What went wrong?

One almost wonders why France never annexed Belgium as precautionary measure.

yeah, it is pretty much is useless as a buffer zone

Good job modernising it friend. Marine 2017!

This is racist because it implies that Germans are more aggressive than Belgians.
Either build strong fortification everywhere or don't build any at all, shitlord.

Ever heard of Waterloo?
If he was so good at war he would not have lost.

>Gettings fucked by fucking Russia, one of the most backwards nations on earth
>not shit at war

...

Hehe

Ever heard of Austerlitz?
If grouchy and Ney were good at war he wouldn't have lost.

>French are shit at war

They're not though and never have been

Belgians didn't help at all as usual but it was ultimately a fuck up from the french high command.

Relying on old, static defence rather than modernising their doctrine because there were still too many ww1 "victorious" generals in command. Also, the french generals were so sure of victory so rather than working together to actually win they were jockying for position and undermining each other for the post-war honours and positions.

France's soldiers performed just as well as any other nations. But generals like gamelin have stained their nations once great military reputation

you can't do that germany
forests are impassable
reeeeeeeeeeeee

Nah that's actually legit. The French idea was they were going to build a wall on the french border and the Belgians were going to pay for it.

Belgians promptly told the french to go fuck themselves.

>Belgians didn't help at all as usual
given the belgian performance during WWI I'd say the belgians not helping was unusual at that point

at the time it wasn't a bad idea
hindsight is wonderful but blitzkrieg tactics weren't expected

So... Why they didn't just make Belgium side of the line stonger? Do they really expected from Germs to play by the rules, lmao?

That move would have been seen as an insult/threat by Belgium.

"Why the fuck are you building forts on our border"

Also the Maginot line itself was absurdly expensive. Building the fortifications was kind of like a stimulus program during the 30's to soak up the unemployed and give them something to do a money in their pockets.

The Belgians weren't too happy about the original Maginot line, since they could see the intention was to divert a German offensive into their country.

LMAO

>France was the greatest land power in Europe for hundreds of years
>perform poorly in the world wars so retards who only know mainstream history think your bad at war
Poor frogs

The French were screwed by acting with a sense of honour towards Belgian neutrality both times. They basically didn't fortify the border with Belgium because it would've amounted to a political admission that they wouldn't defend Belgium in the event of German aggression. It also would've amounted to admitting that they expected Germany to invade through Belgium again (this time the Ardennes), which was only even considered possible by very few lone voices in the French cabinet.
Belgium was a "glacis" that always forced France onto the back foot because France either had the choice of Belgian support or physical defences. Since the Germans didn't care about neutrality they had no such scruples.

What I never got was why the French and Belgians didn't have some sort of joint fortification and defense project in the case of future German aggression. Build a line of defenses along the dyle and Maas rivers, have the French help out a bit with manpower, and Germany is going to have a hell of a time invading either of them.

The leaders of the allies didn't understand how to war and the axis leaders did.

>perform poorly in the world wars so retards who only know mainstream history think your bad at war

Not just that, but they had an opportunity to end it all during the fall of Poland saving the rest of the world some trouble by easily rolling across the Ruhr but decided to hide behind their fucking fortress and mouth strong rhetoric at the Germans like some Monty python sketch

>Not just that, but they had an opportunity to end it all during the fall of Poland saving the rest of the world some trouble by easily rolling across the Ruhr but decided to hide behind their fucking fortress and mouth strong rhetoric at the Germans like some Monty python sketch

Yes, because attacking at roughly 1:1 odds through the Sigfried line in the autumn would have worked out GREAT.

>Claims French are good at war
>Cites Napoleon, a Corsican who lost big time
What did he mean by this?

Why didn't France pay Belgium to build a wall of their own? Would the Belgians have worried France would invade from the undefended side?

>Yes, because attacking at roughly 1:1 odds through the Sigfried line in the autumn would have worked out GREAT.

If you haven't noticed there was a short window while Poland was getting sacked to simply roll over the thin defenses that were between them and Berlin, they could literally have just taken all of the Ruhr and that would of been the end of them, fuck when Hitler went into Poland the frogs occupied the Saar for a couple of days with no resistance before getting scared and running behind the skirt that was their line

>If you haven't noticed there was a short window while Poland was getting sacked to simply roll over the thin defenses that were between them and Berlin,
No there fucking wasn't.
axishistory.com/axis-nations/145-germany-heer/heer-unsorted/3420-the-german-mobilization-1939
Check the mobilization dates against the fact that there were only 60 divisions slated for Fall Weiss, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_order_of_battle_for_Operation_Fall_Weiss

and do the math.

The buffer state turned into the fluffer state and only helped rep the Gerrys

I presume no one told the good American president this.

>No there fucking wasn't.

Then why did the Germans let them penetrate 35km into their past the line where they encountered sparse resistance?

Read this article

historynet.com/operation-saar-a-lost-opportunity-september-99-world-war-ii-feature.htm

"World War II in Europe was a week old when the French army edged across the frontier into Germany. On September 7, 1939, the German generals’ great fear of a two-front war seemed to have been realized. It was inconceivable that the Germans could effectively counter the mighty French army with the Wehrmacht wholly engaged in Poland."

>Then why did the Germans let them penetrate 35km into their past the line where they encountered sparse resistance?

First off, I just want to correct a misapprehension. The French advanced on a front that was roughly 32 km wide, it was not a salient 32 km deep; they only got about 8km at the deepest, but in any event, that's what defense in depth is; which is the flip side to their theories of mobile warfare. You see how well sticking your entire stack on the border was working for Poland at the same time, not well at all. Rather, you keep your main line of defense far enough back to be out of reach of the initial push, and counterattack when your enemies either overrun their supply infrastructure, or just wear/spread themselves out. The French never actually even engaged the Sigfried line in their rather tepid advance.

In the case of the Saar offensive, they chose Option B, namely to withdraw most of their force before such an attack could materialize, but in either case, it fucking worked, and there was actually quite a bit of German manpower in the region by the middle of September.

>you keep your main line of defense far enough back to be out of reach of the initial push, and counterattack when your enemies either overrun their supply infrastructure, or just wear/spread themselves out

We saw how that worked out

>but in either case, it fucking worked, and there was actually quite a bit of German manpower in the region by the middle of September.

I hope this is bait, how did it work to be specific? By retreating the crisis that was taking place in the German high command literally solved itself and it gave them breathing space allowing battle hardend troops from the East mass right at the border, The Maginot line was a mistake, it put the French into a completely defensive mentality that got them nowhere.

>historynet.com/operation-saar-a-lost-opportunity-september-99-world-war-ii-feature.htm
It's nonsense. For instance, look at this claim.

>The much-touted Siegfried Line seemed abandoned.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Ofensiva_del_Saar2.jpg
Note how the French forces stop short of the actual line, often by about a kilometer and a half.

>Had French Military Intelligence known there were absolutely no panzers facing them, the situation might have been different.
Because yeah! Tanks are what you use in static fighting along fortifications!

>Taking a calculated risk, Hitler stripped the Western defenses in an attempt to guarantee overwhelming victory in the east.
Again, I would refer you to the mobilization tables. By mid-September, you had 40 German "free" divisions. By the time the campaign concluded in Poland, you had all of those guys plus even more formed up troops.

>The French army certainly had the strength to move on Kaiserslautern. Along the entire German border, 85 French divisions stood against 34 Nazi divisions. Of those German divisions, all but 11 were reserve units.
Statements like these that ignore that
A) Most of those 85 French divisions weren't fully formed, and certainly didn't have the organization or the organic transport to actually move
B) That the French divisions were also overwhelmingly reservist
C)That the primary difference between the good infantry unit and the bad infantry unit is ability to move under fire, and that protecting a fortified enclave doesn't require your best troops, while attacking one is considerably harder and requires the use of greater expertise.

>Further reading: The Collapse of the Third Republic, by William L. Shirer
I should have guessed. If you're citing to a journalist and not an actual military historian, you can bet that this isn't real analysis.

>We saw how that worked out
What do you mean? It worked out fine. The French inflicted no casualties of any real note, and refused to even engage the main line of defense.

> By retreating the crisis that was taking place in the German high command literally solved itself
What crises? The local commander whined that his position was in danger. You don't see anything in the OKW headquarters about them pissing themselves.

>allowing battle hardend troops from the East mass right at the border,
There were no "battle hardened troops", unless you count a cakewalk against the Poles to be "battle hardening". Reservist or regular, the Wehrmacht was built from scratch after that whole "complete disarmament" thing from Versailles. Implying there are serious quality differences in battle experience (training or equipment is another matter) is nonsense.

>The Maginot line was a mistake, it put the French into a completely defensive mentality that got them nowhere.
No, the French had a defensive mentality because of their lower population and GDP, slower mobilization systems, and general inability to actually take to the offensive successfully. The Maginot line was an expression of that, not the creator of it.

oc

>Note how the French forces stop short of the actual line, often by about a kilometer and a half.

Still showed a complete lack of willingness to fight on the Germans part which should of been milked for all it was worth

>Because yeah! Tanks are what you use in static fighting along fortifications!

The Siegfreid line was a joke compared to the Maginot line, why wouldn't it be supplemented by tanks?

>Again, I would refer you to the mobilization tables. By mid-September, you had 40 German "free" divisions. By the time the campaign concluded in Poland, you had all of those guys plus even more formed up troops.

The french had that number too in the Saar offensive with probably twice as much in reserve

>A) Most of those 85 French divisions weren't fully formed, and certainly didn't have the organization or the organic transport to actually move

Source

>B) That the French divisions were also overwhelmingly reservist

Source, even then it was 40 divisions against 22 which from we have seen had weak will to fight

>C)That the primary difference between the good infantry unit and the bad infantry unit is ability to move under fire, and that protecting a fortified enclave doesn't require your best troops, while attacking one is considerably harder and requires the use of greater expertise.

Source, you aren't making things up are you?

>I should have guessed. If you're citing to a journalist and not an actual military historian, you can bet that this isn't real analysis.

Weak ad hominem

>What do you mean? It worked out fine. The French inflicted no casualties of any real note, and refused to even engage the main line of defense.

Because they did not fully exploit an opportunity they would never get again in the war

>What crises? The local commander whined that his position was in danger. You don't see anything in the OKW headquarters about them pissing themselves.

Of course they did, Hitler was going to bed at night worried sick bad Frenchy and Brit wouldn't trample over his vacant western front because he sent all his troops to fight in Poland

>There were no "battle hardened troops", unless you count a cakewalk against the Poles to be "battle hardening".

Explain to me how fighting a competent Army was a 'cakewalk'

>No, the French had a defensive mentality because of their lower population and GDP, slower mobilization systems, and general inability to actually take to the offensive successfully. The Maginot line was an expression of that, not the creator of it.

What does this have to do with anything? The French had a fully competent fighting force which refused to use to it's fullest potential, how does any of what you have stated do with the French will to fight?

>Still showed a complete lack of willingness to fight on the Germans part which should of been milked for all it was worth
What? No, literally what? There's a huge difference between ready and able to stay on the defensive and the ability to conduct offensive operations, especially since the Germans would have to charge straight into the teeth of the Maginot line, which is a royally dumb idea.

>The Siegfreid line was a joke compared to the Maginot line, why wouldn't it be supplemented by tanks?
Because A) it was good enough, and B) Wehrmacht doctrine, especially early war Wehrmacht doctrine, emphasized tanks as breakthrough elements, not as direct confrontation elements. You didn't send your tanks at the enemy's tanks. You sent your tanks in after your infantry and artillery had opened a gap to chew up their field hospitals, their command posts, their artillery parks, supply dumps, etc.
>The french had that number too in the Saar offensive with probably twice as much in reserve
And how many of them were actually capable of offensive action?

>Source
Do you have Jstor? jstor.org/stable/4091701?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

>Source, even then it was 40 divisions against 22 which from we have seen had weak will to fight
From the fact that their peacetime army was only 27 divisions? (not counting Colonial troops, which were a werird organization) warandtactics.com/smf/france-585/french-army-june-210839-05-06-1940-oob/?wap2

>Source, you aren't making things up are you?
From, any infantry manual ever? google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwizsLeC5NLTAhXISiYKHbG7ADcQFgguMAE&url=http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/bm~doc/move-under-direct-fire.ppt&usg=AFQjCNF0Ld4RspWN1dmCZ0PJP8FfZDfMOQ&sig2=Jq4KunPwYrRhYJafZJPn-A&cad=rja

>Weak ad hominem
Source criticism is not an ad hominem.

>Because they did not fully exploit an opportunity they would never get again in the war
They didn't have an opportunity, that's the whole fucking point.

>Of course they did, Hitler was going to bed at night worried sick bad Frenchy and Brit wouldn't trample over his vacant western front because he sent all his troops to fight in Poland
Source.

>Explain to me how fighting a competent Army was a 'cakewalk'
From the fact that they pretty much obliterated the entire Polish Army in about 2 weeks, and by the 13th of september had overrun about 40% of the country and split apart every single Polish army Corps from every other one?

>What does this have to do with anything?
Because you are at the very least heavily implying that the French could have easily won if not for building the Maginot line which somehow magically turned all the French commanders into blithering idiots; a notion that is wrong and pretty dumb.

> The French had a fully competent fighting force which refused to use to it's fullest potential, how does any of what you have stated do with the French will to fight?
I've never mentioned the French "Will to fight", I've been pointing out that the odds were not at all pointing to some easy French rollover of the German positions which they just decided not to do because they lacked some intangible elan. And attacking fortified positions against an enemy who is mobilizing enormous formations as your campaign plods on in the autumn is dumb as fuck, not using an army to its fullest potential.

nice

>What? No, literally what? There's a huge difference between ready and able to stay on the defensive and the ability to conduct offensive operations, especially since the Germans would have to charge straight into the teeth of the Maginot line, which is a royally dumb idea.

The fact that the Germans scurried back behind their 'line' in the face of advancing French troops is just bad form and is basically screaming to the French "I DON'T WANT TO FIGHT WE ARE WEAK PLEASE ATTACK US"

>Because A) it was good enough, and B) Wehrmacht doctrine, especially early war Wehrmacht doctrine, emphasized tanks as breakthrough elements, not as direct confrontation elements. You didn't send your tanks at the enemy's tanks. You sent your tanks in after your infantry and artillery had opened a gap to chew up their field hospitals, their command posts, their artillery parks, supply dumps, etc.

Well that just shows that it wasn't good enough if a couple of pillboxes and fortifications can be compared to what the French had, it seemed to only be good at deterring a weak French incursion

>And how many of them were actually capable of offensive action?

May i ask the same thing of the non-battle hardened German Divisions?

>Do you have Jstor?

No, and it's not nice of you to make me read an entire book for a single point

>From the fact that their peacetime army was only 27 divisions?

Honestly forgive me, who's Army?

>How does this play into conscripts, how do you know that German's didn't have conscripts too? Wouldn't that affect their fighting performance?

>Source criticism is not an ad hominem.

It's an ad hominem to dismiss an argument because it came from a Journalist

Have you heard of the second French intervention in Mexico?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico

Or the Franco-Prussian War?
Or just how bad they were in the opening phase of WWI?
Or just how bad they were in the opening phase of WWII?
Or the First Indochina War?

Just saying that there is a number of modern black marks on French military history.

>The fact that the Germans scurried back behind their 'line' in the face of advancing French troops is just bad form and is basically screaming to the French "I DON'T WANT TO FIGHT WE ARE WEAK PLEASE ATTACK US"
So... you're saying that despite the fact that they did have fortifications, they should have just charged out of them and attacked head on? Because that seems a bit dumb. Neither does the reverse, of actually fighting defensively, imply that they could not in fact do so.

>Well that just shows that it wasn't good enough if a couple of pillboxes and fortifications can be compared to what the French had, it seemed to only be good at deterring a weak French incursion
That fort A isn't as tough as fort B in no way implies that Fort A is insufficient to hold up to attack.

>May i ask the same thing of the non-battle hardened German Divisions?
In theater? Probably none of them. But of course they were defending, not attacking, so that's irrelevant.

>No, and it's not nice of you to make me read an entire book for a single point
It's a 6 page essay. But I made the effort.

>Honestly forgive me, who's Army?

>It's an ad hominem to dismiss an argument because it came from a Journalist
I didn't dismiss it because it came from a journalist. I pointed out numerous flaws in the article itself and then dismissed it, using the fact that its sources were garbage as part of that.

The French army.

>They didn't have an opportunity, that's the whole fucking point.

What, do easily roll over a few strangler divisions while the Germans were busy (and willingly making a tactical risk on their part) taking all of the Rhineland for themselves without getting too dirty?

>Source.

historynet.com/operation-saar-a-lost-opportunity-september-99-world-war-ii-feature.htm
"On September 7, 1939, the German generals’ great fear of a two-front war seemed to have been realized. It was inconceivable that the Germans could effectively counter the mighty French army with the Wehrmacht wholly engaged in Poland."

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was also a manifestation of Hitler's desire not to get into a 2 front war so early on

>From the fact that they pretty much obliterated the entire Polish Army in about 2 weeks, and by the 13th of september had overrun about 40% of the country and split apart every single Polish army Corps from every other one?

Meanwhile the other 60% was eaten up by the USSR, yes and no, it was a cakewalk because Poland was doubleteamed and outnumbered on two fronts, but that doesn't say anything about the quality of their Forces, Polish pilots for instance went on to fight in the Battle of Britain and were good pilots

>Because you are at the very least heavily implying that the French could have easily won if not for building the Maginot line which somehow magically turned all the French commanders into blithering idiots; a notion that is wrong and pretty dumb.

If you can't see that the Maginot line dominated French strategic thinking then there is not much i can do for you, they stuck their Forces right behind that line until the bitter end not even thinking that a good defense would be an offence

cont.

>I've never mentioned the French "Will to fight", I've been pointing out that the odds were not at all pointing to some easy French rollover of the German positions which they just decided not to do because they lacked some intangible elan.

But in hindsight it would of been better to at least try then being beaten all together? It should of been clear that the longer France and Britain ignored Germany the stronger they got

>So... you're saying that despite the fact that they did have fortifications, they should have just charged out of them and attacked head on? Because that seems a bit dumb. Neither does the reverse, of actually fighting defensively, imply that they could not in fact do so.

No, if the Germans wanted to show they were serious and not appear they were completely exposed on the west they would not abandon their positions in the face of advancing French forces

>That fort A isn't as tough as fort B in no way implies that Fort A is insufficient to hold up to attack.

But compared to fort A fort B didn't even crack and forced the Germans to circumvent around Belgium and attack it from behind, if a

>In theater? Probably none of them. But of course they were defending, not attacking, so that's irrelevant.

And completely outnumbered at the same time

>It's a 6 page essay
>Page Count: 28

nigga what?

>The French army.

The French had 40 Divisions during the Saar offensive which is as much 'free' divisions the Germans had, and the French would probably have had even more in reserve by that time

*But compared to fort A fort B didn't even crack and forced the Germans to circumvent around Belgium and attack it from behind, if that didn't even hold up then what hope did the Seigfieid line have?

>poleposting

Not even once.

>What, do easily roll over a few strangler divisions while the Germans were busy (and willingly making a tactical risk on their part) taking all of the Rhineland for themselves without getting too dirty?
Are you even reading my posts? You don't have "straggler divisions" in the areas ceded, and you didn't come anywhere fucking close to taking "all of the Rhineland".

>historynet.com/operation-saar-a-lost-opportunity-september-99-world-war-ii-feature.htm
"On September 7, 1939, the German generals’ great fear of a two-front war seemed to have been realized. It was inconceivable that the Germans could effectively counter the mighty French army with the Wehrmacht wholly engaged in Poland."
That does not support your claim of, and I quote

>Of course they did, Hitler was going to bed at night worried sick bad Frenchy and Brit wouldn't trample over his vacant western front because he sent all his troops to fight in Poland

Furthermore, it is your same stupid article with no real citations and doesn't even say a specific general, just "the generals", which is as vague and bullshitty as it gets.

>Meanwhile the other 60% was eaten up by the USSR
No, you might want to look up the MR pact division of Poland,

> was a cakewalk because Poland was doubleteamed and outnumbered on two fronts,
Wrong again. ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Germany/DA-Poland/maps/DE-Poland-3.jpg

Check the advance dates, and note how surrounded and crushed the Polish army was by September 14th, even before the Soviet attack on the 17th. Poland was crushed by Germany.

>If you can't see that the Maginot line dominated French strategic thinking then there is not much i can do for you,
That is not what I said. I said that the Maginot line was an extension of pre-existing French thoughts about future war with Germany, not that it created such thoughts, which you have of course provided 0 support for.

But in hindsight it would of been better to at least try then being beaten all together? It should of been clear that the longer France and Britain ignored Germany the stronger they got
No, that's wrong as well. Britain and France's combined GDP was well in excess of Germany's www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf (Page 27, I know you don't like to read), and their population count is as well, with colonies it isn't even close. Yes, Germany gets stronger the longer a war lasts, but not as quickly as France and the UK does.

>No, if the Germans wanted to show they were serious and not appear they were completely exposed on the west they would not abandon their positions in the face of advancing French forces
They did not "abandon their positions", the Sigfried line was not evacuated. They simply didn't put their best defense right on the border.

>But compared to fort A fort B didn't even crack and forced the Germans to circumvent around Belgium and attack it from behind,
Still irrelevant to the point at hand. You don't attack one fort with another fort, so the fact that the Maginot line was more or less unassailable does nothing to prove that the French could attack the Sigfried line successfully.

>And completely outnumbered at the same time
Again, I refer you to the table of mobilization dates. They were not outnumbered.

>The French had 40 Divisions during the Saar offensive which is as much 'free' divisions the Germans had, and the French would probably have had even more in reserve by that time
user, that is not what is meant by a reserve division when it's talked about in contrast to a regular division.

I wish you luck, but quite honestly, I can't tell if you're a shitposter looking for a fight, or you're just incredibly uneducated about even the most basic facts of miltiary science and get your entire knowledge from memes. Either way, talking to you further is a waste of time.

>uneducated about even the most basic facts of miltiary science
>miltiary science

Wow, you must feel real special with your bachelor of Military Science, do you find yourself arguing with uneducated plebs on /k/ too?

Also, you say that France only had 27 Divisions? I am honestly confused, 40 Divisions were used for the Saar Offensive but you're saying that their 'peacetime' army had only 27 divisions, what the fuck are you even on about?

Napoleon was Italian.

>Also, you say that France only had 27 Divisions?
>From the fact that their peacetime army
>PEACETIME ARMY.

Do you have a reading problem, or a thinking problem?

The French were cowards who had the perfect opportunity to win the war, completely outnumbered the Germans in the west, had better fortifications to fall back on, and would of been able to take the entire Rhineland for themselves without taking Berlin essentially prematurely ending the war, i have no idea where you get this shit about 'Peacetime Army' but in reality Germany had 22 Divisions in the west to spare as the rest of them were pillaging Poland while France had 40, GET THE FUCKING MAGIC NUMBER? 40 DIVISIONS ONTO 22, THINK.

Also i have found a much better explanation then yours, so i thank you for your time and wish you well on your endeavors to become a /k/ armchair general.

France taking Alsace, Bar and Lorraine from the HRE in the first place

t. Anglo

>*autistic screeching*

They thought the ardennes was impenetrable

The germans also had strong fortifications -_-

ooooooooohhhh man me mates!! allo me chapss!!! i think me mates i have just made a major breakthrough in the field of the majestic art of the waggle..!!!lissen closely maties,its not often u hear wagglin tips down the line like what im abouta drop now!!

so u know howdo waggle ur willy.and you now it causes willy pleasure. but did u know what if you stick your finger up your bum and wiggle it around u get bumbum pleasure instead?? combine it with the willy waggle for dubble trubble 0_o whOaAOAOAOaoAOoooo!!!!!!!!!!nows thats what i callsome relief eh esse..mmmhmmm.......stick me finger up my bum......pull it out....hehehehehit smells lilke poopie...eh ey kid,...smell me thinga eheheh smell me smellie fingers kid heheheheheh!!!!!!!!!.....

if u want advanced bumpleasure shove TWO or maybe THREE fingers up ur bum!!!! keep wagglin until ur entire body starts convulsin w/ PLEASURE!!!!!!!!!!!!aaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1MYBUMANDMYWILLY THEYFEELLIKE ITS AN EARTHQUAKE IN ME BUM A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAAaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i dress up in me sisters school unform.finga me bum and take pictures and post it on the internet!!!!!!!! i always ask me mummy and daddies permission to use the net first 0_o just because mummie and daddie dont wanna see u waggle doesnt mean u can be a freeloader breakin the house rules -_-

well until then.pippip cheerio me wankas!!!im off to finga me mates bums and put the picturegrabs on a website called "domblr.com"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!until then waggle it away maties!!!!!!

Putting poorly trained colonials in the woods as a meatshield. Once they broke through it was over due to combined arms. Also the French military being poorly run from an administrative point of view and not adopting new technologies during the interwar period.

Don't get me wrong, the belgians held their own for the most part and the govt exiled itseld to britain rather than surrender but thier niavity in believing the germans would respect their neutrality after ww1 caused the defence of france and themselves to collapse so easily

>Numbers are everything

France was caught with its pants down after years of political infighting and old guard generals refusing to change their ways.

Also many in their military were fascists and didn't really see germany as the enemy

It's a bit like saying, Brazilians are bad at soccer because 7-1.

Problem is that in our peaceful globalized society France has no opportunity to redeem itself.

doesn't matter how many you've defeated in the past if you lose you're no longer the champion.