Was it possible for France to defeat Germany in World War II?

During World War II, France had no chance of defeating Germany at all, because it was far behind Germany in terms of equipment, technical literacy of the war, and the quality of personnel.

As a major European power, France's own national defense strength is average, especially during World War II, its economic development was not outstanding, and it does not have the strength to compete with Germany at all.

It is possible, it is also possible to fight for a period of time ** can not hold on, the French army is still very strong on paper, the number of tanks is 50 more than Germany, the main reason for the loss is **, but strategy and tactics.

Although they do not understand military affairs, everyone understands the basic truth that information is more important than tactics in war. I don't understand why the Germans came out of the forest, why didn't the French hurry back to the defense.

I think it's possible, unless France and Germany go to war face to face.

Why not? Swap the senior officers, especially the three, and win.

No, no, because the French tactical thinking is too bad.

Both French thought and ** were relatively backward relative to Germany.

If you attack Germany when attacking the waves, it is possible.

As long as the Maginot Line was extended, and the strength of the British Expeditionary Force was definitely won.

Loss is something that can't just be done by looking at the data.

During the First World War, although Germany's data losses were much greater than those of France, the European part of World War I was mainly based on northern France and Poland, and France was the battlefield, and its industrial and agricultural bases were seriously damaged.

Although the German army suffered heavy losses, it retained a complete industrial system, and Hitler was good at governing the country, so the economy recovered quickly, and it had mechanized troops and powerful armored forces, so it was able to do it better than France.

But don't get me wrong, if it weren't for Hitler, a shrewd man, and just Hindenburg, an old man in his seventies and eighties, Germany would be at most on par with France, so the ruling class is also very important.

In all fairness, the French were defeated in strategy, in the tactical direction (Maginot Line and the German frontal confrontation) the French did not fight badly, and the French did not lag behind the German army in terms of technology and weapons, although the lack of concentrated use of tanks led to the lack of French assault capabilities, but the French army was more motorized, therefore, the existence of the Maginot Line actually liberated the French mobile forces, but the French were too rigid in their plans, not only did not make good use of their mobile forces, but buried them as quickly as possible.

The French against the Germans in World War IThe Schlieffen PlanImpressed to the point that the Germans would copy the plan of the First World War (which the German General Staff did, in fact), the problem was that the Germans had chosen a man who did not play his cards according to common sense, and Hitla, who appreciated the man plan. In World War I, Germany was outflanked by the right flank, crossing Belgium and outflanking from the left flank of the French army, intending to achieve a large-scale Luten-type battle and gather the main force of the French army in a large pocket centered on Paris.

The French learned the lesson of the First World War, that is, they had to advance into Belgium as quickly as possible, mainly for two reasons, the first is to advance the front to Belgium to shorten the width of the front and not give the Germans the opportunity to outflank the French left flank. The second is to avoid repeating the tragedy of the devastation of northern France in World War I, and to advance the battlefield into Belgium, and to ravage Belgium if it wants. Therefore, the French people's battle plan was to rely on the Maginot Line on the right flank to defend it, and the left flank to advance to Belgium as quickly as possible, the stronger the mobility and mobilization ability of the French army, the faster it could enter Belgium and push the front farther.

The final result: It should be said that beyond expectations, the "cooperation" of the Anglo-French forces was beyond imagination, such a large corps rushed headlong into Belgium, and it was very difficult to turn to the German army facing the outflanking rear road later, not to mention that south of the German arrow, the French army was no longer able to piece together a decent mobile corps to rescue the encircled army.

During World War II, the mobility of both sides was far superior to that of World War I, and the narrow size of France was under the rapid attack of the German mobile forces, and the French no longer had enough time to rebuild their troops in the rear, so decisive surrender became the most advantageous option.

This is related to a country's combat effectiveness, spiritual will, and military capability.

[France has been talking to itself since its victory in the First World War!] 】

The yellow plan "went straight to the soft tendons of the Allied forces, and the French commander Gammerin was safe to defend the Maginot Line!" Although the British, French, Dutch, and Belish armies outnumbered the Germans, the French commander Gammerin (who was also the commander-in-chief of the Allied forces) remained defensive in World War I. Moreover, Gan Molin's combat thinking was still based on outdated concepts, which was destined to lay the foundation for the defeat of the Allied forces.

Tanks and aircraft were assigned to individual army units, small-scale bombardments were carried out, and there was no centralized use. The German army, on the other hand, was engaged in a joint air-ground operation, and its offensive power increased exponentially and was unstoppable. It is precisely this difference in operational thinking and tactics that can no longer be measured by quantity, and it is no longer possible to stop such an attack by defending with the defense of World War I.

Lightning Tactics"】

If Hitler and their generals reached the point of obsession with attacking! Then the Anglo-French high command is also incorrigibly obsessed with defense! 】

The First Army "collapsed, and the Anglo-French forces staged a century of escape. 】

There is a possibility of defeating Germany, because the equipment of Germany at that time was still relatively advanced, and the personnel were also very sufficient, but they were more anxious, so they would fail in the end, and if they were not so anxious, there would be a result of turning defeat into victory.

In World War II, it was impossible for France to defeat Germany, France's will to fight was too poor, but Germany was full of fighting spirit, and the strategy of the blitzkrieg also caught France off guard, and from the preliminary preparations to the beginning of the war, France could not defeat Germany.

Probably not. Because the military strength of France in World War II was far from being the opponent of Germany. Germany had a very strong military and very well-trained soldiers. There is also their ** equipment is also very advanced.

Because France ignored it at that time and asked for international assistance, and many countries helped France to fight against Germany, Germany was not able to occupy it completely.

I think the main reason is the desperate resistance of France, and the obstruction of some other countries.