LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Maginot line was fine. The problem was that the French didn’t build it all the way to the sea. They assumed the Germans would never invade the weak Benelux and just bypass the line.

Which was pretty stupid of the French at the time, since in WWI the German's did exactly that. The certainty that was held by Allied commanders that the same course of events wouldn't repeat has always baffled me.

 ingtaer wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:

Excommunicatus wrote:Churchill was so terrified that his army wasn't up to snuff that he sent them on what was effectively a preseason training camp in North Africa (while the Red Army got on with the business at hand), where Rommel ran rings around them for the majority of the campaign.

The French government was in disarray between the wars and Gamelin's military plans took no account of reality.

If 'stupid' is synonymous with 'naive' for present purposes, then it's perfectly possible to argue that yes, Britain and France were stupid and weak between the wars, without relying too much on hindsight.

For someone who complains about history memes its really quite hypocritical for you then to post such utter drivel.
.

Which part of it is wrong, my love?

The first paragraph in its entirety, Honey. Churchill wasn't PM at the start of the war, the Soviets were not in the war until 2 years later and Rommel wasn't in the desert until about then. Even then the British desert army consisted of units assigned to the defence of the client state of Egypt (or occupy them depending upon how you look at it) and more specifically the Canal. The Italians invaded and the tiny British army of the desert kicked the crap out of them taking thousands of prisoners.
Whilst "the Red Army got on at the business at hand" Britain had won the battle of Britain, had pinned the German surface navy to its ports, twice got involved in France, in Greece, in Norway, had annexed Iceland, Persia, Syria and Madagascar.
By the time the Soviets had turned the tide at Stalingrad the British were fighting the Japanese in the ADBA front, had defeated Vichy (in conjunction with the Germans) gaining all of French North Africa with its garrison army, as well as French West Africa and were driving the German/Italian army out of the desert into Tunisia where they eventually surrendered netting as many prisoners as the Soviets had captured as well as destroying a substantial portion of the German Air Force and sinking over half of the Axis merchant fleet.
And all the time they were fighting the battle of the Atlantic, running supplies to the Soviets (both in P.Q convoys and along the Persian Railway), engaging in commando operations and last and certainly not least flattening German industries and civilian infrastructure by bombing.
Edit; Clean forgot the whole war in East Africa, where the British liberated Ethiopia and conquered Italian Somalia.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Maginot line was fine. The problem was that the French didn’t build it all the way to the sea. They assumed the Germans would never invade the weak Benelux and just bypass the line.

Which was pretty stupid of the French at the time, since in WWI the German's did exactly that. The certainty that was held by Allied commanders that the same course of events wouldn't repeat has always baffled me.

Excommunicatus wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:

Excommunicatus wrote:Churchill was so terrified that his army wasn't up to snuff that he sent them on what was effectively a preseason training camp in North Africa (while the Red Army got on with the business at hand), where Rommel ran rings around them for the majority of the campaign.

The French government was in disarray between the wars and Gamelin's military plans took no account of reality.

If 'stupid' is synonymous with 'naive' for present purposes, then it's perfectly possible to argue that yes, Britain and France were stupid and weak between the wars, without relying too much on hindsight.

For someone who complains about history memes its really quite hypocritical for you then to post such utter drivel.
.

Which part of it is wrong, my love?

The first paragraph in its entirety, Honey. Churchill wasn't PM at the start of the war, the Soviets were not in the war until 2 years later and Rommel wasn't in the desert until about then. Even then the British desert army consisted of units assigned to the defence of the client state of Egypt (or occupy them depending upon how you look at it) and more specifically the Canal. The Italians invaded and the tiny British army of the desert kicked the crap out of them taking thousands of prisoners.
Whilst "the Red Army got on at the business at hand" Britain had won the battle of Britain, had pinned the German surface navy to its ports, twice got involved in France, in Greece, in Norway, had annexed Iceland, Persia, Syria and Madagascar.
By the time the Soviets had turned the tide at Stalingrad the British were fighting the Japanese in the ADBA front, had defeated Vichy (in conjunction with the Germans) gaining all of French North Africa with its garrison army, as well as French West Africa and were driving the German/Italian army out of the desert into Tunisia where they eventually surrendered netting as many prisoners as the Soviets had captured as well as destroying a substantial portion of the German Air Force and sinking over half of the Axis merchant fleet.
And all the time they were fighting the battle of the Atlantic, running supplies to the Soviets (both in P.Q convoys and along the Persian Railway), engaging in commando operations and last and certainly not least flattening German industries and civilian infrastructure by bombing.
Edit; Clean forgot the whole war in East Africa, where the British liberated Ethiopia and conquered Italian Somalia.

Please point out where I allege Churchill was PM at the beginning of the war, or where I rely on Churchill being PM at the beginning of the war.

Nothing in it is wrong and you've had to go miles out of your way to misrepresent what I was saying to make your 'point'. So, another strawman. Cool. Maybe respond to what I write in future.

Easy E wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Maginot line was fine. The problem was that the French didn’t build it all the way to the sea. They assumed the Germans would never invade the weak Benelux and just bypass the line.

Which was pretty stupid of the French at the time, since in WWI the German's did exactly that. The certainty that was held by Allied commanders that the same course of events wouldn't repeat has always baffled me.

Also, is it just me or did this thread take a turn for the worse? Can we define what 'Pre-WWII" means? I am under the working assumption that it was all the actions of France and Britain leading up to the delcaration of War after the invasion of Poland? Is that the same timeframe we are all thinking about?

If so, what does it matter that the British wen to North Africa? What does Russian involvement have to do with anything? Is the argument that because AFTER the war broke out those actions were taken that meant that BEFORE the war France and Britain were stupid and weak? I do not follow the thinking of how it relates to if France and Britain were stupid or weak in their dealings with the Axis BEFORE the war started?

 Excommunicatus wrote:
The French also worried that completing the Maginot Line would send a message to Belgium that they'd be abandoned if it came to hostilities.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Maginot line was fine. The problem was that the French didn’t build it all the way to the sea. They assumed the Germans would never invade the weak Benelux and just bypass the line.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Do I even need to point out that's a strawman you've raised just to knock down again?

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Yes, well done. I'm denying historical fact, not taking issue with the words jammed into my mouth about Churchill instigating conflict in North Africa which were then immediately refuted by the same poster.

Very clever. Much brain. Wow.

Churchill was so terrified that his army wasn't up to snuff that he sent them on what was effectively a preseason training camp in North Africa

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Which he did and which doesn't in any way shape or form imply that he instigated the conflict. It was an opportunity that he took.

Respond to what I write. Don't raise strawmen just to knock them straight back down.

FWIW, the fact that Britain again had to scramble to defend an empire with insufficient strength to do so is further fuel for the argument that Britain was "stupid" and "weak" pre-WW2. Only a little over twenty years after chasing von Lettow-Vorbeck all over East Africa they had to go chase Rommel all over North Africa because they took basically no steps to prevent their colonies again being weak-links and being targeted.

Again, if you want to debate the finer points of Churchill's disastrous adventurism and Imperialist instincts, make a thread for it.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
No. I'm saying that;

i) it is possible to argue that Britain was stupid and weak pre-WW2 because of how the early WW2 period worked out; and

ii) it is possible to argue that France was stupid and weak pre-WW2 owing to the general disarray of the French political system between the wars and the fact (for it is a fact) that Gamelin's military plans took no account of reality.

It's probably worth mentioning that neither were prepared for Blitzkrieg either despite Guderian, IIRC, writing about Blitzkrieg tactics fifteen years, IIRC, earlier.

I'd file that under 'stupid', personally..

 Easy E wrote:
Yes, I agree it is possible to argue they were stupid and weak.

So, do you think Britain and France were stupid and weak prior to WWII? What you have posted makes me think you at least lean that direction.... but you could also just be pointing out potential arguments for why a theoretical "someone" could argue for them being stupid and weak. I am unsure.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Stripped to the essentials, during WW2, Churchill had significant anxieties about the effectiveness of his army. Not 'his forces' just 'the army'. This is historical fact evidenced by numerous records.

From that it is possible to argue that the army wasn't up to snuff "pre-WW2" and therefore Britain must have necessarily been militarily "weak" "pre-WW2".

Please do note that at no point have I said "yes, 100% definitely France and Britain were both weak and stupid pre-WW2".

"He sent them" means that Churchill dictated where they went. Nothing more, nothing less. It adds zero support to your claims. This supposed argument of mine exists nowhere but in your head. Drop it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Spoiler:

I've had this argument with people before, and by the way, it's pre-WW2 Britain

But when it comes to Britain, a lot of people make the classic mistake of forgetting that

BRITAIN IS AN ISLAND!!!

Apologies for the caps

Historically, Britain is a very hard place to invade. Why? Because we're an island, so logically, we build a navy, and when Chamberlain left office in 1940, Britain had the world's largest navy.

It was also the first country in the world to have a RADAR controlled air defence. That's not weakness.

So why do you need a army, when historically, your navy has repelled invaders?

People also make the classic mistake of comparing apples to oranges, or Britain to Germany.

Germany is in the middle of Europe, and has historically been surrounded by hostile powers, so their army, it's size, and the way it fights, makes perfect sense from their geographical situation.

So Britain has a poweful navy and Germany has a powerful army. All very logical.

But have you noticed that although people criticise the British army for not being as powerful as the Germany army (incidentally it was superior in 1918, the only time that Britain has had the world's premier fighting force) nobody criticises the German navy for not matching the Royal Navy.


It's apples and oranges.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Britain still had a global spanning Empire and was fighting nearly constant wars to keep it. There are 195 countries in the world. Only 22 of them have NOT been invaded by Britain. Britain should still have had the strongest army in the world at the time. Historically, this makes Britain the most aggressive country in the world.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Britain still had a global spanning Empire and was fighting nearly constant wars to keep it. There are 195 countries in the world. Only 22 of them have NOT been invaded by Britain. Britain should still have had the strongest army in the world at the time. Historically, this makes Britain the most aggressive country in the world.

I agree with most of this, but you're overlooking the fact that yes, Britain faced multiple enemies on multiple fronts, but these lurched from extreme to another.


For every German panzer division you face, you'll be facing a tribe in Afghanistan with armed with primitive muskets or something.


And standing armies cost money, and Britain is an island, and if you know you're history, Britain never fights a European war alone, they always had allies, in this case the French, and the French have a large army.


Historically, Britain has never loved its soldiers. It loved its sailors, but never its army. Like I said earlier, 1918 is the only time when Britain could say it's army was the world's premier fighting force.

The USA was green, France was on the ropes, Russia had surrendered, Austria-Hungary had collpased, italy was propped up by British troops (7 divisions)

And Germany? Britain had took Germany's best shot in the Spring offensive of 1918, stopped its stormtroopers, and then kicked the gak out of it months later at Amiens, and smashed through the Hnidenburg line.

But it came at a high cost, and politicians were determined never to inflict those casulties on the British public again. So in the 1920s and 1930s, they focused on Bombers and blockade.