re: How well did the French Army of 1940 fight against the Germans?

I have many books bound in genuine Corinthian leather. My office smells of rich mahogany.

quote:

---

The French military doctrines were not "backward"

---

yes they were

quote:

---

Let's get to it, how many books have you read about it? That's your purpose here, correct?

---

I was thinking he hadn't read any, but figured his tenure running the hair clippers at Camp Villere gave him a lot of practical insight.

quote:

---

Let's get to it, how many books have you read about it? That's your purpose here, correct?

---

No, idiot, that is not my purpose. My purpose is to bring some insight into a topic that everybody THINKS that they know very well, but don't.

How many books have I read on the topic? This sort of thing is my chosen profession, so, I have spent some time studying this kind of stuff.

quote:

---

Curiously, before the end of 1942 and with a few rare exceptions, no other land army was able to fight tactically as effectively against the Wehrmacht as the French army of 1940.

---

The entire premise is flawed. The French Army was incredible in WWI - they were just led by 19th Century butchers (which was mostly true of the Germans as well) who had no understanding what a meat grinder machine guns and over-the-horizon field artillery were going to make of infantry assaults.

But in WWII? Just awful. 6 weeks. You can only defend your own country with the, on paper, most powerful army on Earth for 6 weeks? Against a force whose logistics support was essentially horse drawn carts and guys carrying stuff by hand?

Get the frick out of here. They were prepared to refight WWI all over again, thus the Maginot Line. They skipped the chapters where the Germans went around their defensive line 25 years earlier, THROUGH BELGIUM. Hitler and company were doing a perfected version of the Schlieffen Plan from a generation prior. One the French barely blunted the last time when things moved much more slowly. And they were fooled by it again, despite Hitler's far more obvious aggressiveness (compared to the Kaiser).

Now, I don't know about you, but fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice? Shame on me.

quote:

---

You haven't read one damn book about the Battle for France in 1940 have you?




And you have read how many books on this campaign?


And pray tell us about the many books you've read on this campaign

---

Goddamn do you inhale choad

Eta :

quote:

---

How many books have I read on the topic? This sort of thing is my chosen profession, so, I have spent some time studying this kind of stuff.

---

Confirmed a thousand times over

quote:

---

the germans would have destroyed the russians, turned around, and finished off the brits.

---

Probably not - Hitler lost WWII at Stalingrad, which was in 1942 but the U.S. being in the war had negligible (if any) effect on the outcome of that battle.

Now, a negotiated settlement might have been available if the U.S. wasn't drawn in by the Japanese in December 1941 - certainly, but he wasn't going to destroy the Russians. Not in 1941 and not ever. When Barbarossa failed to reduce Moscow, offensive operations were suspended as winter set in for 1941. The date? December 6th, 1941.

I see some folks have been watching Netflix.

quote:

---

Champagne

---

quote:

---

No, idiot,

---

I'd offer Sonic, but you'd end up asking about books read and forget.
No one knows as much as you on this subject on this site, you happy?