Post by J. J. LodderYour recollection is wrong. Only Denmark gave in without much fighting.
While I admit that NOBODY inflicted any defeat on the Germans until
Stalingrad, El Alamein and Tunis, all later in the war - I also agree that
no continental country stood a chance at that time.
However, Denmark colors my opinion the most since they didn't last even
until *noon* on the first day for heaven's sake.
What kind of "country" is that?
IMHO, Denmark doesn't deserve existence.
Why? For the simple reason that any state that can't fight even sustain a
one-day challenge isn't a country; it's merely an autonomous province of
some other country.
Post by J. J. LodderThe Dutch destroyed a significant fraction
of the German airborne capability.
Having an open mind toward the Dutch, I find this summary:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Netherlands_during_World_War_II>
While Denmark took mere hours to eliminate (which means it's not a
country), the Germans had planned for two whole days to destroy the
Netherlands (still not much of a country).
According to that article, the Dutch may be the only people to surrender
simply because a couple of bombs were errantly dropped on their cities.
The country lasted a total of five days.
HINT: That's not a country in my book. Even France lasted longer.
Post by J. J. LodderWhy didn't they invite the Germans to come and invade them?
The answer seems to have been that invading Sweden
wouldn't have given Germany anything that the Swedes
weren't giving them voluntarily already.
Exactly.
I posit that only a fool thinks that a country can simply "declare"
neutrality and not be attacked by virtue of that piece of paper (ask
Molotov how valuable a pact of friendship is, for example - and then ask
the Japanese Ambassador, Mr. N. Sato the same thing on the other side of
the sheet of paper).
Post by J. J. LodderYou are talking about the wrong Frenchmen.
The only French men who didn't attack the Allies were the honorable and
forever remembered Resistance. Notice that I read Bradley's autobiography
so I discount French soldiers in WWII later in the war as Bradley himself
did. I also read Eisenhower's autobiography where his grandson, ever more
diplomatic than any other than Churchill, simply "understood" the lack of
fighting resolve in the French armies late in the war.
The fact remains that the organized French armies under Vichy control
fought everyone except the Germans.
Post by J. J. LodderIf you read Patton you will find that he had great problems
in keeping Leclerc in check.
I read Bradley. Leclerc was a fool. Bradley, as I recall, was incensed at
French lethargence, and, like what Clark did to Darlan, and what Churchill
did to de Gaulle, he had to issue an ultimatum to Leclerc to use the tanks
he was given to enter Paris.
*ONLY* when faced with the removal of the tanks, did Leclerc even *begin*
to move toward Paris. And, once there, he refused to leave, because there
were Germans outside of Paris.
Read Bradley. Leclerc was a self-serving coward in his book.
Read Churchill. He openly despised Darlan, stating even so much as Darlan
was the most tragic of self-serving figures in all of mankind's history.
Less so with the contentious de Gaulle where Churchill had to force him to
meet with Giraud under the thread of expulsion.
The French have nothing to be proud of in WWII except their gallant
mostly-civilian resistance.
Post by J. J. LodderLeclerc had great problems accepting that you can't advance
without being ordered to,
You gotta be kidding. Really.
I read Bradley's autobiography.
Leclerc only burned up Bradley's tanks AFTER being told he was going to be
removed if he didn't advance on Paris.
Really. I don't make anything up.
My memory isn't faulty - but if you want me to find a cite, we can.
Never did the French organized army have something proud to stand up for.
They *always* hated the British and Darlan even thought the Americans were
almost as stupid.
The French were essentially allies with Germany from the day "that truly
dangerous man" Petain was in charge (Churchhill's own words).
The problem I have with the "a truly dangerous man", comment from Churchill
is that he didn't expound on why he thought that, although the context was
duplicity in asking fall all of Britains' air resources at the same time as
he was talking surrender with the Germans.