France attacks Low Contries - England still ally?

[stahlwolf]

Hello

during a game yesterday evening, two errors occured (as it seems to me).

I played the Axis. Still marching on warsaw I declared war on the soviet union.

Error one:

After the defeat of Poland, it was divided as alway, Russia, although in war with Germany got eastern Poland!

About five rounds later error two took place (which is a historical one) France declared war on the low countries and England though the protector of Belgium, stayed a french ally.

Stahlwolf

[JimR]

Well, it is the Allied player (not France particularly) that declares war against the Low Countries in the scenario that you have just described. France does not have a "foreign policy" independent of the other active Allies in SC.

And there is a penalty to the Allied player for declaring war on the Low Countries. Based on my experience, U.S. war readiness goes into the negative, pushing back American entry and giving a big political boost to the Axis.

[JerseyJohn]

stahlwolf

Interesting.

In PBEM play a lot of Allied players invade the Low Countries while Germany is still invading Poland; once the allies have established that solid river defense it's much harder for Germany to invade France.

No doubt human players taking the allies against the AI are also using that strategy. As JimR mentions there's a stiff penalty and that has to be weighed against other factors such as France holding out an extra year or so, the Low Countries plunder, and having the benefit of their MPPs for perhaps several months.

It's a matter of game play as opposed to replaying history. Most people posting are in favor of game play over strick adherance to history.

Historically, England and France in the early days of the war drew up all sorts of plans that would have violated the neutrality of several countries, principally in Scandanavia and the Middle East. Most of these were far fetched schemes to either bomb the Romanian and Russian oil fields which were feeding Germany at the time, to invading Northern Norway in order to aid the hard pressed Fins against the Soviets -- it seems they were determined to drive Russia into the Axis as a beligerant.

It's also a fact that Britain and France were sending an expeditionary force to invade Norway at exactly the same time Germany did. Germany landed first and entirely by chance became the aggressor; Allied units landed right behind them and their extremely prompt response was never elaborated upon. At least not till the war was over around twenty years!

It's true, of course that the Allied expedition wasn't intended as a conquest invasion, but it would have mined the fjiords and ground troops were assigned to occupy strategic locations. I'd say those things constitute acts of war!

In an earlier forum somebody told of the Allied AI invading neutral Portugal. As late as the Spring of 1944 Winston Churchill, in doubt about the Normandy plans, suggested an alternate plan to his chief of staff:

Land in Portugal, which -- being Britain's traditional friend -- would welcome the landings. Recieve permission from Franco to traipse across Northern Spain, and pop in on the Germans by crossing the Pyranees (obviously another of Europe's soft underbellies!). The army commander calmly replied he'd resign if it were adapted! To me that story shows how neutrality wasn't held to be as sacred by the allies as the public has been led to believe.

The truth is the Axis was too busy invading places first -- and certainly the Allies never honored Vichy's neutrality!

Probably your invasion of Russia triggered the Low Country invasion response.

Most human players have little trouble winning with the Axis against the AI. Personally I think it's better to have the AI taking aggressive actions than just sitting back passively and waiting to be defeated peacemeal.

[ December 04, 2002, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Emil Seibold]

Mish-can't be perfect.

[stahlwolf]

Well, to be honest I did not know, that the allies didn´t care for neutrality, in this case it is historically correct, according to my change in history.

I just was very surprised, feeling save in the west, but of course its a fun factor being surprised by an AI!

I have to admit, I had some problems as Axis with Maximum difficulty. The expirience Bonus +2 is (at least for me) hard to deal with, but I should rethink my tactics...

But this is surely a reason to play SC increasingly..

[KoopaTroopa]

Same happened in my game. I conquered Poland, then attacked to Denmark and Norway. And then, when I was fighting in Norway, screen says "The allies declared on Low Countries".

[Emil Seibold]

Well, they probably would have, had they gotton the time and the chance, so as they could have defended france easier. It was on the cards right up until the Germans invaded. And look at what happened in Norway-that big Allied army that was mysteriously there to "Rescue" Norway from German invaders were actually there to themselvs invade Norway and prevent steel from going down from Sweden. However the Whermacht got there first and the British had to fight alongside the Norwegons to try and save their objective.

[Krikke]

The Allies actualy made plans to violate the Belgian neutrality. They wanted their troops to hold the line at the Meuse river, but the Belgians didn't wanne let them in. There was some thinking about moving in anyway, but they decided against that because of PR reasons. It would make them look bad to the rest of the world. In Norway, it didn't look bad, because they were 'on their way to save the Fins'. And Vichy wasn't realy an issue, as the Allies didn't recognise the Vichy governement. They were sending troops to occupied allied terretory.

[JerseyJohn]

Right -- the original agreement was that Britain and France would not sign seperate peace treaties. A little allowance should have been made when Britain pulled all her troops (what there was of them) out of the continent and left France to flounder and die alone.

The French were perfectly justified in signing a seperate peace treaty and Britain's shelling of Vichy ships and bombing of open targets was a disgrace pure and simple. Vichy was not in the Axis!

There's no justification for Britain and France invading Norway in order to aid Finland. That's like wrecking your neighbor's house in order to save their neighbor's house from being wrecked.

If they really wanted to help Finland they should have made a public statement that the USSR either ceased it's attacks or they'd declare war on it; had they actually gotten to Finland and openly fought the Russians they'd have been in a state of war in any case.

The only reason they didn't invade Belgium themselves was because they'd made it a major issue of the First World War, and there was still the treaty they'd signed nearly a century earlier guaranteeing Belgian sovereignty.

There's also the British invasions of Syria and Iraq, neither of them in the Axis, because British leaders felt those two neutral countries would join the Axis later! With good guys like that who needs bad guys?

[ December 08, 2002, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

The only reason they didn't invade Belgium themselves was because they'd made it a major issued of the First World War, and there was still the treaty they'd signed nearly century earlier guaranteeing Belgian sovereignty.

I was about to write the same thing. I dont have a problem with this issue, the allies would without hesitation violate benelux neutrality to defend against Germany. It plays out fine and realistic in Strategic Command.

[JerseyJohn]

(Sorry for the many typos in the above quoted area.)

Kuniworth

Comes down to the issue of play vs historicity. I tend to favor play. Aside from which, after losing so many men in WW I and seeing a chance to avoid it by establishing the Meuse Line, I think the French would have been justified in giving the Belgians an alliance ultimatum . Something along the lines of 'Look, it's plain as day they're going to invade you again! You can either allow us to help you or we'll help you anyway!'

More likely the French generals themselves didn't have much faith in the Meuse Defense being anything more than a delaying action with the Dyle Plan's idea being to gain time. Which, in any case, can be all important.

The Six Weeks War , a book on the Belgian campaign written in 1943 (no doubt long out of print and a collector's item) made much of the French indecision about finding a permanent defensive position. The analysis on the Meuse Line (made while the French and British were attempting to establish it) was that it depended upon not allowing any breakthroughs. A single breakthrough would mean the entire line had to fall back and might be cut off from France in the process. Reasoning which not only came to pass but was likely to happen given the terrible communications and pessimism of the 1940 French Army and it's generals.

[ December 08, 2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Krikke]

JerseyJohn, you make the English look like the big bad guys. It's not that extreme. They actualy wanted to help the Fins, it wasn't just an excuse. They wanted to secure Norway on the way, but after that was done, the troops would actualy go to help the Fins.

The withdrawal out of France was completely justified. The Brits didn't have another choice, except being destroyed. And many French units withdrew at Dunkirk with the Brits. The French agreed not to sign peace on their selves, so in the British opinion, the peace wasn't worth anything. They told the French ships to join them, of be destroyed. The other option, leaving them alone, would mean that the French navy would fall in German hands. I doubt Hitler would keep his promise not to use the French ships. I'm not agreeing with the Brits on doing it, but I can understand them. Basicaly, they were shooting deflectors.

Conciddering the invasion of Belgium, this was mostly a French idea.

Ofcource the British did some inexcusable stuff during the war, as did all other big nations involved. Using the war as an excuse to expand their imperium is one of them.

[JerseyJohn]

Krikke --

I guess over the years my tone has generally become anti-British. Certainly, if forced to choose between Britain and the other major European nations of late 1940(Germany, the USSR an Italy) I'd say Britain was clearly the most liberal and enlightened by far. Actually, there's no comparison.

What gets on my nerves is the cavalier attitude they had regarding other nation's sovereignty and rights. In the case of France I feel they were blatantly wrong. Not a single capital ship of the French Navy fell into German hands and that includes after the Germans occupied Vichy -- which was after the Allied invasion of it, so they had little choice. The French had a very simple idea; all the ships were laced with explosives and the moment anyone from either side tried to seize them they were sunk. They held true to that policy and their former friends, the Brits, never believed them.

The attack on Mirs El Kabir was nothing more than murder, yet it's glorified into something that had to be done. It didn't have to be done.

France, for her part, was indecisive and stupid. She sold her ally Chechoslovakia down the drain, left her defenseless, then scrambled to form a new, vastly worse alliance with Poland!

An example of just how stupid their leadership was by then is shown in the very agreement not to sign a seperate peace treaty. England was not the one risking invasion, by comparrison she could afford to say "we'll fight to the last" while the partner risking everything was the French! The whole war came about in an irresponsible sequence of unrealistic moves and plans. Ironically the only one seeing the situation with any sanity was a mad man!

Hitler seems to have known exactly what was about to happen right through to the fall of France. From that point on he too loses the thread. First, Britain doesn't agree to peace terms. Spain doesn't join the Axis -- had she done so and Gibraltar been taken, Britain's attitude might well have changed -- and so on, and from there he starts making decisions out of frustration, each worse than the previous one.

What bothers me about Britain isn't so much that she committed ignoble acts like violating other nations -- every major country did that probably out of necessity in WW II -- but that she planned and carried out these actions without regard to alternatives or the consequences to the people she was supposedly helping.

If it were Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia I'd probably have nothing to say, but it was a nation that supposedly was fighting for legality and human rights yet so much of what she actually did went totally contrary to those principles.

As to her treatment of Vichy France, it really makes me sick. They were not collaborators, they were grasping at straws to save what they could of their country and make it a neutral. They didn't give Hitler two thirds of France, the Germans simply kept the territory they already occupied at the time of the Armistace. It's easy to sit in your own intact country and tell someone else they should never give up, but much more difficult to pick up the pieces and try to continue living in a nation that's already fallen under another's jackboot.

My sympathy is with the ones who stayed behind and tried to salvage something. They were not traitors and part of the problem I have with the Brits and Free French is they've always made them out to be. My earlier point was this: if they'd been pro-Axis wouldn't they have declared war on Britain after the sinking of their ships at Mirs El Kabir? I'd say that alone was more than sufficient grounds for going to war!

Had the chips fallen differently, had Britain herself been invaded, say as far north as London, I doubt very much that anyone would have blamed a British government that sued for peace, the withdrawl of enemy troops and the return of POWs etc. -- I don't believe and have never believed Britain would have rallied behind the idea of carrying on the war even if the home islands fell, once defeat and invasion became inevitable Churchill would either have sued for peace or been ousted -- yet they had no sympathy at all for their invaded ally. That seems very strange to me. It's like someone saying they'll fight to the last drop of another person's blood.

So, that's my view of the subject. No, subjects . I realize my view of all this runs contrary to what most people believe. Much of it is purely subjective.

The British people themselves suffered greatly so I'm not saying they did things purely at the expense of others; just that their leaders didn't care much whether or not it turned out that way.

Anyway, it was an age of villainy and if Britain was the least villainous it's misdemeanors have to be weighed against the felonies of the others. In which case she emerges in pretty good shape.

[ December 11, 2002, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[ev]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

If they really wanted to help Finland they should have made a public statement that the USSR either ceased it's attacks or they'd declare war on it; had they actually gotten to Finland and openly fought the Russians they'd have been in a state of war in any case....

That's right. Germany Imported large amounts of Iron Ore from Sweeden (I think it was Iron, or maybe it was some other mineral). Sweedish ports froze in winter, and, during the winter the stuff was transported by train to Norwegian ports for export.

By taking Norway, the Brits could denny winter ports for Sweedish Ore. Apparently the Brits were unable to convince the Sweeds to boycott Germany. The Sweeds had no other place to sell their ore since Germany controlled the Baltic Sea. Probably they were also afraid to provoke the Germans since there was little chance that the Allies could help them unless the Allies took Norway first.

I vaguely remember that Norway dennied German Transports access to their winter ports. But, in any event, Germany needed air bases in Norway to protect its transports from the British Navy.

[JerseyJohn]

ev

Amazing how complicated and confusing the whole thing is -- here we are talking about the lands of Peer Gynt and reindeer and out of nowhere everyone wanted to be either their friends or their masters!

I suspect the archives on this will be opened in about forty years and we'll have a better idea of what was really going on.

So, just a piddling forty years to go!

[ December 11, 2002, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Kuniworth]

hy did not Hitler press the issue with the spaniars to allow for miltary access to conquer Gibraltar?

[DeGaule]

The main reason was that General Franco had let both germany and Italy know pretty early on that Spain was in no condition to get involved in any kind of serious conflict, barely recuperating from its ong Civil war. add to that the fact that for some weird reason, Spain was more or less considered by the Axis to be an Italian domain,( similar to how the Finns were viewed in Italy as being in Germany,s sphere of influence) Hitler in the beginning was making a lot of effort to please Mussolini . Bullying poor bankcrupted Spain would have been bad policy in this reguard.

Hitler might alos have been influence by the fact that the Spaniards always had been fiercely protective of their border and might have created all kind of hardship for a Foreign army.

If you wonder why I keep saying Hitler instead of Germany, please remember that what little Foreign Policy Ministry there was in Germany had the time ( never a big priority in most Police State) was completly penetrated by the Nazi party apparatus....soon after the Anschuls , what little divergent opinions there were almost vanished completly.

[JerseyJohn]

DeGaule --

Great thread. Excellent point about Hitler as opposed to Germany and of Spain being in Mussolini's sphere . The Italians went broke before the war because of Ethiopia and the expense of providing weapons to the Spanish. At the time of the meeting Hitler still saw Mussolini as running things in the Mediteranean and North Africa.

Kuniworth --

hy did not Hitler press the issue with the spaniars to allow for miltary access to conquer Gibraltar?

The Spanish/Gibraltar issue is not an easy one to gather information on.

When dictating peace terms to France Hitler insisted upon a land link to Spain. He was comploetely certain of Fanco's entry into the Axis. In the late Autumn of 1940 he arranged for a personal meeting with him which was supposedly to be for working out details, the question of Spain's entry was never an issue. He sent Franco's old friend Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the head of Germany's Inteligence office, to set everything up.

In their meeting, Canaris realized immediately that Franco did not want to enter the war. As already stated he'd just taken power and was not only broke, but had yet to secure the loyalty of his own people. He feared that a determined landing by the British followed by a few hard battles would topple him from power.

He also feared being invaded by Germany, which he knew would also lead to his downfall. Of the two, he felt Germany was the greater menace.

Canaris, of course, was anti-Hitler, which nobody knew at the time. He proceeded to assure Franco that he could safely deny all Hitler's demands and stall him till the war moved elsewhere. Among other things, Canaris let Franco in on the fact that Germany had already transferred most of it's ground units out of France to Poland and that it would invade Russia in early Spring (the original timetable). With that he left Spain, but first got word to Portugal's dictator Salazar that he too should resist joining the Axis! All this help was being given Britain by one of Hitler's key men.

Ironically, the British were so puzzled by the actions of Canaris (that they knew about) that they concluded he was setting them up for a much greater fall. They never trusted him!

The day of the meeting came. Hitler chugged down to the French/Spanish border in his private train, Amerika , expecting great things to come about. At first everything was fine and jovial and friendly.

Then Franco grew quiet and detached when the discussions began and had a subordinate do nearly all the talking. The man was so rude and outspoken, especially to Hitler, that several of the attending Germans expected Der Fuhrer to storm out and order an immediate invasion even with reduced forces.

But that didn't happen. Instead the Germans kept putting forth their case, they were willing to allow Spanish troops to assault Gibraltar [originally the condition was they had to be German shock troops and paratroopers] but the way had to be cleared by heavy German artillery and the Luftwaffe.

No argument. No agreement, but no argument. Knowing ahead of time that Hitler was trying hard to get Petain and Vichy in the Axis, Spain next demanded Algeria and Tunesia. The Germans said that was impossible but didn't give a reason. They then said Spain would have to lease one of the Canary Islands to Germany as a submarine and air base. The Spanish blatantly refused and out of nowhere said they were disappointed by Germany's cooperation with Soviet Russia. The German's said it was only a temporary measure that would be corrected soon.

The Spanish refused to bite. Instead they started another subject -- could Germany guarantee Spain would not be invaded after taking Gibraltar. Hitler said he'd send assistance if that happened. The Spanish threw something else at them, and so on. In the end Hitler, in a near fit, said the Spanish Fascists were ingrates because if it hadn't been for Il Duce and himself they'd all have been lined against a wall and shot!

Franco stared off into space without responding.

The day ended with Hitler taking even more tranquillizers than usual and confiding to an aid that he'd rather undergo rootcanal without anesthesia than ever again discuss anything with Franco. It was the only time the two dictators ever met.

Later in the war, when Germany was reeling from numerous defeats, Stalin said he wanted Spain to be punished for it's cooperation with the Axis. Churchill took the opportunity for a sharp and suble reply, something to the effect of, [very loosely paraphrased] There are those who are now friends of ours who once cooperated far more with the Huns, yet we hold them no malice -- and let us not forget that when England stood alone in it's darkest hour the Spanish, unlike some others, chose not to follow the easier path.

So, in the end, Franco remained in power long after his onetime benefactors and contemporaries had vanished from the scene.

As for Franco's shaky hold on the Spanish people: about five years after his death the movie REDS was being filmed in Spain. One scene depicted a very large crowd moving through the Petersburg streets singing the International . The movie's producers had anticipated a few days spent teaching the song [the communist antherm] to the extras, but were pleased to learn that every one of them already knew it and looked forward to the opportunity of singing it loud and clear and in the open!

As I finished posting I realized I'd written practically the same entry with the same photos in a much earlier forum -- it seems we're going in circles!-- the good news is many of us can just go back and copy our earlier postings instead of doing anything original! :eek:

[ December 13, 2002, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[DeGaule]

Great Post Jersey John

I enjoyed readingyour "fleshing out" of my original answer and re-learned quite a few long forgotten details .

I tip my hat to you Sir...

Your a very gifted writer who's style and use of anecdotes and illustrations makes for enjoyable and informative posting...that is of course when your not into one of your periodic anti-britton rant

But even then its hard for the french-canadian in me to get really angry at you

[Krikke]

Yeah, pretty good, nice pics too.

Just wanne set one thing straigth, Vichy did colaborate with the Germans. They captured Jews and turned them over to the Germans, who sended them to the camps. Ofcource the French people isn't to blame here. A lot was put into place to sabotage these actions. The problem was the Vichy governement, which was weak.

[JerseyJohn]

DeGaule

Thanks for the good word. I enjoy your postings as well and tip my hat to you too, sir. In the future I'll try to curb my anit-British rants -- it's a sickness that has gotten worse with age, and a greater knowledge of their dastardly deeds!

Often I forget how they've extended themselves for others and done very fine and noble things for people in dire straights. That is, of course, when they aren't busy exploiting and plundering the poor bastards. Oops, I slipped, sorry!

Okay, I'll compromise -- a picture of George Washington raising the British Flag. Makes you wonder who's side he was really on.

Krikke

Thanks also for the nod and I certainly nod back. Anti-Jewish activities in WW II Europe -- I can't call it anit-semitism because it went way beyond that -- was rampant. Yes, the Vichy Government was weak, but it spent it's entire exitstence with a German knife at it's throat and the Germans were particularly livid on this point. They even made life miserable for Jewish refugees under Japanese protection in Shanghai!

Every government, including the Vatican, has been accused of cooperating with the Nazis in the Holocaust. At least the majority of them were real governments that had ways of handling things. Vichy was a last resort born out of a catastrophe. I'm not some sort of Vichy-itte, I don't think they did anything great, I just feel history has given them a bad rap and, at the risk of going into one of my anti-British rants, that Britain treated them very shoddily.

The three of us have wandered into some obscure and very interesting areas. I'm glad we've been exploring them. It's a welcome change from the usual discussions of game mechanics -- which can also be enjoyable, but I good discussions of real history are always the first choice.

[ December 13, 2002, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SpitfireMarkX]

The Vichy France Fleet was under German control was it not?

[JerseyJohn]

No. The ships were docked and rigged with explosives. Some of the original fleet went to the British and some of it was in colonial ports; I don't know of any of it going over to either the Germans or Italians. If anyone does I'd be interested in knowing the details.

Vichy France regarded itself as a neutral country. Throughout the war Germany used the French POWs as bargaining chips to force Vichy cooperation. From time to time Hitler would offer either the return of troops or territory to Petain if Vichy cooperated, but usually the issues either didn't amount to anything or Hitler renegged on his promises.

Germany occupied Vichy territory when the U. S. launched Operation Torch in 1942. The Battleship Dunkerque, which had been mauled by the British at Mers El Kibbur, was scuttled in Toulouse Harbor along with a number of other warships before they could be seized by Germany. Which is one of the reasons I find it so incredible that Vichy is always talked of as being an Axis collaborator!

[ December 16, 2002, 04:54 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]