For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

[Brenus]

“Matthew Parker "Monte Cassino", 2003”: I thought you spoke of French sources… Unknown in France and 2003 was a perfect years to sell bad things about the French… Not reliable, I am afraid, some kind of Intel than the WMD at the same period…

“Do you agree on
1) Terrible morale
2) Bad commanders
3) Archaic organisation
4) Archaic military doctrine”

Completely. The French mobilised but very reluctantly. During years and years they were told than the WW1 was the last one, “la der des der”, and they didn’t appreciate to go again to the slaughter. The French wanted peace, and excepted the volunteers of the International Brigades in Spain, nobody understood the danger, or wanted to ignore it as much as possible.

The worst commanders ever seen. Gamelin was in post and couldn’t wait for retirement. The major General (Waygand, Petain etc) were old and against the Republic (la Gueuse).

The Organisation wasn’t so archaic. De facto, the concept of the DRC, the Armoured Divisions was good. And when facing the Germans, without the Stukas, the Pz II and III were not match.

The military doctrine was archaic in the sense that all countries wanted to duplicate the war they won. In 1914, the French were for offensives and bayonets against the machine guns. In 1939, they wanted to win 1918…

I don’t deny that 1940 was a terrible defeat for the French. What I am contesting is: The French soldiers surrendered without fight (the surrendering Cheese Eater Monkeys syndrome): 90 000 dead in month is more than at Verdun.