Which mecident had led to outbreak of the resolution in france
Answers
First of all, some reminders are needed. The German Military superiority over France is a nonsense, and a myth invented to explain the collapse of the mighty French army. If the Germans won the Battle of France, it was because of a combination of the use of THE good strategy against the French (Blitzkrieg attack though the Ardennes), unexplainable military mistakes from the Allies (lack of coordination, lack of supplies, no military reserves, overconfidence) and incompetent military and politcal leaders, incapable of reacting because of rigid institutions.
The French army was superior to the Germans (in naval force, tanks, artillery). But the French used to wrong strategy, still believing they would fight a new trench warfare.It might had happened. Hitler was expected to lose 3 millions of his men. What changed ? The breakthrough of the Germans through the Ardennes. Believing the Germans could not pass by there, the French didn't secure the area, letting the Germans in and provoking their own collapse.When the breakthrough happened, the French failed to deliver a military and political respond. They stayed like petrified by the events (like Stalin one year later).The military response : due to the incompetence or overconfidence of the military leaders, a such eventuality wasn't even considered. Therefore, when the breakthrough happened, there wasn't any supply or reserve for a counterattack (as agaisnt in both 1914 and 1918). Lol, Hitler was so afraid of such counterattack that he delayed many times the German advance.The politcal response : the French leaders neither respond brilliantly. The French institutions were not planned to face such a collapse. The French President, commander-in-chief only had a protocol-role (couldn't do anything). The French premier (who wanted to continue the war) had to rely on his numerous ministers. They supported the military leaders (remember, the incompetent who only considered a Plan A) who were pushing for surrender.The question is : what could have done De Gaulle if he had been in power at that time ? To answer that question, everything. Perhaps in 1940 it was to late to change France's military strategy for the summer 1940, but it could be changed for late 1940. De Gaulle wouldn't have relied on the military leaders. As Churchill, he would have played a direct role in the military preparations, avoiding military incompetence.
I am sure he would have realised the Ardennes were not unbreakable. If one Allied leader would have realised that, there wouldn't be any German breakthrough.
If the Ardennes breakthrough had happened anyway, De Gaulle wouldn't have made those military mistakes that ensured a lack of supplies and of reserves (he actually wrote a book in the 30s criticising this military failure). Such as in 1914, a counterattack would have been possible.
An more importantly, with the De Gaulle in power, there would have been this “élan patriotique” that France didn't had in 1940. A good leader would have been enough to forget the institutional limits of the Third Republic. The war would have continued anyway. But Vichy wouldn't have all the means it had when Petain surrendered France in June 1940.
If de Gaulle would have been in power, so Churchill, everything would be different…for the best or for the worst.