Asia Studios Massage

As WWII is so popular here......

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,973
5,600
113
TIME TO FACE THE TRUTH ABOUT WORLD WAR II


METZ, FRANCEMay 21, 2011

From this ancient fortress city, allow me, a former instructor of military history, to address three particularly misleading myths still lingering from World War II:


First: France’s army did not simply surrender or run away in 1940, as ignorant American conservatives claim.

The German blitzkrieg that smote France on May-June, 1940 was a major historical revolution in warfare. It combined rapidly-moving armor and mobile infantry, precision dive bombing, flexible logistical support, and new, high technologies in C3 – command, control and communications. In 1940, Germany led the world in technology: 75% of all technical books were then written in German.

France’s armies and generals, trained to re-fight World War I, were overwhelmed by lightening warfare. France was then still an agricultural society. Blitzkrieg was designed to strike an enemy’s brain rather than body, paralyzing his ability to manage large forces or fight. The Germans called it their `silver bullet.’

France still relied on couriers to deliver messages. French commander Gen. Gamelin, did not even have a telephone in his HQ outside Paris.

Britain’s well-trained expeditionary force in France was beaten just as quickly as the French, and saved itself only by fleeing across the Channel.

No army in the world at that time could have withstood Germany’s blitzkrieg, planned by the brilliant Erich von Manstein, and led by Heinz Guderian and Erwin Rommel: three of modern history’s greatest generals



They were also incredibly lucky. One bomb on a German bridge over the Meuse, or one traffic jam in the Ardennes forest could have meant the difference between victory and defeat. The French had temporarily moved some of their weakest reserve units just into the sector the Germans struck. It was, as Wellington said after Waterloo, a damned close run thing.

Germany’s new, fluid tactics shattered France’s armies. They were unable to reform their lines in spite of often fierce resistance. The fast-moving German panzers were constantly behind them. Retreat under fire is the most difficult and perilous of all military operations. After six weeks, and a stab in the back by Mussolini’s Italy, France’s armies had disintegrated.

France lost 217,000 dead and 400,000 wounded in combat. At least France did not suffer the 2 million dead it lost in World War I. Germany losses: 46,000 killed in action, 121,000 wounded, and 1,000 aircraft. By comparison, the US, British and Canadians lost only 10,000 dead and wounded at D-Day.

Second myth: the forts of France’s Maginot Line were not tactically outflanked. The Germans struck NW of the Line’s end, through the Belgian/French Ardennes Forest, a route anticipated by the French Army which held war games there in 1939. The immobile French field army failed, not the Maginot Line.The uncompleted Line was too costly, tied down too many men, and came to symbolize France’s defensive attitude. But it fulfilled its mission to defend France’s vital coal and steel industries in Lorraine.

The Line was also designed to channel any German attack through either Belgium or Switzerland.

The crews of the unconquered Maginot forts held out until the end. Those who mock France for building forts that were supposedly `outflanked’ should know the `impregnable’ modern US fortifications at Manila, and Britain’s Fortress Singapore, were both taken from the rear by the Japanese Army.

Third myth: the US, Britain and Canada defeated Germany. Not true.



The 66th anniversary of the Soviet victory in WWII just passed, totally ignored in the west. We must salute the valor of Russia’s dauntless soldiers and pilots who, like German soldiers, fought magnificently, albeit for criminal regimes.

World War II in Europe was not won at D-Day. Germany’s army and air force were already broken on the Eastern Front’s titanic battles.



The numbers speak for themselves. The Soviets destroyed 75-80% of all German divisions – 4 million soldiers - and most of the Luftwaffe. Russia lost at least 14 million soldiers and a similar number of civilians.

The Red Army destroyed 507 Axis divisions. On the Western Front after D-Day, the Allies destroyed 176 weak German divisions.

When the Allies landed in Normandy, they met battered German forces with no air cover, crippled by lack of fuel and supplies.

Had the invading Allies encountered the 1940’s Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe, the outcome may well have been different.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,888
186
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com

cye

Active member
Jul 11, 2008
1,381
3
38
Easy sport lets not forget the Battle of Britain and its effect upon the Luftwaffe. Also if the Germans had not tied up divisions in Europe and Africa the outcome in Russia would have been far different. Also the Allied bombing raids certainly degraded the ability of Germany to conduct its war in Russia. The lesson learned was that without air superiority no army will survive intact long enough in the field to remain viable.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,744
3
0
Ah, I should have know your second favorite source Eric Margolis.

Well not entirely the whole truth.

As Eric Margolis wrote, the French had indeed moved some of their weakest reserve units into the Belgium Ardennes sector the Germans struck, this was despite their knowledge that Belguim was a weak flank. It is true that the French High Command felt the Ardennes impenetrable by tanks then again they had never bothered to send any officers to take a "hiking vacation" there.

The fact that the Maginot Line was not extended to the Channel despite the German's having performed a flanking maneuver through Belgium in 1914 was a monumental strategic blunder If Margolis wants to say that "the forts of France’s Maginot Line were not tactically outflanked" I would like to know what he cares to term it.

To say that it is "[not true] that the US, Britain and Canada defeated Germany" is a half-truth and completely different from seemingly what he is attempting to say that the German military was largely destroyed on the Eastern Front, and that the Western Allies would probably not have been able to win the war without that being so, that the war in Russia and Ukraine was far more brutal than in the West and that this fact has largely been overlooked in the West.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,077
1
0
Ah, I should have know your second favorite source Eric Margolis.

Well not entirely the whole truth.

As Eric Margolis wrote, the French had indeed moved some of their weakest reserve units into the Belgium Ardennes sector the Germans struck, this was despite their knowledge that Belguim was a weak flank it is true that the French High Command felt the Ardennes impenetrable by tanks then again they had never bothered to send any officers to take a "hiking vacation" there.

The fact that the Maginot Line was not extended to the Channel despite the German's having performed a flanking maneuver through Belgium in 1914 was a monumental strategic blunder If Margolis wants to say that "the forts of France’s Maginot Line were not tactically outflanked" I would like to know what he cares to term it.

To say that it is "[not true] that the US, Britain and Canada defeated Germany" is a half-truth and completely different from seemingly what he is attempting to say that the German military was largely destroyed on the Eastern Front, and that the Western Allies would probably not have been able to win the war without that being so, that the war in Russia and Ukraine was far more brutal than in the West and that this fact has largely been overlooked in the West.
According to Americanson, in a past thread, the US won the war. You might want to talk to him.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,744
3
0
According to Americanson, in a past thread, the US won the war. You might want to talk to him.
Even as Cye points out it is impossible to treat any of this in isolation. If German units hadn't been tied down defending the Atlantic Wall or Greece or Italy they might well have been able to defeat the Soviets. Indeed the German Invasion was pushed back due to Germany having to bail out the Italians in Greece. Likewise without the Eastern Front an invasion of France would almost certainly not have been possible.


In a very real way "Victory has a thousand fathers."
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,973
5,600
113
Actually it was worse than that, the French set up a compliant government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France#State_collaboration_with_Germany), sent Jews to concentration camps in the East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camps_in_France) and killed more allied troops in Northern Europe than the Iraqi's did in both Gulf wars (just one battle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch).....

Viva la Vichy

OTB
So, OTB, what is it? Could the french not fight? Or did they kill a lot of allied troops?
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,973
5,600
113
Even as Cye points out it is impossible to treat any of this in isolation. If German units hadn't been tied down defending the Atlantic Wall or Greece or Italy they might well have been able to defeat the Soviets. Indeed the German Invasion was pushed back due to Germany having to bail out the Italians in Greece. Likewise without the Eastern Front an invasion of France would almost certainly not have been possible.


In a very real way "Victory has a thousand fathers."
Agreed. However, the soviet "contribution" to the victory is not generally known in north america.

To say that it is "[not true] that the US, Britain and Canada defeated Germany" is a half-truth and completely different from seemingly what he is attempting to say that the German military was largely destroyed on the Eastern Front, and that the Western Allies would probably not have been able to win the war without that being so, that the war in Russia and Ukraine was far more brutal than in the West and that this fact has largely been overlooked in the West.
 

FatOne

Banned
Nov 20, 2006
3,474
1
0
Indeed the German Invasion was pushed back due to Germany having to bail out the Italians in Greece.
Not exactly. General Mud had something to say on the matter. Oddly it isn't mentioned in all the books for some reason, but it is on the unappreciated Wikipedia.

"Shirer argues that the fatal decision of the operation was the postponement from the original date of 15 May because Hitler wanted to intervene against an anti-German coup in Yugoslavia and Greek advances against Italy's occupation of Albania. However, this was just one of the reasons for the postponement — the other was the late spring of 1941 in Russia, compounded by particularly rainy weather in June 1941 that made a number of roads in western parts of the Soviet Union impassable to heavy vehicles."
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,952
9
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Why do you think it is not well known in North America?

Don't tell me you think cads like "americanson" are representative? Maybe not well known among less educated Canadian and Americans, but a lot of things are less well known among the uneducated.
 

cye

Active member
Jul 11, 2008
1,381
3
38
Part of this stems from the cold war and the distrust of Stalin especially after his pact with Hitler that opened the way to attack France. Much bloodshed would have been avoided if the non-aggression pact had never been signed. As a testament to Soviet brutality a significant number of Russian soldiers were shot by their own political officers if they showed signs of breaking. Perhaps the eastern front was the scene of the greatest crimes against humanity ever perpetrated . Collateral damage was not a significant concern for either side as the civilian population was never a consideration.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,973
5,600
113
Why do you think it is not well known in North America?

Don't tell me you think cads like "americanson" are representative? Maybe not well known among less educated Canadian and Americans, but a lot of things are less well known among the uneducated.
Have you seen any WWII movies recently?
 

cye

Active member
Jul 11, 2008
1,381
3
38
Russia was an enemy before the war, uneasily tolerated during the war, and hated after the war and for many with good reason. No doubt the Soviet propaganda ignored all but Stalin after the war.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,973
5,600
113

peter4025

Active member
Mar 10, 2010
6,253
12
38
History is always written by the strongest. The war was won because all involved made great sacrifices. Americans, Canadians, British soviets and lots of so called civilians in the occupied countries like France, yougoslavia Ukraine, Greece, Poland , etc. Unfortunately for the people in many of these countries the fact that the German were defeted turned out to be worst for them as they were sold to the soviets when Europe was divided after the war. Most of the resistance fighters had to flee their homeland as Cumunist started to kill them. However many of them who flee to Austria and Italy were forced back by the British. Most of them were shot or tortured to dead as soon they went back
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,888
186
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
So, OTB, what is it? Could the french not fight? Or did they kill a lot of allied troops?
Oh, they folded like a cheap box in North Africa as well, just took a lot of allied troops with them.... and let's not forget all the Jews they sent to their death....

OTB
 

cye

Active member
Jul 11, 2008
1,381
3
38
Personally while understanding that on an individual level there was incredible acts of b**********y and military feats I can not get by the fact the war on the eastern front was fought by two criminal governments and their proxies led by two men of unfathomable evil. The tragic sacrifice of innocents for the most hateful of causes should be what we consider on Remembrance Day. Included in those innocents are those men who were forced to fight and die for causes that meant nothing to them and who only served their country. The bane of nationalism lives on today but when we criticize the US or Israel today for war crimes we only need look to the not so distant past to see that perhaps human life is worth more today than in the wars of our fathers. Is this a meager achievement? Perhaps but when we look at the devastation of WWII the actions of recent conflicts pale in comparison.
 
Toronto Escorts