Re: Dunkirk

Originally Posted by
JR*
I do believe it is harsh to criticize the French to the extent sometimes done. French forces in the north had not performed very well during the open phase of the battle. This, however, was partly a result of very poor leadership at the highest level, poor planning and poor communications.
Correct, so far as sweeping unfair condemnation of French forces is concerned.
As indeed it is unfair to criticise, say, French units and, separately, Italian units which fought British Commonwealth forces in the Middle East Their best units fought as hard and as well as any others anywhere else, excluding Japanese suicidal practices.
The French high command up to Dunkirk bordered on laughable for its self-imposed geographical and communications isolation from the battlefield and, as you say, that was a major contributor to France's poor performance.
The failure of leadership did not, however, stop there as the lower levels of the French army failed to instil discipline and martial spirit in many of the conscripts and perhaps some regular soldiers who, when confronted with German attacks, demonstrated little or no willingness to fight, even on their home soil.
A remotely similar failure in leadership, training and discipline in the British army would have seen it collapse long before Dunkirk and would have made the Dunkirk evacuation impossible.
This does not reflect any inherent superiority or inferiority in either nation's troops, but it certainly reflects a massive failure in the efficiency of the officer corps of the French army from the top down in training and leading their troops.
..
A rational army would run away.
Montesquieu
Bookmarks