france doesn't fall in 1940

if the French marched in 36 they had more of a numerical superiorty than in 40 what would have happened then.

 

I guess in 36, Germany would have been crushed by any French and / or British determined attack, and Hitler would have been held responsible for this by the Germans.

 

Refreshing to see such a post Jaeger, Im fed up with reading of how bad the French soldier and army was. Indeed they were far from being the best, but they did fight, their numbers of dead were not miniscule. They were not surrender monkeys or anything like some of the comments we here today. Their tactics, were poor, their understanding of modern warfare methods was poor, although they did have French liason officers in Poland who reported accurately on German methods, which were then ignored, their leadership was poor, their communications were poor. But one has to give the Germans credit for their superior tactics and leadership. The British were happy to go along with the French because of numbers involved comapred to French effort. Tactically the French were lacking, and lacking in ideas, but their soldiers in many cases fought well. Lille for instance. Good to see a sensible post on the subject in a sensible forum.

 

Thank you Urqh.

A close scruitny of the casualties per day for the German army during the campaign in France should say it all.

My grandad fought with the French in Narvik. They were good fighters, Chasseurs du Alpin? In short Jaegers.

Unforetunatly the overall situation made the fighting in '40 very loopsided for the Allies.