France in 1940

Could France have defeated Germany in 1940?

What should the French leadership have done differently?

Other urls found in this thread:

spectrum.library.concordia.ca/977623/1/Parker_MA_F2013.pdf
hubpages.com/education/The-Weaknesses-of-the-French-Army-in-1940
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>What should the French leadership have done differently?
Everything

Get more fucking radios

Outright defeat? Probably not, but not losing and holding off until the greater industrial and manpower pools of the combined French and British empires could be brought to bear would be possible with the right frameworks in place.

>What should the French leadership have done differently?
Several things, from the operational to the doctrinal.

The simplest would be to take advantage of the Mechelen incident to more forcefully persuade Belgium that swift action was necessary. There would be a HUGE difference between what historically happened and an alternate timeline where the French and British armies entered into Belgium in mid to late January and spent most of the winter and early spring fortifying along the Maas and Dyle rivers; things which cut down on the German mobility are generally into the Allies favor.

More thoroughly though, for France to survive, she needs a wholesale change in both doctrine and intelligence and planning. I would recommend this on the subject.spectrum.library.concordia.ca/977623/1/Parker_MA_F2013.pdf

They not only had a by then archaic WW1 style doctrine centered around artillery being everything and battlefield mobility being a chimera, but they failed to even apply that properly in the face of Germany's swift bowling over of Poland. A looser, more bottom-up command structure, a notion that maybe it would be a good idea to use the mobility of armor as part of their tactical toolkit, actually integrating their air arm with their ground forces, and having reserves in place to help deal with localized breakthroughs would all have made their position enormously stronger.

You make some good points.

The bongs and frogs had to mask their impotence early on, and go on the attack. Failing to attack the krauts shortly after September 1st demonstrated they were full of shit. The Sitzkrieg/Phony War exposed them as feckless idiots. The halfhearted and incompetent Norway operation only put the taste of blood in the krauts' mouth. They let the enemy work out the bugs in their system, ramp up their combat power, and be fully prepared to wind up and deliver a haymaker. It smacked them dead on the jaw and they were knocked out cold, 1st round KO.

good luck.

I want to see Loli Manstein get pegged by loli Zhukov!

thicc

*Ghosts Divisions to the Channel*

nothin personell kid

Kay is best GuPgirl fuck everything else

Saori is better

PUFFY

Thats a dick. Its MANstein

I wanna see her insert that marshals baton

Rush to Berlin and put down the German government, French are shit at defending

They're not any better at attacking

Better than anyone else

That's cute

>English invaded France
Looks like this map wrong

I'm happy to hear your argument

this map is using the word "invade" very loosely

oh shit is there a new one of these out? link?

No, it just counts military presence. With the very same rules, Czechs invaded GB in WW2.

Ah yes, the French invasion of Greenland

They had Thailand?

Dawn

More

Get a load of this retard

Built a bigger wall

Sauce ? Je suis intéressé

Would Hitler have won if he was a cute anime girl?

All they had to do was listen.

french indochina

Hitler was a black woman

Go back to the end of WW1 and get rid of all that old aristocratic military leadership and boom

Maybe if Hitler was Tanya

>What should the French leadership have done differently?
Attack in autumn 1939.

...

The actual French military was well trained and their equipment was on par with Germany.

What they suffered from was a doctrinal failure and on the larger sense a political failure. Another year at war would have allowed these failures to wash out and the result may still have resulted in defeat for France but it would be a Pyrrhic victory for Germany.

>Google Monty quote
>Source is institute for historical review and nothing else

>want it to be false

>spend 3.2 seconds looking

>complain about first questionable website I see

>that one kid that noclipped behind your defenses

>website doesn't even provide source for Monty's quote
>One of the footnotes isn't even a source but tries to explain a point further without citing anything

>luckily found one questionable website that had one of the six quotes on it
>Refuse to move on or investigate further, I've found what I need
>Cling to this single shred of doubt

let them suck their dicks a lil more

Thanks to Albert Speer preventing Adolf from leveling everything, you mean

>John Eisenhower's son from same website, no source provided
>B H Liddell Hart as well, same website, unsourced
>Leroy Lutes is literally from Stormfront with the source being David Irving
>singel shred of doubt
Hoh boy

/pol/'s bullshit in action, m8

I'm just amusing myself at this point, funny how I stopped being a /pol/ack when I started checking sources, took me long enough.

It means it's curable, at least

Some /pol/acks you encounter aren't actually trying to push an agenda, it's just that they've been lead to believe that the global perception of /pol/ is the truth and that whatever you've been taught has been a lie. Some people genuinely want to look for the truth but get accidentally succumbed into the claws of /pol/ constantly bragging about being a bastion of truth or w/e. Some snap out of it by fellow anons providing much more convincing arguments, or perhaps they debunk themselves when they start checking sources or facts. That's why I say we shouldn't just brush away a thread that devolves into shitflinging among neonazis and whoever the fuck. Some of those people might be lurking and not taking part in the argument, and by providing valid counter-arguments one could snap them out of the nonsense and realise the'yre being played with like "good goys".

I agree, but the problem is that it requires much more energy to do things correctly and counter arguments than posting epic jewish merchants and collages. Props to you, still.

>Could France have defeated Germany in 1940?
Yes
>What should the French leadership have done differently?
Everything

GODDAMMIT JAPAN, STOP MAKING ME WANT TO FUCK RULE 63'D HISTORICAL FIGURES. THE NAME CHARLES DEGAULLE AND THE TERM THICC SHOULD NOT BE UTTERED IN THE SAME SENTENCE. MY PANTS ARE FAR TOO TIGHT FOR ME RIGHT NOW AND I DON'T LIKE IT.

>a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on

It's unlikely that France could win in 1940 even if they did everything right, because the Germans had so much more resources than they did. While the number of men initially engaged in the battle of France were about equal, the Germans had more industrial capacity, and more 18 year olds who think themselves invulnerable to bullets.

FWIW, I think the last time that France could "beat" Germany was before the construction of the second Siegfried line, or even before the re-militarization of the Rhineland. With the Rhineland demilitarized, French troops could seize it extremely quickly in case of war, and cripple German industry. Combined with the Poles attacking from the east, Germany would be hard pressed.

The Siegfried line gave Germany time to eliminated Poland before turning on France by allowing a token force to hold off the French Army.

>the Germans had so much more resources than they did

Oh PLEASE, in 1940 the UK+France had a vast superiority in navy, artillery and tanks; only outdone in aircraft.

Are you then going to tell me that France and the UK wouldn't have been able to rival German industrial production?

Those quotes are probably bullshit, but the attitude of the French being very accommodating to the Germans is a historical fact. A tiny percentage of Frenchmen ever aided let alone joined the various resistance groups. The older populace had an attitude that France suffered enough in WW1 and they didn't want to experience the same suffering. Only some radical college students gave enough of a shit to put up any resistance.

>Google Monty quote
>Google

m8.....

>only outdone in aircraft.

Even then the bongs had superior bombers, and the Germans wasted a ton of resources on the useless Bf110s. So hardly all that much of an advantage.

>The campaign in the west that followed in 1940 demonstrated that the Bf 110 was vulnerable in hostile skies. It performed well against the Belgian, Dutch and French Air Forces, suffering relatively light losses, but was quickly outclassed by increasing numbers of Hurricanes and Spitfires.

Only outdone after the battle of France

there were a lot of problems but they probably could've won if they did things differently
hubpages.com/education/The-Weaknesses-of-the-French-Army-in-1940

>Could FRANCE have defeated Germany in 1940
>answers by immediately including other nations