Why did France give up when Paris was taken in WW2? They could have kept fighting just like the Polish did.

  • 11
    The French did not give up "When Paris was taken". They did keep fighting. The "Cheese-eating surrender-monkeys" is a joke from The Simpsons that has no bearing to reality. As a percentage of the population, more French died fighting than Americans. – Lennart Regebro Aug 4 '13 at 14:21
  • 5
    @TomAu: That's not a rewording of the question - it is an entirely new question on a vaguely contemporary topic. – Pieter Geerkens Aug 5 '13 at 21:59
  • 1
    @PieterGeerkens: My version of the question is "different" in the sense of being more objectively worded. It also has several reopen votes. I'll leave it up to the OP (Young) as to whether he would rather have it reopened in its current form, or closed in its original form. If he prefers, he can roll it back. – Tom Au Aug 5 '13 at 23:15
  • 1
    I'd say that at it's core, the question is the same just social bias has been removed from the question. – Kobunite Aug 6 '13 at 8:16
  • 1
    I see that the question is wrong factually. However, should we be closing factually incorrect questions instead of answering why they are factually incorrect? – Apoorv Aug 10 '13 at 0:02

Without a major fight! Where do you get your facts?

Loss of over 1.5 million prisoners in less than 6 weeks, loss of virtually 100% of fighters and modern tanks, plus 100% of the artillery, firearms and ammunition stored in the Maginot Line left France completely defenceless. Sixty one of 117 total divisions had surrendered, the BEF had evacuated twice, leaving French units vastly outnumbered and out-gunned by the Germans.

France surrendered on June 16, 37 days after the invasion on May 10; the last Polish regular army units surrendered on October 2, 32 days after invasion on September 1. I don't see that there is a major difference here.

  • 6
    The French had plenty of aircraft left, unfortunately it was in the south. The French in general did not lose close to 100% of anything, but one would appreciate a source if you're so inclined to speak in near absolutes. – Kunikov Aug 4 '13 at 6:04
  • 1
    Yes, no doubt quite true; but how many were first-line fighters capable of making an ME-109 pilot break a sweat?. The French also had more operational tanks on June 16 than the Germans did; but they were 3-man tanks designed as WWI-style mobile artillery platforms, couldn't fire and steer at the same time, and were all dispersed as infantry support. The French Army and Air Force were operationally prostrate, and France had lost the industrial capacity to maintain a continuing supply system. – Pieter Geerkens Aug 4 '13 at 6:13
  • 6
    It is important to give sources for all these claims. – kmlawson Aug 4 '13 at 6:17
  • @PieterGeerkens answering a false claim with your own false claim isn't going to give you credibility. The French did not lose even close to 100% of their equipment, though you may be right that they lost close to that in combat capable equipment. Of course they also didn't "hold out for 4 years" as the original claim says, keep to your debunking that and you've an answer here. – jwenting Aug 6 '13 at 5:15
  • 5
    @PieterGeerkens no need to educate me on the definitions, thank you very much. Your claim that 100% of their material was destroyed though is laughable, as a lot of it was never in combat, being out of position in what became Vichy or in the colonies (there was for example a major French military presence in Algeria and Morocco, which never saw combat before the fall of France, later joining either the German Afrikakorps or the allied forces (or being destroyed by the Royal Navy). – jwenting Aug 6 '13 at 8:34

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.