So was the Battle of France really as easy as it is said to have been for Germany ?

But we did would have all the "Le surrende of france meme" this is the dankest timeline

France had given its all during world war 1, no leader would let its country go through the same thing again

The frogs were in their full right to give in to German demand, they had given and lost more than enough.

>Rommel
>Three divisions in France

????

>France had given its all during world war 1

So did the Germans and the British though?

Yeah, the Germans were really impressive in WW2
But the British had given much less than France in WW1, and even then they were kinda meh in WW2

France was the strongest country in Europe at the time and they still lost pretty easily.

They lost one battle and won all the others if I'm correct.

>France was the strongest country in Europe maymay

False

We were the strongest in Europe until Manletleon came and slaughter millions of French in its campaigns

We never recovered from Shitleon, and its why we lost badly during the Franco-Prussian War, we recovered a bit at the time of the WW1, and somehow managed to BTFO the Germans but it doesn't show that we were strong but just how weak the Germans were

At the time of WW2 our manpower was the same as during the Franco-Prussian War and we still lost badly

All to say that if Fuckoleon never existed we would have crushed the Germans during both World Wars

Your little pet names a really cringy frogboi.

As long as they manage to express my hatred of the Italian manlet i'm with them being cringy

The French need some time to get their shit together, it has always been like that and will always be since the Revolutionary war.

>Be French army in the late 1700's
>Lose every battle against the first coalition
>Valmy happens
>Kick ass for twenty years

>Be French army in 1914
>Get fucked in the first months of the war
>Marne happens
>Kick ass for the rest of the war ( At a slow pace, indeed )

But this was WW2, and they couldn't get their shit together fast enough. I'm confident that if they managed to hold for, say, an extra month, the Germans would have been right to be paranoid about a French counter attack and as a matter of fact it almost happened until Gort decided to GTFO at Dunkirk.

You're right, Napoleon should have been crushed, and the ideals of the revolution with them, who wants a republic anyway ?

Not in the length that France went

>British
They sent pakis and indians, actual Anglos never fought and the war wasn't on their land

>Germans
Used dirty tricks like Sub-machines, chemical weapons, the war wasn't on their land too, and they immediatly surrendered when it came on their land

>So did the Germans and the British though?
Where did most of the war take place?
Which villages were destroyed?
Which people fought continuously for the entire war and lost the most, in percentage (serbia excluded)?
Which zones are still uninhabitable?
Which capital was in artillery range?

The Brits didnt sacrifice half a generation of men. They hardly fought in the first half at all. Americans sent some troops at the end.
Did You know France lost more men in ww1 than america has in its entire history?

Pic related, French army and air force deaths per day during the battle.

Germany suffered worse casualties than during Barbarossa.

If you want to rage at the complete incompetence of French officier, read the first 50 pages of De Gaulle's autobiography.
How could one man have been so right but never listened? France trumy was traumatised by WW1.

>This is your brain on /int/

>read the first 50 pages of De Gaulle's autobiography.
>How could one man have been so right but never listened?
Oh no, this user is retarded.

Still waiting for an argument

They did

Napoleon was the reason you managed to so effectively dominate Europe in the napoleonic wars. Those coalition wars weren't ordinary feats.
And Napoleon 3rd might've saved France from the disaster of the Franco-Prussian war had the French government not interfered with his ambition to build-up the French army.

5/6/1940
what hapened

Beginning of "Fall Rot"

Napoleon was an enigmatic figure
It was his rise that created the modern conscription system(well more of revolutionary france but he perfected it) and he put France on the level of dominance that Louis XIV har and beyond,which other country almost won taking up against all the major powers
But he was too impeteous and a bit shortsighted and was way too naive about every other country opinion on him,especially the g*rmans
Also he indirectly caused the creation of France's greatest enemy,he swept away the decrepit Prussian forces so hard that they had to restructure its entire officer corps and general staff that it became a war winning force
If only there was a less ambitious,more corterous and taller Napoleon we would probably have France bashing thread and germanophilia in Veeky Forums

>So was the Battle of France really as easy as it is said to have been for Germany ?

Yes and no. The German success was due as much to luck and enemy incompetence as it was to good planning, timing, and god-tier allocation of forces.

That said, 'easy victory' is relative here, as this was a Germany going up against the two premiere powers in Western Europe without sufficient materiel (they had to plunder tanks from Czechia and Poland to fill out their own armored divisions).

If the Low Countries hadn't been autistically neutral (rendering the British/French plan for defense useless due to lack of coordination) and if the French high command had been even slightly more competent, the German armed forces would have been so crippled that an invasion of Russia would have been impossible. Even Hitler was shocked at how well things went.

t. anglo

As said.
Incidentally German losses also skyrocketed during the same period as the French had adapted but the lack of reserves and materials shortages meant that once the Weygand line was broken it was over.

when the Germans met actual organized military resistance they got pretty badly mauled according to Rommel's diaries, but most French forces were either not even in France, cut off by Gamelin's Dyle plan insanity. The sad rump of the biggest, most advanced army in Europe was trapped in traffic gridlock trying to get to a battlefront that was almost constantly moving forward, on roads crammed with civilians fleeing the other way

>tfw if the French had massed their numerically and technologically superior armor Germany would have been massacred and Europe saved

>Did You know France lost more men in ww1 than america has in its entire history?
That's cause they just suck at war

Better question: why didn't France invade Germany through Belgium first? Was their mobilisation that slow?
All that build-up of german forces against poland
poland campaign
build-up of german forces against france
What were they doing all that time?

Rommel Divison, in France.
hahahahhaha

I love how everyone here suddenly quotes Dunkirk.
YOU FAGS DONT KNOW SHiT ABOUT THE WAR

Appeasement They honestly didn't care about that side of the world. They reasoned, foolishly, that reclaiming like lands would calm their anger about the shitty humiliating treaty they were forced to sign. Then the germans blitz through some neutral territory. They did what they could, but honestly it was a nation wide sucker punch. The full might of France v Germany would have been a lot more staled and then you have ww1 trench warfare again

tldr: the buffer states failed too quickly

>3 of which were rommel's elite panzer divisions
top kek

>it was a nation wide sucker punch
The war was ongoing for almost a year
Why didn't french armies attack germans first?

>rommel
>france
Are you just making shit up?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arras_(1940)

>Why didn't french armies attack germans first?
French high command knew Germany had a bigger population, and counted on the british support to have parity. But the British sent 10 divisions. That's also part of why the french morale was so low. Europe was basically expecting France to, again, sacrifice itself against Germany (the UK barely sent men, the USSR made an alliance with Germany, hoping the german armies would lose many men in France).

Rommel was present during Battle of France, the user is just wrong about the number of divisions under his command. He commanded just one, the 7th Panzer Division.

this is some embarrasing shit

for the brainlets:
Rommel commanded the 7th panzer division during the battle of france in 1940
it was part of XC Army corps, consisting the following division:

5th panzer
7th panzer
2nd motorized
under the command of general Hoth

4th army, army group A

XV Army Corps, typo

This is misinfo. You mean those coalitions declared on him? You mean those wars he inherited and won with legendary skill? It's like you expect him to have raised a white flag at the first sign of a coalition. Get real. You think he didn't know about the loss of life? He lost his best men and friends along the way but he knew the cost of war.

Hey!

Maybe a little irrelevant but I wonder?
During the Second World War, do you think there was a plate of cutlery that broke or was broken?

The British really didn't want another war, as did France, but had learned that Hitler wouldn't stand to his word or stop his expansion. The Germans on the other hand believed that the victory in a modern total war could make up for the losses in men and the fucked economy.

My question is only, do you think there was a plate that broke down during World War II !!

>3 of which were rommel's elite panzer divisions
I don't know what's worse, that this user thinks Rommel had 3+ panzer divisions under his command or that Rommel wasn't some life-long mountain infantry commander who lucked into commanding a panzer division thanks to Hitler's favoritism.

>actual Anglos never fought and the war wasn't on their land
tfw more British soldiers fought and died at gallipoli than all other entente forces on that beach combined yet ANZAC's still say that the British fucked them on that beach.

Stop samefagging, dumb brit

Hindsight is 20/20
He wrote it to make himself look good

Despite the facts that he wrote books and multiple articles about the war about his strategy, campaigned for more than ten years to get it applied with politicians and military people, which are all things we can check in the past ?
But no, you who do not know anything about the subject, have not read anything about it, have judged that he simply "lied".
God I fucking hate this place sometime.

>t. anglo

What were the roles of the Belgian and Dutch armies during this campaign?

Speedbumps.

>If the Low Countries hadn't been autistically neutral

Sorry we didn't fight off the entire German war machine on our own while your boys went running off at Dunkirk

They did their part. The Dyle-Breda plan lead to the French defeat in the end. The French high command wanted to keep the Belgian units in the war, but Gamelin added the Dyle variant, and added the French reserves in order to fight in the Netherlands. In the end, all the best French units were lost in Belgium.

>Despite the facts that he wrote books and multiple articles about the war about his strategy
Do you know how I know you never read a single pre-war book or article by de Gaulle?

France lost a million men in WW1 and a drop in birth rates in the interwar period mesntnthose numbers were nowhere near replaced.
Their entire plan for the Germans was purely defensive; they couldn't give what they had done in WW1.