Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Liberty, Fraternity, and a Good Cheap Wine. A French Textbook AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(140338)

unmerged(140338)

Captain
6 Badges
Apr 23, 2009
344
0
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Divine Wind
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Pillars of Eternity


ARMA 1.2 Normal/Furious with DAIM installed and an IC boost to Axis and Comintern

Good afternoon students, and welcome to MHS221 French Military History. Lecture notes will be put online as well as review questions. A final exam will be held at the end of the term. I’m not a stickler for attendance, although some things that are covered in class will not be covered in the lecture notes so it would be best for your final grade to attend class whenever possible. It is expected that readings will be completed before class so as to further in-class discussion. Now if there are no questions would you all be so kind as to turn to page 1 where we look up to the year 1938 and the actions leading up to the war.

OOC: This is my first textbook AAR, and i might try and lace some humor into it.
 
Chapter One: A France Divided

Preface

The year is 1938, after the annexation of Austria, and the capture of the Sudetenland in the treaty of Munich, Hitler continues to look east towards Czechoslovakia, and Poland. France stands as the bastion of all that is free and democratic on the continent. For most of the 1930s France was in the depression with the rest of the world. With an economy crippled by a defunct government and a population rising in rebellion, France was clearly in a decline, and in the worst shape that it had ever seen since the Franco-Prussian war. In 1936 the popular front was elected, leading to a placation of some of the civilian ills, but movements on monetary policy and the lack of French mechanization had meant that France was no longer a competitive economy. Forced to sit by as Hitler re-armed, France finished the Maginot line in Alsace-Loraine, but was too mired in her own economic difficulties to do anything more than posture behind her bastions. The Anschluss of Austria, led to increased government funding into armaments, leading to the expansion of the navy, as well as to the expansion of some of the armed forces.

Technological Advances of the late 1930s

France was stuck in a defensive mentality that was suited to their new posture of being the bastion that the foe will smash against, and to this end Maurice Gamelin published his works on expanded doctrinal plan to defend France using massed counter assaults against the enemy. This advance (if it could be called that) did lead to the modernization of French forces in the last half of the 1930s with significant gains in motorized infantry.



Political movements in the late 1930s

In the late 1930s to the south of france the Spanish civil war raged. the Chief of the army Gamelin thought it would be wise to post a guard at the border. 5 divisions were dispatched into the mountains and along the borders. Despite the fighting coming close to the border, both republicans and nationalists respected the border, and the French military guarding it. in 1938 it was clear however that the republicans were going to lose, as they were pushed further and further north, until the nationalists had surrounded the last republican stronghold of Barcelona. The siege lasted for several weeks, as the nationalists were weakened, and the republicans had made a stronghold of the city, but repeated artillery bombardment led the city to fall.



Review Questions

1) When looking at the French military doctrine post 1918 over the next twenty years, what would you say would be a reasonable alternative to the defensive doctrine of the French?
2) why do you believe such a doctrine existed?
3) in what way do you believe the election of the leftist popular front in 1936 changed the way France conducted her foreign policy, especially when it comes to appeasement?
 
alexon47 said:
Chapter One: A France Divided

Preface


Review Questions

1) When looking at the French military doctrine post 1918 over the next twenty years, what would you say would be a reasonable alternative to the defensive doctrine of the French?
2) why do you believe such a doctrine existed?
3) in what way do you believe the election of the leftist popular front in 1936 changed the way France conducted her foreign policy, especially when it comes to appeasement?
Click to expand...

Well I'm not a expert Military Historician and most important: French History, but History is my hobby, for that i gonna help

R.1/ The main Issue of France was who they knew that was first British 'help'(Read the BEF, money, resource and a lot more) and later American one who save them from both Internal and Military Collapse Against the Germans in WW1, and that indirectly left a very bad side effect(the lost generation in france was worse that any another place), And that was reflect during the Sitkrieg... they want a repetition of the WW1 and waiting for a more decisive breakthroug make by france quickly before the interal dissident become to high(for that the Maginot Line), but forgotten the same de Gaule preaching about 'modern warfare'(in reference to doctrine not to equipment who was very aceptable and powerful), in fact the only best doctrine for france is a copy face of the blitzkrieg backward....

R2/ The Blitzkrieg is the most short term best answer(but not the panacea), in fact, Equal to Germany, France can Easily applied the Blitzkrieg(the roads are the equal of easy in both sense) and is better because having the offensive will save france industrial assets in the ww2 unlike the ww1(who was constered almost all the war)

R3/ the answer is a Yes in half way, that is because the socialist appealed to a 'pacifism'(but in the practice was more ambigous) doctrine and relationship thanks to the effects of the lost generation in french society

that was my answer, pretty basic, sorry lack of time to research thanks to the U(my degree is Economics, not history even if i want Economical and Political History like my emphasis), another one i will help better

Att
Nivek von Beldo
 
alexon47 said:

Review Questions

1) When looking at the French military doctrine post 1918 over the next twenty years, what would you say would be a reasonable alternative to the defensive doctrine of the French?
2) why do you believe such a doctrine existed?
3) in what way do you believe the election of the leftist popular front in 1936 changed the way France conducted her foreign policy, especially when it comes to appeasement?
Click to expand...

Being tested in an AAR of all places, but I'm game.

1). IMO the main problem with the French doctrines was that they learned the wrong lessons from the Great War. The French High Command anticipated a war like the Great War, with the enormous advantages the defending side had over the attacking side. Therefore the French prepared a defensive position they thought to be unbreakable. Firstly because of the flawed assumption that the defence still had the primate over offense. Secondly to prevent the slaughter of the first worldwar.
France failed to capitalise on the advancement of technology to break the stalemate. The French army possessed the most and some of the best tanks of the 1930s and Colonel De Gaulle wrote an important thesis on the use of these tanks, yet the High Command failed to pick up on these advances. They weakened their armored branch by distributing tanks among infantrydivisions, to support the infantry.
An alternative could have been following the tactics of Colonel De Gaulle, using either a fluid defence or a preemptive strike instead of the inflexible defence the Maginot-line presented.

2). The French reliance on the Maginotline was understandable. Useless attacks and substandard defensive lines had cost France millions of lives during the great war. French doctrines and policies where all aimed at preventing the slaughter of the first worldwar.

3). It was kind of ironic that political colour didn't seem to matter when it came to appeasement. Leftwing Dallardier and conservative Chamberlain appeased at the same level. Rightwing politicians like Laval would later accuse the political left of selling out France, but they didn't protest at the time. Rightwing governments where more prone to pointless bluster towards Germany, but didn't hold a truly noteworthy policy.
 
Chapter 1.1: The building of the Napoleon Line

The Napoleon line was an extension of the Maginot line that was to be built to defend the northern French border from an incursion through Belgium. The thought behind the line was that the expansionist policy of Germany would lead to her striking again with Hitler at the forefront. With the economy in shambles, the project served for the new French economic revitalization plan called “Une Direction Nouvelle.” Started after the Munich treaty that led to the loss of the Sudetenland, hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen that were previously out on the streets starving, or barely making enough to live on were employed all along the northern border. In addition to this it was decided that the army was to be expanded as soon as the resources could be found. Currently these were being used in the upgrade of French forces.



An excerpt from “Dunkirk to Berlin” The memoirs of Lt Gen Krzycki: Major of la Brigade ingénierie deuxieme

Work continued every day, ceaselessly, around the clock. It took years for the Maginot line to be completed, and the napoleon line was longer then that even still. In the fields along the border, ditches were dug, and concrete was being poured. New factories were being built and others were being repurposed to create the guns, the concrete and the rebar to build the new bunkers. In the plains, the bunkers were low, and extended far underground, with only the gun turrets popping out of the land. In the hills, rises were carved out so as to shelter the huge caverns inside.
The biggest problem we have is with the daily ration of wine. Quite simply we never expected to have to deal with the sheer amount of men we were employing. We’re down to a 4 weeks supply of red and a 7 week supply of white. With all the men that were pulled from the fields for better pay, it appears there aren’t enough left in the fields to meet the demand. I am submitting an idea to Major General Sharpe on importing beer from Belgium to cover the demand.


Review Questions:

1) What do you think the appropriate German response to the Napoleon Line would be? Do you think it might have spurred the war with German-Czech War later in the year?
 
alexon47 said:

Review Questions:

1) What do you think the appropriate German response to the Napoleon Line would be? Do you think it might have spurred the war with German-Czech War later in the year?
Click to expand...


1). The Napoleon Line would provide a major obstacle to the German Plans for invading France. Any kind of Schlieffenplan-like offensive would be almost impossible. However, the Napoleon Line was still weaker than the formidable Maginot Line. A possible course of action could be an airborne landing at one of the main points, opening up a corridor for the advancing panzer. Such a plan was contemplated for dealing with the Belgian fortress of Eben Emael.

The German-Czech War gave the Germans the chance to test their tactics and doctrines for breaking through the French lines. The Czech fortifications in hilly Sudetenland where stronger than the Napoleon Line, even if the French army was stronger than the Czech one.
 
I must say that this kind of AAR's always make me happy. I sure hope that you will continue this, and atleast hold the germans.

Review Questions:

1) What do you think the appropriate German response to the Napoleon Line would be? Do you think it might have spurred the war with German-Czech War later in the year?
Click to expand...

I think that building the new Napoleon Line would atleast convince the German High Command that France was looking further then their own border and that the France "agressive" politics would mean that the german need to show the world that they aren't afraid for any kind of defensive line.

So showing their Fortress Assault skills they targeted the Czech.

I think this would be a good reply from the Germans in my eyes. Although the Anschluss of the country would be better for them then showing their theeth and lossing some good men/planes/tanks/truck.
 
Last edited:
A war in Czechoslovakia.



The Germano-Czech war was the Casus Beli of the British some weeks later, however the adequate reasoning for the war has never been truly found. It appears that Hitler sent an ultimatum to the Czechs stating that they should become fully incorporated into the German Reich. When the Czechs refused German demands, the Germans attacked in force, completely overwhelming the brave but otherwise outclassed Czechs. Nevertheless, they fought on bravely into mid April against an enemy that outclassed them in a great many different regards.

The German tactics of the German-Czech war.
German tactics revolved around a breakthrough with armor, encircling the enemy and destroying them. Advanced German tank doctrine, as well as them seizing outer Czech fortresses in the treaty of Munich in 1938 meant that the Czechs were defenseless to the German onslaught. The one place where the Germans had trouble was the city of Prague, but after the Czech loss of Kutina Hora, the city fell under massive Arial raids by stuka dive bombers combined with heavy combined arms assaults.



The secondary Czech line was in Slovakia, and it took the Germans three weeks to break through Bratislava, the second capital to finally force annexation of the Czech forces. This is mainly thought to be the case because of hilly terrain to the north of the city, but also due to a fierce Czech resistance movement that masqueraded as civilians who smashed German armored columns that had penetrated the city. Eventually an entire army corps was forced to be detached from the main assault just to secure the city from partisans.

Western Intervention.



On April 1 the United Kingdom and her allies declared war upon the German Reich for her attacks upon the republic of Czechoslovakia. With the majority of her forces in the east, to the west the French mounted assaults into the Hindenburg line, and northward towards Cologne, Aachen, And Dortmund.




1) Do you think the British response was justified under the cause of Just War?
2) Do you believe an alternate diplomatic settlement could have been reached, possibly using an intermediary?
3) What do you believe the long term implications of the early French attack would be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back