Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Why was France so Ineffective in WWII? (1940) | Animated History" video.

There were 135 Allied divisions facing the Germans in mid-May, 1940. How many were British? TEN. What exactly should the British have done once Belgium & France collapsed? No matter how effective any German warlord might have been, getting a landing force across the English Channel in the face of the largest navy on earth would have been a task far beyond him.
2
Britain didn't 'involve' Canada. Canada declared war independently. Britain didn't involve the Soviet Union, the Germans invaded. Britain didn't involve the United States, the Germans declared war on her. Next!
2
Almost the whole of the pre-war British army was sent to France in 1939, including some semi-trained and poorly equipped territorial divisions. Both the British and French expected a repeat of WW1, where the allies would stand on the defensive as they built up their armies, and the Royal Navy would impose a blockade on Germany.
2
@tot0m You haven't heard of the Battle of Arras then? Oh well. You don't know about the air support the British did provide. The problem was that, however many squadrons the British sent, the French asked for more. You don't know how many ships of each nationality were at Dunkirk. Oh well. British, of all types, from cruisers to small vessels, 764. French of all types from destroyers to MFVs, 120, Belgian 45 trawlers, Polish, 1 destroyer, Norwegian, 1 freighter, Dutch, 1 yacht and 1 (British manned) motor boat. The agreement was that French ships would evacuate French troops, and British ships British troops. When it became clear that there were not enough French ships, the British began taking French troops as well. The rearguard, by the way, included both British & French troops. The British subsequently attempted to land troops in Cherbourg, only to be told by General Weygand that the French army was no longer capable of organised resistance. As to France and Belgian being puppets to British diplomacy since 1934, in point of fact France was the dominant military power in the Anglo-French alliance, and Belgian sought to remain neutral, for all the good it did the Belgians. France was the driving force behind the support for Poland. As to the attacks on the French fleet. The British government had no idea how the new, collaborationist, government in France might behave, and had no intention of risking allowing the French fleet to support a German invasion attempt. What subsequently happened in late 1942, when the outlook for the war was markedly different, was irrelevant to what might have happened in Summer 1940. Please do some reading instead of simply posting blind prejudice, for heaven's sake!
2
That must explain why there were no British troops in North Africa, Tunisia, Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Burma or Malaya then, as well as no British ships in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean, the Arctic, and the Pacific then?
2
Britain has always been a sea power precisely because of the existence of the Channel. The primary role of the Royal Navy was always to ensure that Britain was secure against invasion.
1
How could the British not agree that the French should take the lead on land when the French had over 100 divisions and the British had 12?
1
As over 100 French & Belgian divisions surrendered, what would you suggest the 12 British divisions should have done?
1
Why? The British had ten divisions in France.
1
The BEF was actually between the French 7th & 1st Armies, and were around Arras & Lille. Exactly how were they supposed to attack in the Ardennes, when Blanchard's army was much closer, around Cambrai?
1
Could you perhaps explain what a force of ten divisions could have been expected to do when two armies of 100 divisions had been defeated?
1
@tot0m One third of the men evacuated from Dunkirk were French. I wonder what you would have had the ten divisions of the BEF do after over 100 Belgian & French divisions collapsed?
1
@tot0m 'This counter attack was a trick to cover their flee.' On 21 May? Don't talk such nonsense.
1
@tot0m Didn't France have an air force in 1940?
1
@tot0m I don't need to look at something as generalised as the posts on the internet, as my specialised area of study at university dealt with this period in detail, and also gave me access to many primary sources. However, if you really want to know the facts about the events of that time, I suggest you read Martin Gilbert - Winston S. Churchill Finest Hour, 1939 -1941 (1983).
1
@tot0m Please don't rant. It is so undignified. Before you condemn Gilbert out of hand, you really should try reading him. Where narrow minded nationalism is concerned, I really am not in your league. Perhaps you could tell me exactly what in any of my posts has been 'invented?'
1
@tot0m 'You seems to deny that French, Belgian and British officer were in very bad terms on may/june 1940.' When have I ever expressed such a view? 'You seems to deny that British command didn't trust French army were able to perform, so they preferred to flee without referring to french command, and make french and belgian armies in worse position to defend.' When have I ever expressed such a view? Moreover, when, historically, did this happen? When Belgium capitulated, the British 3rd Division was obliged to plug a 20 mile gap between the BEF and French forces by conducting a 25 mile night march of 13000 men, which they did on 27/28 May, in order to link up with French forces at Nieuport. Was that fleeing without telling the French? 'You seems to deny that french troops and french officiers mostly wanted to try to defend while british troops and officers mostly abandonned their lines, or doesnt wanted to concert with french command.' When have I said that? 'You seems to be trash against french command who asked for more help.' I have simply stated what actually happened. I don't think anything in my earlier comment can be regarded as 'trashing.' 'On what purpose ? You didn't even gave fact, you just deny facts without proof. So that I bet you maybe english patriot, keen on propaganda and myth about glorious british army.' You facts seem to consist of vague nonsense such as claiming that the British ran away, or were willing to fight to the last Frenchman, or abandoned their allies at Dunkirk. None of these 'facts' of yours have any connection with what actually happened. Where I have made counter-arguments, I have provided supporting evidence. Comments about what 'The British' thought (or, despite your claims, actually didn't think) in the 1920s & 1930s are irrelevant. In March, 1933, Churchill said in Parliament : "there are a good many people who have said to themselves, as I have been saying for several years: “Thank God for the French Army”. 'And so do the British, they doesnt wanted any casualties to defend french soil anymore like in ww1.' Of course they didn't, but they were willing to send a 'Reconstituted BEF' under Alan Brooke, to Cherbourg, and were willing to continue the fight, until General Weygand told him that the French army was no longer able to provide organised resistance. By the way, there were 78000 British troops killed, wounded, or captured during the campaign in France, excluding losses among naval personnel. What was that about fighting to the last Frenchman again? Seriously, if you aren't able to post credible arguments, supported by evidence, but insist instead on chanting outdated nationalistic prejudices, then why do you bother?
1
Just a small point. If the British retreated without warning and left the Belgian army surrounded, how is it that the British 3rd Division had to undertake a difficult night march to plug a hole in the left flank after the Belgian capitulation?
1
You mean apart from winning the Battle of the Atlantic in conjunction with the Canadians, then planning & largely executing D-Day?
1
@Glynnwilliamson You mean like in early 1942, when the British and Canadians had to send 34 escorts to the American East Coast, because Ernie King chose to ignore British Admiralty warnings and allow American merchant shipping to be slaughtered within sight of the (brightly illuminated) US coast. Or mid 1942, when there were 12 Escort Groups protecting SC, HX, & ON convoys? Of these, seven (B1 B7) were British, four (C1 C4) Canadian, and one (A3) theoretically American. I say 'theoretically' because it consisted of British & Canadian destroyers, and two US Coastguard cutters. The cutters were soon withdrawn to other duties, and the Group redesignated C5. There were, once the cutters left, no American warships on North Atlantic escort duty. The British & Canadians managed to win the battle all by themselves. The US Navy never really 'arrived' in the North Atlantic. As to D-Day, the naval plan was drawn up by a team led by Vice-Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay, who was also Naval Forces Commander on 6 June. Of 4127 landing craft, 3261 were British & Canadian crewed. There were 1213 warships at D-Day; 892 were British or Canadian. There were 11600 Allied aircraft; two thirds were RAF, and the combined force was commanded by Air Chief Marshal Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory. Two of every three men who landed on 6 June were British or Canadian, and I leave you to guess who the Ground Forces Commander was. The pre-invasion minesweeping was carried out entirely by British & Canadian sweepers, and the Mulberry artificial harbours, without which the whole thing would have been impossible anyway, were a British invention.
1