Isolationism and WWII

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Well I'm also in the same class as you and the answer my textbook gave was that after the Great War, everyone was tired of the problems and in Europe and the American public desperated wanted a "return to normalcy" which means antebellum pro quo isolationism.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Well I'm also in the same class as you and the answer my textbook gave was that after the Great War, everyone was tired of the problems and in Europe and the American public desperated wanted a "return to normalcy" which means antebellum pro quo isolationism.

 

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

 

And you can thank Harding for that funny word. Normalcy...

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

France and Great Britain had sorted out Hitler in '37 or '38 it is unlikely we would have seen the carnage of WWI again. Instead what we saw was an even more frightful carnage of WW2

 

After WW1 Europe was pretty much destroyed. How would these countries just go around and start 'sorting each other out'? It doesn't work that way, at least not when your country is a complete wreck.

Well, for one thing France had the strongest army in Europe at that time, much stronger than Germany's. German tanks were much inferior to most Allied ones even in 1940, let alone '37 and '38. It is a well known fact that during the Austrian anschluss the Panzer divisions suffered an enormous rate of breakdowns that drove the Fuhrer apopletic. What won the German victory in '40 was a superior battle doctrine and imaginative use of modern battle tactics, as well as the brilliance of Guderian and Manstein.

If Germany had been attacked while it was busy with Poland it could not have sustained a two-front war. During the occupation of the Rhineland Hitler went through some of the most anxious hours of his life, and this is from his own confession. He knew that if France took decisive action at that point Germany would have been done for. France and Britain did not act until very late, fortunately not too late.

The end result of WW2 showed how ill equipped Germany was to fight a global war. It could definitely have been taken care of before things got so murderously difficult. What the Polish, Norwegian, and French campaigns did was to allow the Germans to develop and perfect a brilliantly imaginative battle doctrine in the most sure and tested school of warfare - the actual battlefield itself. Plus these campaigns contributed enormously to the aura of German invincibility. Things should not have been allowed to get to that point.

But I guess all this is being wise after the event.

[Rameses the Great]

Well, for one thing France had the strongest army in Europe at that time, much stronger than Germany's. German tanks were much inferior to most Allied ones even in 1940, let alone '37 and '38. It is a well known fact that during the Austrian anschluss the Panzer divisions suffered an enormous rate of breakdowns that drove the Fuhrer apopletic. What won the German victory in '40 was a superior battle doctrine and imaginative use of modern battle tactics, as well as the brilliance of Guderian and Manstein.

If Germany had been attacked while it was busy with Poland it could not have sustained a two-front war. During the occupation of the Rhineland Hitler went through some of the most anxious hours of his life, and this is from his own confession. He knew that if France took decisive action at that point Germany would have been done for. France and Britain did not act until very late, fortunately not too late.

The end result of WW2 showed how ill equipped Germany was to fight a global war. It could definitely have been taken care of before things got so murderously difficult. What the Polish, Norwegian, and French campaigns did was to allow the Germans to develop and perfect a brilliantly imaginative battle doctrine in the most sure and tested school of warfare - the actual battlefield itself. Plus these campaigns contributed enormously to the aura of German invincibility. Things should not have been allowed to get to that point.

But I guess all this is being wise after the event.

 

Not exactly, after the Franco-Prussian war the Germans had the best tactics and military leading up to the World Wars.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Well, for one thing France had the strongest army in Europe at that time, much stronger than Germany's.

 

That's why France was conquered in a few weeks. You're joking, right?

[Gaius Octavius]

General Galliani hadn't read (or paid any heed to) General De Gaulle's book on tank warfare, nor was Galliani aware of, or cared about, the admonition of the German general, von Moltke, that the German army should attack through Belguim and then swing around and just graze the French coast with its right flank. The Maginot Line was simply by-passed. Rommel led one of the spearheads which rolled up the French army and got behind it. The French high command learned nothing from the German blitzkrieg in Poland. The French were prepared to defend a la WWI style, and not to attack.

 

The bravery of the valiant French poilu may not be questioned. The incompetence of their high command was at fault.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Well, for one thing France had the strongest army in Europe at that time, much stronger than Germany's.

 

That's why France was conquered in a few weeks. You're joking, right?

No. I already told you the reason for the German victory. It was original battle tactics and the last minute intervention of Manstein and Hitler himself in formulating Fall Gelb. If the Germans had adhered to the original attack plan that they formulated before, which was almost a replica of the old Schlieffen plan, a German victory would have been doubtful.

French tanks were superior to German tanks and so were British. The Stuka was one of the most overrated planes of the War. It was very slow, poorly armoured, and highly vulnerable to fighter attack as was proved in the Battle of Britain, where it got massacred.

In short, the Allies were stronger, they just did not know how to make use of their strength.

BTW, it was the German General Staff, not me, that considered the French Army the strongest in Europe.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Gladius xx

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

General Galliani hadn't read (or paid any heed to) General De Gaulle's book on tank warfare, nor was Galliani aware of,

Gallieni? I think you mean Maurice Gamelin. Gallieni was not around in WW2. The book he should have read is Guderian's "Achtung Panzer". DeGaulle's book has nothing over that one in describing armoured warfare.

[Septimus Flavius Galarius]

The Stuka was one of the most overrated planes of the War. It was very slow, poorly armoured, and highly vulnerable to fighter attack as was proved in the Battle of Britain, where it got massacred.

I believe the British lost more fighters than the Germans during the Battle of Britain.

 

Also another contributing factor for the french collapse was the indifference of the french population to German occupation. Also the British didn't help matters by sinking a French fleet along the coast of Algeria and at the time the British and French were still officially allies.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

I believe the British lost more fighters than the Germans during the Battle of Britain.

The Stuka was a dive-bomber, not a fighter.

[Septimus Flavius Galarius]

The Stuka was a dive-bomber, not a fighter.

 

Your right, but i didn't say it was a fighter, i should have worded that better, my mistake.

[Gaius Octavius]

Gladius xx, Check out Galliani. One of us will be surprised.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Gladius xx, Check out Galliani. One of us will be surprised.

Well, I did. I think the person you are referring to is General Joseph Gallieni. I googled him and this is what I got:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Gallieni

I was right - he was a First World War general that died in 1916. He did not live to see the Second World War.

If it's the incompetence of the French High Command that you were talking about earlier, the man you want is Maurice Gamelin.

Edited March 28, 2007 by Gladius xx

[Julius Ratus]

French tanks were superior to German tanks and so were British.

 

The Stuka was one of the most overrated planes of the War. It was very slow, poorly armoured, and highly vulnerable to fighter attack as was proved in the Battle of Britain, where it got massacred.

 

Yes the French, and to a lesser extent the British, tanks were better to the German tanks, on average. The bulk of the Panzerwaffe was equipped with the Pzkpfw II and the Pzkpfw '38 (a Czech design) which were light tanks. The British Matildas and Crusaders and the French Chars were superior to these, but the upgunned Pzkpfw III's and IV D's could hold their ground. More importantly, the Germans used their tanks better. Both the Brits and French used their tanks as infantry support. The Germans had combined arms. They used tank formations, supported by mobile infantry in halftracks, trucks, or on motorcycles, supported by dive bombers, which were used as aerial artillary.

 

Which brings me to my second point. How was the Stuka overrated? If you want to use it as a fighter you are SOL (unless your name is Hans-Ilrich Rudel ). Comparing the Stuka to the Spitfire or the Warhawk is entirely inappropriate. It was to be used as a tank killer or as aerial artillary. When put in those terms, if you put a French Char d'Rupture versus a Stuka, my money is on the Stuka. Just try hitting a plane with a low-velocity 75mm cannon .

[Gaius Octavius]

Gladius xx, Check out Galliani. One of us will be surprised.

Well, I did. I think the person you are referring to is General Joseph Gallieni. I googled him and this is what I got:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Gallieni

I was right - he was a First World War general that died in 1916. He did not live to see the Second World War.

If it's the incompetence of the French High Command that you were talking about earlier, the man you want is Maurice Gamelin.

 

I am the one surprised. I may also be wrong about von Moltke. :wheelchair: taking its toll!