France 1940 compared with USSR 1941

Germany was always at a disadvantage in terms of Russia.
Yes they did capture as much ground as they did in France and did capture and destroy many Russian army units but after that the parrallels are lost.

There was always an end goal in France , the Channel , against which the French / BEF was to be trapped , captured or destroyed.
The distances were reasonable , the roads good, communication and supply routes could be maintained.
Russia offerred none of these advantages there was no point of closure at which the war could be said to have been one and the vague "stop line" east of Moscow on the source of the Volga really meant nothing ,it was beyond reach.

The real cost to the Germans had to be counted after the taking of Kiev when they finally managed to get in line again to resume the march on Moscow being able only to make a decisive push in one region at a time illustrates the poor position of the Germans , whilst they achieved what was on paper a remarkable vistory in one region they lost time and opportunity in others , both of which would never come again.
This continued to be the case in 42 and again in 43.

 

I would agree with James on his well contructed post. If I could I'd also like to add the following :

In 1940 the Germans had a very clear plan for defeating the Western Allies. It was run from a purely military perspective unlike Barbarossa which had racial overtones too (Commissar Order, Einstazgruppen) which also diverted resources which could have been diverted to the Military.

James makes the point about good road structure and communications routes and the vastness of Russia precipitated against this. Robert Kershaw in his book "war without garlands" writes about the size of the Kiev pocket, for example. To get an idea of the size of it you must consider an area in size of the area between Frankfurt, Milan and Paris! When you consider the operational range of the Panzers and the maintenance required to keep them going and also the toll it took on all of the Wehrmacht's machinery its a wonder the Germans managed to get as far as they did.

 

Gott H.
In 1940 the Germans had a very clear plan for defeating the Western Allies.
Absolutely nothing had been thought through , there was no end goal and yes - the racial overtoners of the war in the east and the plans made well in advance were genocidal from the very off.

Whilst Yammato gave a reasonable account of what he could expect in terms of Japan's ability - it was not so far removed from what Germany could expect to achieve - the time scale was slightly different but the outcome was to be exactly the same a war in which the advantage would be shortlived and which could not ultimately be won.

 

Absolutely nothing had been thought through , there was no end goal

Thank goodness that no government would allow such a thing to happen today

 

How many relect on something having seemed like a good idea at the time ?
Barbarossa seemed to be and it was not alone before , or since.

 

Here is an off-topic point to be made - the Wehrmacht in May-June 1940 defeated not only the French Army, but also the Dutch Army, the Belgian Army, and dare I say it - the BEF.

 

Ah chaps, you're slightly missing my point.
What I'm trying to get at is the French are slagged off as 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' who caved into the Germans but in the first month of Barbarossa the Russian were no better.
ie. losing just as many , if not more men & as much territory.
True or false?

False,

Think of the French like the kid on the playground who is always bullying that one kid who never fights back. One day the bully (France) takes it further by punching the kid (Germany). Little did the bully (France) realize the kid (Germany) was a blackbelt who then broke the bully's arm in 10 different spots.

It was really the French attitude towards Germany before the war that made things worse when France was taken over so quickly. The Soviets on the other hand had done no such thing to the German's, infact they created a alliance. Even then comparing the take over of a entire nation to just land in a country is inaccurate. Their must have been a ton of land in the USSR at that time that held little value to the generals who were coordinating the war effort for the Red Army. In comparison to the entire nation of France which was a strategic point.

I personally liked The Simpson's depiction of the war where Otto threw a rock at a French window and suddenly the entire city was waving white flags.

 

I've heard mention many time that the French army in 1940 as well as their political leaders had no stomach for war. I believe that this was in fact that this was party the fault of the Chamberlain government and the years of appeasement. I've read that the French were ready to stand up to Hitler over the Sudetenland but it was Chamberlain who talked them out of it. As a result the hard liners in France lost all credibility and those who took over didn't have the guts to tell their army to attack later when things got even more serious. They didn't have a Churchill when they needed one.

The Russian military on the other hand was severely handicapped by the actions of Stalin, from the Terror where over 30,000 officers were imprisoned, tortured or killed and later in 41 when he chose to ignore the multitude of warnings coming his way that Germany was about to attack. He refused the requests of his general to prepare for the attack as he felt these actions would be seen as antagonistic or provocative. He further handicapped his military by interfering with reasonable strategies of his officers by insisting they hold positions which were no longer tenable. ( It's interesting to note that as the war progressed, Hitler began to behave more and more as Stalin did in 1941 whereas Stalin, after those disastrous losses began to listen to his generals as Hitler did in 1941. The end result is obvious.)

The biggest difference between the French and the Russians when the Germans attacked is that the French were already mobilized where as the Russians were not. This should have been a big plus for the French. I've also read that the Germans suffered more casualties in the first 6 weeks of the Russian campaign than they had in total up to that point in the war

 

Owen - Thanks for the inflammatory remark about the Americans. I'm guessing you don't know Americans very well. Cheers, Marc

 

I don't think that the invasion of France was as cut and dried as some seem to think. The German's did have an invasion plan prior to May 1940 which was effectively a repeat of the earlier Schlieffen plan that had worked (up to a point) in 1914. However when 2 Luftwaffe officers crash landed their plane in Belgium on Jan 10th 1940 they were found with a complete set of the invasion plans. This led to Hitler adopting Guderian's plan to attack with the Panzer's through the Ardennes (against the vehement opposition of Von Runstead). This attack was successful because the German's (pricipally Guderian) pushed his forward elements on fast and took the risk of crossing the Meuse under enemy fire without stopping to consolidate, thereby catching the defensive minded French by surprise. Not since the Mongol hordes crossed the steppes had a large army moved so rapidly and the French (and British) were unprepared for such a rapid rate of advance (maybe Sherman's march to the sea is comparable). That they advanced so far so quickly was due to their adoption of combined air and ground offensive tactics and the fact that their mobile units were in good radio contact with each other and (usually) their tactical headquarters (again thanks to Guderian), as well as Allied unpreparedness for such an assault.

I also believe that the French led to their own downfall as much as the Russians hampered their own military effectiveness in 1941. Prior to the invasion of Poland the French army had never conducted any offensive training and as is well documented relied on defensive training and the Maginot Line to keep them safe from German aggression. It should be remembered that France invaded Germany before Germany invaded France. The 1939 Saar offensive turned into a complete farce and underlined what was to come. On Sept 7th 1939 in line with their agreement with Poland a large French army invaded the Saar capturing 20 villages along a 32 km front. It met very little resistance from German troops, took casualties from extensive minefields and stopped just short of the Siegfried Line (which was not that heavily fortified or manned by effective front line troops). Their lack of offensive spirit was demonstrated when they abruptly turned around and marched back to France to await their fate.

As far as parallels go with Barbarossa and the terrain encountered again it is not as clear as some think. Yes the road network was better in France however the going wasn't as easy as it sounds. Whilst Eastern Russia is largely flat and either grassland or forests northern France is undulating, heavily wooded, intersperesed with many rivers and streams and it is not until one gets to nearer the coast that it becomes flatter and more open. OK Holland and much of Belgium are flat but any advance here was again impeded by the network of rivers and canals (look what happened to the vastly numerical superiority of XXX Corps advance during Market Garden). The rapid fall of France and the superior offensive tactics of Blitzkreig gave the Germans the confidence to tackle Russia in 1941. Without the confidence in equipment, tactics and morale brought about by the successes in France the early successes in Russia would not have been possible where it was far easier to surround the Russian units that were as equally demoralised and disorganised as the French had been. Just my 2 cents worth!

 

Marc - No offence intended from me (I'm as neutral as they come) but it was reported over here that America changed French Fries to Freedom Fries due to the lack of back bone to join in with the great crusade of 2003.

A lot of British people have the same view of the French being white flag waving cowards. Personally I have a lot of time for the French (Apart from Parisans) and I'd point out to anyone who thinks they have no spine I'd point them in the direction of all the work the resistance did after occupation for starters.

Elven6 - I think your analogy doesn't answer the question and is like a broken pencil.

Owen - Not that I'm a expert on anything WW2 but I suspect to answer your question they were similiar if not higher losses on the Eastern Front. I think the reason why the French get a raw deal is two fold.

1. Their whole country effectively was occupied where as Russia retained a government throughout.

2. Perception on the French part is effectively a conflict the British were involved in and we have to blame someone for withdrawing at Dunkirk-rightly or wrongly. The American perspective probably comes from rumour mill and presumption prior to D-Day. I wonder how many Vets who were there would refer to the French as cowards? As for the Russians they were (Manpower) doing their own thing and fighting alone on the East so I feel this is possibly one of maybe many reasons why they don't get any stick about what happened in 1941. Lets be fair here it was pretty catastrophic.

I think to work out once and for all someone needs to look at stats of losses in the West and East for any comparisons.

Ie:

Total losses of Armour, Aircraft, Casualties and Territory Occupied etc.

Cheers all,
Andy

 

I would agree with Macca about the French campaign giving the Germans confidence to try the same thing out in Russia. However the Russian Campaign in 1941 was not just another Blitzkrieg were the Germans completely dominated the campaign up until Winter 1941 were they were stopped by the freezing conditions. From the start of the Attack the Russians defended much more stoutly than the French did. Read up on the closing of the Smolensk and Kiev pockets, especially the German Soldiers who had the job of closing the pockets. The Russians fought far longer than their French contemporaries. Especially when word got back of how the Germans were treating people they had captured or civilians. That is not to say that the French army was inferior. But the majority of it, especially the conscripts had no stomach for the fight against the old enemy. The Russians were fighting for their lives.

I would say that if Russia was the size of France and all other things being equal I still think the Germans wouuld have won though. But not in the same timescale!!!

 

Lads , I think we have to cool this down and stay just on the subject.

As far as I am aware it was Manstein who produced the plan for the invasion of France and drawing the BEF and French into Belgium before throwing the main punch via Sedan was the broad brush stroke.
Belgian and Dutch neutrality counted for nothing.
Norway was still being fought over at this time but was swinging more the Germans way.
Norway and Denmark's neutrality again counted for nothing.

Russia fought hard but was equally unprepared to fight the Germans as had been the French and British - Stalins purge of the Red Army , poor equipment , morale and political interference didn't help matters.
Certaintly the Germans took huge bags of POW's and destroyed masses of Russian equipment but she lacked the ability to deliver the fatal blow time and distance in time worked against the Germans - they simply could not keep up the pace required to take full advantage of the situations which developed.
The operation was beyond them - I can say this with hindsight but for the commanders who had to wait for fuel to reach them and for those who had to stop and wait watching time tick away they must have been worried and as ever horse drawn and on foot the supporting units could not hope to keep up.
France was a different kettle of fish altogether for both sides and AH had deluded himself into believeing that what had taken place in France would repeat istelf in Russia.
The huge POW camps were the remains of the door being kicked in but the structure may have been very shaken but it didn't fall - Russia had time and distance on her side and Germany like a well trained sprinter found herself unable to run the marathon.

Russian determination can be seen in their ability to fight and at the same time relocate industry at the same time.
I don't think the Russians caved in they took heavy losses and with better leadership could have done better but they didn't fold - had they done so the Germans would have won.

Gott makes a good point the German policy for occupation (which was in their back pocket) destroyed utterly any chance of winning over local national groups and gaining the support of the people many of whom might have been willing to help the Germans if it meant some self determination for themeslves.
In this respect the nazi racial thinking and the party propaganda and idiot pipe dreams of the Nazi Raving Looney Party wasted Germany's best chance of beating the Soviet system.
Hearts and Minds was part of the plan , and in this shows not only the lack of appreciation of the task being taken on but a misunderstanding of the people which was equally fatal.
Hitler's own closed mind and ears , the inability of the General Staff to deal with him and to control his impulsive urges , their being servants of rather than partners in the decision making process cannot be discounted - also the fact that they too misread what was happening.
Halder noted in his diary how well things were going in July - by August he was not filled with the same optimism and things started to fall apart - it just didn't happen in Moscow it happened before "Typhoon".
(Sorry folks wee rant !)

 

Ah chaps, you're slightly missing my point.
What I'm trying to get at is the French are slagged off as 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' who caved into the Germans but in the first month of Barbarossa the Russian were no better.
ie. losing just as many , if not more men & as much territory.
True or false?

The answer to the question overall, I think is that the Germans had been preparing for war since Hitler came to power in January 1933.As early as 1937,they had plans laid down to wage war in the East.(A policy which the German military leadership survivors would have to answer for at Nuremberg).

Prewar, the French nation was split between the right and the left.Leon Blum's goverment from 1936 was despised by the right wing and it sought every opportunity to became the leading political authority in France.Blum was France's first Jewish Prime Minister who the right wing was to use the provocative slogan, "Better Hitler than Blum".(Blum, later would be tried by Vichy for lack of preparation for war.).This then was the background to the political elements and the result was that although certain French units fought well, overall there was a lack of determination to prosecute the war from poor political leadership and vision.The acceptance of an Armistice saw the right wing under Petain, as Vichy, quickly emerge as the partner of Germany and were readily anxious and determined to sit along Germany's side as partners in the new European order.As events unfolded, the Vichy regime was no more than a Nazi puppet government and not regarded as an equal partner by Hitler.Overall even though it had a well equipped army as large, if not larger than Germany,its political will, we now know was lacking.Churchill recognised this from May 1940 on and did his best at the critical period up to the Armistice to keep France in the war to no avail.

Regarding Russia,Hitler believed his own inner thoughts that the Soviet Union was suffering from the lack of military leadership effected by the Stalin's Red Army purge of 1937.His success in victories in the west gave him over confidence in the strength and quality of the Wehrmacht and their leadership in turn had visions that the Red Army would be defeated in 6 weeks. Moreover, at the time of the invasion,Stalin could not accept that German aggression was afoot and his pact with Hitler of August 1939 had ended dramatically.In short, the Soviet Union was ill prepared to combat a German invasion and the outcome on the battlefield proved this and this was the norm when manpower and materiel was sacrificed in military illogical efforts to stem the invasion tide.(The study of this period is still very sensitive in Russia and I believe recently there have been attempts to dissuade historical research into the matter possibly to maintain Stalin's place in history as the saviour of Mother Russia)

In the end the Allies, to be, had to be serious about taking the war to Hitler.Great Britain itself was not free from muddled political thinking.For instance when Bommber Command first raised the plan to bomb German industry, (one of the the targets would have been I.G. Farben), the Air Minister (Sinclair I believe) was reported to have said "you can't do that, its private property".Instead the "Nickle" raids became a feature of Bomber Command's response.The daftest illogical plan was planned operations to burn out the Black Forest through the "Razzle" operations.Somebody in the economical war planning thought the area was indeed, one hugh forested area which would burn and cause problems for the German war economy.

 

Should not agree with Harry as I never came across book that tells that Stalin was the saviour of Mother Russia, even there is more books that is showing Stalin like coward that was absolutely stuneed by invasion and haven't done anything while soviet soldiers were dying across the land and in POW camps. Both of this directions of history research was wrong. Stalin didn't save Russia. Even soviet commanders like Zhukov didn't saved it. Soldiers saved it. If there will be no such big amount of soldiers who were fightin till last breath for their own lives and lives of their families - there will be no victory. I'm sure 100%.
As I see it - french didn't fought hard as our soldiers for many reasons, one of 'em because death camps were not awaiting 'em, they were not meant to total annihilation etc. We fought for life. French fought for territory. That's the diffrence in few words.

PS: didn't meant to offend anyone, hope i didn't.