Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Why didn't France fight to the end in 1940?" video.

  1.  @Anton-kp3mi  None of which explains why an army which had resisted so gallantly in 1914-1918 collapsed in a few weeks in 1940.
    7
  2. The British Commonwealth & Empire suffered over 2.7 million casualties (killed, wounded, & captured) on the Western Front. Is where these men fought really more relevant to you than that fact?
    6
  3.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  Actually, that simply isn't true. France had absolutely no intention of ordering a general mobilisation. The Deuxieme Bureau had wrongly informed Gamelin that Germany had sent over 200,000 troops into the Rhineland, when the correct number was around 5,000. Still, if it comforts you to blame the Brits. and the Yanks for French failures, feel free.
    3
  4.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  So am I. You might perhaps consider buying a book on the subject. Try 'In Command of France; French Foreign Policy and Military Planning, 1933–1940' by Robert Young, for a start. A much better idea than simply making things up.
    2
  5. How, exactly?
    2
  6. 'a few French troops' Actually over 120,000.
    2
  7.  @msquaretheoriginal  He was gambling that the British would come to terms, giving him a free hand in Europe. Operation Sealion was always a plan born of desperation when he realised that the gamble had failed.
    2
  8. Indeed. The 13 division of the BEF were evacuated. Possibly because the over 100 divisions of the Belgian & French armies either had collapsed or were in the process of collapsing.
    2
  9. Perhaps because American, British, & Canadian servicemen gave their lives to liberate France?
    2
  10.  @Anton-kp3mi  The resistance could not have been anything more than a nuisance without the knowledge that regular, well-equipped, forces were on the way. It might perhaps be considered unfortunate that many of the French victims of the holocaust were actually rounded up with the assistance of French collaborators and French local government officers. Incidentally, the Allied High Command did not believe that the bombing was ineffective, although I agree that they over-estimated how effective it could be.
    2
  11. Unfair. Just because an army is defeated does not indicate cowardice.
    2
  12.  ERWIN DUBOIS  Would you include as 'Cowards' the British, Canadian, & American servicemen who died to liberate France in 1944-5 after France fell apart in a couple of weeks in 1940?
    1
  13.  ERWIN DUBOIS  Why should you think it significant that a small number of French units took part in the liberation of France?
    1
  14.  ERWIN DUBOIS  What you describe as a 'diatribe' most normal people see as simple facts. Would you have been happier if the Allies had left France in German hands? Eventually, wouldn't the French puppet administration have run out of slave labourers to send to the fatherland?
    1
  15.  ERWIN DUBOIS  So, in your world there were more troops in the 10 French Divisions than in the 20 British Divisions which were active in Europe at the end of the European war?
    1
  16.  ALAIN TERIEUR  Military casualties :- France 217,600. UK 383,600. United States 416,800. I wouldn't normally indulge in the kind of callous corpse counting indulged in by people like you. I wonder how many of the British, American, & Canadian deaths in WW2 happened when they were liberating your country after you failed to defend it in 1940? I wonder if the total of French civilian deaths includes those deported to death camps, or sent to Germany as slave labour?
    1
  17.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  The British & Americans sought to maintain a balance of power in Europe. What possible reason might they have had to replace one over-mighty militaristic nation with, potentially, another? Moreover, how is this relevant to 1936?
    1
  18.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  You do seem to struggle with facts. The Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919, when Germany did not have a totalitarian regime. In 1936, when Germany had a totalitarian regime, France refused to act when it re-occupied the Rhineland. Have you sought the book I recommended, or do you simply prefer to imagine things?
    1
  19.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  France did occupy the Ruhr, between 1923 & 1925. This act destroyed the German economy, producing hyper-inflation and was a key factor in the rise of extremism in Germany. The Dawes Plan led to French withdrawal, and marked the beginning of the redevelopment of the German steel industry. Something else you might perhaps read about. Once again, read the book. France had the opportunity to intervene when Germany re-occupied the Rhineland in 1936, but chose not to act.
    1
  20.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  You have been wrong since the beginning if you think that. France had the opportunity to act, but chose not to act. How do you think the UK & the US 'prevented' them? By embargoing cheese and wine imports from France, perhaps? France in 1936 had the biggest army in Europe. Reoccupying the Rhineland was a huge bluff on Hitler's part, and the French government fell for it.
    1
  21.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  Retaliate against what? The Germans had illegally re-occupied the Rhineland. It was the French who would have been 'retaliating' and as they were reacting to an illegal German act, world opinion would, even if reluctantly, have supported them. Germany at the time had nowhere near the resources to resist France. Their main battle tank, the Panzer III only began to be tested in 1936-7, and only went into production in May 1937. France had already over 100 Somua S35s in service by then, together with a number of Char B1s. Perhaps the very fact of France's suffering in WW1 should have inspired the French government to react, instead of supinely sitting still and allowing Hitler to conclude that aggression always succeeds.
    1
  22.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  I have been sure for some time that I have been replying to a wall. You keep saying, like some sort of demented Mynah bird, that the US & British prevented France from occupying the Ruhr. France did occupy the Ruhr in 1923. No one prevented that, and it made a major contribution to the growth of extremist groups in post WW1 Germany. Congratulations, France! Are you writing about the 1923 occupation of the Ruhr by France, or the German reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936? You don't seem entirely clear. In neither case, by the way, did the US & UK prevent France taking (or, in 1936, force her not to take) action.
    1
  23.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  'UK's politics of appeasement.?' You mean the appeasement policy begun by France & Britain from 1938? It did not even exist at the time of the re-occupation of the Rhineland, as this was the first overtly threatening act Hitler had made.
    1
  24.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  Did it? What did Baldwin do in 1935 which could justify your claim?
    1
  25.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  As you don't seem able to answer any of my questions in a rational manner, perhaps you should give up posting. You said Baldwin started appeasement, but you can't give any examples of this 'policy' to back up your claim.
    1
  26.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  Indeed he did. In 1936. What has that to do with your claim that 'it (appeasement) started with Baldwin in 1935 actually?' As France's reaction had been to complain to the League of Nations, but nothing more, what other response could he have been expected to make? Moreover, The British War Secretary Alfred Duff Cooper told the German Ambassador Leopold von Hoesch on 8 March: "Though the British people were prepared to fight for France in the event of a German incursion into French territory, they would not resort to arms on account of the recent occupation of the Rhineland." The French government therefore knew that France would receive British support in the event of German aggression. Was France at the time really incapable of acting effectively against 5,000 lightly armed & equipped German troops?
    1
  27.  @xXArnOdu974Xx  In 1936, the French regular army was 320,000 strong, with a large number of modern tanks, and, if necessary, the ability to call up large numbers of reservists. German had only re-introduced conscription a year earlier, and was aiming to build an army of up to 300,000 men in time. Germany, in addition, had a small number of light tanks, of Marks I & II. Germany sent very few troops into the Rhineland, some 5,000 at most. Are you really saying that the French regular army could not cope with 5,000 Germans? As to your apparent conviction that France was incapable of acting independently without the British holding her hand, what sort of support do you think Britain, with a tiny peacetime army, could have given on land? Air support, and the security to French communications with her colonies that the largest navy on earth offered, but, as the French General Staff knew, even if you don't, Britain was not a land power, and only briefly became one in 1916-18 because of the fear of German victory in WW1. You don't seem to know much, except for your conviction that, whenever something went wrong, it wasn't the fault of France. I won't bother replying again, as you appear to be beyond education.
    1
  28.  @gauth7313  My last comment here was around a year ago. What are you trying to reply to, assuming that, of course, you actually know yourself.
    1
  29.  @gauth7313  It doesn't trouble me at all. It puzzles me now though, that you seem unable to explain which comment I made irritates you so.
    1
  30.  @gauth7313  Oh, you mean where I wrote :- 'In Command of France; French Foreign Policy and Military Planning, 1933–1940' by Robert Young' I suppose? I see the problem here. I have read it, whereas you haven't. Do you even know who Robert J.Young is? Or that his works are the result of extensive archival research? I am sorry that you feel the need to attack me because I have referred to the writings of an acknowledged and respected historian, whereas you seem to have restricted your efforts to browsing the internet, but I will not rise to your jingoistic bait, and will not reply to you further.
    1
  31.  @gauth7313  Go away and read the book, mon brave. I won't be replying again, by the way.
    1
  32.  @marcobollo1532  Presumably, you are unaware of the over 120,000 French troops also evacuated at Dunkirk?
    1
  33.  ALAIN TERIEUR  1500 years of 'victory & domination' is irrelevant where 1940 is concerned.
    1
  34.  ALAIN TERIEUR  How is that relevant to anything? If the subject is the collapse of France in 1940, would discussing, for example, the Battle of Marengo serve any purpose at all?
    1
  35.  ALAIN TERIEUR  Perhaps because the subject of the video is :- 'Why didn't France fight to the end in 1940?' If I were to post on a video about the Battle of Midway, I probably wouldn't discuss the Battle of Cape St. Vincent in my reply. Relevance, perhaps?
    1
  36.  ALAIN TERIEUR  So, presumably you would advocate that history should not be studied at all? Or do you simply not wish to know about the parts you don't like?
    1
  37.  ALAIN TERIEUR  If 'The truth is that no one gives a damn anymore' you seem to be desperately determined to contradict this comment, in that you have been posting relentlessly about 1500 years of French military glory, usually followed by a few gratuitous anti- US insults. As Shakespeare expressed it , you really do 'protest too much, methinks.'
    1
  38. There appears to be more than one idiot on this site. The 13 divisions of the BEF did, in your terms, 'run away,' after the over 100 divisions of the Belgian and French armies had collapsed. The British took over 120,000 troops with them, and began landing new forces in Cherbourg until General Weygand, no less, told them that France was finished.
    1
  39.  @brianmacc1934  Not quite. The Royal Navy certainly began gathering resources from 20 May, in the event of evacuation being necessary, but on 22 May, 1940, the British were intending to support the French 1st Army in any attempt to break out and regain contact with the main French forces. This, the 'Weygand Plan' had initially been ordered by Gamelin, but was cancelled by Weygand, and then belatedly re-ordered, by which time German infantry had caught up with their armoured spearheads. Moreover, the plan was known to General Billotte, commander of 1st Army, but not to Gort, and Billotte himself died in a car crash on 23 May. His successor, Blanchard, took over on the same day, but failed to co-ordinate with his subordinate, Gort, leaving Gort with little or no idea of what he was expected to attempt. Gort actually made the decision late on 25 May, when he diverted his 5th Division from an attack on Douai to his North-Eastern flank, in order to oppose an attack by Army Group B's 6th Army. The 50th Division was sent in support, and the two divisions fought the successful and largely forgotten Battle of the Ypres-Comines Canal, which held back 6th Army until 28 May. Had Gort let 5th Division join the Weygand attack, the probability is that 6th Army would have made any evacuation at all from Dunkirk impossible. You might read a detailed explanation in 'The Journal of Army Historical Research,' Vol. 92, Number 372, pages 326 - 336, written by Charles More, or the recent book by the same author, 'The Road to Dunkirk - The BEF and the Battle of the Ypres-Comines Canal, 1940' of 2019.
    1
  40.  @brianmacc1934  Oh, I apologise. I thought you actually knew more about the facts than you do, and thus wasted my time giving you a more detailed reply than you deserved. The fact is that the pre-war allied planning for a war against Germany basically followed what had happened in WW1, in that the French would initially be responsible for most of the fighting on land, whilst the British would gradually take more responsibility as their land forces were built up by conscription and by the arrival of troops from the Commonwealth & Empire. Whilst this was going on, the Royal Navy (the largest on earth at the time) would re-impose the blockade on Germany which had been so successful in WW1. The British were not a significant military power on land, but had a small, totally mechanised army of around 13 divisions based in the UK. This force would support the best French forces in the north in support of Belgium, but there was no possibility of this force alone challenging the over 100 divisions deployed by the Germans, as should be obvious even to you. What 'Dunkirk Fable?' You mean the one where the Royal Navy, ordered to evacuate 40,000 'specialist' troops, successfully evacuated 338,000, of which over 120,000 were French? That fable? The evacuation was, and is, never portrayed in Britain as anything other than a defeat. Even Churchill said that 'wars are not won by evacuations,' but the success of the RN ensured that it was 'merely' a defeat, and not a catastrophe. Similarly, there was no attempt to 'degrade' the French. The British sought to keep France in the fight, and even began landing fresh troops in Cherbourg, until Weygand told them that the French army was no longer able to offer 'organized resistance.' Oh dear. There I go again. Wasting my time explaining facts to someone who is fairly obviously too prejudiced and too ill-informed to be able to accept them.
    1
  41.  @brianmacc1934  As I wrote, I assumed you had more knowledge, and more intelligence, than it appears you actually possess. I apologise, and will leave you happy & content in your ignorance.
    1
  42.  ROBERT LUX  Presumably, you believe that France might perhaps have been better off remaining under German occupation? Yes, a lot of French civilians died, but have you thought for a moment of the numbers of American, British, and Canadian servicemen who gave their lives liberating France?
    1
  43.  ROBERT LUX  'Pathetic nut case' Please don't be so hard on yourself. The right to freedom of expression is what so many of an earlier generation gave their lives to guarantee.
    1
  44.  ROBERT LUX  Actually, the British asked that captured Luftwaffe pilots be shipped to British PoW camps, as the Dutch did with captured German paratroopers. The French government refused.
    1
  45.  ROBERT LUX  When did I actually state any actual statistics concerning losses in WW2? The only reference I can recall making was to the American, British, & Canadian losses rescuing France from occupation. In point of fact, French MILITARY losses were 210,000. British MILITARY losses were 383,700, and US MILITARY losses 407,300.
    1
  46.  ROBERT LUX  Actually, Canadian losses were 0.37% of the total Canadian population. Has Canada now to be added to the list of countries who liberated yours 80 years ago, and must now be insulted for their efforts?
    1
  47.  ROBERT LUX  Who said that the 'English' (actually, the British) were better soldiers than those of anyone else? The French should also thank the Channel. It, and the Royal Navy, made possible the liberation of France, after France had failed to defend herself in 1940.
    1
  48.  ROBERT LUX  Indeed it would make an interesting subject. It has, however, no relevance to the collapse of France in 1940. You do seem to be flapping around aimlessly, mon brave.
    1
  49. Because von Rundstedt, who issued the order, wanted his armour rested and serviced in order to begin the second stage of the campaign, and feared a repeat 'Miracle of the Marne' and because Goering had assured Hitler that the Allied forces in the Dunkirk pocket could be eliminated by the Luftwaffe alone.
    1
  50.  ALAIN TERIEUR  Military heritage doesn't mean a thing. The issue here is 1940.
    1
  51.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  So, only 90,000 French citizens deported to be exterminated is something to be proud of? An interesting idea.
    1
  52.  @noidea5984  How were the Western Allies to make any meaningful contribution towards the defeat of Germany on land without landing in France? The landing in the South was successful because the bulk of the German forces in France were opposing Overlord. At the time of Dragoon, the Germans had 10 divisions in Southern France, none of which were front line fighting ones.
    1
  53.  @noidea5984  When did I suggest that they should have landed in Germany? Don't post nonsense. The first objective was to defeat Germany. Liberation of France was an inevitable consequence. Dragoon was indeed intended to benefit the main action on Normandy. The point I was making was that Dragoon was not, as you claimed, the major part of ther liberation of France, but successful only because the vast bulk of German forces had been drawn into Normandy.
    1
  54. If the British withdrawal was a secret, how is it that Gort & Blanchard met on the morning of Sunday, 26 May, decided that Weygand's planned counter-attack was unrealistic, and both determined to withdraw their forces behind the line of the Lys? Incidentally, when Belgium capitulated, it was a British division which blocked the hole left in the allied line. The British, by the way, didn't deploy all of their air force, but they did deploy more than they originally intended.
    1
  55. Rubbish. The British sent their entire field army, including a number of half-trained Territorial Divisions, to support France. The British were a sea power, with the largest navy in the world. As a result they were not a major land power, but relied on the experience & professionalism of the French, who were. From pre-war meetings the French high command knew precisely what to expect from Britain, which was a small but well equipped and entirely mechanised field army, which would be reinforced over time by conscription and by the arrival of troops from the Commonwealth & Empire. Basically, a repeat of WW1. Don't try to blame the British for the collapse of France. Of the nationalities you list, the Scots are British, and very small numbers of individuals from the others joined the British, usually as pilots. You missed the substantial Canadian contribution, which included a division of troops in 1940.
    1
  56.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  What stampede? When Gort & Blanchard agreed a plan to withdraw behind the line of the Lys on 26 May? When the British moved a division to seal the gap in the allied line when Belgium surrendered? When the British lifted 120,000 French troops out of Dunkirk? That stampede?
    1
  57.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  But it didn't need to be fought on French soil, if only the French High Command had not chosen to believe that the Ardennes was impenetrable.
    1
  58.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  This explains the collapse of the French military how, exactly? Especially as it has a tenuous relevance where the facts are concerned.
    1
  59.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  142 German divisions were opposed by 135 Allied divisions. The Allies were fighting a defensive action, and had well prepared defensive positions. The numerical disparity doesn't really have much credibility.
    1
  60.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  'Russians were crushed?' Whose troops were those in the middle of Berlin in May 1945 then? I fail to see the relevance of your post in any case.
    1
  61.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  I am trying to determine how that is relevant to the collapse of France in 1940.
    1
  62.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  If that was the French view, why not simply had over governance of the country to the Germans in 1939?
    1
  63.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  Very good. As my old Uni. Tutor used to say, 'When someone resorts to insults, they are admitting that they have lost the debate' Looks like old Professor Foot was right.
    1