Talk:Battle of France

Hitler´s secret memorandum to the invasion of Western Europe

find here - in german —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.189.224 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

German dead

In all there were ~49,000 german dead (references: german wiki): 46,000 ground forces, 3,200 air force, about 600 navy. --129.187.244.28 (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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.

Puzzled

I have just finished an extensive copyedit of this article but there are still a few things that range from the incomprehensible to the down-right daft:

1. In the box under "Strength" it states:

"Alps on 25 June ~ 150,000 French" and

"Alps on 25 June 300,000 Italians"

What does it all mean ?

2. In the penultimate sentence of the "Air Battles over the Meuse" section it gives a lot of detail about 'anti-aircraft guns', which is followed by how the Luftwaffe called it "the day of the fighters". Huh?

I would clarify the contradiction myself but I do not have the correct information to hand.

3. The figures in the "Casualties" section don't add up.

e.g. German - stated total is 156,000; actual total is 156,442; a discrepancy of 442. These numbers do include killed, wounded and missing, but they still seem to bear no relation to 129.187.244.28's above, (nor presumably, the German Wiki). Maybe they only apply to the German Army.

Allied - stated total is 2,292,000; actual total is 2,198,947; a discrepancy of 93,053.

What are the correct totals?

4. I have removed at least twenty (20) 'however's' - they are totally unnecessary, at times they are plain irritating.

I have also noted some eighty (80) citation needed tags. This in an article of 108k.

RASAM (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your efforts are much appreciated — and will, of course, be critically evaluated :o). However, "howevers" are seldom redundant: they create the logical structure of a text. The many tags are simply somebody's way of indicating he desires more references, in which desire he is fully justified :o). As regards your questions:

1. It means that on 25 June (end of fighting) there were about 150,000 French troops and 300,000 Italian troops in the Alps; a separate theatre from the German-French frontline.
2. Both German fighters and AA had a field day. That could indeed be made more clear.
3. Sources severely contradict each other on the exact numbers. Also there is no unequivocal way of deciding what is the best source. Therefore it is perhaps preferable if the totals are approximations. Battle boxes really should give only a rough outline. The number of total losses of course vastly exceeded the number of those killed in action.--MWAK (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ineresting comments MWAK but I have doubts about your defence of 'however'. 'However', 'likewise', 'moreover' and words of this ilk undermine the logic of the full stop at the end of a sentence. They should be extirpated from written English.Keith-264 (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, a point contains only a little bit of informative content. "Likewise" and "moreover" inform the reader that the sentence to follow will be in line with what had been said earlier; "however" that some opposition will be made. There are no superfluous words in a language. "George Bush failed as a president. However, he is a true Republican" is different from "George Bush failed as a president. Moreover, he is a true Republican" :o).--MWAK (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sentences to follow are in line, that's why they are in the same paragraph! 'However' etc aren't words, they're punctuation marks for people who haven't been taught English as a written language. RASAM is right; join us....Keith-264 (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, most things you are taught about the "proper use" of language are artificial precepts that have no basis in scientific fact and would lead to a severely impoverished communication if really applied. Why not use the full richness of real language, so that you can effectively communicate? But are there actually books that prescribe "never use the word 'however'"? I of course agree that it is often inappropriately resorted to. But I would hope this was not the case in the text under consideration.--MWAK (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Such reciprocal dogmatism fails to acknowledge that written English is artificial by nature and that without a common standard (to follow or not) richness turns into indigestion. We cannot 'effectively' communicate because communication is either/or. Communication cannot be ineffective only inaccurate. 09:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Alleged use of 'Blitzkrieg'

An explanation of the origin of the term and its anachronistic use in writing on the Battle of France (Barbarossa was the first Blitzkrieg) can be found in 'The German Army, 1933-1945: Its Political and Military Failure' by Matthew Cooper (1978) and 'The Blitzkrieg Legend: The Campaign in the West, 1940' by Karl-Heinz Frieser (Eng trans 2005). Keith-264 (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading the section I really have to wonder why it is in the article at all..? Its completely unsourced, with unverifiable claims and counterclaims. I really have to wonder why such proportion is to be dedicated to what appears to be a debate of minor nature between military theorists and historians, and breaks the fluidity of the text with something that is little else then POVish ideological battleground. Really it would be sufficient to make note that that there are some debates about the subject, and deal with it in detail in the appropriate article (if its not already done there). Kurfürst (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

White FLag

What is that white flag doing next to some flags ? What does it mean ? In the battle of france all allied lost, so why does not everyone get the white flag in the battle of poland, allied lost too, I don't understand what does this sign next to nations flag saying "these are the surrender", when the article and the facts shows the opposite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.15.179 (talk • contribs)

The white flag shows nations that formally withdrew and surrendered to Germany. Belgium, France and the Netherlands all gave up and were occupied.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well - the article on Battle of the Netherlands says that: 'When von Küchler demanded that pilots still fighting for the allies should be treated as francs-tireurs, Winkelman's refusal made it clear to the Germans that only the armed forces in the homeland would capitulate, not the country itself'. Did the Netherlands formally withdraw? --ja_62 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well yes and no, the Netherlands itslef surrendered but it's colonies fought on and formed the free Netherlands.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to cool your enthusiasm down, but colony is per definition a territory dependent on the government of the home country. If the (government of) home country capitulated, then some colony could revolt against the government in order to continue fight, or join some alternative government-in-exile (which was the case with some French colonies when joining the Free French). I always understood that general Winkelman surrendered forces under his command (i.e. Royal Netherlands Army home forces) and the country was militarily occupied by German Wermacht thereafter, but the government refused to negotiate surrender of the country and continued war from exile. Which is certainly not dissimilar to the situation of Poland whose armed forces organised resistance at home country ceased in October 1939, but the country fought on. The situation of Netherlands certainly was different from the situation of France, where the government formally negotiated armistice between France and Germany, not merely a military surrender of forces; and from the situation of Belgium; which is a bit confusing, as the armistice was negotiated on behalf of the King, contrary to his government advice, by which act he probably surpassed limits of his power (King Leopold claimed that he only negotiated military surrender of Belgian armed forces, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces).

I see that is the Netherlands capitulation is supported by reference to Shirer's work, but unfortunately Shirer as a journalist is just too often not the most factually reliable source, though he provides interesting insight into the Nazi Germany.--ja_62 (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well with an argument like that, you can go ahead and remove the white flag from the Netherlands, as for France, well they did surrender and so did Belgium. (While Belgium formally surrendered, many were unhappy with Leopold's desision and fought on in the Free Belgian Forces)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That was how I've meant it - Netherlands was in a bit different situation than France and Belgium. --ja_62 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)