Battle of France

84.27.81.59, if you are consulting any references as you write it'd improve the article if those were listed. Wikipedia is trying to encourage that all-around with Nextel ringtones Cite sources. By the way, you may want to create a username so you get a talk page and so on. Abbey Diaz 119/119 10:24, 21 Feb 2005

I'll expand the list of useful books.

MWAKMosquito ringtone 84.27.81.59/84.27.81.59 12:28, 25 Feb 2005

The lack of information in this article seems to be a big hole in the series of articles on world War II Sabrina Martins Mintguy/Mintguy Nextel ringtones User talk: Mintguy/(T) 10:08, 20 Feb 2004

Yes, and some Information is quite doubtful. For instance that Keitel had a Panzergroup and actually was a frontline commander. Thats highly doubtful. I never heard or read that and i am quite familiar with WW2 history.
Abbey Diaz Holger1076/Holger1076 00:14, 20 Feb 2005

:Keitel was serving in OKW at the time. Perhaps von Kleist was meant. Free ringtones 119/119 00:24, 20 Feb 2005

::Yup, my mistake :oS

MWAKMajo Mills 84.27.81.59/84.27.81.59 14:51, 21 Feb 2005

Very big. I just copied over some stuff from ''Fall of France'' (which is now a redirect). Some of what it says is a bit simplistic, but writing and account of this is a serious undertaking. Mosquito ringtone DJ Clayworth/DJ Clayworth 20:28, 4 May 2004

Is "Case Yellow" really the same thing as the Battle of France? Case Yellow was the German plan for the invasion of France. And, as I recall, it was actually an early version of the German plan that wasn't actually used. We shouldn't be calling Case Yellow an equivalent name for the Battle of France. Sabrina Martins John Kenney/john Cingular Ringtones User_talk:John Kenney/k 05:20, 24 Sep 2004

: "Case Yellow" (Fall Geib) was the name of the operation, just as Fall Weiß was the conquest of Poland and Fall Blau was the 1942 Eastern offensive. I've seen "Fall" in this context translated as "operation." It's as correct to call the "Battle of France" "Case Yellow" as it is to call the "Battle of Normandy" "Operation Overlord." There were different plans for Fall Geib, but the name of the operation remained the same. I think "Battle of France" is the most neutral way to describe what happened. sweeping avenues ArminTamzarian/ArminTamzarian 09:02, 30 Nov 2004

I'm getting rid of the bit about Hitler dancing the jig, as it has been definitively shown to be a hoax. 10 seconds of Googling can confirm. - Matt

Possible bias

I noted that listed as possible causes for the German victory was French "defeatism". I was wondering if there is any basis in this aside from anti-french sentiment so common in the US today. has waxed User:Harley peters/Harley peters

:Well, the phenomenon is quite old and has been a part of most Polish history books since WWII. It is definitely not a recent idea. fabric simply Halibutt/anesthetized and User:Halibutt/ 04:39, Dec 18, 2004

:I think for a start we should break the article up into different sections for the campaign. My recommendation would be

#Background
#Invasion of the Low Countries
##Battle of Sedan
##Battle of Gembloux
##Battle of Amiens
##Battle of Arras
##Operation Paula
##Fall Rot
##Fall Braun
#Battle of Dunkirk
#Fall of France
#Aftermath

:checked gingham Oberiko/Oberiko 16:02, 4 Feb 2005

:Heh - I should have read this first. I gave the article a shot, but you're quite right that this needs greater depth. I think that the article is now past being a stub, but certainly it lacks the depth that, for instance, and bonanno Battle of the Bulge has. Your outline could certainly work to fill that - if you would like help on this, I'd certainly be interested.dole naturally Adam Faanes/Adam Faanes 08:17, 10 Feb 2005

Wow, very nice job in rebuilding the article. I'll help where I can, but I'm already kind of stretched (still working on the Lorraine Campaign in between studies). entire building Oberiko/Oberiko 13:24, 10 Feb 2005

:I too like the new article, but there are a few major problems:

*It doesn't make very clear that operationally the German offensive had the nature of a counter-attack. The allied commanders didn't act hesitantly but very forcefully. They advanced as swiftly as the Germans in a modern motorized operation - but into friendly territory, wasting their fuel and readiness on gaining a position that proved to be inferior.

*It will suggest to some that Gamelin also tactically expected some kind of WWI attack. In fact he was fully aware the Germans would try to attempt a mechanized breakthrough - he just thought they would do so at Gembloux on a very narrow frontage following their own doctrine of ''Schwerpunkt''. So he concentrated half of his armoured reserves at that sector. The possibility of an attack through the Ardennes was considered but rejected as it wouldn't fit a breakthrough by tanks.

*It doesn't mention the one decisive event of the whole campaign: the carpet bombing at Sedan, punching a hole in the French lines (and no, this was not done by Stuka's and tanks as all diagrams show...). So the decisive strategic surpise was that the Germans did ''not'' use tanks for the breakthrough itself - just for the strategic exploiting (the classic cavalry role!). And so Gamelin had been fatally right.

*It confuses the (attempted) attacks by 1, 2 and 3 DC with the later attack of 4 DC under de Gaulle on the 17th.

*It doesn't mention the fundamental difference of opinion between Guderian and Rommel on the one and the High Command on the other hand. The latter saw tanks simply as a means to conquer and protect enough room for the main body of infantry divisions to position itself favourably. The opinion of the two generals they didn't really understand themselves: at the time there was no clear concept of "Blitzkrieg" yet, neither at the High Command nor in the minds of Rommel and Guderian (read ''Achtung: Panzer!'' - or read it again). After the fact they would formalize it into a doctrine.

*It doesn't mention the counter-attacks at Amiens and Abbéville not making clear how crippling the materiel losses were that threw away the last chance for effective defense.

*It doesn't clearly differentiate between the two main phases of ''Fall Rot''.

*It doesn't make clear how utterly surprising the German victory was: the defeat of an enemy that was numerically superior in men, artillery, tanks and motorised units - and that this could only have been accomplished because that enemy gave up its main strength: the advantage of the defender - by being too offensive! (which brings us back at point one :o)

Of course there are also some minor factual inexactitudes: e.g. the Allies were already cut off at the 20th.

MWAKbrentwood see 84.27.81.59/84.27.81.59 23:12, 13 Feb 2005


:Naturally no one's saying this article is of recruited them Featured articles/featured calibre, but it's a much higher leap then it was before. You seem to be quite aware of the events during the Battle of France, considered helping out on it? quivering pile Oberiko/Oberiko 00:39, 14 Feb 2005

It's certainly a much better article now - and very well written! The problem with my helping out is that I'm ''too'' aware of the events: I've been pushing a revisionist (or, as I like to call it, professional ;o) interpretation of this battle for over twenty years now, so I'm in serious danger of making it (my) POV - although over the years consensus has slowly shifted to my side. But I'll try to mention some indisputed facts - without patterning them too much...

MWAKsuch politicking 84.27.81.59/84.27.81.59 12:05, 14 Feb 2005

Casualties
I would like to revise the numbers that we currently have. The ~400K is the number given as total French persons killed during both the combat AND the following occupation. For the battle itself; 100K dead, and 200K wounded are the figures that I've found. marry johnny Oberiko/Oberiko 12:55, 18 Feb 2005

You are correct. I will give some more exact numbers, though it should be stressed that they won't reflect the latest research - and thus roughly will suffer from the same systematic errors ;o).

MWAKa streaky 84.27.81.59/84.27.81.59 14:16, 18 Feb 2005

Sorry: only now I understand that you were referring to the first list. I think the creator of that one has simply made an error in his calculations: it should be 301,000 for all allies, in stead of 401,000. :o)

MWAKforeman oh 84.27.81.59/84.27.81.59 14:25, 18 Feb 2005

And again I've made a mistake: not the first list was wrong, but the second, giving only 100,000 French wounded. So the total is about 401,000 for all allies, which then just happens to coincide with the total number of French casualties in the war.

MWAKdionysius ear 84.27.81.59/84.27.81.59 14:35, 18 Feb 2005

:No worries, you've done a great job with this article thus far to say the least. time strolling Oberiko/Oberiko 14:58, 18 Feb 2005

Thank you!

MWAKthrough periodically 84.27.81.59/84.27.81.59 11:33, 19 Feb 2005