Talk:Battle of France/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Page dump

Marek2 (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Any mention of the Polish forces contribution seems desperately missing : 3 divisions, 6 000 killed or wounded, 20 to 30 000 evacuated to Great Britain. Where is this mentioned ? Only a flag and a Commander in chief ...

If its missing then you should add it with a well referenced reliable source.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Marek2 (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC) See Polish Armed Forces in the West or Polish contribution to World War II Marek2 (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Somua S35.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Somua S35.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:1133517382 small.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:1133517382 small.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead photograph again

who is loading the picture of Nazi passing the Arc de Triomphe. My picture is much better and relevant to the BATTLE of France. This parade happened after! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.95.144 (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello again 79.85.95.144!

I understand your frustration, (since some wikipedians have made non-constructives comments in an over-passionate debate) but I think that insulting DIREKTOR is not the good way around. Indeed you have raised some interesting issues with this picture and I think that the best way for you to be heard is to stay cool and also receptive to the arguments of the others.

I would like to discuss what you have left on my talk page:

The picture of the German army passing the Arc de Triomphe is irrelevant. It is nothing about the Battle of France itself. The parade even happened after the 17 June 1940 (when Pétain put an end to the battle, begging for an armistice). This picture, I guess, is rather a way to mock the French again and again, showing the Battle would have been only a parade.

I think that the picture is not really irrelevant since it illustrates the consequences of the Battle of France: the storming of the capital of a country is virtually the symbol of the defeat of your opponent. Hence, even if it has nothing to do the battle itself, it can be viewed as a symbol of it: by looking at the picture you can deduce the outcome of the battle (which is very rare).

So this picture is not about mocking the french people, but it is about a striking contrast between a symbol of one of the greatest defeat of France (Nazi soldiers) and one of the greatest victory of France (Austerlitz with the Arc of Triumph), which makes this picture a unique piece of photography and history. I believe that's why it seems difficult for some wikipedians to find a better lead image...

By the way, no one could mock the french people: we weren't there, and moreover no one here have ever fought in a war to defend their soil a few years after the end of another war which depleted their country.

However I agree with you for saying that this picture is not really representative of this battle since it doesn't show the fights that have been led and the destructions it have caused all across France (Paris is not France!). Hence I think we could find a compromise (per WP:NEGOTIATION), and create a collage including this picture, as it was suggested by Naevus. (We could start with a picture of the beginning of the battle and finish by this one representing the outcome of the battle). It seems sensible since other articles have similar collages for their lead image. For instance, the lead image of Napoleonic Wars represents chronologically from the top to the bottom: the greatest victory (Austerlizt 1805) and the greatest defeat (Waterloo 1815) of Napoleon.

I wait for the comments of any wikipedian willing to solve this issue.

PS for 79.85.95.144: I think you should remove by yourself the insult, because everybody can get upset and cool down after-all! So it would show you will to participate peacefully to this debate.

Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's ok, I deleted the insult. I'm a calm personn, but I did get on nerves when I saw my picture removed again and again. That's over now. I have nothing against the picture of the Arc de Triomphe, I know it is world-known and I understand your view, but I don't want it to summarize the whole campaign. The idea of a collage is much good. I think we could do a four-picture collage with the Arc de Triomphe, "my" knock-out tank and two others.

I do only suggestion but anyone can find much better of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_troops_lifeboat_dunkerque.png http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1971-083-01,_Frankreich,_franz%C3%B6sische_Fl%C3%BCchtlinge.jpg http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Dunkirk1retired.jpg http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-383-0337-19,_Frankreich,_Calais,_zerst%C3%B6rte_Fahrzeuge.jpg http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Bundesarchiv_Bild_121-0396,_Frankreich,_Allee_mit_zerst%C3%B6rten_Fahrzeugen.jpg

Once again, thank you for your long and clever answer. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.95.144 (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Debating would be pretty dull if everyone were sharing the same opinion! As regards the two other pictures, I would choose http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1971-083-01,_Frankreich,_franz%C3%B6sische_Fl%C3%BCchtlinge.jpg (I remember seeing it in some history books), and http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Dunkirk1retired.jpg (because we could make a link to the article Dunkirk evacuation).

However, I would like other wikipedians to step in, in order to get a consensus as broad as possible about this collage. Hence I will let a message on the talk page of the main contributors who participated to the previous discussion.

Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The current picture represents the consequence of the battle of France, not the battle itself. I agree that this picture should be replaced by a picture of actual fighting. UltimaRatio (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I think collage is a way to achieve neutrality through the representation of multiple chronological aspects and multiple points of view. All pictures mentioned above are of great historical significance, yet none of them can summarize the Battle of France without the others. When it comes to historical records, better have many than one. Best regards, Naevus 23:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Arc image depicts the result of the battle of France and it's immediate aftermath, which are both certainly a part of this article's scope. And that was the consensus. Bringing up the exact date seems more like an excuse to remove a perceived (quote) "insult to France". The image is (quite obviously imo) very well representative of the subject matter. I do not have the slightest problem with France and anyone who knows me on Wikipedia can vouch that I certainly have no pro-Nazi inclinations (quite the opposite), but this is one of the most iconic images of WWII, representing perhaps better than any other, not only the Battle of France, but the entire period of the German blitzkrieg.
That said, as I've stated above, I certainly would not mind if it were incorporated into a collage, indeed, I'll have a go at it myself when I return from vacation. With the deepest respect towards France, regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The photo of the marching naz was one of propaganda for the pleasure of the naz-in-chief. You yourself say that it "depicts the result of the Battle of France and its immediate aftermath". If so, it does not depict the battle itself. A picture supposed to represent a battle is one of the battle itself, not its aftermath. Pictures of the landing in Normandy on 06JUN44 are of GIs getting off landing craft at Omaha Beach, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1944_NormandyLST.jpg

as lead illustration of article "Invasion of Normandy": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Normandy not of GIs marching down the Champs Élysées with Arc de Triomphe in background on 29AUG44. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:American_troops_march_down_the_Champs_Elysees_crop.jpg

--Frania W. (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Newsflash: most wartime military photographs were shot for proaganda purposes of one side or the other. The images you link to are certainly good examples of Allied propaganda photos, should we exclude them on those grounds?

The botom line is that this image is related to this article's scope (indeed very much so). I do understand what you are saying, but I think its obvious none of it is grounds for removing the pic. As I said I do not oppose using it alongside other images, and when I get back from holiday I will try my hand at putting together a collage.

Again affirming my complete and total lack of hatred towards France and Frenchmen, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There was no fighting in Paris, so why use a propaganda photograph taken in a city occupied after the battle was over?

RE your comparison between your beloved propaganda photograph of the naz marching by the Arc de Triomphe vs the GIs getting off landing barges on 06JUN44, why don't you interview the GIs whose pictures were taken while they were landing & ask them if they were posing for propaganda purpose? Maybe you should even ask those buried in the cemetery up the cliff above Omaha Beach.

--Frania W. (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should cool off and stop trying to provoke a fight? Yes Frania, the Nazis were Bad Guys, the Allies were the Good Guys. But sometimes the Good Guys need to use wartime propaganda too. In fact, as you must know being so well informed in WWII issues, Allied war propaganda was far more potent, more expensive, and indeed, more effective than German propaganda. And since we're indulging in (completely irrelevant) digressions on WWII casualties, it may be interesting to note that US and French casualties combined do not reach the estimated 1,000,000+ Yugoslav casualties (suffered in the fight against the Nazi occupation). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westfeldzug

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_de_France

--Frania W. (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope the collage is ok. I've basically modelled it on my previous collages (for example this one or this one). I'm still not back from vacation, though, and it may take time for me to respond. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing Reference

Citation 248, holmes 2005 p.130 has no related reference. The citation is linked to information about the British Casualties. Would it be possible if someone could add the reference in please? Thank You.

Gavbadger (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Idiotic statement

"Those Parisians who stayed in the city found that in most cases the Germans were extremely well mannered.[227]" Were these the "nice" Nazis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.37.244.9 (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

I am afraid this article cannot maintain its B-class as long as there are citation needed tags in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

The photo of the Pzkw-IV D in the info box (file:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-055-1599-31, Frankreichfeldzug, Panzer IV.jpg) is reversed in the lead. Is there some reason for that? Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2013 (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

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)

== Hitler was innocent... == and you are a bastard

There are several groups that want to rewrite history to make Germany the innocent player. A particulary fine example of this nonsense is [1]. Some of this article reads a bit weasily, that Germany was on the back foot and had to attack.

I particularly note that the article stated that Hitler made a peace offer before the battle. I changed this to On 6 October, he may have made some type of peace offer to both Western Powers. Any statement along these lines needs to be made very carefully, what were the offers, and what are the sources for the information. Tuntable (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that he made a peace offer. In view of this your change is rather deceptive, as if it were somehow contentious. Indeed, after Hitler had taken the gamble of attacking Poland (of course the man was far from innocent) he also needed a victory in the West — the alternative would be to accept eventual defeat. The facts of history can be abused but this is no reason to misrepresent them.--MWAK (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can find any details of the offers actually made then adding a few sentences about them would be a great contribution to the article. The whole area of Hitler's peace offers is difficult because of the revisionists. Hess's offers were supposed to be basically that England accepts defeat, but the sources are not that reliable. So more information would be good. Tuntable (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is not about German-Entente diplomatic relations. The reason why the peace offer has to be mentioned is that its refusal initiated formal German operational planning for the offensive. We could of course in a few words make clear that basically Germany desired Western acceptance of the status quo, i.e. the German conquest of Poland.--MWAK (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's actually a very interesting and debatable question, in spite of the rather provocative title. Would Germany have declared war on the UK/France had the UK/France not declared war on Germany? My guess would be: probably not, at least for quite a while. Hitler's ultimate goal was Russia, and he actually courted good relations with the UK (upon whom France depended). Once he'd established himself in Eastern Europe, from that position he'd probably try to get the UK to align with Germany rather than the US ("we'll let you keep all your colonies, the Americans will pick you clean"). If this failed, Hitler might then have attacked France/UK, so as to secure his western border in his war against the Russians (but presumably only if France/UK seemed like a threat to that border).

The point is Hitler (unlike imperial Germany) didn't actually want anything from France and Britain - his colonies would be in Russia: hence the only scenario in which he attacks is to secure against a possible (or very real) threat. France and Britain did want something from Germany, namely to stop the expansion of German economic/diplomatic influence and territorial acquisition in Eastern Europe, i.e. to safeguard their own economic/diplomatic influence in Eastern Europe. By 1939, all of Eastern Europe was pretty much in Germany's sphere. France and Poland were effectively the only countries on the continent opposed to Germany.

But this is all speculation and WP isn't a forum. What changes are you proposing exactly? -- Director (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Speculation indeed. My guess is that the fact that France did not attack during the Poland campaign means that they would never attack, so Hitler could ignore them.

As to the article, I had already made the chage above which resolves that issue for now. I would prefer if someone more knowledgable would expand the sentense into a proper paragraph. But not to just leave it as it was.

I am also a little concerned about the following statement, which reads as if Hitler was forced to act.

Halder argued that, as Germany's strategic position seemed hopeless anyway, even the slightest chance of a decisive victory outweighed the certainty of ultimate defeat implied by inaction.

Tuntable (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the German High Command assumed, probably correctly, that without a (by their own assessment far from certain) victory in the West there was no realistic prospect of ending the war on German terms ("ignoring" was not an option, as the combined effects of mobilisation and blockade were wrecking the German economy and structural dependence on Soviet supply was politically unacceptable). Of course Hitler could have accepted ending the war on the, much more equitable, Western terms, so he wasn't forced to do anything. Action better suited his preferred rôle of obnoxious warmonger.--MWAK (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Right on as ever MWAK. They were the critical factors in Hitler seeking a decision in the West in 1940. Experts Karl-Heinz Frieser, Richard Overy and Adam Tooze would side with that argument. In actual fact it the accepted rationale of Gelb and Rot. Hitler was forced to act, period. Dapi89 (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

@Tuntable. Ditto MWAK. Indeed, not only that, but France did actually attack Germany while Fall Weiss was taking place in Poland (but suffered relatively heavy losses). No, once the UK declared war on Germany, there was no question that there would be some kind of attempt to neutralize France as quickly and easily as possible. France, though, was utterly finincially dependent on the UK, especially after the economic shocks of the '30s, and would basically follow its lead. She was, unofficially, very much the junior partner of the alliance.

The key point to keep in mind regarding the geopolitical situation was the new "sick man of Europe" - the UK, which no longer had the economic capacity to stand alone as a superpower. Once faced with said lack of power by German economic expansion in Europe (after the limbo of the Interbellum), its choices were essentially to either enter the German sphere, or the US sphere (which actually happened). One must remember this was before Churchill, who's arrival to power essentially signaled the UK's choice.

Hitler had good reason to hope the UK would arrive at an understanding with Germany - while he focused on Russia. Traditionally, the UK would always ally with the weaker of the two potential rival factions (which was undoubtedly Germany this time). Hitler repeatedly made public his lack of interest in the British colonial empire, while there was no doubt that the Americans would demand entry to those markets (i.e. the dismantling of the Empire through agreements such as the Atlantic Charter). But, most likely due to the radical nature of the Nazi regime, that time the UK allied with the stronger faction - and almost instantly entered its sphere.

Had the UK not declared war on Germany in 1939, that would have been a course of action in accordance with a decision to arrive at an understanding with Germany. It would be indicative of a British intention to eventually align itself with the growing continental power of Germany - by not challenging its further growth. Already at that point we're well within "alternate history": a world where Britain does not declare war on Germany in 1939 is most likely a world where she (and France) eventually enter into a German sphere. -- Director (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with most of that. I object to the French being determined as the junior partner, even unoffically. On the battlefield 140+ French divisions with 10 British divisions of varying strength did not give the British much muscle. Influence lay in the power of your field army. As in 1914-16 the French were the senior partner on the battlefield. Diplomatically, the British intervention and decisive contribution in 1917-18 won the Empire an enormous degree of prestige which it used in 1933-40. In part it explains why the French followed the British into war. But once British land weaknesses had been exposed—their power having declined from its peak in 1918—military policy was determined by French perogatives and it would have been so for the War's duration; for had the French instituted better communications and listened to their intelligence the campaign would not have played out as it did.

It is difficult to believe France was dependent on the British to a greater degree than her Allies were on her. The British were relying on the power of the French Army which protected the British coastline and denied the German Navy easy access to the Atlantic—a lifeline on which Britain depended....at least until June 1940. Dapi89 (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Slight adjust: The above post was on the basis of DIREKTOR's first comment (here) which was a general comment about the junior partner business. I notice his post has since been modified. Dapi89 (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, influence is derived primarily from economic and financial power - which may or may not be directly backed-up by military force at any one time. British financial influence in France during the Interbellum was very significant. The lack of military involvement on the part of the British is really more indicative of their seniority in the relationship, rather than some sort of "weakness". The British would use French soil and troops to fight their battles for them. If France were the senior partner one might expect she would force the British to muster far more troops and material for the defense of France. As it happened the British actually withheld vital assistance (in the form of RAF fighters). No, I remember reading quite a bit about this.. it was all very cordial and friendly, but France really did follow Britain's lead. For example, the UK declared war first and the French leadership checked with the British before issuing their own declaration.. -- Director (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It would depend on what you mean by by economic power. The French had stockpiled huge amounts of arms and munitions and did not require assistance in that regard.

I don't agree with that, when you say lack of military involvement on the part of the British is really more indicative of their seniority in the relationship, rather than some sort of "weakness". I mean that just buys into a long running myth that Britain has mystical powers. Their lack of military involvement owed to the complete lack of prepardness!!!! It had nothing to do with seniority!!! They were so far behind in 'land rearmament' in relation to the Germans and French they were not going to be a major factor on the battlefield....and they were not.

The point about the British using the French is a far sounder one. They did the same in 1914-16 for the same reasons—they were far weaker on land than the two major land powers. But that plan backfired.

When you say France were the senior partner one might expect she would force the British to muster far more troops and material for the defense of France I also have to disagree. The French were so in 1914-15 and no matter how hard they pushed the British for further involvement, the British refused until there was a real danger of collapse at Verdun, in turn leading to the Somme. Thereafter the threat the French Army would disintergrate through morale and rebellion compelled the British to assume the senior role in 1917-18. Dapi89 (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Stockpiles of ammunition are far more an attribute of military power, rather than necessarily of economic strength.

The "mystical powers" people refer to are money and general economic capacity. Its not all in raw military power, especially when you have a pretty wide area of water to protect you against raw military power... It has been a centuries-long policy of Britain not to concentrate on a particularly powerful land army, but rather to make use of continental allies to do the bulk of the continental fighting. Whether its using Germans against the French, or the French against the Germans - its all the same policy. Rather, Britain simply bankrolls its allies through commercial and financial strength. The "complete lack of preparedness" for land warfare(!) was in great part simply due to said policy. Its not particularly admirable, but it was effective.

The British refused - because they could afford to refuse. Also, during WWI France was rather closer to Britain. By WWII both were more miserable and economically drained, but France more so than Britan - thus presumably widening the gap. -- Director (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

The advent of the aircraft and submarine ensured there were no natural barriers. I know that was tradition—I've written some stuff about that—but they could not afford to bankroll anyone in 1940!! The British were a declining power, they could barely afford to arm themselves. And I think you are ignoring the lessons forced upon them. The First War taught the Brits much. First on the list was that small commitment to land campaigns were no longer an option. Industrialised wars did not allow for that attitude post 1914. They would have committed a sizeable army had they been capable of delivering it.

It was not only land warfare they were inept and unprepared for!! Fighter Command and the RN surface fleets were their only assets. Bomber Command, Coastal Command, the British Army writ large, anti-submarine aviation, anti-submarine naval forces (Even ASW of all things!) , airborne forces, carrier aviation, you name it were either undeveloped, incapable or non-existant.

When you say they could afford to refuse which war are you refering to? I or II? In either case, when British policy was to maintain the balance of power in Europe they could could not afford to refuse. They were forced to commit in 1916 under threat of a French defeat. Naturally leading to a hostile coastline in Europe, a threat to British sea communications, thus the homeland and the Empire. The loss of 'the sea' to a military and economic competitor would have been a disaster—and the First Reich was hard on the heels of the British in that regard in the 1900's. Dapi89 (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

British holdings in 1939. The French colonial empire essentially amounted to the Magreb, Indochina, and a whole lot of desert.

Of course there are natural barriers, that's just nonsense. If they were nullified Germany would certainly have occupied Britain as well in 1940 - no question. The channel not only protected against overwhelming German land power, but also added protection against the Luftwaffe as well. German machines, tactics, and pilots were notably superior to those of the RAF - and they had more - yet the fact that fighters had to fly quite a long journey before they reached southern England proved the no.1 equalizer, both in terms of flight time and in terms of radar detection.

As declining as Britain undoubtedly was (didn't I just say that?) - France "declined" as well, perhaps more. The British were still more significant than France in terms of Great Power influence - they held one-fifth of the globe's d fighter pilots.

Having power on the continent is what matters in 1940 thats the point. Their status in remote corners of the world does not translate into strength in May-June 1940, which is what were talking about here.

I'm not. I think I've zapped everything quite well. You're arguments are missing the point. Anyway, till next time. Dapi89 (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Luftwaffe fielded 934 single-seat fighters and 289 two-seat fighters for the battle. The RAF had 754 single-seat fighters and 149 two-seat fighters at that time. All in all, that's an advantage of about 320 fighters. The Channel served as a very useful "barrier" indeed against Luftwaffe fighters, as I said, both in terms of reducing flight time and in terms of allowing for accurate radar detection.

What we're talking about is French influence and standing in comparison with Britain in 1939. Not the above nonsense. You're veering off the point so much you might as well be on another Wiki. -- Director (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect figures. Richard Overy and Horst Boog have done a great deal of research on the number of pilots and fighters available to each side at the beginning, duration, and end of the battle. On average - particularly in the middle and end, the British had more fighters, and more pilots. The Jagdwaffe ran at a third deficiency rate.

And how did the sea stop the Luftwaffe making it to England. Did it prevent them from flying over England? What is this barrier you speak of? Where German bomber crews forced to turn back when they reached the Channel, or this mysterious barrier?

Influence is dependent on military muscle. Anyway, this really is the last post I'll be making here.

I had a feeling you'd start throwing insults. I'll take my leave of you now. Good luck, you need it. Dapi89 (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Take it any way you like - Germany had notably more fighter aircraft at that time. That was my point; issue closed (as far as I'm concerned anyway).
• If it were not for the Channel, Britain would certainly have been occupied. The Channel protected Britain. That was my point; issue closed.
• Military strength is a factor in diplomatic standing, but by no means the only or even necessarily the most significant one. And you forget that French superiority is only in land military forces, and neither in naval or air power (the British were superior in both). Again, perfect example: British hegemony in the 19th century, with a far superior French land army at all times. If, for a hundred years, the British enjoyed a diplomatic position clearly superior to that of the French, in spite of French always having a larger land military - you should at least allow for the possibility that this state of affairs had not changed. As it had not. In fact, it was accentuated.

-- Director (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

FRENCH PROPAGANDA

French scum are trying to transform france's cowarld as a long and honor resitance.........During the battle of france,the French don't win any battle : They lost all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!So Wikipedia must says that the frence are coward who prefer surrender than fighting to the death!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.15.176 (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your intemperate post does not inspire confidence that you are capable of editing according to the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. I have reverted your edits (which in any case left some very poor prose in its wake). Please refrain from reinstating them, but please present - if you can - some citations to justify your contention. Alfietucker (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of France/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 06:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

✗ Fail I am going to quickfail it, which is what I've never done before. I am, however, fed up with seeing GAN that miss basic criteria. This article has a good number of citation requested tags, and several clarification needed tags. Those are problems obvious at a glance - and thus I'll fail it after a glance. Please consider that we have a several-months log of backlog in Good Article reviews, and do not take reviewer's time submitting articles with such clearly visible problems. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Only the French Forces were defeated???

I smiled at the introduction:

"the Fall of France, was the successful German invasion of France and the Low Countries, beginning on 10 May 1940, defeating primarily French forces"

primarily? Should we understand that the BEF, the Poles, (I don't even talk about the Belgians and Dutch) were victorious but alas because of the French, the battle was lost? Let's be honest: the Allies were ill-prepared and even if there had been one million Brits in France then, I don't see what they could have done that the French did not try.

"defeating the Allied Forces" seems to be much fairer. The Brits were defeated in France, then of course they did not surrender as the Wehrmacht could not put a foot on England and so on so on. But still, I don't see how we could spare the Brits or anyone else of the result of the battle: a defeat. For all the Allies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.70.122.132 (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please - you seem to be confused about what the purpose of Wikipedia is, and how to effectively participate in the editing process, whereby we continually strive to make the best articles possible without truly amateur attempts at trolling... Azx2 07:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

obviously, there was a 1-sentence article on the ref list of 'Battle of France'

The following article was on the ref list :

• Belgian American Educational Foundation. The Belgian Campaign and the Surrender of the Belgian Army, 10–28 May 1940, Third edition. Belgian American

--Neun-x (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Army of the Alps

I am doing work to improve the quality of the Italian invasion of France article. Thus far, I have established that at the start of the war the French had 185,000 troops based on the Franco-Italian frontier. However, I have also seen several sources note that during the Battle of France this force was stripped of troops for action elsewhere. Thus, only three divisions and several independent brigades etc. remained to counter the Italian attack.

Where did the figure of 150,000 French troops in the Alps, per the info box, come from?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent reference styles

I notice this article has both r and page number templates, and plain Harvard references. I would like to homogenise it all to Sfn references, or at least change the current r and page number combinations which stand out. Could I?

― Lgfcd (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

German and freench casualties, differences between the French and English articles

The French article puts the total number of German dead to 63,000. The sources used for this statement is "France 1940 – Autopsie d'une défaite" (in "l'Historie") and "Blitzkrieg-Legende" by Karl-Heinz Frieser. Using the same sources, this article says that a commonly accepted figure of German dead is 27,074 and that the total number of German dead "may have been as high as 49,000". The French article does not mention the figure of 49,000 dead and hardly mentions the the figure of 27,074 dead. This article does not mention the number of 63,000 dead. Why are there such differences between the the two articles? EriFr (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Further. The French article put the most likely number of French dead to 55,000-65,000. This article says that "some recent French research indicates that the number of killed had been between 55,000 and 85,000". Both statements use the same source "France 1940 – Autopsie d'une défaite" (in "l'Historie"). Again, why are there such differences between the two articles? EriFr (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Almost certainly attributed to the use of different relevant source material, and some nationalism thrown in, to boot. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the same source material is used (I am tempted to get my own copies of the material). EriFr (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Deutsch or German military names?

This article uses a mix of true German names for military units ("1. Pazerdivision") and Aglisized names ("1st Panzer Division"). The worst current example:

the 1st and 10. Panzerdivisions

That's just a mess; we should stick to one style or the other. Plus, I don't think we should attach Anglicized plurals on Deutsch words (they add 'n', not 's' for plurals).

My opinion is that the auf Deutsch names don't really add anything, and can be confusing (those "." look like end-of-sentence to most English speakers). Plus, our articles on those military units used the Aglisized titles. If there's no objection, I'm going to change them all to the Anglicized versions. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Poland, Czecholsvakia, and Canada.

Including them is pretty silly.. What's usually listed in the infobox are so-called "independent combatant authorities". That is to say, it doesn't matter what nationality the soldiers were, or whether they were nominally a part of some army or other - what matters is were they independent forces in a conflict. Canadians, Czechs, and Poles - were not, they were incorporated in the French military command structure (token Canadians in the British ofc). Same goes for Moroccans and Tunisians also, etc. Remember we're trying to convey forces arrayed against each-other in the battle, give the reader a starting idea as to the forces involved. (The BEF was also nominally subordinate to Gamelin, but not de facto, as Gort held the explicit right to appeal to his own government before following any orders, and pretty much acted on his own anyway during much of the battle.) -- Director (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Canada's military was independent and directly answerable only to Ottawa. Excluding Canada by placing them at the same level as refugee soldiers from eastern Europe is completely anti-historical. The 1931 Statute of Westminster gave complete military authority over Canadian armed forces to the Cdn Government and all Canadian units were raised in Canada, paid by Canada and were answerable only to the Canadian Government and the general commanding the Cdn First division "...held the explicit right to appeal to his own government before following any orders...", unlike the emigre Poles and Czechs who were directly enlisted in their host country's armed forces. For more information about the legal and military command structure of the Cdn armed forces and why they were independent of foreign command, see Arms, Men and Government, by CP Stacey. Canada placed a division onto French soil along with RCN destroyers that operated in French waters.Damwiki1 (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox dispute

Please read the infobox Template:Infobox military conflict here, particularly this

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. [my italics] In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. [my italics]

Clearly the Battle of France decided nothing; the war went on. Decisive doesn't mean "big" it means decisive in that what came afterwards was decided by it. Germany had a sensational victory, which was the final event which brought forth the intercontinental coalition forming since 1938, which defeated Germany. At best it was a pyrrhic victory and a catalyst for the suicidal decision to attack the USSR, to get out of the dead end Germany reached in 1940. That said perhaps the people who have worked on the article would check their sources to see what verdict they give and why. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The outcome of this battle shaped the rest of the war. Are you saying that only the last battle is a war should be labelled decisive? see Battle of Trafalgar, listed in infobox as a decisive victory for British, yet the war continued for 11 years. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm really starting to doubt your compentance (Keith-264) when it comes to this matter. It doesn't matter what happened after the battle. The battle was a huge success for Germany and one of the greatest victories in modern warfare. With your logic, Poland was not a decisive victory, neither was any battle decisively won by that matter (except in your mind the last battle, where IdreamofJeanie made a good point) Now please stop undoing the edit, and leave it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinNinja (talk • contribs) 11:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The Battle of France didn't end anything, not even French involvement in the Second World War; it was not decisive, it wasn't a German win which made a German victory inevitable a while later. We can debate opinion but that isn't the point. What do the reliable sources say? Neither of you seem to have read the criterion for that part of the infobox or taken up my suggestion to start a list of verdicts by historians. What do Frieser and Cooper and Ellis etc say about it? I will return the infobox to the status quo ("See the 'Aftermath' section"), unless there is a consensus on the talk page by far more than the three of us, that the result can be reduced to "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive" as per the criterion. If there isn't a consensus among the RS, "See the 'Aftermath' section" is the only thing which will fit. My view is that the Aftermath section is the place to rehearse the opinions of the RS because of the various and inconsistent meanings attached to the word decisive by us, them and everyone. Your definition seems to me to be personal and hyperbolic but the RS might concur (you never know) otherwise its OR; it's for the RS to decide and for us to describe.Keith-264 (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The battle of France did indeed end the threat of a French invasion. And how can you say that "it was not decisive, it wasn't a German win"? That is just incorrect.

You seem to think only your opinion is correct, and unfortunately that is not the case.

Again, I must add by your logic, no battles won by the axis were decisive because the axis lost the war. You seem to not know how war works. You can very much win a battle, but still lose the war.

I think this topic has been discussed thoroughly. There is no need to change anything in the infobox at this time. KevinNinja (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I must also add that there are many sources saying that this battle was a decisive German victory. If you want those included, please say, and I will include them. I don't see the reasoning though because everyone who had the slightest understanding of history knows that this was a decisive win. KevinNinja (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not an opinion and you need to take more care to mind your manners and to write in paragraphs. You don't know what decisive means, even if it were a matter of opinion; look at the criteria. Keith-264 (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize, that was written on a phone.

Either way, everyone except you seems to know what decisive means. I don't find interest debating you since it seems like a clear waste of time (you clearly seem to portray to me that your opinion cannot be changed - to the point where you say that this is not a matter of opinion but portray it as such). I also find having to repeat myself. If you would like credible sources to the fact I will include them. Just ask. Almost every other battle on Wikipedia has a definitive result written in the info box. Tell me, why should the Battle of France be different? If anything, the Battle of France was the most clear victory for Germany in the war. That is fact. Not including the result will confuse readers, and as such having simply "See aftermath" seems meaningless.

I will question your competence just slightly (if I may, and in no way do I mean to offend you). A quote from your first comment, "Clearly the Battle of France decided nothing; the war went on. Decisive doesn't mean "big" it means decisive in that what came afterwards was decided by it." Yes, you are right, decisive does not mean big. Decisive means it was a clear victory. Why should a Battle 'decide something'? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Additionally, it matters nothing what happened after the battle. This article is for the BATTLE of France. Not the aftermath. If you ask any historian I bet you they will say that the Battle of France was a clear/decisive victory for Germany. Can we close this case now?— Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinNinja (talk • contribs) 20:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Decisive means "war winning". The Battle of Smolensk in 1941 decided the Second World War, the Battle of France clearly didn't.Keith-264 (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Battle of France decided the war against France in Germany's favor. Even if it does not decide World War II as a whole, the battle can still be categorized as an operational decisive victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinNinja (talk • contribs) 21:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the top of the infobox under "part of" it says, Battle of France Part of the Western Front of the Second World War, it doesn't say Franco-German war 1939–1940.

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. [my italics] In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. [my italics]

Quite clearly rejects elaborate and hair splitting verdicts, in favour of nothing or See the 'Aftermath' section. Keith-264 (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it does say that this is only for cases where "standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome". The Battle of France was a clear victory for Germany, so we say that it was a 'Decisive German victory'. Moreover, the Battle of France does not describe the events that occurred after the battle (ie Normandy Landings), as it clearly states the time when the battle began and ended. This gap of time is what we are describing the outcome of (you know, the actual battle itself). What you are thinking of are the events that occurred long after the battle, which are detailed in separate wiki pages. To put it clearly, the result of the Battle of France does not encapsulate the entire events of the Western Front and events that occurred after the battle. KevinNinja (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

One of the most "decisive" victories in history. France virtually neutralized as a military factor, Britain also to a massive extent, and conflict on the Western Front would not reopen for three years. Naturally it didn't "decide" the war, but that's obviously not what makes a victory "decisive": it's its effect on military operations (within the context of the campaign). Those would be pretty silly criteria, moreover, as it would make it impossible for the losing side in any war to have a "decisive victory". That's simply not how the term is used...

P.s. Answer me this: what then would be a "decisive victory"? No single battle "decided" the outcome of WWII. Only Stalingrad could hope to receive that "title", and that too can be easily contested. -- Director (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

See the opening sentence of our article decisive victory: "The term decisive victory refers to a military victory in battle that definitively resolves the objective being fought over, ending one stage of the conflict and beginning another stage." Unless you can find agreement to delete that article entirely, then this is a valid and applicable phrase IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

See above, the Germans lost the war at Smolensk in 1941; it was the watershed. Obviously France was a big victory for the Germans but the war was with a coalition of the French and British empires. The French overseas empire was not defeated and the British escaped to fight another day. The fundamental German strategic weakness, its exclusion from the plunder of the southern hemisphere, which was freely available to the British and any new coalition it could assemble, was unchanged. Soviet and US rearmament accelerated and the diplomatic realignments which began in 1938 in the face of German aggression continued. The Battle of France was indecisive, the war went on and the eventually Germans lost.

The War in France and Flanders (Ellis 1953) Ch XXIII, pp. 315–328: Conduct and Consequences of the Campaign

The loss to the Allied cause implied by the conquest of France, Belgium and Holland cannot be measured exactly.... For them the immediate effect of the campaign was to...consolidate the foundations on which were built the forces of final victory.

— Ellis, pp. 327 & 328

To Lose a Battle (Horne 1969) Ch 21, pp. 646–666: Aftermath

Soon Hitler's astounding achievements in France would turn to dust.... Britain would remain at war, inviolate. And as long as Britain was there, it was inevitable that sooner or later the immense power of the United States would be brought in to.

— Horne, pp. 653 & 654

on the other hand

Before the decisive battle opened.... Luftwaffe... constituted a decisive factor at this stage of the Second World War.

— Horne, pp. 656 & 658

The Blitzkrieg Legend (Frieser 2005) Ch 11, pp. 347–353: Summary and Epilogue

....This is where [Sedan] the Germans in 1870 and 1940 had been able to win two of their most significant victories....In contrast to World War I, swift, operational, battles of decision now again seemed possible [but] the generals forgot who really won the Second Punic War. Cannae was only a passing operational success....

— Frieser, pp, 349 & 350

Clearly room for discussion even in these three examples from a crowded field of candidates. What do the other RS say about the concept of decisive victory and its applicability?Keith-264 (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

When you provide the example of the Battle of Britain, you refer to the entire Western Front. You will find that the Battle of Britain has its own page as it is seperate from the Battle of France. It is the same for the Western Front, where it says the Axis decisively won until the end of 1941. I say once again that the Battle of France does not encapsulate any other events in the Western Front thereof. KevinNinja (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Decisive" is truly beyond debate (British national egotism notwithstanding)... Only Stalingrad and (granted) maybe Barbarossa or Typhoon, could be called "decisive" in terms of WWII. Hitler's yielding to the OKW in allowing the resumption of the pointless drive towards Moscow after the Battle of Kiev, instead of insisting on the immediate push towards the industrial Donbass, is the key error of the war. The objective of Fall Gelb/Rot, however, was not to occupy the United Kingdom, but to defeat Allied forces on the continent. It was very much decisive in that regard, i.e. it "decided" the conflict on the continent. Case closed.
Lately the chest-pounding around the Battle of Britain is tending towards the obnoxious. Hitler could have occupied the British isles, Ireland and all, and still lost the war. Indeed, he certainly would have ensured his defeat had he taken Britain in the Spring/Summer of 1941 (as he almost certainly could have). But, I digress..

You literally just said that 2 battles in all of World War II were decisive. That is just incorrect. There were hundreds of battles in World War II that were decisive, and the Battle of France is no different. You again bring up the Battle of Britain, which has nothing to do with the Battle of France. They are entirely separate battles. I think that this case is settled. KevinNinja (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

A few additional points: #1 "German occupation of France" is both inaccurate, already mentioned under "Territorial changes" just below, and is already covered in "Second Armistice at Compiègne". #2 The Free French movement falls under "Aftermath" at most. It was not founded in any meaningful way for months on end after the Battle, it is not an immediate "result" of this conflict. -- Director (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You are correct on these points and I see your argument. Thank you for clarifying and adding to talk. KevinNinja (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Its not complicated, and I think I made my point clearly: "only Stalingrad and maybe Typhoon could be called 'decisive' in terms of WWII." And in practice - neither, since no single battle in the whole war can claim any kind of consensus in that regard. But, again - the whole damn war is NOT the context within which a battle need be "decisive". A battle is "decisive" within its own specific context. Say you had a skirmish on the Franco-German border and the French utterly routed the garrison of some German town or other - that too would be a "decisive French victory".

Nobody in their right mind would imagine this battle "decided" WWII, nor is that in any way implied here. What decided WWII were the massive resources of the Soviet Union. Or, alternatively, Germany not being aggressive enough in the limited time it had before said resources became insurmountable, as well as the general animosity between the aristocratic/ultraconservative OKW and Hitler... mostly the OKW pushing for stupid stuff ("we can't attack France in the Autumn/Winter of 1940", "we have to go for Moscow, not the industrial, resource-rich south.." etc). -- Director (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What do the RS say about the concept of decisive victory and its applicability?

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat. It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Someone has added a list of non-standard terms to the infobox which must go, because it's unarguable within the Wiki guidelines quoted verbatim above. I have started a list of comments from RS which is the only sensible thing to do and hope anyone interested will join in. In my opinion, such a list will inevitably lead to the conclusion that not every RS calls it decisive, some who do refer to it as a decisive French defeat not a decisive German victory, that the term has more than one meaning and is used in more than one way anyway, which is better relegated to the Aftermath section, particularly as recent writers tend to call the German victory pyrrhic if they refer to it at all. What's certain is that it was a war between a coalition and Germany which didn't end with the armistice and which did end in German defeat. I think that "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive" are unsatisfactory and that only leaves "See the 'Aftermath' section".Keith-264 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I love Director's point, "A battle is "decisive" within its own specific context..". You are bringing in context from future and following events, which is not proper.

Moreover, Replacing the entire result box with "see aftermath" solves nothing. This only generates confusion. But once again, you turn to talking about the Western front as a whole. I must reiterate that the battle of France is what it means, it is the battle. Not what happened before or after. A majority of historians say that the battle of France was won decisively, and redirecting users to another section solves absolutely nothing - especially when the term is not applicable at all to the battle itself (which is what the article is about). The greatest concencus tells us that this battle was a decisive German victory, and as a result, that is what we should provide in the infobox. The infobox is not a means of redirecting users, especially for a battle that was a such a clear victory. (This was written on a phone - sorry for bad grammar)KevinNinja (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Not "replacing" anything with "see aftermath", all that I did was remove Free France as, like I said, its not really formed for months. Its not a direct result of this battle. "See aftermath" was there before (and for a very long time too).

I'm also not "bringing in" anything, either... the context of this battle is the Western Front of WWII. The aim of the Fall Gelb and Rot offensives was to defeat the Western Allies on the continent. In that respect, the battle was very much "decisive". Not debatable at all. The aim was obviously never to occupy Britain, and its questionable whether Hitler ever really wanted to do so.

-- Director (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of our opinion; the war was against a coalition, it went on and Germany lost. What do the RS say about the concept of decisive victory and its applicability to the Battle of France? Is it such an unreasonable question??Keith-264 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it kind of is. Kind of like disputing whether Trafalgar was a decisive victory, on grounds that the War of the Third Coalition was won by the French... or Austerlitz, etc.. If I didn't know better I'd say this was trolling.

I'll say again: "decisive" need not at all apply to the whole damn war. A small skirmish somewhere can be described as "decisive" if it is such within its context. And indeed, you'll find dozens of WWII conflicts on this project described as "decisive" that had no effect whatsoever on the course of the war as a whole. The ENTIRE Pacific conflict would, by this silly proposition, have not a single decisive battle, because ultimately Japan depends on a German victory, etc. Its ridiculous.

I hope I don't offend anybody, but this is a truly stupid debate to have.. -- Director (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Director, I was responding to Keith. KevinNinja (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And many other great points made by you Director. It is very true that the Battle of France or any battle for that matter does not need to affect the course of the war itself. It is the battle we are outlining, not the entire war.KevinNinja (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC) KevinNinja (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed a 'silly proposition' that Keith is intailing. I do believe that this discussion has been decided. KevinNinja (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC) KevinNinja (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

What do Alexander, Blatt, Bond, Buckley, Chappell, Churchill, Citino, Cooper, Corum and De La Gorce say about the nature of the German victory in 1940? Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

One reaction many know for sure is Churchill's response. Churchill personally visited France 5 times in order to boulster French resistence. On June 16, Churchill even offered Reynaud a union with Britain if France kept on fighting. Reynaud rejected. He knew the battle had been lost. Your silly proposition suggests that the prize which had eluded the Kaiser was not decisive is a shame to history. KevinNinja (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect I'm trying to achieve consensus according to Wiki procedure. It isn't our opinion that matters, it's our reportage of the opinions of reliable sources. Will you stop name-calling and address the question.Keith-264 (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you please include full names of these people. Last names are not very specific. KevinNinja (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You didn't notice that they're the first ten names in the Bibliography? [2]?? Keith-264 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Erm, sorry. I thought we were talking about something else. And no, I didn't happen to notice. KevinNinja (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in moving from assertion to description? Keith-264 (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

OK if no-one answers by Monday morning, I'll amend the infobox accordingly.Keith-264 (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Since when were you the boss of this article? We have come to a clear consensus to you in the last wiki section, and you have not responded there since. If you change the result, I will undo it, because you are simply incorrect. Me and director have given solid evidence against your silly claims, and it is pretty clear that your proposition is wrong. Stop being so stubborn. KevinNinja (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is based on facts not a beauty-contest. No-one has responded to my objective request for a survey of the reliable sources and unless they do, there are no grounds for leaving the infobox littered with the assertions of Wiki editors, contrary to the guidelines which you appear not to have read despite me adding them here several times. All you've done is call names like a refugee from a junior school. If you have no sources to consult, admit it and ask for other editors to use theirs, it's simple really. MWAK seems to be well-acquainted with the subject, why not ask him to help?

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat. It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

All I've found in my sources is the use of decisive to describe the French defeat. If you must have the word in the infobox at all, "decisive French defeat" is all that's justified. The Aftermath section is for the niceties of debate and details like tactical, operational and strategic consequences, just as the policy specifies. Put your energy into that rather than blustering here. Keith-264 (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please list your sources. KevinNinja (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I already have.Keith-264 (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Where? I need the specific source(s) that specific say what you are portraying. I would also highly recommend that you read "Quest for Decisive Victory: From Stalemate to Blitzkrieg in Europe" by Robert M. Citino. It'll give you some much-needed insight. A great book, it explains how engagements such as the Battle of France forever changed modern military doctrine. KevinNinja (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I am with Keith on this one Kevin. I suggest you read the excellent economic study of the German war economy in World War Two, The Wages of Destruction, where Adam Tooze makes some fairly strong comments regarding the German occupation of France. He argues that in fact the occupation of France critically weakened the German economy, because Germany had to actually resource France, and the other occupied Western territories. I will dig out my copy. I do not see anything "decisive" in the German victory of 1940, in terms of WP guidelines on that very loaded term. It decided nothing. It may have actually decided the war in the Allies' favour. Simon Irondome (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for joining us. I don't really understand why you think that since France was a drag on Nazi Germany's economy the battle was not decisive. What does that have to do with the battle? Nothing at all. (I find it almost humorous that you bring up the economy of Germany.) Again, you and Keith-264 keep on going outside of context. This article is for the BATTLE of France. It is not an article for the Nazi German economy, or for the aftermath of the battle, or of the occupation, or of anything outside the battle itself. You should read the article defining decisive victory. The first line states: "The term decisive victory refers to a military victory in battle that definitively resolves the objective being fought over, ending one stage of the conflict and beginning another stage." In what ways was the Battle of France not a perfect example of this for Germany on the Western Front? The Battle of France was decisive because it ended all conflicts between France and Germany, guaranteed the objective that Germany was going after (defeating France), and started the next phase of the conflict, the Battle of Britain. Seriously. The Battle of France is a perfect example and encapsulation of that line alone. It couldn't be more clear that the Battle of France was a decisive victory for Germany. KevinNinja (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a pleasure for me to bring this to an end. You appear to have screwed up your own reading. The battle of France was an operational decisive victory. A big difference. If you cannot grasp that keeping an average of 40 divisions in the West at any one time and having to actually give resources to France and the Low countries on occasion helped to lose Germany the war, then you need to regain focus. Economics and military matters are totally intertwined. There was no coherent German strategy after the German defeat of France, so where the hell do you get that from? You appear to think that Hitler had a post-case yellow plan. He didn't. If you actually read decisive victory, you will note that I am correct. Therefore, operational decisive victory, strategic stalemate, should go into the infobox. I will now seek consensus on that wording alone. Thanks for your co-operation! Irondome (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what? Strategic stalemate? The brilliant strategy that the Wehrmacht employed utterly caught the French and British forces by surprise. The German strategy in the end practically routed millions of soldiers.. and you call that a strategic stalemate? I'm sorry my friend, that is just incorrect. And yes, I've read the article multiple times. Something you may have missed which practically defines the resolution of the battle, "A decisive battle must directly lead to a rapid resolution of the contested political issues because the results on the battlefield caused both sides to agree that a decision had been reached." Is this not what happened at Compiègne? The French surrendered politically and militarily. You keep on going out of context, and it isn't going to work. KevinNinja (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hitler was stymied in the West. He went on holiday for 7 weeks and gave lots of medals out. And ate lots of cakes and talked crap, while waiting for the inevitable British collapse..which didn't happen. Total Nazi confusion. Seelowe was a joke and the BoB was Goering basically freelancing. This stalemate forced Hitler to recoil to the east. Reality my friend, which can be hugely sourced. I will propose the new wording for discussion tomorrow, and drop a note at the MilHist board. A pleasure doing business with you. Simon Irondome (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, you discuss the Western Front as a whole. This article is about the Battle. Only the Battle. Nothing else. Yes, occupying France may have made Germany more vulnerable to Britain, but that is not have anything to do with the Battle. What you are discussing are details of the Western Front. Maybe you should visit that article. Make some edits. You would be welcomed because you have some excellent points about the affect that occupying France had on Germany, but sadly, these details do not coincide with the Battle and any operations that occurred during the battle.

Then you accept the wording, decisive operational victory, strategic stalemate?. I am no stranger to the article, but I believe it should be expanded a little and "aftermath" more thoroughly worked on. I am quite happy collaborating with you on this Kevin. We just cannot leave this in isolation, i.m.o. Simon Irondome (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"Strategic stalemate"? Are you kidding? This a decisive strategic victory. It achieved its goals in full. I have to ask.. do you know what "strategic" means? The goal of this battle was never to defeat Britain somehow. This nationalist nonsense is getting truly ridiculous..

In other circumstances this would be an interesting, even absorbing discussion but it's beside the point, what do the RS say? That's all that matters for the article page and I made a start above by quoting Ellis, Horne and Frieser, does anyone have any more?Keith-264 (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Lets ask the question then: what would, in the opinion of you esteemed gentlemen, be a "strategically decisive victory" for the Germans in Fall Gelb and Rot? Are you truly insisting on the patent nonsense that only those victories that win a whole war can be called "decisive" on this project? -- Director (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the meaning of the term strategic. Are you? What nationalist nonsense? It was a decisive operational victory. It did not alter the course of the war. Decisive operational victory should suffice. It however led to stalemate in the West. Did it not? Irondome (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No. That follows the Battle of Britain (if that!). The objective of this battle (i.e. the two operations it consists of) was to eliminate the Allied presence on the continent. In that respect, which is what we're talking about - it was decisive. In achieving its goals, the victory was "strategic" as well. An "operational victory-strategic stalemate" would have been a battle where the Germans successfully execute their operation - but fail to achieve their goal (and there are many such battles). This is not the case here. Here, the operations were successfully executed (operational victory), and the enemy thereby achieved his strategic goal (strategic victory). In deciding the outcome of the Western Front theatre, as was its scope(!) - it was "decisive".

P.s. The term "stalemate" implies two opponents fighting each-other to a standstill, a drawn contest. To describe the general strategic situation following the Battle of Britain as a "stalemate in the West" is being too generous. The Battle of Britain itself was a stalemate, but as regards the Western Front on the whole - its more accurate to say there was no Western Front. The West theatre wasn't in stalemate - it was effectively gone. Lost. -- Director (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, look at the infobox guidelines In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat. If you look in the Bibliography and Further reading sections of the article, there are dozens of sources, varying in quality from first class to commercial hackwork. What do they say? Clearly people have been thinking about this in other time zones while I've been away but it keeps bringing us back to the infobox guidelines. Can we all agree that it's not an easy or obvious point of history? "Decisive" has a lay meaning ("big") and also exists as a technical term. The infobox guide (in my opinion) refers to decisive in a technical military sense, hence the rejection of hair splitting distinctions between tactics, operations and strategy. Another thing which may be obstructing us is that the Battle of France was a battle in France, between a coalition of four countries with four empires against Germany. The coalition was defeated, no-one disputes that but the magnitude of the defeat either can or can't be called decisive in the infobox according to the guidelines which I keep quoting; there's a wikipage devoted to how to use the infobox. Template:Infobox military conflict (It was through checking here before editing the box on the BofF page that I saw what the territory criterion was for, having managed to overlook it for nine years.) Wouldn't it be better to expend this energy writing a first-class Analysis in the Aftermath section and discussing it here and then addressing the question of the wording of the infobox? We could end up flipping a coin to have mercy on ourselves? Keith-264 (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, but I feel as if you do not fully read what we are saying. As the text reads, aftermath is only used when standard terms do not apply. Though, for the purposes of this article, the standard terms apply perfectly well. Quoting from what Director said above, "the operations were successfully executed (operational victory), and the enemy thereby achieved his strategic goal (strategic victory). In deciding the outcome of the Western Front theatre, as was its scope(!) - it was "decisive"." I quote again, "The objective of this battle (i.e. the two operations it consists of) was to eliminate the Allied presence on the continent. In that respect, which is what we're talking about - it was decisive." In every way possible, this battle does not correspond to anything near worthy of a case in which " the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome".

I didn't ask what Mickey Mouse wrote, I asked what do the RS say? What do Alexander, Blatt, Bond, Buckley, Chappell, Churchill, Citino, Cooper, Corum and De La Gorce say about the nature of the German victory in 1940? Notice this [3] Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources. tooKeith-264 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you are so committed to your proposition, why don't you tell me? Direct quotes please. KevinNinja (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm stepping aside until the GA review is complete.Keith-264 (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright. We shall talk after that. Good discussion. KevinNinja (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was, by all parties. The outcome of this minor dispute shall not in any way of course affect my contributions to help this article reach GA status. I believe we all have a lot to contribute. Regards colleagues. Simon Irondome (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

French Morale

It might be worth including some material on the fighting quality of French troops as the campaign progressed, unless it's already in there and I didn't spot it. My understanding is that, despite questionable leadership, they held up a lot better than British popular mythology would have us believe, but were just outnumbered and outgunned (and dominated from the air) after the initial catastrophic defeat. Or so French colleagues have always been at pains to tell me. (I've no interest in editing this article, I just came here to check some dates apropos of work I'm doing on the British politics of May 1940 at the moment).Paulturtle (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

French morale in the Battle of France was generally seen as low especially after the initial German breakthroughs. Though, if you can find some reliable sources to backup your theories, we would be happy to have this added to the article. KevinNinja (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Like most people who take history seriously I’m not in the habit of “theorising”. History – at this level at any rate – is about facts and evidence, not “theories”, which is why most discussions at this level boil down to one person saying “that’s just your opinion” and the better-informed telling him, with an appropriate degree of firmness “no it’s not, and you need to read and learn more about this”.

As far as the specific issue of French morale goes, I remember telling a very erudite French historian about fifteen years ago that it was “common knowledge”, or perhaps even “generally" accepted, that poor French morale was a major cause of French defeat and being told by him (and a number of others who chimed in) that I didn’t know what the hell I was talking about and that after the initial defeat most French ground troops fought hard under difficult circumstances, that most British troops didn’t fight nearly as well as rosy British myth would have it, etc etc etc. As far as I can see the article discusses the fact that Corap’s troops around the Meuse Crossing were second-rate and there was some initial panic at tank attacks, but then I knew that at the age of thirteen when I read Alistair Horne’s book. Apart from that, I don’t see anything about French morale and fighting performance in the article.

I haven’t done any serious reading about this campaign for over a decade so I’m not the person to be making more than trivial edits to the article. However, in fairness I’ve just perused the sub-article on the fighting along the Weygand Line, which mentions improved French performance (some historian obviously has the same “theories” as me), so perhaps the main article should have a sentence or two about that, and the French stand at Lille, instead of just recounting the well-known events around the Meuse Crossing and allowing the general reader to assume that the French Army all dropped their rifles and ran away as is “generally” believed.Paulturtle (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of pointing out that you've substituted one scapregoat for another, such sources hat I've been using recently show that French and German losses during Fall Rot were higher than in Fall Gelb, suggesting that the French had recovered from the surprise at Sedan and had also applied the obvious tactical remedies as far as they had the means. The French attacks on the Abbeville bridgehead managed to reduce it by more than half before Rot got going too. Perhaps if anyone wants to add something about French morale it should be in a historical context, that there was mutual finger-pointing by the British and French, at the time and after, that later work is less rhetorical and that the Germans didn't think it was a walk-over either. French problems were more a matter of organisation and communication than pusillanimity. Keith-264 (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Other than the mysterious comment about "scapegoats", we seem to be singing from more or less the same hymnsheet on this one. A lot of the British finger-pointing at French morale has alas penetrated very deeply into Anglo-Saxon popular mythology, but was unfair and had little basis in fact, certainly from late May onwards (I've just come across an account by Alan Brooke of French troops in the northern pocket degenerating into "a rabble" as they fell back on Dunkirk, but then so did a lot of the British troops, which was why the Dunkirk perimeter had to be defended by elite troops, as was touched on in the novel and film "Atonement" a few years back). The initial defeats were caused as much by poor deployment and communications as anything else. The French were struggling to make up numbers to begin with because of their low birth rate and horrendous losses of a generation earlier (whereas in WW1 they had had a 3 year term of conscription even in peacetime and later on put men in their forties in the front line), and after the losses in the northern pocket they were severely outnumbered, although having far too many troops behind the Maginot Line didn't help. A lot of French finger-pointing was at the low level of British commitment, even though it was much the same as that of 1914-15 (a BEF of initially 4 divisions rising to about a dozen by the following spring iirc).Paulturtle (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a good and needed discussion, but I certainly feel that without definite context and exemplified proof for your claims, the addition of a "French morale" section may seem too much of a theory or unknown generality to be added into the article. Of course, I am not doubting your knowledge as an esteemed historian as we are, though in Wikipedia it is profusely better to include topics that are definitely proven and thoroughly sourced. Of course, if you do find solid evidence for your claims, your content would certainly be welcome. KevinNinja (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I'm not volunteering to edit the article as I've got more than enough other projects on which to work. I did start by saying that that the article ought to say more about better French fighting performance as the campaign went on - my attention had been drawn by a section originally mis-labelled "poor French morale", which is actually about poor top-level French leadership by Reynaud and Gamelin. On closer inspection the article does, correctly, state that the French First Army made a strong stand at Lille and that French morale was high and tactics had improved by the time of the stand along the Weygand Line. Those are not "theories" or "claims" - they are facts, and are already in the article, properly cited. I think there could probably be a bit more analysis from recent and/or classic books about why the Allies lost so spectacularly and so quickly, despite enjoying slight superiority on the ground, pulled out into a separate section so people can read it, not least because that is probably the sort of thing to which lots of people are going to want answers.Paulturtle (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Frieser and May are in the references so two recent treatments are available to counter the pop-history version of events. Victory by accident isn't as box-office as blitzkrieg (sic) though. Keith-264 (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove "German armed forces structure" section?

After reviewing the section in its entirety, I believe that the titled subsection should be removed due to the reason that it has little relation to the subject of the main section, it is worded poorly, and it is not sourced. Adding to this, I'm not sure that it is very important to the article itself. Shall it be removed?--I believe that if a source is found, it could possibly be left, though it may need further rewording and perhaps even a section move. KevinNinja (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

How about adding {{see also|Order of Battle}} to a section?Keith-264 (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

CE

Had a quick dash at the Prelude and changed a few headers but feel free to revert if preferred.Keith-264 (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

At a glance, I'd put Phoney War, Blitzkrieg and items 4.1 - 4.6 and 5.1 - 5.5 in a Background section and 2.2.2 - 2.3.1 and 3.2 in a Prelude section. Keith-264 (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel that putting two entire sections into one Background section is a particularly great idea. Forces and dispositions (in my opinion) deserve their own section for the respective belligerent. I would suggest that instead of moving things around, a new Background/prelude should be made from scratch. KevinNinja (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Some can be merged and trimmed, particularly if the theme has an article to link to. Fundamentally, it's a big subject so brevity can take us only so far. Keith-264 (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You make a fair point, though would it not become obvious to the reader that some sections you have included for the Background section do not directly fit into it? This is the trouble in your premise; I do not believe that including such sections like army dispositions and battle plans are a responsible thing to include into a Background section, nor would they fit very well in it either way. A Background section for such an article should include topics not immediately before or as a result of hostilities, rather the Background section should lead the reader unto why the hostilities occurred in the first place. This is why I believe a Background section should be created from scratch, because right now the Prelude section is merely a stud--The Battle of France occurred because of many previous leading events. For instance, I see no talk about Hitler's grand strategy (mere more than a sentence). A historical background could also be added, nothing is mentioned about World War I and the lessons learned from that. What about Mein Kampf? So much can be included without shifting around information senselessly. KevinNinja (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it was a quick scan of the headings for the concept, not a plan. Background is a good place for Phoney War and Blitzkrieg (sic) and some of the general headers in the Prelude (economics, mobilisation, equipment, diplomacy, strategy). I'd leave the immediate items in such as the Mechelin Incident in the Prelude since it was a catalyst for the big change of plan and have the Dyle Plan in it and something about the air forces and Ultra. The point for me would be to try to put a roughly equal amount of text in each to break the big block that's in the Prelude now.Keith-264 (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, that sounds better. I think your plan could work. I invite you to make these edits - I will assess it and get back to you here once you have if it requires changes. KevinNinja (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Update; I have moved "Directive-6" to the prelude section, since it flows nicely with the preceding text. KevinNinja (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge "blitzkreg" and army tactics?

The subsections Blitzkrieg and Army tactics for the German forces basically talk about the same thing. I think it would be wise to put Blitzkrieg into the Army tactics section. Thoughts? KevinNinja (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

edit: I have removed the Blitzkrieg section. It was unneeded, and now the two sections actually flow quite nicely. KevinNinja (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of France/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 21:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Where are we on this? The nominator hasn't really been on wiki for the past week and a half or so. I'm happy to let us take our time, but I'd rather not let it linger if we don't have the time to finish in a reasonable time. I still have the Fall Rot and Aftermath sections to read through, but I doubt I'll do those until I hear back from Kevin (or if Keith is available to handle the review). Parsecboy (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit bogged down so it might be better to offer a list of things to do before reviving the review.Keith-264 (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Given that Keith has said he's too busy to handle the review, and Kevin hasn't responded to comments here for some time, I'm going to fail the article for now. Good luck getting the article in shape for a future attempt. Parsecboy (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

• Citations need to be standardized. Most citations use short footnotes, but others have the entire book. Pick a style and standardize them.
• Watch for WP:ENGVAR issues - article should use British spellings, but I spot a "defense" and several "armor"s - there are likely others.  Done (used my new EngvarB script)Keith-264 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Numerous duplicate links need to be removed.  DoneKeith-264 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Will do a thorough read-through later. Parsecboy (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Will begin this shortly. KevinNinja (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Similarity to Schlieffen Plan The header doesn't reflect the content which is a description of the evolution of army thinking about an offensive in the west. I think the section is OK so would alter the header instead, to something like German plans. For Schlieffen I'd add a "see also" link under the header and leave it at that (bearing in mind the myths and legends about what the Schlieffen plan was and wasn't).Keith-264 (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• It seems a convention that German armies are numbered (1st Army) and Allied ones are named (First Army) and that only a person's surname is used after being introduced with name, rank and wikilink. I'm also inclined to put citations at the end of sentences, unless the matter is so controversial that clauses need one. I'd favour using sfn's but that's mainly because it's the only system I really know, perhaps interested parties could venture an opinion before anyone standardises them, as it will take a while? Other preferences are that I try to use the fewest words possible in headers and to avoid altering wikilink titles, especially piping them and blueing a lot of words. Last year I started linking military units and putting the CO in brackets, 1st Battalion (Lieutenant-Colonel J. Smith) rather than writing Smiths's 1st battalion as it gets the unit and commander listed and linked in one go; I'm also minded to avoid apostrophes. I take a dim view of promiscuous adjectives and adverbs too as they make prose look like journalism. Not that I'm bitter of course....Keith-264 (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Infobox: If the data in it corresponds with the Casualties section in the text, I'd remove the citations as superfluous. As per earlier discussions I think that decisive victory is a technical term (a victory with political consequences) not a synonym for big so I'd replace it with See Aftermath section.Keith-264 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Citations: some sections seem over-cited (three or four cites to the same source same page) in one paragraph so I'd consolidate them into one cite at the end of the passage or paragraph.Keith-264 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

• "The battle defeated primarily French forces..." - the battle didn't defeat anyone - the Germans defeated French forces  Done KevinNinja (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• "The German plan for the battle..." - suggest "The German plan for the invasion of France..."  Done
• "...with the goal of the new French government accepting..." - suggest "...with the goal of forcing the new French government to accept..." - goals require action, one does not passively hope for a goal  Done
• "...Italy would control a small Italian occupation zone..." - drop the "Italian" as redundant  Done KevinNinja (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• "...under Axis occupation until the occupation..." - "occupation" twice in the span of 4 words, one needs to be changed. Normally, the Allied invasion in 1944 is referred to as a liberation, not an occupation. Conquest? it's descriptive rather than explanatory.Keith-264 (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)  Done

Prelude

• Britain and France did not simply offer military support, they signed defensive treaties - this should be made clearer.  Done
• "German-occupied Saar" - this makes it sound as though the Saarland was not part of Germany  Done
• "he may have made some type of peace offer..." - the next line goes on to refer to the peace offer as a definitive fact - which is it?
  • This needs to be researched a bit more thoroughly. KevinNinja (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Allied forces

• "The British contributed a total strength of 897,000 men in 1939, rising to 1,650,000 by June 1940. In May, it numbered only 500,000 men, including reserves." - this is unclear - I assume the "it" refers to the BEF
• "The British contributed 13 divisions of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), three of which were untrained and poorly-armed labour divisions and 22 Belgian, 10 Dutch, two Polish divisions were part of the Allied order of battle." - would recommend splitting the bit about Belgian, Dutch, and Polish divisions into their own sentence.
• "...about around 14,000 guns..." - something is missing here
  • • • Fixed DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• Things like "580 13mm" should be fixed - two sets of numerals should not be placed next to each other, one figure should be written out. One option would be to restructure it as "The French Army had 580 and 1152 light anti-aircraft guns of 13mm, 25mm calibre, respectively, with a further two hundred 20mm guns in the process of delivery.
• Also, watch the precision of your conversions - in one sentence, 13mm is equated to 1", but 25mm is given as .98" - either round both or give precise conversions for both.

Fall Gelb

• "Germany initiated Fall Gelb on the evening prior to and the night of 10 May." - what, exactly, does this mean? Seems like an awfully convoluted way to say "On the night of 9 May..."  Done
• As far as I'm aware, Student commanded the 7th Flieger Division, not the 22nd Luftlande  Done
• I wonder why the line about the Dutch Air Force describes the number of sorties as a "mere 332", while the same line in the Belgian section plainly states that the Belgians flew 77 sorties.
• "...an operation organised separately by the Luftwaffe the Battle for The Hague failed" - something is missing here  Done
• Translate foreign terms like "Schwerpunkt" on first use - while these may be readily understood by those of us familiar with the topic, most readers will not be.  Done
• "rounds per "tube" (gun)" - while tube is a common word for the military and military historians, it seems redundant to use it once in the article and define it. Cleaner simply to call them guns.  Done KevinNinja (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• "Guderian ordered the 2nd Panzer Division to capture Boulogne, the 1st Panzer Division to take Calais and the 10th Panzer division to seize Dunkirk" - in the subsection immediately above on the Siege of Calais, it states that the 10th Division attacked Calais - which is it? Calais, the orders were changed  DoneKeith-264 (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• Evacuation numbers do not add up or make any sense. First, 165k were evacuated by 31 May, with another 118k between 31 May and 4 June. This amounts to 283k, but the article states that 338k were evacuated. Where did those other 55k men come from? What exactly does the 139k British and 139k French figures represent? It seems like the article is trying to make sense of conflicting figures, but does not sufficiently explain what any of them are.
• 29 of 40 destroyers sunk or seriously damaged - I assume this is only RN ships (and more accurately, only Home Fleet ships, since the RN had well over 100 destroyers in service at the time)? And only during the evacuation? What about French losses? I know several destroyers were sunk in the area during the campaign, including Foudroyant and Bourrasque.

References

• Surely we do not need to cite the History Channel, do we?
• Citation format needs to be standardized - a handful are using the sfn template
• Same with the full refs - for instance, if multiple works by the same author are used, either repeat the name each time or don't (Citino is repeated for his four books, but Corum is not, for example).
• Ditto for linking authors - either link them all or don't link any. For instance, Pete Mansoor has an article
• What makes Douglas Jacobson reliable? As far as I can tell from his website, he's a hobbyist and the author of novels, not serious history.

Images

• Many images have their size forced - this should generally not be the case, as users can set their own preferences. Forced sizes should really only be used for very detailed images that need to be made larger. Done
• The lead montage needs to be updated to replace the photo of the Renaults, as that photo was deleted from Commons for lacking a source.
• File:Soldat Francès al Saar.jpg - improperly licensed
• File:German PLane Destroyed.jpg - improperly licensed and has no source  Done

• • • The French Army was by far the largest component of the Allied forces, yet (aside from the lead montage) there is exactly one photo of the French Army. DMorpheus2 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Trying to make some sense of this

From the article: French tactical deployment and the use of mobile units operationally was also inferior to that of the Germans. Tactically, armour was spread thinly along the French line; French infantry divisions were supported by tank battalions of about 100 tanks, which prevented them from being a strong, independent operational force. Making matters worse, only a handful of French tanks in each unit had radios installed, and the radios themselves were often unreliable, thus hampering communication. French tanks were also very slow in speed in comparison to the Panzers (except for the SOMUA S35), as they were designed as infantry support, enabling German tanks to offset their disadvantages by out-manoeuvering the French on the battlefield. In 1940, French military theoreticians still considered tanks as infantry support. As a consequence, at various points in the campaign, the French were not able to react as quickly as German armour.

I see a number of problems but perhaps I am just not reading well today.

• • "...armour was spread thinly along the French line; French infantry divisions were supported by tank battalions of about 100 tanks, which prevented them from being a strong, independent operational force."

US Infantry Divisions in 1943-45 almost always had a tank battalion attached also. This is usually seen as a strength, not a weakness. Postwar, one of the things the US Army did was make tanks permanent elements of Infantry Divisions. One could just as well write, "Many French Infantry Divisions had thier own 100-tank-strong tank battalions, making them potentially formidable combined-arms units." The deployment of so many French tanks to infantry support did not prevent the french from raising four large armored divisions and a number of other mechanized units. They had a lot of tanks.

• • "...French tanks were also very slow in speed in comparison to the Panzers (except for the SOMUA S35), as they were designed as infantry support, enabling German tanks to offset their disadvantages by out-manoeuvering the French on the battlefield. In 1940, French military theoreticians [theorists]] still considered tanks as infantry support. As a consequence, at various points in the campaign, the French were not able to react as quickly as German armour."

This is confusing two very different things. Yes, many French tanks had lower road speed. That is very rarely a huge tactical disadvantage. Most French tanks had far heavier armor than their German counterparts too. That contributed to their low speed.

But to go from tank road speed to the inability of the French to promptly react to German armor is quite a stretch. The Allies (not just the French) had a truly massive operational liability in their slow decision cycle compared to the Germans. German doctrine required flexibility above all, to enable rapid decisionmaking 'on the spot'. This is why they led from the front, and why they prioritized good radios in all their tanks (even though most of them were only receivers). French doctrine of methodical battle did not require these tools, because tactical units were expected to conform fairly tightly to plans, and higher HQs would make decisions at their own pace. None of this has anything to do with tank road speed.

I will work on an edit but this paragraph is deeply flawed. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree but the passage is cited; on paper most French tanks were better than their German counterparts but as you point out, the characteristics of the vehicles were less important than organisation, communication and tactics. French containment tactics weren't bad in themselves, after all the Germans used similar ones on the Eastern Front later in the war.Keith-264 (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)