Resistance to German Onslaught 1939-40
Gareth G Davis
I'm trying to find out about how the Germans were able to overun what had
been considered some fairly substantial powers early on in the war. In
their conquest of Europe they came up against a great variety of enemies.
The relative performances of these countries in resisting Germany seems
to differ substantially but never seems to be discussed. Generally my
impressions (and I would love to see this discussed by people who know
more) are as follows;
1) Poles- always felt they got the wrong end of the stick. They are held
up as an obselete army that was rapidly overwhelmed (the old stereotype
of horses charging tanks). In fact I believe they held out for 6 weeks or
so which, when compared to France and Western Europe, was a pretty good
performance.
2)Norway- inflicted very heavy casualities on the Germans. They almost
succeeded in driving the Germans back into the sea and were unlucky. I
would rate the performnace of the Norwegain armed forces above that of
any other 1939-40 conquered nation.
3)Denmark- Pretty cowardly. Certainly Jutland was indefensible but surely
the islands (including Copenhagen) could have been defended. They
surrendered in less han two hours with the German landing force sailing
into Copenhage harbour right beneath the guns of a fort and past two tied up
Danish naval vessels without being fired at.
4)Netherlands- Actually a fairly substantial power pre-WWII with a big
navy. They didn't have the ideal territory to defend and held for three
days. Their ground forces seem to have done pretty well against the
German paratroops
5) Belgium- Good Territory to defend and they had doen a lot of
preparation. But their performance and teh commande of tehir King was
terrible. Their sudden surrender left a huge gap in the Allied lines.
6) France- Terrible. What can I say? A larger air-force, army and more
tanks than the Germans and the still lost.
I'd like any comments on these and in particiular information on how the
Airforces and armour (if any) of these nations performed.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some day these people are gonna get good government, and they ain't
gonna like it one bit".
Huey Long
(Former Louisiana Governor and Senator)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Aforandy
In article <4l0soi$1...@portal.gmu.edu>, gda...@mason2.gmu.edu (Gareth G
Davis) writes:
>1) Poles- always felt they got the wrong end of the stick. They are held
>up as an obselete army that was rapidly overwhelmed (the old stereotype
>of horses charging tanks). In fact I believe they held out for 6 weeks or
>so which, when compared to France and Western Europe, was a pretty good
>performance.
Even German tank losses were bad, losses overall of men
and material on the winning side speak for themselves.
>2)Norway- inflicted very heavy casualities on the Germans. They almost
>succeeded in driving the Germans back into the sea and were unlucky. I
>would rate the performnace of the Norwegain armed forces above that of
>any other 1939-40 conquered nation.
They did well, the few got into combat, but the Germans displayed some
excellent tactics over terrain that favoured the defence - if there was
one.
>3)Denmark- Pretty cowardly. Certainly Jutland was indefensible but surely
>the islands (including Copenhagen) could have been defended. They
>surrendered in less han two hours with the German landing force sailing
>into Copenhage harbour right beneath the guns of a fort and past two tied
up
>Danish naval vessels without being fired at.
Practically part of Germany anyway, lots of pro-Germans.
>4)Netherlands- Actually a fairly substantial power pre-WWII with a big
>navy. They didn't have the ideal territory to defend and held for three
>days. Their ground forces seem to have done pretty well against the
>German paratroops
Too little time to judge. officers are supposed to have done well as far
as this means anything.
>5) Belgium- Good Territory to defend and they had doen a lot of
>preparation. But their performance and teh commande of tehir King was
>terrible. Their sudden surrender left a huge gap in the Allied lines.
Lets say a weak version of the French.
>6) France- Terrible. What can I say? A larger air-force, army and more
>tanks than the Germans and the still lost.
So we see that size and numbers mean little, doctrine, quality
and leadership everything, whether on the offense or defense.
There was the issue of the Maginot Line consuming resources
and the military budget. The political atmosphere was about as
bad as it could be.
>I'd like any comments on these and in particiular information on how the
>Airforces and armour (if any) of these nations performed.
>
Given that in most cases there weren't any "Airforces and armour"
the blitz victim's air and armour did very well - if it got into combat.
Same for the Norwegian reservists, they could have done well is alerted
weeks beforehand. It is last minute mobilisation that rather undermines
your original question, these soldiers never got a chance to show thir
prowess.
Brave and effective French Char B commanders and Polish fighter pilots
made their presence felt. But strategic rather than tactical success
wins wars.
Andy
Paul F Austin
In article <4l0soi$1...@portal.gmu.edu> gda...@mason2.gmu.edu (Gareth G Davis) writes:
>From: gda...@mason2.gmu.edu (Gareth G Davis)
>Subject: Resistance to German Onslaught 1939-40
>Date: 16 Apr 1996 19:34:42 GMT
<snip>
>1) Poles- always felt they got the wrong end of the stick. They are held
>up as an obselete army that was rapidly overwhelmed (the old stereotype
>of horses charging tanks). In fact I believe they held out for 6 weeks or
>so which, when compared to France and Western Europe, was a pretty good
>performance.
The Poles had a monumental strategy problem. They were afraid (rightfully)
that the Sovs would land in the middle of their back if/when the Germans
attacked so that they had to maintain a substantial part of their army in the
east, facing Russia.
In addition, the British and French wussed out. If they had demonstrated
against the Ruhr, the Germans would have been facing a 2-front war.
<snip>
>5) Belgium- Good Territory to defend and they had doen a lot of
>preparation. But their performance and teh commande of tehir King was
>terrible. Their sudden surrender left a huge gap in the Allied lines.
The Belgians were afraid of "provoking" the Germans by integrating their
defense plans with the French, so they didn't. They had a fairly effective set
of border fortifications and water obstacles but the Germans were able to turn
them using inovation and energy.
>6) France- Terrible. What can I say? A larger air-force, army and more
>tanks than the Germans and the still lost.
France was the key. The French suffered so badly in WWI that they couldn't
muster the will to resist Germany. They started rearming late and
half-heartedly and the troop's moral was terrible. Although to be fair, the
Brits continued to adhere to the "Ten Year Rule" until 1936 (IIRC).
"Into that deadly den of sin
Into that Harlots's Hell
Strode a maid who wasn't afraid
And her name was Eskimo Nell"
-------------------------------------
Paul Austin
PAU...@HARRIS.COM
PC J|rgensen
> 2)Norway- inflicted very heavy casualities on the Germans. They almost
> succeeded in driving the Germans back into the sea and were unlucky. I
> would rate the performnace of the Norwegain armed forces above that of
> any other 1939-40 conquered nation.
Thanks, but I think you are being far too good on the Norwegian war
effort. We had our lucky breaks, though, and the units that saw
combat proved surprisingly though.
-- Per
--
Per Christian Jxrgensen
Graduate Student
Department of East European and Oriental Languages
University of Oslo
Norway
M.Rapier
In article <4l0soi$1...@portal.gmu.edu>, gda...@mason2.gmu.edu says...
>
>
>I'm trying to find out about how the Germans were able to overun what had
>been considered some fairly substantial powers early on in the war. In
{snip}
>1) Poles- always felt they got the wrong end of the stick. They are held
>up as an obselete army that was rapidly overwhelmed (the old stereotype
>of horses charging tanks). In fact I believe they held out for 6 weeks or
>so which, when compared to France and Western Europe, was a pretty good
>performance.
They did have an obsolete army, though it was quite large. Thei biggest
problem was its deployment. They were determined to defend their industrial
areas around Poznan, and even formed an assault force an attack to Berlin.
Their Army ended being strung out along their border, outflanked from East
Prussia and Czechoslovakia, and was unsurprisingly cut to pieces by a fairly
conventional German 'Kesselslacht' or 'encirclement battle'. A more successful
strategy may have been to concentrate on the river lines in side Poland, but
Russian intervention would still have doomed them.
The bulk of the small Polish airforce was destroyed by the Luftwaffe and their
were some minor Polish armoured units, but many of these were overrun before
they could assemble. Germna armoured units suffered quite heavy losses, mainly
due to breakdowns and street fighting in Warsaw, but as most of these were
PzIs & IIs, were not a great loss. As the Panzerwaffe was able to rapidly
expand to 10 divisions after Poland, their long term losses were not that
great.
>2)Norway- inflicted very heavy casualities on the Germans. They almost
>succeeded in driving the Germans back into the sea and were unlucky. I
>would rate the performnace of the Norwegain armed forces above that of
>any other 1939-40 conquered nation.
Hardly very heavy, a few thousand. The only place there was any danger of the
Germans being driven back was at Narvik, but the rapid establishment of the
Luftwaffe in new bases in southern Norway extinguished any hope of a
successful defence and Allied intervention. The German Navy was crippled by
its shipping losses, but the Royal Navy also lost the CV Glorious. A few RAF
planes were flown into Norway (incl Gladiator Biplanes) but they were rapidly
overwhelmed.
>3)Denmark- Pretty cowardly. Certainly Jutland was indefensible but surely
>the islands (including Copenhagen) could have been defended. They
>surrendered in less han two hours with the German landing force sailing
>into Copenhage harbour right beneath the guns of a fort and past two tied up
>Danish naval vessels without being fired at.
As other posters have pointed out, Denmark was virtually a part of Germany.
The SS Viking division turned out to be one of the best SS divisions composed
of foreign volunteers, many of whom were Danish.
>4)Netherlands- Actually a fairly substantial power pre-WWII with a big
>navy. They didn't have the ideal territory to defend and held for three
>days. Their ground forces seem to have done pretty well against the
>German paratroops
They had excellent defensive terrain - loads of rivers and canals, though
obviously an inexperienced Army. Their river lines were circumvented by the
use of paratroops & special forces (Brandenburg Div). Most ground forces do
well against lightly armed paras - just look at Crete & Arnhem. The German
paras were particulalrly handicapped by their eccentric drop techniques (_all_
their weapons dropped seperately apart from pistols & grenades). The Dutch did
pretty well under the circumstances. 9th Panzer Div overran the country
rapidly, but faced no armoured opposition & the tiny Dutch airforce was wiped
out in hours.
>5) Belgium- Good Territory to defend and they had doen a lot of
>preparation. But their performance and teh commande of tehir King was
>terrible. Their sudden surrender left a huge gap in the Allied lines.
Again, the Belgians had a large army, fairly well equipped by the standards of
the time. They did a lot more to delay the German advance through the Ardennes
than the French. Their performance was not particulalrly bad, they fought as
best they could against Von Bocks army group. Their surrender did leave a gap
in the lines, but as the bulk of their country had been overrun by then, it
was hardly surprising.
I don't have any info on Belgian armour, theugh the Germans deployed Hoepners
Panzer Corps to attack Belgium & make a noisy demonstration to draw down the
Allied mobile reserves. There was heavy fighting with French armour near
Gembloux.
The Belgian airforce was equipped with a lot of British equipment - esp.
Hurricanes & Battles.
>6) France- Terrible. What can I say? A larger air-force, army and more
>tanks than the Germans and the still lost.
A victory of style over content ;). German tactical, operational and strategic
doctrine was superior. Read Alistair Hornes 'To Lose a Battle' for as good any
account as any of the 1940 campaign & its background.
Their were isolated examples of heroic actions by French units, but their
overall direction was lacking. The French airforce actually got _stronger_
during the battle, but was poorly deployed. Many French tanks were far
superior to their German counterparts, but suffered from a lack of radios,
poor reliability & shot range - which meant many were simply abandoned for
lack of fuel during fast moving battles.
The eventual defence of the Somme was actually more effective than the first
part of the camapign as he French rapidly devised tactics of defence on depth
to counter concentrated Panzer attacks, but by then the ratio of strength had
shifted too much in the Germans favour.
Cheers.
Martin.
PC J|rgensen
In article <4l2l7m$8...@castle.nando.net>, afor...@aol.com (Aforandy)
wrote:
> >3)Denmark- Pretty cowardly. Certainly Jutland was indefensible but surely
>
> >the islands (including Copenhagen) could have been defended. They
> >surrendered in less han two hours with the German landing force sailing
> >into Copenhage harbour right beneath the guns of a fort and past two tied
> up
> >Danish naval vessels without being fired at.
>
> Practically part of Germany anyway, lots of pro-Germans.
Whatever the reason or more probably reasons were for Denmark not fighting
in '40, I find it difficult to see pro-German sentiment as the major one.
There was pro-German sentiment, sure, as in all Scandinavian countries,
but there was also a lot of anti-German sentiment and resentment
in Denmark. The scars from the fights over the mixed-population duchy of
Schleswig-Holstein/Slesvig-Holsten had not healed entirely, and
territorial claims were feared by a lot of Danes (some see the popularity
of the largest Danish nazi/collaborationist party in the Danish part of
the duchy as a result of opportunism -- the German
minority, by the way, had their own branch of the NSDAP).
Anyway, as my great-grandpa was a good Jutlender and Dane, I resent being
told that Denmark is 'practically part of Germany anyway' :-)
Per Chr. Jxrgensen
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
M.Ra...@sheffield.ac.uk (M.Rapier) writes:
>As other posters have pointed out, Denmark was virtually a part of Germany.
>The SS Viking division turned out to be one of the best SS divisions composed
>of foreign volunteers, many of whom were Danish.
Denmark was and is in no way a part of Germany.
There were still strong sentiments against Germany from the
Danish-Preussian War of 1864, when Schleswig and Holstein were lost
(Northern Schleswig returning to Denmark after WWI)
There also seem to have been different views concerning small details like
race - about 98 % of the Danish Jews got away.
It is correct that some Danes volunteered for the German armed forces -
most in the SS - first in "Frikorps Danmark", which was disbanded in 1943
due to losses and lack of volunteers, whereafter the remnants were
incorperated in SS Panzergrenadier Regiment Danemark.
The "Frikorps" was one of the units raised to fight Bolschevism from the
occupied countries - and it seems that only about 20% of the volunteers
were Nazis.
There were also some Danes who had volunteered to fight for Finland in
the Winter War, and who also fought in the "Continuation war"
The number of Danes serving on the Allied Side was much larger however,
and many many Danish sailors were lost in the North Atlantic.
And some units of the Danish armed forces DID resist the invasion on their own
initiative, the local regiment from where I live taking some casualties,
and the Royal Life Guards didn't stop fighting until the King personally told
them to cease fire.
Since the government had not ordered a general mobilization, and most of
the defense budget had been spent on obsolete fortifications around
Copenhagen the resitance was futile.
Having a somewhat pacifist government did't help either.