Yes. Clearly. Churchill must have been a very bad orator however, because he never managed to Orate a single German army out of existence, never mind the entire Wehrmacht.
I don't why I'm even bothering at this point, because you're just being a smartar*e. If you don't understand the value of symbols, the effect they have on morale and resolve, then you're not worth talking to about this matter.
I'm sure Britain declaring they had annexed territory they were occupying would have completely turned the situation about, just as the Germans were partially driven out of Czechoslovakia after that was partially annexed by the Soviet Union.
What?
Do you think maybe for a moment, aside from the symbol not changing the reality on the ground, most the French people, didn't want to be part of Great Britain? They never asked for it to happen before or since. I'm sure being told they were now ruled by Great Britain would encourage Frenchmen to charge German tanks, sans weapons.
Of course most Franchmen wouldn't want to be part of Great Britain. The point was France would be considered Britain's equal, not a subject state. Like Austria-Hungary. And it's almost certain to have been temporary. But a lot of the anit-British feeling in France during the war came from their belief that they'd been abandoned. The first half of the 20th century is about the only time in history that France has actually felt pro-British.
Thats all well and good. For Britain. But, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't the French at the time be more concerned about France.
*sigh*
Of course they'd be concerned about their own country. But many fought against the Germans under Vichy and the occupation anyway, I sincerely doubt there wouldn't be even more people fighting if France didn't surrender. One of Switzerland's tactics in case of an invasion was to drill into its people, over and over, to ignore any calls for surrender. I imagine people fight harder when they believe their nation has a chance than when it's already given up.
Nonsense, the Germans had a fraction of their army working out a defense for several weeks. The allied forces would have found it impossible to take Norway just as the Germans would have been stopped by the few reservists holding on to Britanny.
That's one of those smartar*e responses again.
As opposed to the German Army in France, which French Civilians had nothing to worry about.
More German women were raped by French colonial troops in ONE DAY late in the war then French women suffered at German hands during the entire occupation. Mass rape was one of the few war crimes the Germans didn't practice much. And Germans treated the French better than most of their conquered territories, because they were seen as Aryans, particularly those in the north. Of course there'd be deaths. There were many under the occupation as well. That hardly compares to 200,000 women raped during the Battle of Berlin.
This may surprise you, but Empires can't make use of those resources as well simply by ownership of them. Are you aware that, at the time of its surrender, the Japanese Empire was the third most populous on Earth? Between Indonesia, Burma, Occupied China and Manchuria, only the British and Chinese had more manpower. But wait...maybe colonies don't want to fight for your nation. Maybe thats why they're colonies.
Several French colonies
did volunteer forces and bases to the Free French. Their primary use would be as bases and ports, but there were large numbers of French and colonial troops in places like Morocco who did not take part in the Battle of France. I was quite aware of the size of the Japanese Empire. How many colonial troops with good supply routes, control of the sea and a population that was completely cowed and in many cases actually willing to assist did they have? Lebanon assisted in the war after it was promised independence. I sincerely doubt other countries would have turned down similar offers.
The idea that France is going to take back their country making use of the manpower of Mali and Indochina is when of the most rediculous I've considered in a while.
Once more you're just being a smartar*e. Algeria, Senegal and Tunisia mean nothing, huh?
We lost the Capital Yes. But not the country. This would be more akin to loosing our whole nation, and then deciding we should continue the war, because our boats will help Napoleon.
France surrendered before the whole country fell. So it is an apt comparison. Serbia was completely occupied by Austria-Hungary in WWI, yet never surrendered.
Maybe we should look to a more apt comparison. France, in 1877. France's Army was in better shape then 1940, Its fleet was much stronger, and its empire just as great, and Germany's just as small. Yet France did the smart thing and surrendered. Why didn't they just rally the millions upon millions of subjugated people they had and find some symbol with which to drive back the Germans (because, like vampires, Germans can be repelled with symbols alone)?
That's the most sensible thing you've said since this debate began, and it's a pretty good argument actually. But it's flawed in several ways.
Firstly, while the French Army hadn't suffered as much damage in 1877, it was actually in worse shape. Much of it was under the command of inexperienced officers, its supply routes were horrible, and the whole campaign was ridiculously mismanaged. It is ironic that Louis-Napoleon was driven from power for the terrible way the war was conducted, when he'd been trying for years to keep the 'reforms' that damaged its effectiveness from being enacted.
Also, at the time Germany had no need for oil and other resources, as it did in WWII. Therefore, control of the sea didn't exactly give France any great benefit. A blockade of Germany wouldn't do much damage, and it's doubtful any other powers would have backed France on such a play. Similarly, France's Empire was much more solidly controlled by 1940 than it was in 1877, and contrary to what you said was actually larger, and the territories that had been added were quite strategic, like Lebanon.
With a horribly under-equipped, poorly supplied and completely outmatched army, France couldn't stand up to Germany in a conventional fight, and a redoubt in the rugged terrain of Brittany was out of the question in this case, primarily because the Germans were actually likely to reach there before the French did. Remember, both sides were relying on their own feet, horses and trains for movement, which is a far cry from automobiles. The French Fleet couldn't have done anything but destroy the small German one, which wouldn't really accomplish anything, and the Germans were the ones with patriotic fervour behind them, not the French. In such a situation, surrender was sensible, particularly since the other powers refused to get involved.
Your last line is once again just you being a smartar*e. I may have to take back my comment about you not striking me as an idiot if you keep that up.
