>France 1940
What happened to La Grande Armée
>>365955
It got outflanked, cut off, and was basically helpless. Not the best series of choices made, really.
Blitzkrieg.
>Russia invades American East coast During WW3 and takes Washington DC
>the rest of America just gives up and lets Russia install a new pro-Russian government
I don't understand. Did France really have nothing aside from the Maginot line?
>>365970
First off, unlike the U.S., Metropolitan Paris contained about 20% of France's population and a little less than 25% of its industry. Losing it is an enormous blow.
Secondly, Fall Gelb wiped out close to a third of France's army, or at least trapped it without supplies. The French were in serious trouble, and it would have taken another couple of months, tops, for the Germans to simply occupy most of the rest of the country if resistance continued. They were beaten.
>>365958
Literally using Napoleon's tactics on France
Fucking Germans!
it quite reasonably though the germans would avoid the finished parts of the maginot line and attack via belgium, where the best french divisions would advance and meet them to prevent a repeat of ww1
instead the germans gambled on a strike through the ardennes (with quite a lot of urging by hitler, funny when people go on a tangent about his meddling being always negative), which was somewhat unexpected (although not completely) by the highest levels of the french command, and which left the above forces in a precarious position of being cut off
this shocking success proved extremely demoralizing to a country with an army which on paper could have been a strong opponent to the german side, and perhaps even more importantly it was a shocking blow in terms of losses as well, as after the fall gelb, that is the first phase of the german invasion described in the previous paragraph, the fall rot portion of the invasion was now faced by a severely depleted french army that had lost many of its prime combat units and equipment
>>365955
It's simple. Memes happened. No way around it.
>>365999
>Napoleon's strategies qualified as a blitzkrieg
Do you know anything about his campaigns?
>>365970
You forgot the part where the US loses a third of its army including its best and best equipped divisions, and the support of its allies. Also the Maginot Line was not a problem or a bad move in any shape or form during the fall of France.
>>365955
>What happened to La Grande Armée
France's population got matched and even overtook during the industrial revolution, making the "grande" part not quite so literal anymore. Also a lot of political factors.
>>366016
Blitzkrieg was merely Napoleon's style adapted with tank and aerial warfare
>combined arms
>moving faster than the enemy
>divide, encircle and destroy
Literally Napoleon's tactics and strategy 150 years later
>>366006
>instead the germans gambled on a strike through the ardennes
This was a major factor. Ardennes was a big gamble in that if they were ever attacked, their entire armored force could've been decimated. It's a thick forest with not much room for maneuver.
Most people outright disregarded the possibility of an invasion through there, in fact even certain German officers spoke out against it.
So to put things into perspective using this scenario >>365970 imagine Russia invading Canada, then USA through the arctic sea.
The rest is BLITZKREIG.
>>365955
Incompetent leaders and commanders as well as an unwillingness to fight
>Blitzkrieg
i want this meme to stop
there was no one tangible "blitzkrieg", no "blitzkrieg" doctrine, no "blitzkrieg" tactic
>>366024
The Grande Armee was outnumbered in most of its major engagements though
It won because it was better at war, not because of numbers
>>366038
>unwillingness to fight
this is simply untrue
despite the extremely precarious position at the outset of fall rot, french morale was actually high
and perhaps that is also why the initial attacks of the fall rot campaign met with (to the germans) surprising amounts of stiff resistance
>>366042
Tell that to "Der Schnelle Heinz" Guderian.
Doctrine or no, what he did in France was the definition of what we call Blitzkrieg.
>>366043
The french component of the army alone was more than twice as big as Britain's whole army. Can't be arsed to look up the size of the Habsburg prussian and russian army, but I doubt there gonna be much of a difference in proportions. They were just outnumbered because they were fighting against everyone at the same time really.
>>366043
>captured moscow
Literally man-god
>>366051
No I am talking about the commanders and leaders of France being unwilling to fight not the general soldiers.
