| Revision as of 10:50, 16 November 2010 editDirector (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers58,714 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:19, 14 November 2024 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers804,565 editsNo edit summary |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |collapsed=yes |class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class= C|B1=n|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y|British-task-force=yes|French-task-force=yes|German-task-force=yes|Polish-task-force=yes|WWII-task-force=yes|Dutch-task-force=yes|Italian-task-force=yes|Canadian-task-force=yes}} |
|
|action1date=21 July 2006 |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=High}} |
|
|action1result=listed |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject France|importance=High}} |
|
|action1oldid=65049269 |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Poland|importance=low}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Belgium |importance=Low}} |
|
|action2=GAR |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Luxembourg |importance=Low}} |
|
|action2date=28 December 2007 |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Netherlands }} |
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_33 |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=High}} |
|
|action2result=delisted |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Italy|importance=High}} |
|
|action2oldid= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=High}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Canada|importance=High}} |
|
|topic=History |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Czech Republic|importance=High}} |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Slovakia|importance=High}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|text=Good article nominee (2013, 2016); OnThisDay * 5 |1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1= |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{WPMILHIST |
|
|
|
| action1 = GAN |
|
|class= B |
|
|
|
| action1date = 07:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|importance=Top |
|
|
|
| action1link = Talk:Battle of France/GA1 |
|
|Australian-task-force=yes |
|
|
|
| action1result = failed |
|
|British-task-force=yes |
|
|
|
| action1oldid = 570362500 |
|
|Canadian-task-force=yes |
|
|
|
| action2 = GAN |
|
|French-task-force=yes |
|
|
|
| action2date = 19:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|German-task-force=yes |
|
|
|
| action2link = Talk:Battle of France/GA2 |
|
|Polish-task-force=yes |
|
|
|
| action2result = failed |
|
|WWII-task-force=yes |
|
|
|
| action2oldid = 709941276 |
|
|Dutch-task-force=yes |
|
|
|
| currentstatus = FGAN |
|
|
| topic = Warfare |
|
|
|otd1date=2012-06-14|otd1oldid=497482366|otd2date=2013-06-14|otd2oldid=559848309|otd3date=2014-06-14|otd3oldid=612856790|otd4date=2018-06-14|otd4oldid=845855217 |
|
|
|otd5date=2021-06-14|otd5oldid=1028496734 |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject Germany |
|
|
|nested = yes |
|
|
|class = B |
|
|
|importance = High |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject France |
|
|
|small = |
|
|
|nested = yes |
|
|
|class = B |
|
|
|importance = High |
|
|
|attention = |
|
|
|peer-review = |
|
|
|old-peer-review = |
|
|
}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Archive box|auto=long}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|counter = 9 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Battle of France/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Battle of France/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |small=yes |dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reluctance of Reynard to surrender == |
|
|
|
|
|
I found a citation for that; it's a newspaper clipping: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19660921&id=AtoLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QlcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5224,3352623 I am horrible at editing wiki pages, so please add. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Casualties == |
|
|
|
|
|
The number of casualties presented here for Germany is doubtful. I really put it in doubt because I guess they are much overestimated. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:But on what is this guess based? You just feel it couldn't be that high for an easy victory? Perhaps the victory was not all that easy then...Or can you refer to improved sources?--] (]) 05:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Allied Casualties - higher estimates of French and British losses, more detailed data on Belgian and Dutch losses == |
|
|
|
|
|
French losses in WW2 until June of 1940 were reported as 52,329 confirmed killed, but as many 352,314 wounded and 1,194,806 captured or missing (reported in "État récapitulatif établi rétroactivement le 10 juillet 1942"). Factual number of killed was probably at least 120,000 (at least 70,000 of those reported missing were also killed) or even more, as there were 352,314 wounded (assuming the proportion of dead : wounded was like 1 : 2,5 (1) - then French dead could number even 140,000+). |
|
|
|
|
|
This document from French archives (SHDT 7N23) that I mentioned ("État récapitulatif établi rétroactivement le 10 juillet 1942"), dated 10 July 1942, lists French casualties from September 1939 to June 1940. And it gives those numbers that I quoted above. As French losses from September 1939 to April 1940 were close to minimal, vast majority must have been suffered in May and June of 1940 |
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Assuming the proportion of French killed to WIA was similar to that of German killed to WIA. |
|
|
|
|
|
Now casualties of other Allies (not including captured): |
|
|
|
|
|
British losses were ca. 5,531 - 6,000 dead (2) and 15,490 wounded = ca. 21,000 - 21,500. |
|
|
Belgian losses were 7,650 killed and 15,850 wounded = at least 22,450. |
|
|
Dutch losses were 2,890 killed and 6,898 wounded = 9,788. |
|
|
|
|
|
Polish and maybe also Czechoslovakian losses are probably included in French losses, but I'm not fully sure.. |
|
|
|
|
|
(2) British non-combat deaths are included here too, but missing presumed dead are not included here! Also casualties after sinking Lancastria (these numbered a few thousands dead & missing) are NOT included here yet. In fact British dead and missing could number even 11 thousands, including 7 thousands on the ground and 4 thousands on Lancastria. |
|
|
|
|
|
So we've got at least 472,500 French losses and at least 54,000 losses of French allies = ca. 526,500+ bloody losses (dead, wounded, missing presumed dead) - not including captured. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 13:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Photograph of weeping Frenchman == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please go here for correct information on that photograph wrongly given as a Frenchman weeping while watching German troops parading on the Champs Élysées in Paris on 14 June 1940. The photograph was taken in Toulon at the time French troops were leaving for French colonies in Africa. The picture was used in the 1943 United States Army propaganda film ''Divide and Conquer'' (Why We Fight #3, @54:50) directed by Frank Capra. |
|
|
|
|
|
Why would the Frenchwoman on the right of the weeping man be applauding victorious Germans parading? |
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 18:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I am aware of the context of the photograph and its erroneous caption, the Frenchman was actually weeping over the departure of French war standards, but there is no doubt that the cause of his grief was the disaster in the Battle of France. Please do not use the caption as an excuse to remove the image altogether (as part of your apparent ''modus operandi'' of removing all images representing French defeat in some way). --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 19:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Lead photograph and image censorship == |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
*French users have been deleting a photograph of German soldiers marching in Paris. (] ] ). This is unacceptable, and should it happen again it will have to be reported in the proper venue as POV content blanking. |
|
|
*The current lead image depicts British prisoners of war at Dunkirk. British forces formed 5% of the military forces engaged in the Battle of France (316,000/6,650,000) or around 9.5% of the total Allied forces (316,000/3,300,000), so imho we can probably do better. This battle was, bay far, the most significant Axis victory of World War II, and imho the removed image best represents the catastrophic nature of the defeat and is a good candidate for the lead. It is also a very famous photograph very representative of the overall outcome of the Battle of France. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:First I'm not French, second I'm not nationalist, third your favourite picture does not picture the battle of France and is redundant with an other nazi propaganda picture in the article.] (]) 20:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Please. The picture ''does'' depict the ] (10 May – 25 June 1940) - it was taken on 14 June 1940. Secondly, by your narrow "definition" of what depicts the Battle of France, the picture of prisoners of war does not do so either. You will be reported for repeated content blanking. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 21:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Yeah, do it please. Your very "helpful" contributions on the French history and your intolerable behaviour on the discussion pages will be reported too.] (]) 21:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You do not get to decide and proclaim images "redundant", remove them and then edit-war over it. Your entire rationale is nonsensical. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 22:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The Nazis marching by the Arch of Triumph seems a very fitting image for the article's lead photo, as compared with a generic photo of some POW's. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Damn straight Baseball, this image is famous and certainly belongs in the article ] (]) 22:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::As opposed to being deleted entirely from the article... on a whim --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 22:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::One concern I have is the user griping about "Nazi propaganda". Maybe it was such in 1940, but now it's merely a historical fact, as the Huns were driven from France (how's ''that'' for some propaganda?) and the country is mostly in the hands of the French and the tourists now... some of whom are even German. It's an iconic photo. I don't see why the user should have a problem with it. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::We should find a photo of tourist formations marching past the ''Arc.'' Historical perspective. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 23:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::They seem to be marching rather casually; and note the guy in the background, ''on a bicycle'', wearing a primitive version of a cyclist's helmet. Maybe they ''were'' tourists... wearing the latest Paris fashions. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::There are about three pictures of Nazis parading in Paris in this article (2 marching in front of the Arc de Triomphe)... Isn't it slightly redundant ? ] (]) 13:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Not really, the germans walked all over paris. It is kinda the iconic image of france after it`s defeat really, so the images are fine. ] (]) 15:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Yeah, I was surprised to notice this famous photo was under-represented when it is freely available - it depicts in one image an entire period of French history. I'm not so surprised after these discussions, though... --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 19:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
On 26SEP10, within 6 minutes, DIREKTOR put this picture in prominence in three articles: |
|
|
*Battle of France |
|
|
*Arc de Triomphe |
|
|
*Paris |
|
|
|
|
|
Previous to this edit by DIREKTOR on 26SEP10, there was no warring about this picture which has been in article "Battle of France" for many months. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== fall of france == |
|
A picture representing nazi soldiers marching by the Arc de Triomphe on 14 June 1940 does not belong as first picture of the article titled "Battle of France"; it belongs to the end of it, as the "Battle of France" did not begin with naz marching through Paris. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what caused the fall of france ] (]) 18:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
There are plenty of pictures available illustrating a "battle", not a march to end the show. For instance, photographs similar to those |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:One factor was that they left the ardennes to go and hep defend belgium, a region with heavy treeline and bumpy hills because they thought that Hitler couldn't penetrate the area with so many troops and tanks however, Hitler did penetrate his forces through the area and blasted through the french lines which French Commanders were caught veyr off guard by. ] (]) 17:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
Also, please note that out of 15 pictures (last count), |
|
|
*11 show Germans & German actions, including 2 of Germans marching in Paris with view of Arc de Triomphe & one of the naz-in-chief in front of Eiffel Tower; |
|
|
*4 represent: |
|
|
#English prisoners, |
|
|
#French General Gamelin, |
|
|
#French troops embarking on an British ship, |
|
|
#one crying Frenchman. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== BEF size == |
|
Missing: |
|
|
*Towns & villages in ruin |
|
|
*Stukas of the Luftwaffe diving on columns of refugees during the exodus, zeroing in on the millions of Dutch, Belgian, French people on the roads, killing an unknown number. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the prelude section under 'Allies' it states that at the start of battle the BEF was 1.6 million men. Given the BEF was only 13 divisions that is clearly wrong. ] (]) 10:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
--] (]) 00:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I think that seeing as 250,000 were taken home from Dunkirk and another 150,000+ emigre contingents from other ports it might be that the 1 in 1.6 million is wrong. ] (]) 11:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Maybe. Annoyingly all the books on my shelf give only the number of divisions. The number though is written in full so is unlikely a typing error. ] (]) 11:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::The number of 1.6 million men refers not to the BEF but to the total armed forces, territorial divisions and units in training included.--] (]) 14:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
:I'm sure those could all be subjects to be explored in the body of the article. The lead photo indicates a summary of what happened - namely, that the Nazis (temporarily) conquered Paris. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Yes I think the author has added a zero to the figure. 160,000 would tally with 13 divisions, and with the numbers rescued in Operation Dynamo. ] (]) 17:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Prelude == |
|
::I've added the picture during the same session (within six minutes! :) because I had just finished cropping and repairing the image with my new Photoshop CS5 - along with a very ''very'' large number of other files including images of Napoleon Bonaparte and Charles de Gaulle, as well as (finally) introducing proper French colours from the tricolour in the Free French Flag, etc., etc... |
|
|
::You should know, the usual method of attacking me with absurd ideological implications is to call me a "communist". I'm rather enjoying the change of pace. :D But seriously, I'm certainly not any sort of "Nazi-sympathizer" (I'm not even German), so I seriously suggest you cease opposing this image on such grounds and with such implications. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 02:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It says that the french mobilised 5 million men but that only half served in units in the north. So where were the other half? Are we talking about the navy as well? I feel this needs clarification. ] (]) 10:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, the text now states "France mobilised about one-third of the male population between the ages of 20 and 45, bringing the strength of its armed forces to 5,000,000" but this is a clear mistake. The male population of France numbered about twenty million in 1940 and about six million of these were between 20 and 45 years old.--] (]) 14:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well I've just been to my bookshelf, both books I checked gave the mobilization figure as 5 million so that bit seems right. ] (]) 20:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Size of Allied Forces involved == |
|
I'm French, so DIREKTOR, once more, will talk about the ''French users'', nationalists… but |
|
|
*]: ''In ], the '''Battle of France''', also known as the '''Fall of France''', was the German invasion of France and the ].'' |
|
|
*]: ''The '''Battle of Belgium''' or '''Belgian Campaign''' formed part of the greater ]''. |
|
|
*]: ''The '''Battle of the Netherlands''' ({{lang-nl|Slag om Nederland}}) was part of Case Yellow ({{lang-de|Fall Gelb}}), the ] of the ] (Belgium, ], and the Netherlands) and France during ].'' |
|
|
This picture is not related to the ] or, more specifically, Belgium or the Netherlands. <br> |
|
|
] is much more related to the campaign; the ] was the turning point of the whole campaign; I put this pict back as lead image. ] 11:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(originally from Loic on AHF) "Pierre Le Goyet La défaite 10 mai-25 juin 1940 gives for Metropolitan France 1. may 1940 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 651 802 "aux Armées" (means the Front) |
|
@DIREKTOR: ] can be found on ], ], ] and ]; isn't it too much? ] 11:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
529 028 des formations du territoire (Interior) |
|
|
675 386 Depôts et Centres d'Organisation (Interior) |
|
|
75 638 Foreigners (RMVE & Légion in Métropolitan France, Polish & Czechoslovak Armies) |
|
|
53 466 in the hospitals" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overseas and Air forces aren't included in the above nor is naval. For the Belgians and Dutch, the wiki articles show 600,000-650,000 men and 280,000 men respectively. The BEF in France was 390,000 men. Luxembourg had 693. Even if we only go with the Front armies for the French and even then exclude the 150,000 French attributed to the Alps (and no airforces), go with the lower Belgian estimate, and ignore the RAF that totals to at least 3,770,000. Something is seriously wrong with the article. ] (]) 06:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
:As there was never a consensus for the change in the first place, I have put the photo of the English POWs back at top of article & that of the marching naz in the section where it chronologically belongs. |
|
|
:--] (]) 04:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
:Do you have any written sources for your claims? ] (]) 20:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
Let me suggest a solution. Why don't you create some kind of ], just like in ]'s infobox ? ] 16:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Plan names == |
|
:Thank you ] for the suggestion. |
|
|
:Another suggestion (mine) would be the use of a map, which gives a better idea of the evolution of a battle. i.e. what the article is about. |
|
|
:*http://en.wikipedia.org/File:1940FranceBlitz.jpg |
|
|
:This would solve the problem of the photographs, which could then be put in their respective place. |
|
|
:May I also suggest that at least one picture of refugees on the roads of France, as the illustration of the 1940 Battle of France cannot be summarised with one photograph of English POWs and several of German officers & naz marching through Paris. Nothing in this article represents the civilian population. Millions from the Netherlands, Belgium & France were on the roads. |
|
|
:--] (]) 19:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Somehow I noticed and lowercased "Weygand plan" before noticing the other named plans. Looking at , it seems that these were initially much more often lowercase, but the capitalization has been creeping up over years. Still, not close to the "consistently capitalized in sources" criterion in the ] guideline about what to treat as a proper name. The Escaut plan shows up much less in sources, but also sometimes lowercase, as (one of several books quoting , or maybe something older). On the other hand, the names "Plan D", etc., seem more often treated as proper names. So shall we fix them accordingly? ] (]) 21:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Or... OR... we could NOT censor an image from Misplaced Pages? How's that for a suggestion? :P User:Frania Wisniewska & pals are roaming around Misplaced Pages with a bunch of buddies (likely recruited after a while from frWiki) trying to remove this image because it depicts French defeat. In the Battle of France. :P |
|
|
|
:Seeing as you've taken the time to do the work, why not? Regards ] (]) 07:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent edits == |
|
::I don't mind a colage if it includes the famous pic of the German parade, but I think we will all find "User:Frania & pals" is here to REMOVE this image from the lead, not to improve the images in this article. They will not accept any colage idea that includes this image. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Tordrey joenks}} Greetings, would you like to discuss the fate of your edit? Regards ] (]) 17:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::These folks should not be allowed to get away with this. You'd have to be pretty stupid not to see through this play and its primary goal. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 10:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It was largely factually incorrect...--] (]) 07:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Apart from the paranoid and melodramatic tone—your attempt to discredit any opposition to your contentious edits as malicious "censorship" is a deplorable tactic—your caption is factually incorrect: Paris did not "surrender," but was declared an open city 13 June when the French government moved to Bordeaux. The Armistice—i.e. the "surrender" of France, if it'll make you happy—was declared 22 June, meaning there had occurred nothing by the date of the photo that remotely fits your description. Secondly—and I hold this to be the proper context for any disinterested and honest discussion of the topic—given the organized, focused, relentless, and extremely effective campaigns, waged in the United States in particular and in English-speaking countries more generally, to besmirch, discredit, and ridicule French military history, your denunciation of other editors' "ulterior motives" are bound to come across as a little disingenuous. The Eastern Front ended with the raising of the Soviet flag over the Reichstag—an "iconic" image if I ever saw one—but the editors there apparently did not find it essential to plant that photograph in the Infobox. ] (]) 22:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::MWAK, (I am repeating my response to someone else here): I thoroughly read the two books on the matter mentioned, and was left with this clear impression that the decision to stop so much military spending was the action of the new--and first ever--Socialist party government, who prioritized its people's every day lives over military spending. The strategic angle on stopping the Maginot line worked as well, and I believe that it became the dominant story. ] (]) 09:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::You're looking for villains in the wrong places. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Hello, Keith. I thoroughly read the two books on the matter mentioned, and was left with this clear impression that the decision to stop so much military spending was the action of the new--and first ever--Socialist party government, who prioritized its people's every day lives over military spending. The strategic angle on stopping the Maginot line worked as well, and I believe that it became the dominant story. ] (]) 09:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::My tone may be rough I admit, but I think my frustration is not without cause. Why in the world should this image be removed from Misplaced Pages?? --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 02:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:The French wanted to fight another war in Belgium and killed two birds with one stone by fortifying the common border, on the basis that a soldier in a fortified position had the effect of seven in the open. The Maginot Line allowed the army to use 1/7th of the manpower it would have needed without fortifications. This meant that the army could afford to armour, mechanise and motorise the field army, safe in the knowledge that it would fight on a relatively narrow front. Given the difference in population sizes this was logical. The French socialists were sell-outs as usual, which is the job of socialist parteis and didn't last long before it was far-right as ususal. By 1939 French and British rearmament was catching up with the German rearmament that began in 1930 and no-one expected the Germans to win in six weeks. As Moltke the Elder had said, a mistake in the initial deployment can hardly be remedied during a campaign. It was the Breda Variant that did for the French, not decadence. I commend you on reading the books but it might do you good to read several more to see the evolution of opinions about the reasons for the Allied defeat and the incomplete victory of the Germans. Regards. ] (]) 11:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::I assume you're talking to Albrecht. He's looking for a conspiracy that isn't there. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Oh yeah, I'm a Nazi that hates the French military. I mean, this is the first time I ever discussed (or even ''thought'' about) it, but hey why not... :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Your text: "These units ultimately are the ones that were quickly defeated during the coming invasion. The modernized armored forces fared quite well against Germany's panzers. However the holes in the French line created by the more obsolete armored units enabled the Germans to surround the modernized French units..." is misleading. The DCrs could not have been equipped with a more modern type, because the production capacity was simply lacking, given the state of the French industry. No amount of money could have remedied this, unless France would not have disarmed in the early 1920s. Whether they would have fared any better with more or more modern tanks is also very doubtful. Their main weakness was their intended tactical rôle as breakthrough units.--] (]) 06:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::@Albrecht Btw, to declare an "]" is a ''type'' of surrender where a city surrenders without battle (quote: "abandoning all defensive efforts") - as opposed to "conventional" ''surrender'', a term which does not imply there was no fighting. Also thank you for the history lesson, however I assure you your efforts were needless. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 10:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
In the prelude section under 'Allies' it states that at the start of battle the BEF was 1.6 million men. Given the BEF was only 13 divisions that is clearly wrong. Firestar47 (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
It says that the french mobilised 5 million men but that only half served in units in the north. So where were the other half? Are we talking about the navy as well? I feel this needs clarification. Firestar47 (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
(originally from Loic on AHF) "Pierre Le Goyet La défaite 10 mai-25 juin 1940 gives for Metropolitan France 1. may 1940
2 651 802 "aux Armées" (means the Front)
529 028 des formations du territoire (Interior)
675 386 Depôts et Centres d'Organisation (Interior)
75 638 Foreigners (RMVE & Légion in Métropolitan France, Polish & Czechoslovak Armies)
53 466 in the hospitals"
Overseas and Air forces aren't included in the above nor is naval. For the Belgians and Dutch, the wiki articles show 600,000-650,000 men and 280,000 men respectively. The BEF in France was 390,000 men. Luxembourg had 693. Even if we only go with the Front armies for the French and even then exclude the 150,000 French attributed to the Alps (and no airforces), go with the lower Belgian estimate, and ignore the RAF that totals to at least 3,770,000. Something is seriously wrong with the article. 47.220.25.18 (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Somehow I noticed and lowercased "Weygand plan" before noticing the other named plans. Looking at n-gram stats, it seems that these were initially much more often lowercase, but the capitalization has been creeping up over years. Still, not close to the "consistently capitalized in sources" criterion in the MOS:CAPS guideline about what to treat as a proper name. The Escaut plan shows up much less in sources, but also sometimes lowercase, as here (one of several books quoting this 1941 passage, or maybe something older). On the other hand, the names "Plan D", etc., seem more often treated as proper names. So shall we fix them accordingly? Dicklyon (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met.svg)
