Baloney, typical pro England propaganda. The bottom line is the British fled the battlefield leaving the northern French point completely exposed. Notice how the British surrender’s are always classified as a brilliant tactical decisions?. As for Singapore being indefensible can anyone imagine a Japanese force surrendering to a British force 1/3 their size?
France simply suffered a military defeat that was inescapable. Britain would’ve suffered exactly the same outcome if not for the channel. And the collaboration would’ve been about the same, based upon the behavior of numerous British aristocracy members, including royalty.
It’s just as legitimate to call the Brits tea drinking surrender monkeys as it ever is to slander of the French. The fact is it’s kind of childish to point out surrenders in the face of absolute defeat and destruction as some kind of moral failing. Numerous Union and Confederate soldiers, nazi soldiers, US forces on Bataan, Brits, Russians and many others have surrendered when it was impossible to change the outcome.
Very well said, although the British surrender of Singapore was an embarrassment and that was said at the time as well. France had suffered much worse in the first WW, since so much of the western front fighting was on French soil, and they were outmaneuvered, outclassed, and just lacked a basic will to fight during the closing days of that four week German offensive. Had Hitler not lost his nerve (as he so often did, and generally right at the worst time) and had German forces close the bag at Dunkirk, the entire outcome would have been, shall we say, quite different. The North Africa campaign would have gone differently, and ended much sooner, and to Germany's benefit, that's just for starters.