<< Yes, the French were outnumbered at Dien Bien Phu. However, they hadnt started out that war that way. Talking about the odds in the final battle is not a good way to analyze a war. >>
The earlier stages of the war were similar to the US-led Vietnam War. that is, seven years of indecisive guerilla warfare. The plan in Dien Bien Phu was to lure the Vietminh to a more traditional combat. Unfortunately it backfired on the french, because Vietminh was able to bring in artillery through the jungle even though it was thought to be impossible, and because the monsoons arrived, severly limiting Frances ability to use it's airpower (similar to the situation during the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge some might say). Also, the french severly underestimated the enemy numbers (which is still uncertain. I have read numbers ranging from 70.000 to over 100.000. French had in the end about 11.000 (including the reinforcements who paratrooped there. Some of thoe reinforcements who paratrooped during the nights were volunteers who had no training in parachuting))
<< The french signing a cease fire and the USA pulling out of 'Nam are equivalent. They were both implict admissions of losing. The USA never surrendered to the Vietnamese (in the larger sense, not in the sense of a couple of guys surrendering). >>
If you never surrendered, then you are still at war with Vietnam? I honestly don't know.
<< There was NO army at that time in the world that could stand up to Wehrmacht's Blitzkrieg! Had they faced US Army instead of french and british, they would haved rolled right over them just as easily. >>
<< Why were the French unprepared though? The danger that Hitler posed in the mid 30's should have been ample warning, never mind is blatant flouting of the Versailles Treaty. Their entire stategy revolved around the Maignot Line. When the Germans circled around the French border to the north, well, it wasnt the first time that they had done so. >>
You could say that french (and just about every other country as well) were in the false sense of security. Everybody thought that Germany would not attack. And they never guessed they would go through neutral countries in the BeNeLux. It's easy for us to say today that the french should have seen it coming. But things were different back then. Hindsight is always 20/20.
The Maginot-line did see action. In the latter parts of the war, there were alot of french troops surrounded there. And it proved mighty difficult for the germans to flush them out.
<< I agree the US armed forces wouldnt have stood up against the Germans in '39. But then again, we didnt need to worry about the Germans attacking us in 1939. The French were RIGHT NEXT to the Germans. They needed to worry. They needed to be prepared. They werent prepared. They lost. Go figure. >>
they were prepared. They just weren't prepared for an attack through BeNeLux. Their military-strategy was still old-fashioned (that is, when compared to germans) in that they still relied to the strenght of solid defence-lines (the Maginot-line), and not on more mobile defence that would have suited better against Blitzkrieg. But you could say that entire world, excluding Germany, had outdated strategies at that time.
<<
<< It's impossible to win 100% of the time. And sometimes it only takes one defeat to lose everything. >>
Correct. It isnt how many battles you win. You just need to win the important ones. Napolean lost a really big one in Waterloo, so he lost the war. >>
But Napoeon had won many "important" battles before. He just happened to lose the one that was more important. He could have won it, he could have lost some of his previous battles. But like I said, many times it only takes one defeat to lose all. And unfortunately (for Napoleon), the battle he lost happened to be one of those battles.
<< EDIT: About Dien Bien Phu. Where did I say they didnt/couldnt fight. I said they lost. To reduce the situation down to the utmost basics: The French started out with control of the country. They started to lose control. They eventually lost their last base, Dien Bien Phu. At the end of the day, they still lost Indo-China. >>
That is alot like it was with USA and Vietnam. When we think about France and it's defeat in Vietnam, we think about France losing power slowly, untill their last base (well, not exactly last, there were french troops elsewhere too) fell. It was similar with USA. Gradually losing control, untill it all ended with emergency evacuation from the rooftop of the embassy.
Using Dien Bien Phu as "evidence" demonstrating Frances willingess to surrender, distorts that battle. It makes it sound like the french are and were pushovers, when in fact the Battle of Dien Bien Phu was anything but. It would be same if someone used Winter War as evidence that finns like to surrender. Just saying that "France lost in Dien Bien Phu" offers too little information what happened there. Just like it would be if someone said "finnish defenders were almost wiped out at The Killer Hill". While that stament (and the statement regarding Dien Bien Phu) would be true, in would offer distorted image of what happened.
Killer Hill was a battle during The Winter War. The hill was defended by 32 finnish soldiers when it was attacked by 4.000 soviet soldiers. 400 soviets died before they withdrew. 4 finns survived.
EDIT: added Napoleon
?
Facebook
Twitter