Why was Germany so successful in the invasion of Western Europe?

Why was Germany so successful in the invasion of Western Europe?

Daladier and Chamberlain were knobs who never took the German threat seriously.

France went full retard with their maginot line and Britain....well, Britain is Britain, don't expect them to fight a land war without a strong ally to do the heavy lifting for them (France had this role in WW1 but failed to be that in WW2)

>they won't go through Belgium this time, trust me

maginot line funneled their armor into a small area and they accidentally discovered the armored spearhead tactic

Britain fought an horrific land war in WWI count

Auto correct changed Cunt to count, just you clarify you're a cunt.

France still did the heavy lifting

>Le Maginot Line was bad

The Maginot Line did its purpose. There was no invasion in the massive front of Alsace like it could have been in WW1. The problem is that the french army neglected to control the Ardennes, and instead concentrated all of their army in Artois.

Luck, lots and lots of luck.
Belgium decided to be a bunch of cunts and pulled out of the alliance with France and the UK, leaving the northern border relatively unprotected.
The Germans did, against all odds, win against the Allies in Norway because of a few bad decision and unnecessary retreats on behalf of the allies.
A plane with a part of the German invasion plans of France onboard crashed inside the Belgian border, forcing the Germans to redraw the entire thing and consult Von Manstein rather than repeating their plan from world war 1.
Hitler not listening to his Generals and setting up separate panser divisions.

A bunch of other things.

Germany was just that good

This.
The German generals, army, and civilians were all extremely surprised France fell.
The Germans just found a weak point at Sedan and rushed this weak point. France then proceeded to freak the fuck out and throw their entire airforce away

France didn't want to fight a war in France again.

The amazing part is that nobody invaded Germany when they were in Poland.

I think it's common consensus that Germany didn't win, France lost.
The French leadership was just so divided and traditional that there was no way they could have mounted a competent offensive or defense.

Really, why'd they turn back in the Saar Offensive? They could have seized the Rhineland and the heart of German industry with it by winter.

The French did a bit but didn't push the advantage of meeting virtually no resistance and fell back to France shorty after

Too true. The germans never will concede this, but much of their might in defeating France merely flowed from them being lucky:

>who could've predicted that thousands upon thousands of communist activists would sabotage French tanks and aircrafts and plague the French war efffort

>who could've predicted that the French army would foolishly commit almost half of their army to defending Belgium and thus split their armies in half

>who could've known that the British would entirely desist themselves of their role and flee to Dunkirk, breaking all semblance of a defensive front

>who could've known that the Ardennes would be this easily penetrated, that's some stroke of luck

>who could've known that the French parliament would unknowingly elect a literal naziboo (know that more than half of the surrenders by the French army were carried out after Pétain's offer for an armistice, which might attest to how much that dropped morale for French troops)

>who could've known that the French HQ would ue tanks in the most retarded fashion ever

Not to mention that the Wermacht was extremely jewy in defeating France:
>stukas litteraly killed fleeing civilians for them to pile up on the roads and hinder French tanks from moving about

>etc... :)

Look at Barbarossa.

Germany does everything the same exact way and gets eternally btfo because the Russians were somewhat competent

or were high in numbers.
i guess it was the numbers, user.

>Mongolian horde meme

I would argue Russia handled the invasion worse, not necessarily because the Soviets were more incompetent but because Stalin refused to take proper defense measures for various reasons,

They did get encircled too many times and lost a shit ton of men, material, and territory, but the initial defense was enough to immobilize the German army before they could take anything too important. By winter, their entire reserve pool had been exhausted and about 70% of their tanks were either destroyed or were no longer combat capable. The German reinforcements were only enough to mount an offensive along a certain portion of the front the following spring.

Could it have been better if Stalin didn't have his miny shock attack? Of course. But I'd still say Barbarossa was a Russian victory in the most Russian way possible: it stopped the enemy no matter the cost

>Russians were somewhat competent
Eh, more time with which to restructure their strategy, and more troops with which to experiment different strategies.

Blitzkrieg, while impressive, does not forever compensate for the deficiencies of your army. For France, it functioned because the country is too small for the german thrust to be stalled, and because the leadership was deluded. But Barbarossa simply highlights that eventually, the blitzkrieg's push will be stalled, and that you'll be fighting with your enemy on the same odds again.

And that's why Germany was STALIN'd.

Indeed
Let's not forget the the Russians lost a territory several times the size of France before being able to stop the Germans

Thanks, and the comparison might even be furthered with what El-Alamein was: as soon as Rommel had pranced slightly too boldly out of range of his supply range, he faced off against British forces that had paced themselves, and basically Rommel was robbed of all the inertia that the Afrikakorps had at first.

The same happened for the Russian campaign: the supply lines were shrinking by each more kilometer that the Germans infringed into Russian land, and they couldn't blitzkrieg ater a point.

I can't blame Hitler though. Blitzkrieg is the only thing that seems sensical to beat Russia. It's the only strategy with which you have a brief advantage. But didn't work for him and didn't last him long enough.

>Why was Germany so successful in the invasion of Western Europe?

Dumb fucking luck. Even the german command was surprised it went so well. The tank divisions thought they were being led into an ambush until the last moment.

Maginot Line was bad because they thought it would be sufficient by itself to make everything right.

Why are you people so fucking retarded? The Maginot line was meant to force the Germans into Belgium, and most French, and British forces were in Belgium at the time. What they didn't expect were tanks through the Ardennes.

Which is why they get their own whole DLC :)

Ugh don't remind me.

I don't see the fuss about that
I mean, sure France and Russia helped, but they clearly didn't contribute as much as the Harlem Hellfighters or the Bedouins

>tfw you realize Germany was only lucky that the French commanders were retarded

but they did no such thing

The free-masons expelled the (high ranked) catholics in the army and replaced them with dumb bourgeois with no exeperience of the war, and no knowledge in tactic or strategy.

Racial supremacy.

>implying the immense amount of manpower didn't play a huge role in the USSR war effort

Now you are the one memeing user.