Talk:Battle of France: Difference between revisions
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
== Invasion of France may have not worked == |
== Invasion of France may have not worked == |
||
France had strong defenses. The only reason why they lost was because nazi germany cheated and broke through the rhine in the southern side. They basically snuck in and attacked from behind. The matter of the fact is, defenses if ready and fortified enough, always wins the war. If you have strong defenses you will always win. France was in a position which mexico is in, a bad location with weak defenses in the south. I mean really, who is going to set up batteries on hill tops without expecting an aerial assualt? Who would think tanks can go around mountains? Well, german tanks could because they were made for all terrain environments. They could run over trees and go through river beds. On top of that germans built modern bridges in a few days if not weeks. If you can do terrain warefare you can win france...but only by cheating. Mexico or the south tip of poseidon would be pummeled because its surrounded by water. It would not have strong defenses because of technology. A naval blockade would destroy the continent into pieces, which is why i find tom clancy games unbelievable somteimes. Iran however is a different story, its totally invincible. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Asfd777|Asfd777]] ([[User talk:Asfd777|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Asfd777|contribs]]) 14:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
France had strong defenses. The only reason why they lost was because nazi germany cheated and broke through the rhine in the southern side. They basically snuck in and attacked from behind. The matter of the fact is, defenses if ready and fortified enough, always wins the war. If you have strong defenses you will always win. France was in a position which mexico is in, a bad location with weak defenses in the south. I mean really, who is going to set up batteries on hill tops without expecting an aerial assualt? Who would think tanks can go around mountains? Well, german tanks could because they were made for all terrain environments. They could run over trees and go through river beds. On top of that germans built modern bridges in a few days if not weeks. If you can do terrain warefare you can win france...but only by cheating. Mexico or the south tip of poseidon would be pummeled because its surrounded by water. It would not have strong defenses because of technology. A naval blockade would destroy the continent into pieces, which is why i find tom clancy games unbelievable somteimes. Iran however is a different story, its totally invincible. During the 40s they had no long range weapons, so missiles are crucial for winning wars now. Long range weapons could have done impact from the sea onto german territory if 1940 happened today.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Asfd777|Asfd777]] ([[User talk:Asfd777|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Asfd777|contribs]]) 14:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Fall of France == |
== Fall of France == |
Revision as of 14:55, 4 October 2012
Battle of France was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 14, 2012. |
|
|||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of France article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Reluctance of Reynaud 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.
Belligerents in info-box
Switzerland a belligerent?
The article claims in its info-box that Switzerland was a belligerent, albeit in a limited role. This is news to those who thought that the country remained neutral during WWII. The article fails to explain this and provide any documentation. Clearly, territorial space of Switzerland was violated by Axis and (more so) by Allied forces during WWII, but I doubt that this would make Switzerland a belligerent.Ekem (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
United States a belligerent?
The article claims in its info-box that the US were - in a limited way - a belligerent. Certainly the US became a belligerent during WW2, but when? The statement should be elaborated within the article itself with suitable documentation, otherwise the statement should be removed. Ekem (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the two corrections.Ekem (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Photos
What benefit does "British soldier killed near Amiens, 21 May 1940" add to the article? Its more of a snuff photo than anything else. How does it help illustrate the Battle of France, or the section that it is contained in? From what i can see it adds nothing to the article.
In addition, the photo of French tanks moving towards Sedan is already used in the infobox. The space it is taking up could be used by something new and fresh so that the same photo does not feature twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Not a run-on (I think). Still awful.
"Critically untimely enough at this point in time and circumstantial situation, though, Weygand, rather similarly enough to Gamelin and the predominant extents of his colleagues and Allied contemporaries of relatively senior rank, was extensively versed in and staunchly espousing of, then apparently, outdated tactics, extensively based around infantry and infantry-support, and staunchly defensive strategic baseis, largely concerned with holding the defensive line(s) at most all costs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.137.104 (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps not a run-on, but certainly incomprehensible! ( WYGAND PLAN - Incomprehensible Sentence.)
I agree with the above comment. I was going to try and suggest a correction along the lines of
"Despite the critical lack of time, Weygand, like Gamelin many other Allied senior officers, remained committed to outdated infantry based strategies, largely concerned with holding the defensive lines at all costs."
But I'm not 100% sure that is what was meant.
173.13.238.203 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Gibby
Australia?
Why is Australia not included in this? We lost over 40 thousand men on the western front defending those french cowards!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.200.75 (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Invasion of France may have not worked
France had strong defenses. The only reason why they lost was because nazi germany cheated and broke through the rhine in the southern side. They basically snuck in and attacked from behind. The matter of the fact is, defenses if ready and fortified enough, always wins the war. If you have strong defenses you will always win. France was in a position which mexico is in, a bad location with weak defenses in the south. I mean really, who is going to set up batteries on hill tops without expecting an aerial assualt? Who would think tanks can go around mountains? Well, german tanks could because they were made for all terrain environments. They could run over trees and go through river beds. On top of that germans built modern bridges in a few days if not weeks. If you can do terrain warefare you can win france...but only by cheating. Mexico or the south tip of poseidon would be pummeled because its surrounded by water. It would not have strong defenses because of technology. A naval blockade would destroy the continent into pieces, which is why i find tom clancy games unbelievable somteimes. Iran however is a different story, its totally invincible. During the 40s they had no long range weapons, so missiles are crucial for winning wars now. Long range weapons could have done impact from the sea onto german territory if 1940 happened today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd777 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Fall of France
Most people refer to this period as the Fall of France, rather than the Battle of France. (92.7.17.196 (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC))
- Delisted good articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- B-Class Dutch military history articles
- Dutch military history task force articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- B-Class French military history articles
- French military history task force articles
- B-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- B-Class Polish military history articles
- Polish military history task force articles
- B-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- B-Class Germany articles
- High-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- B-Class France articles
- High-importance France articles
- All WikiProject France pages
- B-Class Poland articles
- Low-importance Poland articles
- WikiProject Poland articles
- Selected anniversaries (June 2012)