Did the French Fight Cowardly in World War 2?

Question 3: Did the French Fight Cowardly in World War 2?



Answer: Right away, I must admit that no question about World War 2 irritates me as much as this question. The reason is that the right wing, and most notably, Rush Limbaugh, has criticized the "poor" performance of the French as a way to punish them for not going along with former President George W. Bush's fiasco in Iraq.



I am also incensed because I live in Louisiana where at least a third of the population is of French heritage, and yet, I have had to watch these Louisiana descendants of France attack their French cousins as if the French were a mortal enemy of the U.S. They even talked of renaming the French Quarter of New Orleans to get rid of the "French" word. It hurts me to see people deny their heritage and it really hurts to see how fellow Louisiana citizens are naive enough to listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh.



But to return to the question. There is no doubt that the French fought poorly in World War 2. But they were not cowards. Time and time again, the French prepared to face frontal onslaughts by the German forces only to find thmselves outflanked and outsmarted and were forced to retreat, again. The Germans under brilliant generals like Guderian and Rommel, were too smart to make frontal assaults unless it was absolutely necessary. They preferred to attack weak points rather than strong points.



The old French generals, experienced only in World War 1 trench warfare tactics, never knew what hit them.

No, the French were not cowardly - they simply got the crap beat out of them by a much smarter military force. The French were prepared for a World War 1 trench warfare-type fight. They were unprepared for the German Blitzkrieg assault which featured mobility and quickness.

The French lost badly but they were not cowardly. They were just stupid. There is a difference. See France in World War 2 for more on the French defeat in World War 2.

Could Germany Have Won World War 2?

Question No. 2. Could Germany Have Won World War 2?

This is another frequently asked question on World War 2. The answer depends somewhat on the answer to Question No. 1 regarding whether Germany could have successfully invaded and conquered Britain in World War 2. Germany did not have to conquer Britain to win the war but it would have been difficult for them to win without accomplishing that conquest.

One scenario for Germany winning involved a much more aggressive armaments program coupled with a better planned attack on Russia in 1941. This scenario would have required the Germans to make a concerted effort to capture Moscow in 1941 instead of dividing their forces in three widely separated Russian offenses. All the multiple offenses did achieve quite a measure of success but the Germans failed to capture Moscow before the savage winter of 1941-42 set in. Instead, the force attacking Moscow found itself in the open as winter set in. They took tremendous losses as Hitler delayed allowing the German armies to retreat as the Russians counterattacked in the snow. The Germans had to capture Moscow! If they had captured Moscow, the Germans could have wintered there and Russia likely would have had to pull out of the war in 1942.

As far as the armaments effort went, Hitler was surprisingly very conscious of German public opinion and hesitated upsetting them by going with a 100% war effort as Goebbels, and later, Speer, advocated. For example, after France fell, Hitler sent a substantial part of the army home. Airplane production was in slow motion (Britain was actually producing more aircraft than Germany) and Hitler never allowed the German women to be mobilized as Russia, Britain, and the U.S. did. He dawdled in these areas even as he planned the attack on Russia. These are unbelievable actions for a country entering a world war. Hitler's relative inactivity from the fall of France to the Russian invasion was his greatest weakness. Later, his emphasis on producing "secret weapons" (unneeded long range bombers, death rays, etc,) instead of badly-needed conventional weapons (fighter planes, etc.) was almost as bad.

In addition to the Russian option, Hitler might have forced a draw in the war by not attacking Russia at all and, instead, adopting a Mediterranean strategy. This would have involved capturing Gibraltar and all of North Africa and the Middle East. By making the Mediterranean his lake, Hitler could likely have held out indefinitely. Turkey would probably have had to enter the war on Germany's side. These events would have put considerable pressure on Russia and they might have given in to whatever demands Hitler made of them.

But the fly in the ointment for the Mediterranean strategy was Franco and Spain. Franco, although a Fascist, would not enter World War 2 on Germany's side (actually, he just kept putting Hitler off with half promises). Without Spain's support, capturing Gibraltar was a much more daunting task. And Hitler liked easy "Blitzkrieg" type victories.

Could Germany Have Invaded and Conquered Britain?

The blog will attempt to answer questions about World War 2 that persist even 60 years after the war ended.



Question 1: Could Germany have successfully invaded and conquered Britain in World War 2?

Answer: I get this question more frequently on my Germany in World War 2 web site than any other question. It is also my personal number one question.

After the German blitzkrieg victory over France in 1940, Britain, at first glance, appeared ready to be conquered. A large part of the British army after Dunkirk was virtually disarmed since they had had to leave their weapons on the Dunkirk beaches. The argument goes that Germany had to strike quickly to invade and conquer Britain. Then North Africa, the Middle East, and Russia would have fallen over like a row of dominos.

Germany would have won the war!

Would Britain Have Folded if Invaded? The assumption that Britain could have been easily conquered is an erroneous assumption in my opinion. Sure, the army was badly hurt but the British Navy was still powerful and the fairly small Royal Air Force was very competent. Britain was not whipped yet!

But Germany's major problem was that they had only a small navy with virtually no transport vessels to land troops in Britain. They would have had to depend on paratroopers and on river barges to transport soldiers across the English channel. The thin-hulled river barges would have been sitting ducks for the RAF and the British Navy. And, with the homeland at stake, Britain would thrown everything into the battle. No doubt, the German Luftwaffe would also have been thrown wholeheartedly into the battle against the British Navy whose vessels would have been sittling ducks in the narrow English Channel.

The resulting battle would have been one that would have lived in infamy because of its fury and because so much was at stake. Loss of life and equipment on both sides would have been horrendous. There is little doubt that German paratroopers could have seized a beachhead along the British coast but holding on that beachhead would have been difficult. The British would have fought back like cornered rats with every weapon they could get their hands on: World War 1 weapons, shotguns, hunting rifles, pistols, pitchforks, glass bottles filled with gasoline, etc. And what about America? Could we have sat back and allowed our British buddies go down the drain. Hardly! Our army was small and weak at the time but we would have done what we could. Roosevelt was that kind of man.

It is likely that at many as a hundred thousand British soldiers, sailors, and airmen would have died in the battle. Also likely is that one-half the RAF would have been destroyed along with perhaps one-quarter of the British Navy. On the German side, the casualties would have been at least equal to that of the British. (Can you imagine the horror of the German soldiers trapped in river barges as the barges were sent to the briny depths?)

One of the keys to the battle would have been the fine leadership of the RAF. The RAF fighters would certainly have concentrated on sinking the soldier-laden barges and avoided meaningless air duels with German fighters. (Similar to their strategy during the Battle of Britain when that battle took place.)

When the greatest land-sea-air battle of all time was over, I believe the British would have held off the Germans.

No, I think Hitler carefully considered the risks involved in invading Britain and wisely decided against it. He had bigger fish to fry with the upcoming attack on Russia. Hitler was only a corporal during his military service but he had a far better feel for strategy than many of his generals.

But many experts say Hitler had no choice. He had to roll the dice and try to conquer Britain. Otherwise, the British would remain a thorn in his backside (as they did) as he moved against Russia.