The interesting thing is that the Allies often had superiority in terms of men and material. Not just quantitative but qualitative as well. German victories were mostly due to superior organization and tactics. The Allies never managed to fight in any decently concerted fashion.
For all of the never-ending desire to highlight the moral bankruptcy of France in 1940 as exemplified in the lack of a vigorous response to German troops marching down the Champs-Élysées it is also worthwhile to consider the context of that event and the subsequent armistice.
France was utterly defeated on the field of battle, twice in the space of 6 weeks, its British ally had fled the field, and Belgium had surrendered. The French defeat was ultimately the product of a deeply flawed operational response to the German offensive. Despite losing most of their modern equpment and best trained troops in the 1st phase of the battle they were still able to make the Germans work hard to advance south of the Somme in the 2nd phase. But when that front was broken there was nothing left.
Whaever else might be said the French fought hard, suffering losses in the region of 60,000 killed in 6 weeks. British losses are harder to pin down but seem to be in the region of less than 2,000.
I suspect that a large factor in the lack of popular resistance to the German conquest was simply shock. Everyone in the West knew that German was overmatched and that t was simply a matter of time until they were defeated. The Fall of France was a massive shock to all involved, including the Germans.
The interesting thing is that the Allies often had superiority in terms of men and material. Not just quantitative but qualitative as well. German victories were mostly due to superior organization and tactics. The Allies never managed to fight in any decently concerted fashion.
For all of the never-ending desire to highlight the moral bankruptcy of France in 1940 as exemplified in the lack of a vigorous response to German troops marching down the Champs-Élysées it is also worthwhile to consider the context of that event and the subsequent armistice.
France was utterly defeated on the field of battle, twice in the space of 6 weeks, its British ally had fled the field, and Belgium had surrendered. The French defeat was ultimately the product of a deeply flawed operational response to the German offensive. Despite losing most of their modern equpment and best trained troops in the 1st phase of the battle they were still able to make the Germans work hard to advance south of the Somme in the 2nd phase. But when that front was broken there was nothing left.
Whaever else might be said the French fought hard, suffering losses in the region of 60,000 killed in 6 weeks. British losses are harder to pin down but seem to be in the region of less than 2,000.
I suspect that a large factor in the lack of popular resistance to the German conquest was simply shock. Everyone in the West knew that German was overmatched and that t was simply a matter of time until they were defeated. The Fall of France was a massive shock to all involved, including the Germans.