Why didn't the Nazis conquer all of France? Did they

>>3294530
>Following the Allied landings in French North Africa in November 1942, southern France was also militarily occupied by Germany and Italy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France

shit thread, shit meme.

There are no more Gaulese warriors and they were easily beaten by the Romans.

File: J.Bove_poing.jpg (29KB, 400x287px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x287px

>>3294584

>>3294530
They wanted to give Britain an easy out for surrender, so Hitler was very hesitant to reign destruction on them like he did in Russia. This was part of the reason for Dunkirk, as he believed that the British were close to surrendering that he wanted to be easy on them so as to not scare them into resisting more. He wanted to give the impression that it would not be a ruthless occupation, and that the continuation of war was the worse option. By allowing them to retreat from Dunkirk and giving the French an autonomous region, Hitler was trying to say, "hey, I don't want to annihilate you guys, please just surrender and we'll treat you well." (Obviously this wasn't the case, but what Hitler defined as "treat you well" is different from what the rest of us would).

File: 1477885754906.jpg (636KB, 1032x1400px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 1032x1400px

>>3294584
Romans are Gauls' rape babies

>>3295521
No

>>3295521
They failed to capture the citadel and were defeated by an exiled Roman general. Caesar made them feel the totality of what "Vae Victis" meant.