Put some numbers down.
In all likelihood very few. I admit that the term re-enforcements made little sense here as they presumably wouldn't have made much difference.
Clarify the route taken from Egypt to Poland.
Through Romania.
Put some numbers down.
Clarify the route taken from Egypt to Poland.
Perhaps they still could help Poland if francs deploy own troops in Poland few thousand French soldiers might made some what different.So the incapability of the French Army in 1939 proves that there is really no way the Allied can help Poland in the same time?
Perhaps they still could help Poland if francs deploy own troops in Poland few thousand French soldiers might made some what different.
So the incapability of the French Army in 1939 proves that there is really no way the Allied can help Poland in the same time?
France/UK could have done a full mobilization when they gave Poland the guarantee around April of 1939. Even this might be too late for the military part, but it probably gets Hitler to back down.
full mobilization is not something taken lightly. In both cases (French and British) it's economically debilitating; in France's case they have 1.5 million men pulled out of the economy to set in trenches and do nothing (where they must be paid/clothed/fed/entertained/housed); the British mobilization schemes require massive seizure of shipping which is also economically painful.... even Germany didn't begin real general mobilization till august; their only difference was they had build their standing army to a considerable size (60ish divisions albeit only half of those had been in colors more than 12 months) and Germany's maintainence of that standing army (even for the little bit it had grown so big) was bankrupting them very rapidly; so much so that their economic windfall from czechoslovakia was burnt up in 120 days
What kind of POD do you think is needed to have a more ready France?
Agreed, but providing war guarantees when one is too weak to enforce should not be taken lightly. Reading on how these troops lacked training, they need to be mobilized for the training alone. There is little point to relying on a two front war when the other side can't survive long enough for you to mobilize and train your forces.
Now maybe full mobilization is too much, but the French needed to at least match the Germans with active and fully trained divisions of equal or greater number.
Most of the obstacle you mention come from their political instability especially in the thirties it is difficult to have coherent policy when some government did not last a month there was even once that lasted only 3 day.The POD needs to be years in advance (35 would be well enough)
first and foremost the french have to realize that like artillery consumption in the last war; the air war in the next conflict will involve mega use of resources ie super high sortie rates and they need to train their airforce to conduct campaigns in that matter; also they need to recognize that their enemies will hit them with high sortie rates and that it is vital to have early warning and well developed divisional AA. concentrating their airforce for purely tactical purposes whilst leaving strategic items for the british would be well thought out and valuable
second their army and it's equipment in the interwar years was way too fucking big and sucked up money on dead ends. they had more armored vehichle designs than Germany in service. They were maintaining 3000 ft-17's parcelled out to the infantry divisions in 1940they also had 6000 obsolete artillery pieces in service; had those items been retired in the 20's or at least 1935 they could have directed the enormous sums they spent on national defense to more useful items like Souma 35 tanks and AA guns.
now these things won't incline France towards a headlong offensive into the west wall (with a pod after ww1 this is asb) BUT they will be more prepared to defend their homeland
Through Romania.
Most of the obstacle you mention come from their political instability especially in the thirties it is difficult to have coherent policy when some government did not last a month there was even once that lasted only 3 day.
I disagree,
The French government for all of it's problems spent enormous sums on national defense; giving the army everything they asked for and only one directive; protect the country from invasion by Germany which they failed miserably at
The defects in the French armed forces can be laid at the military's hands alone; they certainly didn't suffer from a lack of funds or support
This.
90 % of French failures on WWII was because its massive number of armchair Generals and their tendency to assume that number of tanks, artillery and all that means everything instead of changing obsolete pieces.
IMHO they DID discovered this mistake in the end of the 30´s and try to correct it, but it was already too late ...
Maybe they implicate a bit more in the SCW and they notice how horrible outclassed were their designs? It worked for Germans and Russians ( or at least for the T34 designers at least ) A bit late IMHO but maybe ...
But it is known right that the French tanks were generally superior than their German counterpart? The Somua tank for instance or the Char heavy tank.
In armor and firepower, true, but not so much in autonomy or communication. They were made to break through trenches, not to blitzkrieg.
But it is known right that the French tanks were generally superior than their German counterpart? The Somua tank for instance or the Char heavy tank.