Battle of France, 1940
|
Modern Era
|
7 comments
| Adolf Hitler and Walther von Brauchitsch versus Maurice Gamelin: A French army under Gamelin sits on the defensive to defend against the expected onslaught of a German army under Hitler and Brauchitsch. Hitler and Brauchitsch are overseeing the Manstein Plan; can it accomplish what the Schlieffen Plan did not? Also known as the Fall of France, Operation Fall Gelb and Operation Fall Rot. Includes the Battles of the Netherlands, Belgium, Fort Eban-Emael, Sedan, Arras, Colmar and the Evacuation of Dunkirk. Click on the image below to view.
 Today this is perhaps the most chilling battle to recall. This battle resulted in the supremacy of Hitler’s Nazi regime in Europe and allowed for future invasions. In hindsight, it is common knowledge that Hitler was vanquished in the end after significant loss of life but in 1940 this did not seem imminent. The fall of France left Britain as the sole opposition to Nazi aggression with little of hope of victory. It is impossible to comprehend the shock and fear those opposed to Hitler felt in 1940 when France – always a check to Germany’s power – collapsed in a matter of weeks.
There are a great number of explanations for France’s defeat and Germany’s victory. Disparities in organization, spirit, mindset, tactical doctrine, technology and mobilization are valid but only explain the underlying factors in the result. The actual plans and deployments of forces are still of utmost importance in explaining how Germany defeated France so decisively. The clearest example of poor allocation of units is at the Maginot Line. On this front, 14 German divisions tied down 45 French divisions. The Maginot Line was a significant defensive line and theoretically should not need such superiority in numbers to be effective. This left 121 German divisions to face 114 French and allied divisions, a completely unnecessary scenario.
 For such a recent and famous battle, my animation is certain to stir controversy at seemingly trivial levels. For example, the decision to distinguish the two sides as “France and allies” and “Germany and allies” may undermine the role Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy played in the battle. I sought to simplify the battle and place it in the context of the Franco-Prussian War and World War I as clashes between France and Germany.
The decision to include Italian divisions in the total strength of the “Germany and allies” was an easy one. Italy only officially declared war after the battle was decided – and attacked even later – but the presence of 32 divisions in the Alps must be appreciated. The French Army of the Alps comprised ten divisions on May 10. This was not a token force but a sizeable one expected to repel an Italian attack; when Italy did attack, only six were present but the attack was blunted.
In regards to size of armies and overall tally of divisions: only divisions that could be accounted for specifically are included. Works on the Battle of France list only 94 French divisions taking part in the battle. I added ten divisions in the Army of the Alps and five divisions in the reserves of Army Groups 2 and 3, which for some reason were not tallied in the commonly cited figure of 94. My figure can be confirmed in the lengthy record of the French Army during World War II by the Service Historique de l’Armée de Terre (1967).
The figures provided for tanks and aircraft are only intended to impress upon the viewer the fact that Germany enjoyed air superiority and that France possessed just as many tanks but did not employ them as effectively. Exact figures are near impossible because of the subjectivity in deciding which vehicles should be counted. Equipment figures are taken directly from Buell et al’s The Second World War: Europe and the Mediterranean and personnel figures are taken directly from Ripley’s The Wehrmacht: The German Army of World War II, 1939-1945; Italian figures for equipment and personnel were added to the German side based on Jowett’s The Italian Army 1940-1945.
In reality, the French command structure involved another level between army group and high command. Joseph-Alphonse Georges occupied position of Commander-in-Chief of Allied Forces Northeastern France. This level did not play any role in the battle and was omitted for the purpose of clarity.
Some viewers may be disappointed by this animation because not everything was covered in depth. I opted not to zoom in to illustrate the battles at Fort Eben-Emael, Sedan, Arras, Dunkirk, Colmar etc. This was not laziness as I reasoned that too much tactical detail would detract from the strategic level of events.
Researching this battle was interesting to say the least. There was a wealth of information on most aspects of the battle but some details were difficult to obtain. This is the only animation thus far where I have “lost” an entire army and all of its ten divisions. All of my sources spoke of a 32-division Italian army group yet they only showed two armies: 1. and 4 Italian. These two armies comprised only 22 divisions so I did what any frustrated researcher does. I went to the library. I found a few more sources, which spoke of my missing army: 7. Italian. It was at this time when I truly appreciated having McMaster University’s library at my disposal.
- Jonathan Webb
Tell a Friend:
            Tags: 1900s, Adolf Hitler, aircraft, armour, Belgians, belgium, britain, british, dutch, envelopment of a single flank, envelopment of both flanks, france, french, Germans, germany, holland, infantry, Italians, italy, land, Maurice Gamelin, Maxime Weygand, modern day France, Modern Era, netherlands, penetration of the center, Season 4, Walther von Brauchitsch, Western Europe, World War II, World War II - Western Front
 |
SPONSORED SITES
|
|
|
||
Supported Sites |
Supported Readings |
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Once A Marine | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
Loading ...
7 Comments to “Battle of France, 1940”
EXCELLLLLLLENTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
By Simon Joyner on Nov 9, 2009 at 7:57 am
In the description of the kickoff of the campaign you state: “Army Group A easily pushes the Dutch and Belgian Armies back”. I believe that should state “Army Group B”.
Otherwise very nice. Just found your site and am enjoying it.
By DavidB on Nov 18, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Thanks for pointing the mistake out Mr. Joyner; it will be corrected in the next wave of edits. I’m glad you’re enjoying the site and encourage you to make any requests for battles you’d like to see.
By Jonathan Webb on Nov 27, 2009 at 3:28 am
thanks for the battles. i have watched several other battles but cant watch this one, can u fix it please.
thnks
By sarwan on Dec 5, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Really liking the site. Wish I had found it sooner. I plan to inform my future students of your work. The visual aspect will be a great learning tool for them. Continue your great work!
By Karen on Mar 29, 2010 at 2:50 am
The stuka dive bomber and the panzer 2 tank won the battle of france.I don’t care what anyone says,those 2 bozos who wrote panzerkrieg said the p3 and 4 won in france WRONG!When you examine the battle of poland and france what tank was the backbone of germany’s blitzkrieg?The panzer 2 Hitler owed more to this tank than anyother of ww2
By Brad Daft on Jun 16, 2010 at 1:36 am
And the italian m13/40 was a great tank!Yes i said it becouse if the french somoa was armed with a 47mm well so was the m13/40 folks!
By Brad Daft on Jun 16, 2010 at 1:40 am