have be reinforcedby the 2nd BEF ,the RAF,the French were producing more aircraft and there were deliveries from the USA .I think the Germans would have a hell of a job with heavy fighting to defeat an united French and British army;thy could not do it in WWI ,Ludendorf tried to separate them with his spring offensives in 1918( Michael,....) and in fact ,the aim of the result of Sichelschnitt was the same. But if Sichelscnitt failed in that way ?

 

Yes. If anything, the Allies were too hasty racing so far up into Belgium. The safer thing to do would have been to assemble a large mobile reserve and hold it back.

This strategy risks losing most of Belgium but allows the French to fight close to their own soil, with easy movement, communication, and close to their airbases. Meanwhile the Germans are feeding troops through the Ardennes, struggling to reinforce their spearheads across rivers, and vulnerable to counterattack. The crappy reliability of their vehicles will also show over time, and they'll be flying from makeshift airfields.

And all the bridges should be blown.

The British would have stayed either way, in Belgium or northern France. They wanted to fight.

 

Another point:the longer there was fighting in Fall Rot,the greater the risk for the Germans that France would continue the war in Nort Africa :evacuation of the government and as much as possibly men and material . Also the French Navy fighting with the RN and the French starting an offensive against the Italians ;giving the bad performance of the Italian Army, one can be certain of the issue.

 

France, I could not see as survivng intact. She could not survive with Britains aid in the first place. A country the size of german military v's france military,you can not compare the two,Hence the English had a bigger armie than france did and sufferd from the german forces.
Did the french really caused Hitler trouble? Going by the O/Poster,he's last sentence states that with out french forces,hitler would have been free to invade USSR without being harrassed by the french.

 

Hmmm!The French mobilises in september 1939 6.1million men;British army:870OOO

 

Equipment??? What did France have,compared to Britian & Germany?

 

Hum:Artillery:10700 for France;UK:128O ;Germany:7378 Tanks:France:4111 ;UK :640 ;Germany:2439 Aircraft :France:3100(in France) ;UK :500(in France) ;Germany:3578

 

I may not know too much, but this does not make any sence at all. You claim France had just as equal army as Britain & Germany,yet when France joined Britain,France was beaten in 6 months.
With the military you have gaven France and France being suported by Britain,should France had never fallen in the first place?

 

you cant win wars being just deffensive,and thats what the french were.i reckon the french were not only looking back to ww1,but also the franco-prussian war too.with this in mind,i think they could not survive,they imo were a bit scared..not the soldiers,the old generals.

 

A good source is "the blitzkrieg legend" (for a military point of view) :there are other reasons:bad moral,defaitism,bad strategy,inept commander,no allies after Dunkirk....;look also on something about the third republic (2 governments a year )

 

France did have a large army with superior tanks overall. The deficiency was in leadership, organization and morale. The generals were hedging their bets on the Maginot line. Tanks were organized as they were in WWI serving primarily as infantry support. Furthermore, a key element credited to the Germans success was that of the FM radios in each tank whereas the French communicated via flags. Morale, it did not seem that the French wanted to fight at all.

So the size of the army does not matter.

 

It sounds like the french let down the Allies? This is news too me,I have always thought French had poor equipment like the Polish had. Should the thread question be,could the French beaten the german military in 1939?

As for you're statment 'it did not seem that the French wanted to fight at all' there has to be a reason for this. The french may not thought it was not worth fighting against Germany & Russia at the same time,just too powerful for france military to win the battle.

As for the o/p request: I don't think france could have survived,not with russia & germany at the same time,as for the french leadership which the poster above stated france had alot agianst her (prove-the german leadership,Hitler)

 

France did not let down the allies. All of the allied countries shared the blame. With proper strategy, The allies could have fended off the Germans. Of Germany's 2600+ tanks, only a small percentage were the pzkfw III/IVs.

Check these out:
Battle of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1940 : The Battle of France || kuro5hin.org

 

I posted a section from a fellow named James Quinn, which seems to fit in here as well.

Goto:

http://www.ww2f.com/battle-europe/33446-after-using-search.html#post409573

and give his work a read.