Thread: French armed forces

They still would have eventually been beaten. But if Russia was a lone chances are they would have lost.

Praxus,

Get off your high horse. There was no way the Werhmact could have beaten the Red Army. There was another 43 div in Siberia that the Red Army could have committed and that was more than enough to kill Hitler.

Was the Battle of the Atlantic strategic and reduced the length of WWII. Yes, no question but that is a far cry from that the Svoiets couldn't have done it alone. It might have taken longer (estimated 10 years) but the outcome was not in question.

But they would have had no support from the United States and the rest of the Western World. Germany would have been able to use the other half of their Army on the Eastern Front.

All thoose bombs, V1, and V2 rockets would have been hiting Moscow not London.

Hit what? And with what?

The latest and the greatest of the Wehrmacht were east, not West. The Atlantic Wall was manned by field divisions with horses, not trucks. 40 year old gunners were manning batteries that were half built.

You actually think that these forces would have made a difference in the East? And what of those 43 Siberian divisions that Zukhov personnally moded? Do you think that those Western forces stood a chance against these divisions?

And what could V1s and V2s do that the Luftwaffle haven't already pulverized? And with alot more precision. The Ural factories were still out of range.

The balance of forces was never in Germany's favour. What they had was blitzkreig that allowed them to swallow whole armies. Once the Soviets countered with deep battle, the Wehrmact lost the war.

Good Point, I withdraw my statement.

Originally posted by eMGee
That was because the Germans bombed the hell out of England and there was no "turning back" for them.

The French got, more or less, the choice... I guess that was considered extremely cowardly, especially by Americans (due to the many American losses; which is understandable). I guess they didn't want to sacrifice Paris (like you've mentioned) and human lives. But then, to think of it, I find that most of these discussions about the second world war, are speculations... Like in conspiracy stories, the truth might never get (fully) known. Who started it? Who caused it? Who won? Who did this? Who did that? ...

[/QUOTE]

Or because England has a set? How likely would it have been, that British Troops would of fled London, and tried to flag down American ships. Than stay and fight to the bitter end?

Who started it. My guess would be, when France removed the American flag from the D-Day Memorial. Slap in the face after everything America did for France during WW2.

Save thier scared surrender monkeys along the coast, and liberate their country.


And yes. PW did say that. What else did he mean by "RUSSIA IS WW2"S TRUE HEROES!"???

That Russia spanked Nazi Germany all by themselves? America & Britian only...helped?

Originally posted by Lunatock
If you look closely. All the weapons are being held in a ready to drop position.

I am sure you have never heard of the French Foreign Legion, who fight their enemies in Africa one on one, without any support. Unlike teh marines who call in airstrikes every time an Iraqi kid fires an AK at them.

Originally posted by Lunatock
That Russia spanked Nazi Germany all by themselves? America & Britian only...helped?

More or less correct.
The only correct statement I have ever seen you make.
The bare fact that 85% of all Wehrmacht forces were on the Soviet Front just speaks for itself.
The 21st Panzer and the 1st Fallschirmjaeger were in Normandy by pure luck, they were refitting from the ass kicking they received around Dniepr.

The Battle of the Atlantic and the Battle of Britian were two of the most important Battles. After the later they relised they could not invade Great Britia, so instead concentrated on Russia.

The Battle of Britain was insignificant, the Germans could have never amassed an invasion fleet that could land in Britain anyway. Hitler always had his eye on the Soviet Union, the invasion was inevitable. The battle of Atlantic lasted the whole war and was indecisive, since even at the end of the war there were German U-boats patrolling along Allied shipping lanes.
Neither of those battles can compare to Stalingrad, not by a long shot, and I am not even talking about Kursk.

EDIT: How were they the most inmportant battles?
The Luftwaffe was not destroyed during the Battle of Britain. The Kriegsmarine was not completely destroyed during the Battle of Atlantic.
However, a whole German army was destroyed at Stalingrad and the offensive capabilities of the Wehrmacht were shattered. The Battle of Kursk dealt a severe blow to the Wehrmacht and put them on the run, also destroyed their morale, and that was almost a year before D-Day.
I remember hearing a radio program on BBC on the anniversary of the battle of Britain. When a British correspondent went around Munich and asked Germans what great battles they knew of and if they heard of the Battle of Britain. One German said "I don't know what the Battle of Britain was, however I do know about Stalingrad and Kursk and the Battle of Berlin!"

EXCUSE ME!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll give the Soviets their due but that does not diminish the Battles of Britain and Atlantic by ANY event. Without them, history could NOT have evolved the way it did. Without the trucks from North America, the Red Army could NOT achieve the mobility that they had. And though the Soviets produced 80% of their own war materiales, the other 20% were not slacking by any means and were definetely needed and used. Canadian Valantine tanks were used at Stalingrad and Kursk.

And the likes of Kesselring and Rommel as well as the Afrika Korps was pitted against the Western allies. Not that Zukhov could have eventually won but it would have been that much bloodier, that much longer, that much tougher. More than likely, forced Stalin to negotiate a peace with Hitler. Stalin was at least toying with the idea before Normandy. And without the Battle of Britain, there wouldn't have been a Normandy.

When the U-boats suffered 80% casualties and the breaking of the codes were Westerna actions, you really don't know squat.

Though the Wehrmacht's latest and greatest were facing the Soviets, if the West didn't took on the rest, life wouldn't have been any easier and would actually be that much tougher.

You seriously think Kesselring couldn't have stopped Zukhov at the Battle of Berlin? Fortunately for Stalin, Kesselring was in Italy.

Which german general of WWII do you rate highest?

One question, why are German generals of WWII held in high esteem for their military knowledge and capability even though they lost the war?

Someone once said, Germans are excellent at tactics, but sucked at strategic thinking.

Don't know. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. Kesselring was a master at roadblocks. Von Manstein at organization and deployment. Rommel's instinctiveness at manouver.

Strongly doubt that Rommel could have done Kesselring's job and vice versa.

Under what circumstances could Germany win the war? Such as not declaring war on USA after Pearl Harbor? or avoiding the siege of Stalingrad or not making the mistake of creating new divisions when just replenishing the exhausted divisions in the east will do?