I just learned something
The 1919 Eclipse
Brits started evacuating Dunkirk on May 24. But Paris wasn't occupied
until June 14, after which the "armistice" was signed on June 22.
Assuming this to mean that Paris fell on the 14th (sometimes the
vagaries of phraseology are important in the highly technical art of
war), this means that the German blitzkrieg skirted the capital in
favor of pushing the Brits into The Channel. I hadn't expected that
before I started reading.
Also, I wouldn't consider whatever they signed with Germany to be an
armistice, but articles of surrender.
William Black
> According to wiki, Germany invaded France on May 10, 1942,
Then they're in more serious trouble than I thought...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Louis C
> favor of pushing the Brits into The Channel. I hadn't expected that
> before I started reading.
The Germans didn't go for the capital, instead they went for cutting
off the best part of the Allied armies, though a lot of the manpower -
including practically all the British part - managed to evacuate.
Try maps 10 to 15 from the following link:
http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/ww2%20europe/WWIIEuropeIndex.html
LC
GFH
wrote:
> According to wiki, Germany invaded France on May 10, 1942,
No. Wiki says 1940. The article on WWII takes the usual western
point of view. The invasion of Poland was the start, not the
declarations
of war by Britain and France against Germany. The conversion of a
war between two countries was expanded into a "world war" not by
Germany, but by Britain and France.
Overall, Wiki has a rather balanced report on WWII. A little light on
the Eastern Front, but that is standard for westerners. About
800,000 military and civilians in the West were killed; about
27,000,000,
in the USSR.
GFH
Michele
news:a69aaf66-cf04-4aa4...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> According to wiki, Germany invaded France on May 10, 1942,
If that's really the date in the article, please consider correcting it.
and the
> Brits started evacuating Dunkirk on May 24. But Paris wasn't occupied
> until June 14, after which the "armistice" was signed on June 22.
>
> Assuming this to mean that Paris fell on the 14th (sometimes the
> vagaries of phraseology are important in the highly technical art of
> war), this means that the German blitzkrieg skirted the capital in
> favor of pushing the Brits into The Channel. I hadn't expected that
> before I started reading.
>
In favor of defeating the enemy armies, including the French one. Remember
that Blitzkrieg came strong with outflanking maneuvers. They wouldn't
assault a big city head-on if that was not necessary - because they were
confident it would fall by itself if the enemy armies were defeated in the
field.
> Also, I wouldn't consider whatever they signed with Germany to be an
> armistice, but articles of surrender.
>
You are free to consider. But it was an armistice. The idea was that a full
peace treaty would be signed later, when Germany would not be at war with
Britain or anybody else. The German occupation of Northern France was
understood to be a temporary measure, made necessary by the British
stubbornness. Whether a victorious Germany would still not show an interest
in Alsace-Lorraine, as claimed at that time and before 1940 by Hitler,
that's anybody's guess, of course.
Bob Martin
Take another look at the map. Hint: the Germans came through Belgium.
Tero P. Mustalahti
> According to wiki, Germany invaded France on May 10, 1942, and the
> Brits started evacuating Dunkirk on May 24.
The year was of course 1940 and Wikipedia got that right, so that's
probably a typo.
> Also, I wouldn't consider whatever they signed with Germany to be an
> armistice, but articles of surrender.
Well, yes and no. For certain it was not an unconditional surrender,
since the Vichy government was able the keep direct control of the
Southern France and the colonies. Furthermore, armistice is often a term
used for for non-permanent or temporary peace treaties. Since Germany
was still at war with the British, there could be no actual peace
agreement.
Tero P. Mustalahti
Michele
news:6c0007ea-1d0d-4e9f...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 15, 4:11 pm, The 1919 Eclipse <eclipse-1...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> According to wiki, Germany invaded France on May 10, 1942,
>
> No. Wiki says 1940.
Well, good for them.
The article on WWII takes the usual western
> point of view. The invasion of Poland was the start, not the
> declarations
> of war by Britain and France against Germany. The conversion of a
> war between two countries was expanded into a "world war" not by
> Germany, but by Britain and France.
Well, when hostilities are opened, that is usually considered the beginning
of the war.
If Germany had not wanted a world war, they should not have attacked a
country that had allies whose territories spanned all the world.
And if they really really would not have wanted a world war, all they had to
do was to accept the French and British offer on Sep. 1, 1939. It's not as
if the British and French behaved in a German/Japanese way. They offered the
Germans a way out, instead of simply starting to drop the bombs.
BTW, it is not a "Western" point of view. It's the point of view everybody
holds, everywhere, save for you.
Of course, by the same disingenuous reasoning, the First Gulf War began with
the bombing of Iraq by the Coalition, not with the invasion and annexation
of Kuwait - never mind that Saddam knew very well Kuwait was an ally of the
USA.
Should Macedonia attack Greece tomorrow, by the same disingenuous reasoning
it would just be a cozy two-country war, were it not for the evil NATO/OTAN
members who would honor their commitment to Greece.
IOW, you talk as if you never heard the word "alliance" before.
And in any case, had France and Britain made the choice Hitler so would have
preferred, it would not have remained a war between two countries. Germany
would then have attacked the USSR. So you'd be wrong even in that case.
>
> Overall, Wiki has a rather balanced report on WWII. A little light on
> the Eastern Front, but that is standard for westerners. About
> 800,000 military and civilians in the West were killed; about
> 27,000,000,
> in the USSR.
Rubbish figures to go with the other contents. France alone lost 350,000
civilians and 240,000 military personnel. I also notice how clever you are
to create this dichotomy between the USSR and the West. In this way, you can
let the Polish casualties, which were neither Soviet nor Western, fall into
the crack. Of course the Poles lost some 5.6 million civilians plus some
595,000 soldiers - the vast majority killed in cold blood by those poor
peace-loving Germans. In this way, you also manage to sweep under the rug
the second country in the casualty/pre-war-population ratio: Yugoslavia
8again, not a Westerner). Over 1.2 million civilians killed, we know by
whom.
Marlock
/cut
u r being very rude to the guy, as usual.
The Germans DID attack France on the 10th of May. Of course, they
chose the path through Belgium, which they considered to be
strategically more sound (hint: wwI).
They reached France later on, but France WAS the primary objective
of the operation.
So, again, as so many times before, u r letting the facts
cloud ur reasoning.
unbelievable.
John Anderton
wrote:
>Michele wrote:
>
>/cut
>
>u r being very rude to the guy, as usual.
George's attempts to re-write history to make it seem Germany wasn't
the bad guy tend to annoy a number of people.
>
>The Germans DID attack France on the 10th of May. Of course, they
> chose the path through Belgium, which they considered to be
> strategically more sound (hint: wwI).
>They reached France later on, but France WAS the primary objective
> of the operation.
I'm not sure why you've written the above in reply to Michele's post
as it doesn't seem to refer to anything he wrote in that post.
Were you referring to something written in another message ?
>So, again, as so many times before, u r letting the facts
> cloud ur reasoning.
Huh ? How do facts cloud reasoning ?
Cheers,
John
Don Phillipson
news:PM00047AD...@miso-mudrics-macbook-pro.unknown.dom...
> So, again, as so many times before, u r letting the facts
> cloud ur reasoning.
>
> unbelievable.
Readers may agree something is unbelievable about a
complaint that someone lets facts govern their reasoning.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Alan
> Well, yes and no. For certain it was not an unconditional surrender,
> since the Vichy government was able the keep direct control of the
> Southern France and the colonies. Furthermore, armistice is often a term
> used for for non-permanent or temporary peace treaties. Since Germany
> was still at war with the British, there could be no actual peace
> agreement.
Didn't Germany keep all the French POWs? I think I saw this somewhere.
Something like one of the reasons Petain had to tread lightly was the
possible maltreatment of the French POWs still in Nazi hands.
If so, then armistice seems to be the right word to me.
Alan
Rich Rostrom
wrote:
> ...this means that the German blitzkrieg skirted the capital in
> favor of pushing the Brits into The Channel.
The Battle of France did in fact have
two distinct phases.
In the first phase (which the Germans
called Case GELB (Operation YELLOW)):
On May 10, the Germans made
a strong thrust into the Netherlands
and northern Belgium to draw the Allied
left wing north. Meanwhile their main
attack (the _schwerpunkt_) moved _west_
across southern Belgium. This drive
broke through the Allied center, and
then _behind_ the Allied left wing,
reaching the Channel south of Dunkirk.
The Allied left was cut off and destroyed.
This phase ended with the fall of Dunkirk
on June 4.
During the last part of the first
phase, the Germans regrouped their
panzer divisions, while the Allies
frantically improvised a new line
across northern France.
On June 5, the second phase (Case ROT
(Operation RED)) began:
The Germans attacked south from
northern France. The Germans broke
the Allied line in several places,
and the Allied forces collapsed.
The Germans pressed on to Paris on
June 14; on June 17 France asked
for peace terms, which were signed
on June 22.
Louis C
> No. Wiki says 1940. The article on WWII takes the usual western
> point of view. The invasion of Poland was the start, not the
> declarations of war by Britain and France against Germany.
The declarations of war by Britain and France had to do with the
unprovoked German invasion of Poland. It's not as if Germany hadn't
been told, in advance and very clearly, that this was going to happen.
Hitler decided to go ahead with the invasion of Poland anyway and
let's see what those western wimps could do about it. He did.
> The conversion of a
> war between two countries was expanded into a "world war" not by
> Germany, but by Britain and France.
The conversion of a peace between everyone was expanded into a war by
Germany, with the full knowledge that this war was most likely to
escalate into a global one since the German target - Poland - had
backers. Blame Hitler for starting it all.
> About
> 800,000 military and civilians in the West were killed; about
> 27,000,000, in the USSR.
Leaving aside civilians, British + French + Belgian & Dutch military
losses come up at roughly the 800,000 you mentioned. Is it your
contention that Germany lost nobody during WWII? That would be a
first...
LC
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
don'tspamm...@tln.it (Michele) wrote:
> They wouldn't
> assault a big city head-on if that was not necessary
The Germans had suffered serious problems at Warsaw where it turned out
that panzer divisions do not do well in urban fighting. There was also
the point that the 19th century fortifications of Paris were still
largely intact. If an assault on Paris was required it would have been
done by the infantry as they followed up.
Ken Young
Michele
news:PM00047AD...@miso-mudrics-macbook-pro.unknown.dom...
> Michele wrote:
>
> /cut
>
> u r being very rude to the guy, as usual.
>
> The Germans DID attack France on the 10th of May. Of course, they
> chose the path through Belgium, which they considered to be
> strategically more sound (hint: wwI).
> They reached France later on, but France WAS the primary objective
> of the operation.
Yes. Note that
a) the above has nothing to do with the usual attempt by the other poster to
rewrite history with Germany as the poor peace-loving victims, and
b) nothing of what I wrote denied the above.
> So, again, as so many times before, u r letting the facts
> cloud ur reasoning.
>
Hey thanks. A compliment. Yes, I always try to base my reasoning upon facts.
I find them better foundations than prejudices, or "logic" (where the
definition of logic actually is ungrounded personal musings).
> unbelievable.
>
No. Many people here prefer facts, if at all possible correct facts (as
opposed to the other poster's phoney figures). They all believe much more in
facts than in "it must have been so because I'm strongly convinced of that".
Please also be aware that the other poster's revisionist attempts (here
"revisionist" must be taken in the worst sense) always fail with people who
do know their history, like most people here. But they have a chance of
success with less knowledgeable people.
pbromaghin
> No. Wiki says 1940. The article on WWII takes the usual western
> point of view. The invasion of Poland was the start, not the
> declarations
> of war by Britain and France against Germany. The conversion of a
> war between two countries was expanded into a "world war" not by
> Germany, but by Britain and France.
George, for years I have wondered several things about your line of
reasoning. Your universe appears to be a very fascinating place and I
would like to know more about it.
1) What would you have Britain and France do while Germany invades
their neighbors, steals their land and property, rapes the women,
kills the intelligentsia and enslaves everybody else?
2) What is so special about Nazi Germany that they should be allowed
to do these things without alarming the rest of the neighborhood?
3) How long should Germany be allowed to gobble up its neighbors one
by one before the other neighbors have a right to react militarily?
3) How does Germany, primarily a land power, threaten the British
Empire?
4) How does a general war in Europe protect the British Empire?
5) Why does Great Britain start a general war in Europe to protect an
empire that it has already begun to dismantle?
6) Why would France participate in protecting the British Empire?
7) Why would Britain and France start a general war in Europe when
they had already sacrificed an entire generation of their male
population and nearly bankrupted themselves in another war with
Germany little more than 20 years earlier?