France Falls 1940 (YouTube Film)

[Von Richter]

Originally Posted by kelt06

kelt

[Canuckster]

Originally Posted by Johan Banér

Found it very interesting to discover Gen. Beaufre spoke as good English as that.

Previously I've only ever seen him in French about 1940. He's the guy who tends to say things like that the French army not just could attack in 1940, but should have. Not because they could win and defeat Germany, but because it would have revealed the deficiencies in the French army, possibly allowing at least some quick-fixing.

Wonder a bit how he became the 1960's-70's docu-makers' fav choice for French generals-person to interview about all this?

Is Beaufre's comments and viewpoints on the battle of France still considered relaible? The reason I ask is because he was a major contributor on miltary matters to William Shirer's Collapse of the Third Republic and there are those who tend to discredit Shirer's work. His own 'Fall of France 1940' also had a less than sympathetic opinion of French command during those days.

[Johan Banér]

Originally Posted by Canuckster

Is Beaufre's comments and viewpoints on the battle of France still considered relaible? The reason I ask is because he was a major contributor on miltary matters to William Shirer's Collapse of the Third Republic and there are those who tend to discredit Shirer's work. His own 'Fall of France 1940' also had a less than sympathetic opinion of French command during those days.

No idea really. I'll make those questions mine, if you don't mind.

[Carl Schwamberg]

Originally Posted by Canuckster

Is Beaufre's comments and viewpoints on the battle of France still considered relaible? The reason I ask is because he was a major contributor on miltary matters to William Shirer's Collapse of the Third Republic and there are those who tend to discredit Shirer's work. His own 'Fall of France 1940' also had a less than sympathetic opinion of French command during those days.

I have a less than sympathetic opinion of the 'French Command during those days' as well. While it can be argued there were systemic problems in the French military that could not be resolved with a few quick decisions I've the feeling the senior leaders aggravated those problems with their well reasoned avoidance of the issues in the preceeding years.

[MonsterZero]

Originally Posted by The Purist

Inaccuracies abound in though. In the first three minutes L.O. states that the French went back to relying on the horse,..."especially the horse", he says.

This is wrong on many levels. The French had oodles of tanks, trucks and more halftrack prime movers than any army in the field. In fact, there were fewer than three divisions of actual full horse cavalry when compare to 19 motor and mech divs.

It was good for its day but is showing its age and lack of adequate research.

I agree, the French armored and mechanized strength in 1940, even after deducting the penalty for the silly 1 man turrets in French battle tanks, was at least equal to the German armored strength. The only thing the French were lacking was a modern doctrine for mobile warfare operations. The large fleet of Char B 1 tanks alone was an unprecedentedly lavish expenditure, especially during the 1930s when everybody was trying to slash military budgets during the Great Depression. This tank cost a fortune.

There's one thing the movie doesn't explain though. If the French population, high command and government were so demoralized in the 1920s and 1930s because of the alleged excessive effort in WWI, then how come the German people, who also sustained grievous wounds in WWI, were ready to kick ass again and with a vengeance.

[copenhagen]

Originally Posted by MonsterZero

I agree, the French armored and mechanized strength in 1940, even after deducting the penalty for the silly 1 man turrets in French battle tanks, was at least equal to the German armored strength. The only thing the French were lacking was a modern doctrine for mobile warfare operations. The large fleet of Char B 1 tanks alone was an unprecedentedly lavish expenditure, especially during the 1930s when everybody was trying to slash military budgets during the Great Depression. This tank cost a fortune.

There's one thing the movie doesn't explain though. If the French population, high command and government were so demoralized in the 1920s and 1930s because of the alleged excessive effort in WWI, then how come the German people, who also sustained grievous wounds in WWI, were ready to kick ass again and with a vengeance.

Did you watch all the documentary? One of the French contributors said we were victorious (as in ww1) and being victorious is a dangerous thing because you think you were right. As he said this breeds complacency which i think Britian was certainly guilty of aswell. Also the First World War was like an epic boxing match which they'd just about won on points rather than a KO. The cost was terrible and the trauma of it inconcievable. My Grandmother talked about the effect it had on her parents generation. They didnt want it again. The idea appalled them
On the Germans side they thought with the help of Nazi propoganda that they hadnt lost, they had been betrayed by unseen forces and their honour was slighted and had to be restored. A much more motivating factor than for the French or British. You could say the way we won the First World War helped the Germans at the outset of the second world war.

[Johan Banér]

Originally Posted by MonsterZero

There's one thing the movie doesn't explain though. If the French population, high command and government were so demoralized in the 1920s and 1930s because of the alleged excessive effort in WWI, then how come the German people, who also sustained grievous wounds in WWI, were ready to kick ass again and with a vengeance.

Demographics.

France was historically always ahead of the demographic curve of the rest of Europe. This made France the most populous country in Europe for most of its history. Until it hit a point of demographic maturity around 1850, meaning the population of France first stagnated, then the natural population growth went into the negative, with a children/woman rate below the replacement rate of 2.1.

These days, everyone else has also hit the same kind of plateau, except the French are again at the top of European reproduction.

But WWI and WWII saw France simultaneously getting hit with staggering loss of life, while its population figures could only be maintained by immigration, amounting to a honest to goodness French national trauma.

Pre WWI France conscripted something like 85% of its male population, just to keep up with Imperial Germany, conscripting only about 60% in its turn.

And when adding up the dead of WWI, it wasn't just that France had lost a staggering 1.3-1.5 million men out of its 40 million population, the demographics indicated that while the British would replace their losses in 12 years, and the Germans in a mere 8, it would take France no less than 66 years to replace the men lost in WWI.

These kinds of statistics were school-textbook stuff in inter-war France, and very much part of why the French were so sensitive to anything suggesting French soldiers might get killed in WWII, which should preferably be fought from inside bunkers, if the French could pick how to fight their battles.

[The Purist]

Originally Posted by Johan Banér

Demographics....These kinds of statistics were school-textbook stuff in inter-war France, and very much part of why the French were so sensitive to anything suggesting French soldiers might get killed in WWII, which should preferably be fought from inside bunkers, if the French could to pick their battles.

Bullseye!

[Dibble201Bty]

Here is an interesting site which gives a good explanation of French doctrine between the wars


http://www.scribd.com/doc/8033074/Ev...trine-19191939

Paul