Talk:Battle of France

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Allied contemporaries of relatively senior rank, was extensively versed in and staunchly espousing of, then apparently, outdated tactics, extensively based around infantry and infantry-support, and staunchly defensive strategic baseis, largely concerned with holding the defensive line(s)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)

- Actually the germans would have to invade poland first if it occurred today, they would invade poland and russia first to win/lose. Nazi germany was basically a 2/3rd split of the world, geographically and politically speaking. Thialand and Japan invaded burma easily. It would be possible for it to win actually if they invaded poland and russia first. The problem with invasions is that siberians wouldnt be able to have the population of 1.6 million people cooperate. However, dionin it says that the world was split into two. So hindu pakis had a problem in germany at that time. The so-called turks were attacking them! This happens when a subspecies like hindus get weeded out by another species of dravidian turks. The turks were fighting the uighurs because they were inexperienced. They were young races whom didnt know what nature meant. You have to fight and kill other people because its like a necessity for economy but most of all because they need to depopulate the world from greed and selfishness via karma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd777 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

-Something the art of war didnt tell you in books is if you have strong defenses u win. Thats how u know youre enemy. With strong defenses. If nazi germany sanctioned off france and poland somehow, they could have strong defenses but japan attacked america..japan basically gave in. During a war scenario, if you show the slightest amount of fear when youre surrounded u lose. Youll make crucial wrong decisions, however right decisions are made via calmness eg youll handle the situation with nukes or something?!? Thats why america didnt step in early, because they had to make sure the enemy was weak. The west plays chess, but the east plays a deadlier game of go. The fact is stalingrad too was repeated as a bad mistake taken from the american civil war and ww1. You dont want to equalize the strength of your armies. The romans in austrailia started some kind of chain reaction after they defeated japan in a naval battle.

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))

Not historians. And it is traditional to use Battle of, rather than fall of; unless we are writing about an organisation or some such thing. Dapi89 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)