Totally agree with Db, the Russians were fighting for their very existence whereas the French didn't really know why they were fighting. This may sound oversimplified about the French thinking and of course front line units were fighting for their lives but this was not the way the general population felt. How often had France been invaded and after short and partial occupations the invaders had just packed up and let the French go back to self determination and being French. I'm sure that this was at the back of the minds of the Vichyists that if they rode out the storm in a while things would go back to being the way they were as they had always done. Also Russia's 2 little wars prior to Barbarossa helped them to prepare. Firstly they were able to completely dominate the Japanese at Nomonhan giving confidence to Zhukov and the Far Eastern army who were later to halt the Germans before Moscow. Secondly the early reversals against Finland were to give them the kind of kick in the bottom that Allied early reversals gave to us so that the need for important army reorganisation was at least being implemented. To sum up and perhaps move back to the original question I personally don't think that the 2 campaigns were alike at all. The French had had a chance to stop the invasion of their country long before it happened and just stuck their heads in the sand whereas the Russians used all their natural resources to resist: Pride, passion, numbers and space. On the German side they were perhaps suckered into thinking that because they had overcome Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia and Greece with relative ease that Russia would fall into the same category. PS: Db don't worry about your English mate, it's a helluva lot better than our Russian!
PS: Db don't worry about your English mate, it's a helluva lot better than our Russian! Trying to keep it high Back to da topic. As discussion grows I'd mention that its a little consfusing to compare this almost uncomparable campaigns. Almost becoz they have similar items but only some as most of all they r different. And for me most important is the answers to questions "for what they did fought" as for defending side and "what were they to do after victory" as for offending side. The answers on this questions already giving me the main difference of campaigns although they have similar item that could be measured and compared, such as territories occupied or casualties Owen already mentioned. EDIT: just to put light on all sides of Barbarossa - of course germans caught a big number of POWs in first months but this is not the sign that soviet soldies were giving up easy, most of 'em were exhausted out of ammo and didn't know what future awaits 'em in german captivity (many didn't like soviet authorities of course but those didn't fought long I think). But as time goes everyone knew what they will have if they will surrender. So fight for life begun. I'm simplifying I know .
Let me try and keep this simple as people are still missing my point. Let's pretend that Barbarossa ends on July 31st. That will make it about as long as the battle of France. Right what was the furthest advance by the Germans into the USSR from the Polish border? Where would that be if you transposed it on a map of France? How many squres miles of the USSR was under the jackboot, how does that compare to the occupied countries of Western europe? How many Soviet soldiers were killed, wounded, missing or POW compared to the western allies. What I'm trying to say is did the Soviets lose the same area of land, same casualties IN THE SAME TIMESCALE as the battle of France and if so why do the French get it in the neck so much? If the Soviets couldn't stop the Germans IN THE SAME TIMESCALE who could?
Let me try and keep this simple as people are still missing my point. Let's pretend that Barbarossa ends on July 31st. That will make it about as long as the battle of France. Right what was the furthest advance by the Germans into the USSR from the Polish border? Where would that be if you transposed it on a map of France? How many squres miles of the USSR was under the jackboot, how does that compare to the occupied countries of Western europe? How many Soviet soldiers were killed, wounded, missing or POW compared to the western allies. What I'm trying to say is did the Soviets lose the same area of land, same casualties IN THE SAME TIMESCALE as the battle of France and if so why do the French get it in the neck so much? If the Soviets couldn't stop the Germans IN THE SAME TIMESCALE who could? Yep, as I mentioned in my post up yours - only this things can be compared . I didn't missed the point but stiked to discuss others posts . EDIT: Owen you r going on the 'what if' road, aren't you?
OK maybe I'm not reading other members posts properly. OK maybe I didn't mean let's pretend it ends on July 31st, I meant let's use July 31st as the cut off point. As I see it, in a month long campaign no-one could stop the Germans .
OK maybe I'm not reading other members posts properly. OK maybe I didn't mean let's pretend it ends on July 31st, I meant let's use July 31st as the cut off point. As I see it, in a month long campaign no-one could stop the Germans . Last statement looks for me still very .. uhmmm.. whats a word for it.. lets call it confusing. I'd avoid such statements at all. But if take it just right off ALL other facts - you're right. EDIT: all we r trying to say here and what's most out of topic's point - that these 2 campaings is un-comparable if take 'em global.
As I see it, in a month long campaign no-one could stop the Germans . And there is the essence of it mate. Blitzkrieg was designed to be a short, sharp campaign. The German war machine was designed towards supplying for a short campaign and the tactics used were supposed to force the opponent to capitulate in a short space of time due to the Mobile troops swarming all over their country.
And there is the essence of it mate. Blitzkrieg was designed to be a short, sharp campaign. The German war machine was designed towards supplying for a short campaign and the tactics used were supposed to force the opponent to capitulate in a short space of time due to the Mobile troops swarming all over their country. But if speak it clear - blitzkrieg tactics was designed to reach a goal. And in USSR goal was never reached. So its just a matter 'no one stopped 'em in a month' but next must be following 'they never reached a goal there'
So a German advance of hundreds of miles in one country leads to national humiliation & mocking nearly 70 years on, to another nation a German advnce of hundreds of miles is a minor setback.
So a German advance of hundreds of miles in one country leads to national humiliation & mocking nearly 70 years on, to another nation a German advnce of hundreds of miles is a minor setback. Hmm, not sure what mocking means here . Owen, have you already reached the goal of this thread or not? EDIT: oh, i got it. too slow too slow.
Owen, have you already reached the goal of this thread or not? Yes, it's got us chatting about the GPW again.
Living within their resources and not over stretching themselves as per France - they were hard to beat and for the first weeks of Barbarossa they had the ball at their feet after that problems started to occur.
So a German advance of hundreds of miles in one country leads to national humiliation & mocking nearly 70 years on, to another nation a German advnce of hundreds of miles is a minor setback. YES The French get it in the neck because despite having a numerically larger army in men at arms and armour and despite having only lost a third of their country they chucked in the towel. They had the opportunity to keep the war on German soil with their invasion of the Saar but let a few mines stop them and like the Grand Old Duke of York they marched their men in a few clicks and marched them out again. Mines are of course a terrible torment to any infantry as anyone with an Anzio propaganda leaflet for an avatar knows but any army with a willing offensive spirit doesn't let that stop them. Basically if the French want to talk the talk they should walk the walk and their incapability of doing this has led to the 'mocking' ever since.
So a German advance of hundreds of miles in one country leads to national humiliation & mocking nearly 70 years on, to another nation a German advnce of hundreds of miles is a minor setback. Ultimately the French Surrendered and the Russians clung on, just. I am no way insulting the French Army by saying that, in 1940 no army was a match for the Wehrmacht and its tactics which were working to a 1940 timetable whilst everyone else was still about 10 years behind.
Yes, it's got us chatting about the GPW again. Surely you mean the Ostfront??? I'm kidding. we really should refer to it as the GPW instead of using German phraseology.
Ultimately the French Surrendered and the Russians clung on, just. I am no way insulting the French Army by saying that, in 1940 no army was a match for the Wehrmacht and its tactics which were working to a 1940 timetable whilst everyone else was still about 10 years behind. Basicaly what I said 1,000 posts back Sorry No.15 to be precise
According to figures released by the German O.K.H. on June 25th 1940 during the campaign in the west they had suffered a total of 156,500 dead, wounded and missing. Interestingly German casualties rose considerably after June 3rd when they were fighting in the main only against the French. As the campaign only lasted six weeks they had on average 26,083 casualties a week. French losses were approximately 92,000 dead 250,000 wounded and 1450,000 prisoners. Clearly not all French soldiers had surrendered at the first opportunity the British by contrast lost 3,457 dead. On December 31st O.K.H. released figures for the campaign in the east giving a total of 830,900 casualties presumably including frostbite cases. According to German estimates by this time they should have destroyed the approximately 200 Soviet divisions they had expected to meet and the campaign would be over. If you assume a campaign of 27 weeks this gives a weekly loss of 30,774. Soviet losses were certainly in the region of 3,500,000 probably more. As more German divisions were engaged in combat during the Soviet campaign than the campaign in the West German casualties should be higher. Taking this into account the Soviets seem to have been no better at inflicting losses on the Germans than the forces principally French they had fought in the west.
To all who responded, I was more so referring to the post World War I years and the attitudes of the 3 nations with each other. The French Invasion of the German industrial area really built hatred among the Germans. I'm not saying France was the bad guy, nothing is clear cut after all, at least that was not my intent. And Owen, it was a comedy skit afterall.
Here are two thoughts that come to mind: 1) Since military forces are a reflection of the society that raises them, the type of government France (democratic republic) and the Soviet Union (authoritative dictatorship) each had are important considerations. There was no way Stalin and the Communist Party were going to surrender. The military would have to be completely destroyed and all territory occupied. France's government was politically divided and indecisive. 2) Time and space are important. The territory lost by the Soviet Union in the Summer of 1941 was not decisive to the defeat of the nation. On the other hand, the territory lost by France left it with out the means to wage war. Last note. Few appreciate that the French Army actually fought harder in the last half of Campaign in the West than in the first half.
