Talk:Battle of France

Reluctance of Reynaud to surrender

I found a citation for that; it's a newspaper clipping: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19660921&id=AtoLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QlcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5224,3352623 I am horrible at editing wiki pages, so please add.

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)

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)

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)