There were two distinctions though. A portion of Paris cheered the arrival of the Nazis. Presumably the Communists, but it would have suggested the Communists constituted a plurality of the population. Also, the Vichy Government created through the actions of the French republican leaders is also a decisive point of difference.

While many nations have their Benedict Arnolds and Petains, not every nation promotes them to ultimate power while fighting an enemy like Germany.

The very-large and active French communist party sabotaged French military equipment, railroads, communications and other important infrastructure elements to aid the Germans during the invasion.

Which is also what they did for the Allies when Germany and Russia had their little falling out.

What is usually overlooked by so-called historians is that Russia was allied with Germany at the time.

It wasn’t so much a military alliance as a non-aggression pact and agreement to divide up Poland and certain territories between them. The Socialists, because of their close ties with Communism, were competitors of the Nazis after the Nazis took the roots of socialism and made it more effective. Thus the agreement between Russia and Germany was never ideologicaly, only an alliance of convenience. Like the Sunni+Shia alliances to fight America or Israel.

Nevertheless, the fact that Churchill didn’t insult our nominal allies doesn’t take away from the overarching point of his speech, which is that recriminations are pointless when you’re in the midst of a battle.
It’s a good thing we’re not in the middle of a battle where the French and we are fighting.

The hilarious thing is that Germany went through Belgium, not once, but twice. In WWI and WWII. But the French only extended their Maginot Line to the border with Germany, not Belgium. Must have been the French supreme strategy at work.

Nevertheless, the fact that Churchill didn’t insult our nominal allies doesn’t take away from the overarching point of his speech, which is that recriminations are pointless when you’re in the midst of a battle. All you can do is brush off the past and try to move forward as intelligently as possible.

That line in particular, about the “heroic resistance made by the French Army against heavy odds….” - great stuff! Churchill, however, knew it was BS even as it was coming out of his mouth.

The problem is, the French Army was bigger, had more field pieces, and more - and better, on a one for one basis - tanks than the German Army did. Makes it kind of hard to see where those “heavy odds” were to be found. (Maybe in the air. The Luftwaffe did have about a thousand more operational planes over Europe in spring 1940 than the Allies did.)

The real problem was of course that the French were French, and the Germans weren’t.

Also, to be fair, the German Army had just been through a period of heavy use. It left them tired, but it also left them amazingly well-oiled. They knew exactly what they were doing, and how to best do it. And as the attacking party they had freedom to move and make dispersements in their own time. They could create locally superior conditions.

But this baloney (or, if you prefer, bologna) about the “heavy odds” the French faced is just that: baloney.

And it illustrates the amazing power of well chosen words, too, doesn’t it? The war’s been over for 63 years, certainly enough time for the facts to come out; but I’m sure most of the world will forever believe that the poor French: outmanned, outgunned, outnumbered - were simply swamped in a vastly superior force against which they never had a chance.

None of which is true.