One of Guderian's great tactical insights in battle was not to use his reinforcements in the parts of the front line where the Germans were struggling, but instead apply them to where they were succeeding. This was a new concept which was perfectly suited to this type of tank warfare. Exploit the enemy's weakness rather than combat his strength.
It was Mansteins plan. Guederian was a big proponent of armored warfare, and Rommel led a Panzer Division during the assault on France, but the plan belongs to Manstein.
Germany was at war with 27 countries by the end of the war, and they still gave everyone a hard time - split in two, 15m pows and country destroyed , by 1957 west germany was the fastest growing economy in europe
27 weak countries. The countries it invaded still used WWI tactics and machinery and had no answer for Blitzkrieg war tactics. They couldn't beat Britain or Russia.
All of the French generals at the top were, almost to a man, totally unprepared for the new style of warfare about to be unleashed. There were a few younger generals, De Gaulle especially, who wanted the French army organized on similar lines to the German. It's a common misperception that German tanks were better than anything else. The French actually had more and better tanks than the Germans, but instead of organizing them into independent armored divisions grouped together in corps, they were spread out among the infantry. The Fall of France took from May 10th 1940 to the end of June, but the French were irretrievably beaten within a week. I would argue the Germans had them beat in 1917, it just took until 1940 for them to realize it.
That's misleading.It's true that the French (and the British) were underprepared and had been more focused on improving business in their umpires, as democracies do with so many competing interests within their countries and the inability for any individual or even small group to unilaterally railroad anything in a time of crisis until it is completely upon them. But the fact still remains that even with Hitler having mobilised better and having dominated the Germans to prepare their military machine far better, both psychologically and tactically, if the Nazis had tried ANY OTHER TACTICS except go through the Ardennes, or the Brits and the French had attacked Germany 1st, The Germans best hope would have been a two-year war of attrition, where they eventually would collapse, with occupied regions public rising up as they had to commit more and more men to the west, due to the British committing increasing numbers to fortify the already formidable numbers of the French army.There also would have been the probability of Stalin attacking from the east, as it became clear that the Nazis were struggling
@@patriot2805 the importance of radio communication cannot be overstated. A tank is actually a very big, blind target in any terrain, including open terrain. It needs to be told where to direct its fire, where to move, and where to anticipate attacks. The Germans excelled because they had recon and command vehicles. The Sdkfz series of vehicles is not credited enough for its instrumental role. Providing radio communication, fast recon, scouting, command and coordination. Furthermore, the radio communication of the ground troops was directly linked with the close air support provided by stukas. Hence the term Blitzkrieg was very aptly suited for the German method of warfare between 1939 to 1941.
@regencyrow1867 Exactly, WW1 doctrine, they used their tank defensively, while the Germans used them to fight the blietzkrieg, the French were calculating distances in infantry paces while the Germans were moving with tanks
@@MikeyMike-fb5hx Their reconnaissance didn’t see much, they disregarded existing reports because it didn’t conform to their ideas about what Germany would/could do, the Germans moved much faster than the French expected or though possible, faster even than German time-tables, when they did identify the breakthrough there were significant communication errors, they misidentified the German objectives, many units were already committed to Belgium, the Rhine, or the defense of Paris, and thus were slow to disengage and react, among other things.
It wasn’t just the Armoured formations, they made their Infantry formations mobile too to avoid a trench warfare stalemate. The overall strategy was mobile warfare by all their military formations that the western Armies were not prepared for.
They also added radios between tank commanders and Close Air Support, giving them the capability to call in tactical air strikes to support the assaults.
The stubborness is amazing, like why wouldn’t you at least check it out. Why have scouts if you’re gonna brush them off when they do exactly their job lmao
Franco prussian war wasnt 1865. Ardenne forst not ardenne mountains. Who tf is the joker? Just shows how with enough confidence you can sound efucated and convincing while still not know anything about what your talking about
@@Waterboarder25 This is kind of what Joe's podcast has turned into the past few years. Everytime I return hoping for something original, it's just some idiot he found who fooled him into believing they're some sort of expert.
The #1 determinant was that the Allies spent 21 years assuming everyone wanted to avoid fighting another world war, while Germany spent that time fantasizing about the rematch
@@FamiliarAnomaly It's true though, and it was reported on extensively by journalists living in Germany in the 1930s who were watching the run-up to WW2 in person. The public, especially vast swaths of disenfranchised WW1 veterans, were extremely pissed at the way Germany mismanaged the war, and were also extremely bitter about all the reparations the Allies jammed into the Treaty of Versailles, which wrecked Germany's post-war economy. While there was definitely widespread trepidation about another war, the idea of revenge against France and England for WW1 was also a very popular sentiment that Hitler harnessed to great effect as part of his power grab.
@@FamiliarAnomaly Disprove my statement. Find me evidence from both Weimar & Nazi Germany where the population wasn't highly motivated to recoup the losses France and England imposed upon a defeated Imperial Germany. Everyone was outraged over losing Alsace-Lorraine; having the Rhineland occupied; having the Ruhr industrial area seized by France to pay back it's defaulted debts during the Depression. Find me evidence that the Germans weren't just as infuriated with the British for dividing Prussia to create Poland out of thin air, and having the Danzig corridor taken away. Same with the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. These were all regions that had historically been German since the Holy Roman Empire, and now they were gone. I ask again.... Prove to me why my initial statement is wrong. Show me where Germans weren't extremely motivated to reclaim their lost dignity and manifest destiny within central Europe in light of the humiliating dictate known as the Versailles Treaty. I'll wait.
Except it isn't. If you take a long enough timeline, everyone ends up a loser. Most of the great empires no longer exist, including the British Empire.
The war took place in 1871 not 1865. That was the brother war between Prussia and Austria. Also the first time I ever heard that Rommel and Guderian were also responsible for the Ardennes offensive plan. Only ever heard Von Manstein associated with this genius strategy
In 1996 I drove my 1980 Subaru wagon across the entire US in 52 hours straight with no sleep. I just had cigarettes and coffee. A massive snowstorm was following me, and if I stopped for an hour, I'd be stuck under 3 feet of snow. I don't think I could have done 72 hours though, unless I had some coke or meth.
The Nazis took some BIG RISKS in the invasion of France, and it paid off so everyone just remembers them kicking ass. But there were certain key points where things could have gone very differently, and if the Allies had reacted differently, people would say today that the high-risk high-reward plan was a stupid gamble.
Well done for the only sensible comment in this section, which is full of pedantic, small-minded people focus on detail instead of the bigger picture. Any other tactics except going through the Ardennes, using meth to do it more speedily and getting lucky that the Brits and the French were so reluctant to engage(Democracies political elites fearful of re-mobilising or telling the population anything, lest they be replaced) that they didn't do a rigourous evaluation of vulnerabilities, would have led to a gradual Nazi defeat within 2 years.The Nazis occupied regions, would be gradually pushed back onto the Soviets
@@michaelwong9411they also did not want to hold France or conquer the uk because they didn’t have a big enough population to do it and there was no way the populace would allow them to rule for long.
What he said was similar to what I was taught/read about the battle for France during WW II, a soft spot in the Maginot Line (the French line of defense) was thru the Ardennes, and German armored divisions took advantage of this opportunity.
@@dominicjohnson8427 Adolfo made foolish choices later could’ve massacred like half the english army of the belgian coast but had mercy only for them to destroy the great victorian German cities.
For anyone interested in a deeper dive into this, I would recommend watching the "France Falls" episode of the excellent series "The World at War" made in 1973. It's on RUclips (although unfortunately I assume due to copyright reasons it's been edited in parts). It includes interviews with very senior political and military figures on both sides - still alive in 1973 - and gives a very good overview. Enjoy !
France had the world's best equipped army. They had, however, the worst government and military high command in Europe. Hitler wasn't stubborn though. He was persistent but he stole Guderian's plan and made it work.
well, yep, but in the meantime, the french had finally stopped to, read the rewrote french translation of Mein Kampf allowed by Hitler and had read the original version, where Hitler's intent for France were explicitly written. It's not like if this declaration of war was not 100 % legitimate. France had a defense pact with Poland to respect.
@@davecopp9356 Most Axis propaganda miss the part that the Franco-British comitment to Poland was not a secret , so invading Poland was therefore a de facto declaration of War by Germany .
Two interesting facts to add. The french commander who was responsable for their defensive admit the germany was not better than them but they we‘re much much more faster. Secondly after WW1 germany has to sign there capitulation in a train waggon on a desk. When french surrended Hitler forced them to the exact same desk in the same waggon to sign their capitulation and later presented this waggon in front of the Brandenburger Tor.
I'd like to add a few addendums to this guy's comment. 1. It is far too reductive to simplify Hitler's motives for the Battle of France as "revenge" for WW1. France and England had declared war on Germany during the Polish campaign, against Hitler's wishes. England sent the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) to France, and both militaries began to mobilize. Hitler NEVER wanted conflict with the West, let alone a protracted war. However, when two nations declare war on you, begin to mobilize and refuse negotiations, you must act as if it is wartime. Hitler knew Germany would almost certainly lose if France attacked first. He KNEW that Germany had to attack first and attack fast to win. 2. Hitler and Mannstein independently came up with the idea of attacking through the Ardennes Forest. They essentially had to meet in secret to draw up the the initial blueprints for the Sickle Cut plan because the other generals wanted to push forward with a plan which would have certainly failed. 3. Every military in the world takes stimulants. Even during WW2 American soldiers took stimulants.
If you genuinely think that hitler would just stop after invading poland then you are one of the dumbest people in the world. By 1939 germany was so buried in debt because of amount of military spendings they had to revive their miltaey. It was necessary for them to invade and loot countries to keep their economy alive
1. False. It is true Hitler desperately hoped to get a long-term alliance....with Britain, not with France or the whole "West" (whatever that means). Hitler considered the british as natual allies since being "aryan" germanic cousins, and always dreamed of a London-Berlin pact : Europe to Germany, Ocean to Britain. In this way, he always offered generous terms to Britain, and he never really took serious action to try to stir up revolts in the british empire, because he considered it as an expression of natural race order. But he had betray too often the trust of the Brits during the 1930's, renouncing his word to claim new lands after the munich agreements meant nobody on international stage could trust him again. Plus, the brits knew they would be vassalized by the germans anyway if they left them hegemony over Europe, they always opposed to the nation aspiring to dominate continental western Europe for this reason : Spain with Charles the Vth, France with Louis the XIVth and Napoleon, Germany with Wilhelm the IInd and Hitler. But as for France, as he explicitly said in Mein Kampf (Hitler was one of few policians in history to be honest in his political writings), he considered France as the hereditary ennemy of Germany for the domination of western europe (which is partially true) and that for one of the two nations to prosper, the other one had to be taken down. He also wrote that Germany would never be entirely reunited, as long as France hold Alsace-Lorraine and Strasburg. (fun fact : when Hitler took power, an alarmed french far right managed to cofund with french jewish organisations (their traditional enemies, but enemy of my enemy is my friend) and diffuse a translation of Mein Kampf in French, to warn and wake up the deeply pacifist french public opinion on who was the new master of Germany and what his intentions were towards France, prestigious french marshal Liautey writing in preamble of the book "every frenchman must read this book". Hitler sued them, as they had published and translated his book without buying the rights, and according to international treaties, french editors were forced to withdraw this translation. Hitler presented then his own translation of Mein Kampf in french, where he had erased all the anti-french chapters, saying Alsace-Lorraine belonged forever to France, that reconcilation had to be the priority, and France and Germany had common ennemies above all. 2. True. The plan was from Mannstein mind. But it was incredibly risky. It would have taken the french aircraft to track the tanks columns advancing through the Ardennes and the french headquarters to react in time, and Germany would have lost most of his tanks and the war with it. 3. True. But germans were quite the champions of stimulants in WW2.
He was a gambler, and he gambled right that France wasn't ready for war when he attacked Poland. He ABSOLUTLY wanted war with France, just not a war on two front and everybody knew that war with France meant war with the British Empire. if he didn't wanted war he wouldn't have started it... i hate the revisionism that we see lately.. poor Germany had to defend itself from the West.
100% correct. Hitler wanted an alliance with Britain more than anything and he absolutely did not want to fight a two-fronts war. This is why he made Joachim von Ribbentrop the foreign minister, he was well-versed in English and had many contacts in the Anglosphere. Ribbentrop's number 1 priority was securing the alliance with Britain, but he failed largely because he was unpopular among the British who found him quite snobbish.
During ww1 the us government and numerous newspapers reported that German soldiers were throwing babies up in the air and catching them with bayonets. During the Gulf War, a congressional inquiry released testimony that Iraqi soldiers were going into hospitals, pulling premature babies out of incubators and smashing them on the ground (also reported in numerous newspaper). Do u believe those things actually happened, or do u know what war propaganda is? If u know what war propaganda is, why suddenly believe 100% all the war propaganda around ww2, particularly when to this.day it provides the political.justification for the existence of a certain small country in the middle east that definitely doesn't have an outsized influence on American politics and foreign policy.
missing the part where he mentions that the Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany, which divided Poland between them. The Soviets occupied the eastern part of Poland and helped secure victory for Hitler
Everyone looked for their interests, Britain is no different. Always remember, Brits are only nation that made Lebensraum actually work in North America
@@worlddd7777 Nazi Germany modeled a lot of their ideas and goals after things the US and UK had done to become world powers. Slavery, living space, genocide, racial hierarchy, industrialization etc were all modeled after the US and UK. Prussia and Nazi Germany was supported by a decent amount of UK and US industrial leaders and politicians that liked fascism and German ancestry. Its very weird. I heard one fringe thinker state, Nazism/fascism was something Prussian sympathizers in the US and UK outsourced, off shored, developed, tested...then exported to the world and imported to the UK and US.
@@worlddd7777 Germans thought it was hilarious and bizarre when they caught a native american soldier after Dday, they could not believe it and laughed and asked him wtf he was doing there. they let him go and return safely.
Also elements on the French left demoralised and subverted the French military. There was a strong pacifist movement in the 30s. It was easy for this to gain traction given their national experience of being bled dry in WW1.
Except that the British invented them.But I take your point, because Britain wasnt interested in land warfare innovation, because it had the best and most advanced Navy and didn't have to worry about invasion. He clearly miss communicated, or missremembered that the French tanks were superior, which they were, except for the lack of radios, which was 1 of the deciding factors in the German tank divisions having ascendancy even though technologically less capable in other ways
That's a myth. If anything they were less advanced than the Brits. The Matilda II is so heavily armored that Rommel has to use the Flak 8.8's to destroy them, when his facing them in Africa. Because the Panzer III and IV's arn't getting it done.
Thé artillery let down thé Maginot Line. Without cover thé soldiers had to retreat. It was Bad. Also WE had heavy tanks which were equiped without heavy canons. But they were not well designed, many survived engagement only to be sobotaged by crew because stranded with mechanical failures and no support. Look for the b1bis Eure.
Not really. Especially not at first. Even their famous late-war heavy tanks, the Panther and the Tiger, were troublesome vehicles in terms of reliablity and useability. In hindsight, Germany would have been beter off if they had produced simpler, cheaper and more practical combat vehicles.
French though it was 1914 again and they had a bunch of old generals that knew nothing about modern warfare. At the time France was still dealing with WW1 and had not even re built their army much.
They expanded violently but they were poor countries, relatively. Italy's performance was abysmal. When the Nazis won the battle of France, they learned the wrong lesson: that they were very powerful, when the truth was that France was not as powerful as people assumed. And so they went on with barbarosa. Blietzkrieg needs fast wars and you can't win Russia fast enough. The distances where inconceivable. That's what is the big advantage of Russia- space. What did Hitler expect from his wermacht to do? March from Poland to Vladivostok in a summer? the whole thing was fueled by hubris.
France had a larger army and more hardware, tanks, planes, etc…Just. Very poor tactics …And it wasn’t just France …Germany took over Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, and a very impressive blitzkreig in Greece to secure there southern flank…Plus they reinforced the Italians in N.Africa and were able to drive back the British …It took a bit for the allies to learn the new German tactics and counter it .
The German plan also was chaotic. Instead if a knockout punch to Moscow they wasted time and resources on Leningrad and Stalingrad, losing their best Army. The Germans could just glimpse the skyline but never entered the city. Taking Moscow doesn’t mean game over, but it would have given Germans secured aerial dominance over most supply routes and manufacturing hubs. It also would have been a morale crusher and a communication breaker. Funny how about three years later the Russians were in their Capital city.
@@Shad0wack absolutely. But the mainland Russia campaign was dismal. If they bifurcated it through Moscow it would have effectively punched out the government control over most of the population. No supplies would go north and it would have been mopped up by the Finns and a smaller northern army group. With the main road and rail network, which webs out from Moscow, in German control, the Russians would be constantly on the defensive until something gave.
@@joe18750 the line of castles and fortresses along that line are quite old. The term maginot line is more recent, but the actual barrier deterred the Huns for quite some time.
Watch the World At War Episode - France Falls. It explains it. The French had the largest and best standing army in the world. But as a French General says in the documentary, when talking about WW1: "Victory is a very dangerous opportunity."
The french army was of great quality. Their tanks and fighter were as good if not better then the germans and they had a larger force. The real problem is the french military leadership had no idea how to use these weapons. They assumed ww2 would be a static war like ww1. The germans had the military leadership with foresight who anticipated a war of movement. That is why they did things like concentrate their armour as opposed to using it piece mail as infantry support. If the military leadership was even france would have wrecked them. Unfortunately for the world that was not the case.
@@RudyRude-wp8epNot a fact at all. The Czechs had no choice but to surrender and sign off the country over to Hitler. Most of their men counts fought the Germans on the Western fronts. They also continued to uprise from within the state by commiting and conspiring attentats and assassinations of various high ranking nazi officers during the protectorate era.
Btw , Bismarck, who wanted to unite German, so he thought "what does every German hate? " Answer: the french. So for the first time, France faced the united German forces which turned out to be massively superior than the french, so they won . He didn't (the quest) mention that.
The forces were not superior, Germany had a lot more people in both World War I and World War II the German army and the German population was 1/3 larger than either the British or the French population and army.Only combined did these countries have more people, and because the Brits never kept a standing army due to the superiority of the Navy, The Germans had the advantage in land numbers in the initial stages of both wars anyway
well, they were at 1 vs 2. Germany had 80 millions people, France 40 millions. Britain just provided a small expeditionnary force, Belgium and the Netherlands had no tanks nor aircraft.
No russia back than.that was ussr.after the octobar revolution russian elites escaped from the country.many of them were fihgting in German army against communists.like kozaks,"belogardejci"...
the soviets were even part of the Nuremberg Trials. So they not only recruited from the SS that they had captured but even went on to judge some of those they didn't get. It's crazy but we legit judged Germans for attacking polish cities, when part of the judges had attacked the next town over at the same time.
I think after Joe saw the video of Hitler at the Olympics, he wanted to talk to this guy about the German meth use. The fact that the guy knew so little about WWII history was a distant second to what Joe cared about.
Norman didn't really do his homework. He has the wrong year for the Franco-Prussian war. It started in 1871. The Germans knew they couldn't use the same invasion route as that war because France did a better job defending that area so they developed the Schlieffen Plan for WWI. The Prussian military was considered the best but that plan was not realistic. They had to take Belgium rapidly and use their railroads to move up the army quick and drive a wedge between the French and British. It took much longer to conquer Belgium and they destroyed the rail lines. Blitzkrieg was developed in Poland. It was combined arms, tank divisions and air forces working in conjunction to rapidly encircle and bypass static strong points and get into the rear area. The infantry would come in and mop up these cut off spots by surrounding and taking them out. The old guard wanted another Schlieffen Plan. It was the innovators, like Gudarian that wanted to attack through the Ardennes.
LOL, the Franco-Prussian War started in July 1870 and ended in January 1871. The term Blitzkrieg might come from the Polish campaign, but it was not “developed” in Poland by Germany. Combined arms goes back as far as 1918, and just about every nation in Europe dabbled with the idea in the Interwar period.
@@scarecrowman7789 silly comment.Germany got lucky with our the Ardennes tactics.Retrospective analysis shows that defence of the Ardennes by the allies, or any other tactics by the Germans would have led to eventual German defeat without the USA even becoming involved
@@scarecrowman7789 They weren't though. France alone had more tanks, men and artillery. France and the UK combined outnumbered the Germans at least 2:1 in every category. The Germans had the best trained military at the time and their military leaders were a lot more on the ball than the French or the UK. A combination of that, and some luck, is why they steamed rolled the French. Similar thing happened in the Franco-Prussian war.
They walked in. The French people protested for a few days and then put up their white flags like they do every protest without accomplishing anything. 🏳🏳🏳🏳
Rommel was the most famous because he would go against the British and Americans in N Africa. But the true genius of blitzkrieg of Guderian. Before the war, he wrote a prophetic book called "Achtung Panzer," which laid the theoretical underpinning of Blitzkrieg, armed thrusts in coordination with air and ground forces. (And he could practice what he wrote about. He was highly popular with the corps he lead in the field, France and Russia, so much so that his troops would paint "G" on their tanks signifying who was under their command.) It's doubtful that any British or French general studied Guderian's book. Allied generals still focused on the tactics of 1914, not 1940. Their stubborness mistake would prove fatal. Took the Wermacht only 5 weeks to reach Paris.
The part not mentioned here is the lack of aggression from the French and British. They did not fight when they could have fought and worse, they gave up when they were attacked. This is why they lost in the early going.
The Brits did not give up, they fell back, which is a legitimate military strategy and then handed the Nazis ass to them in the Battle of Britain, crashing the German air force
@@Rowlph8888 They didn’t hand them their ass but they won. But this only after they sat on their asses when they should have attacked Germany. They’d never have had to fall back to England is France and England attacked while German forces were concentrated in the East.
B.S.. All Germans wanted revenge against France as well as international finance for the Treaty of Versailles. However, no country in Europe - not one - wanted another war after the first world war. France had lost a generation of men, and did NOT want to lose another generation. When Hitler's armies invaded, the French fought not to win the battle, but to not lose men, that is why France capitulated so quickly. Also, the French government was very balkanized, rife with factionalism. He's right though about many Germans' apprehension about taking on the British Empire, and possibly the U.S., this would account for Hess' flight to England. When speaking of materiel, yes it is true that German tanks were inferior, not just to British tanks, but also both French and Russian.
Nope. Nothing like that. By Germany invading Poland, the British and French had a pact with Poland to ensure they would be defended. Hitler once he had the Soviet pact, basically led Britain on that they would not invade, they just wanted Danzig back. Poland refused, got invaded and pulled Britain and France back into a World War they didn’t want. This was all part of them being a League of Nations, not dissimilar to NATO. History repeats.
@@jodu626 Yes, we all learned in 2nd grade history class on when Germany sneak attack bombed England and France's naval ports, killing 3000 people, and they rightfully declared war on them the next day. Just like when the US declared war on Japan on December 8th 1941. Also, are you mentally re+arded?
@@RogueCylon France and England declared war on Germany... your response: "Nope. Nothing like that."... They literally did declare war on Germany. My God, are you a dimwit. lol
the french army was actually one of the best in the 30s. he said 'it was not good'. they had teh best tank of the 30s and they were much more mechanized than the germans, which were still using a lot horses, at the onset of war.
Hitler had no desire to fight France and Britain. No upside. Occupying France was a drain on resources. He always knew the real threat to Europe was Stalin.
Lot of over simplifiction going on here... Remember that this is Spring 1940, Tigers and Panthers don't exist. The Germans have Panzer I's, II's and III's, some MKIV's as support plus Czech PZ38 and 35T's - That's it. Britain has things like the Matilda which is actually really good for the period with a good balance of armour, mobility and armament. The French have tanks like the excellent Souma S.35 and Char 1B Heavy, both of which the Panzers can't really handle. Luckily the Germans can use Flak 88's, artillery or even Stuka strikes but in a 1-on-1 engagement, the German's are going to be in trouble if they can't use mobility to get shots in at weak points.
@@leefr76 The british outnumbered Rommel 2 to 1 in North Africa and he beat them handily. It was only when the Royal Navy blockaded German supplies that Rommel had to surrender. Germans outperformed their enemies pound-for-pound in almost every battle.
you mangled the joke. any weapon is likely to be dropped. but when you surrender, you throw it down. So the joke goes, " barely fired, thrown down only once".
He's right about the meth, but as usual idiots in this comments section on micromanaging and pedantic about if you wrong details.This guy actually has more credibility on the drugs issue than most historians, as he rightfully said just regurgitate other people's soundbites, rather than doing official research from archives. Methamphetamine was clearly the primary factor in the victory of Blitzkrieg, as it was entirely based on speed, even though there were other factors, e.g.: slowing the allies down with masses of refugees flooding the North France. the Germans were efficient because a tyranny meant they didn't have to worry about being replaced, unlike the democracies who did and Germany's industrial capability was only slightly ahead of the Brits because they had a much larger population.Detailed analysis has shown that if the Nazis had tried any other tactics, or if the Brits and the French had defended the Ardennes in even a moderate capacity, most of the Nazis tank divisions were in a traffic jam, regardless of the meth, would have been firebombed and Germany would have lost a war as the Brits gradually built up their tiny standing army to supplement the French and forcing the Nazis back, whilst the Brits Navy blockade starved Germany and occupied regions began to full to pieces and the Soviets obviously would get involved at some point to end Germany as a nation in the modern sense after France president would be finished with them, without Roosvelt about 2 calm things down
The Germans got very lucky on almost every facet and the British and French were entirely incompetent on every facet. Also the Germans were all on meth so kind if an asterisk there.
How were us brits incompetent? Won the Battle of Britain and fought hard in the North African campaign. Not to mention protected our interests and the biggest empire overseas.
@@scarecrowman7789 in the early war? It was called the Phoney War for a reason. They as well as the French had reconnaissance of the German columns in the Ardens and did nothing with it.
France had the strongest military in the World in 1939 but horrible leadership and tacticians.. Ultimately that led to its downfall. This shows that you can have the best armies, if you have poor leaders you are fucked.
39-40 the majority of the German tank army consisted of light tanks. The heaviest tanks the Germans had were the PZ III and PZ IV and only in small numbers. In contrast, the British and especially the French had the better tanks. more heavily armored and more firepower.
French tanks were better than the German ones in 1940, but the speed of Guderian(even Von Manstein ordered him to halt his advance) scared the crap out of the French/British.
No, just initially effective because they were railroaded by a tyranny giving them single-mindedness and tunnel vision necessary and they got lucky with the only tactic which would have worked than any other tactic that they chose would have led to eventual defeat and the dismantling of Germany, with the French hellbent on that Once this initial advantage of mindset was gone, the Nazis unravelled as expected
@@ledzeppy7507 They were on defense much longer than they were on offense. From the winter of '41,'42 to the end of the war Germany was on defense.They had already failed in Africa. If your definition of badass is playing catch-up, then it's quite different than mine.
If America got split in two by another country and my people on the other side were getting slaughtered by the 10's of thousands a week who wouldn't come to their rescue?
One of Guderian's great tactical insights in battle was not to use his reinforcements in the parts of the front line where the Germans were struggling, but instead apply them to where they were succeeding. This was a new concept which was perfectly suited to this type of tank warfare. Exploit the enemy's weakness rather than combat his strength.
“In war, as in prostitution, amateurs are often better than professionals."-Napoleon Bonaparte
He really said that shit?
@@reen6904
Why do you think Benny Franklin went to France to sample their whores?
@@reen6904right?? 😳
Pornhub
I smell french Fries!
“I didn’t even know he was sick.” -Norm McDonald.
Classic.🤣🤣🤣👍🥃
Do you know who reclaimed France after the war???.........you guessed it.......Frank Stallone
Something about his eyes. Hypnotic
"What a jerk"
@@JohnnyDouchbag-nr5yf .....I thought t was Jorhan Van Der Sloot?
It was Mansteins plan. Guederian was a big proponent of armored warfare, and Rommel led a Panzer Division during the assault on France, but the plan belongs to Manstein.
Manstein was the greatest strategist since Napoleon.
@@Stoddardian his withdrawing battles from Stalingrad during 1943 were masterpieces.
@@robwark7554 How so
Germany was at war with 27 countries by the end of the war, and they still gave everyone a hard time - split in two, 15m pows and country destroyed , by 1957 west germany was the fastest growing economy in europe
Not anmyore, it´s going dooooown here...
Hitlers drug inducement plus the top generals blew it
They are putting plastic valve covers on BMWs. Can't be doing that good.
@@Santeria78 That's american hegemony for you.
27 weak countries. The countries it invaded still used WWI tactics and machinery and had no answer for Blitzkrieg war tactics. They couldn't beat Britain or Russia.
All of the French generals at the top were, almost to a man, totally unprepared for the new style of warfare about to be unleashed. There were a few younger generals, De Gaulle especially, who wanted the French army organized on similar lines to the German. It's a common misperception that German tanks were better than anything else. The French actually had more and better tanks than the Germans, but instead of organizing them into independent armored divisions grouped together in corps, they were spread out among the infantry. The Fall of France took from May 10th 1940 to the end of June, but the French were irretrievably beaten within a week. I would argue the Germans had them beat in 1917, it just took until 1940 for them to realize it.
French tanks were superior, but lacked Radio communication…The radio was key to the success of the Panzer divisions…
@@AlainNavasDrama True, but it didn't matter since they were dispersed among the infantry divisions
Pervatin won the early stages of the war and hitlers drug fog lost it after 1941
That's misleading.It's true that the French (and the British) were underprepared and had been more focused on improving business in their umpires, as democracies do with so many competing interests within their countries and the inability for any individual or even small group to unilaterally railroad anything in a time of crisis until it is completely upon them. But the fact still remains that even with Hitler having mobilised better and having dominated the Germans to prepare their military machine far better, both psychologically and tactically, if the Nazis had tried ANY OTHER TACTICS except go through the Ardennes, or the Brits and the French had attacked Germany 1st, The Germans best hope would have been a two-year war of attrition, where they eventually would collapse, with occupied regions public rising up as they had to commit more and more men to the west, due to the British committing increasing numbers to fortify the already formidable numbers of the French army.There also would have been the probability of Stalin attacking from the east, as it became clear that the Nazis were struggling
@@patriot2805 the importance of radio communication cannot be overstated. A tank is actually a very big, blind target in any terrain, including open terrain. It needs to be told where to direct its fire, where to move, and where to anticipate attacks. The Germans excelled because they had recon and command vehicles. The Sdkfz series of vehicles is not credited enough for its instrumental role. Providing radio communication, fast recon, scouting, command and coordination. Furthermore, the radio communication of the ground troops was directly linked with the close air support provided by stukas. Hence the term Blitzkrieg was very aptly suited for the German method of warfare between 1939 to 1941.
France had the worst tacticians ... that is how! The French will tell you that themselves
military victory of France in their history....1115
The French army actually counter attacked into Germany and were turned around by 1 machine gun nest...
@@GangnamStyle33 Bunch of crap. Never ceases to amaze me how ignorant Rogan listeners are.
Well, time and time again they stunned the allies with their ingratitude.😊😊😊😊
Have you heard about the new tank the French army developed? It has 9 gears...
...1 goes forward the other 8 go in reverse
0:37 the French army was good,the doctrine was bad, WW1 doctrine
Odd. The Brits were already there. They already had recon plans out there. How did they not see how the German offensive was developing?
The French had better tanks than the Germans during the initial invasion, but their generals had no idea how to use them.
@MikeyMike-fb5hx They totally underestimated the German Army and ,as per WW1,they didn't expect an offensive through the Ardennes
@regencyrow1867 Exactly, WW1 doctrine, they used their tank defensively, while the Germans used them to fight the blietzkrieg, the French were calculating distances in infantry paces while the Germans were moving with tanks
@@MikeyMike-fb5hx Their reconnaissance didn’t see much, they disregarded existing reports because it didn’t conform to their ideas about what Germany would/could do, the Germans moved much faster than the French expected or though possible, faster even than German time-tables, when they did identify the breakthrough there were significant communication errors, they misidentified the German objectives, many units were already committed to Belgium, the Rhine, or the defense of Paris, and thus were slow to disengage and react, among other things.
Franco-Prussian War was 1870/71
Austria vs Prussia was 1866
1866 was Austro-Prussian War. 1864 was Danish-Prussian war. You and Ohler are ignorant and too lazy to google stuff.
This is simply incorrect.
I listened to better WW2 experts in pubs at 3 am in the morning.
What???
@@bloodcurdling3581 He means that Rogan invites just about any nutcase on his podcast because this guest doesn't know shit.
I agree who is this clown?
3 in the morning…. In the morning
Spot on 👍🏻
It wasn’t just the Armoured formations, they made their Infantry formations mobile too to avoid a trench warfare stalemate. The overall strategy was mobile warfare by all their military formations that the western Armies were not prepared for.
They also added radios between tank commanders and Close Air Support, giving them the capability to call in tactical air strikes to support the assaults.
Whats crazy is there was actually scouts who found the german advance, but it was dismissed cause no one believed it was possible.
Wrong, the French has no significant forces posted in the Ardennes
@@rramos117 when did i write that?
@@rramos117 He is correct, two pilots found the column. This is well known.
The stubborness is amazing, like why wouldn’t you at least check it out. Why have scouts if you’re gonna brush them off when they do exactly their job lmao
That's what happens when every troop gets a liter of wine a day instead of crystal meth 😅
Franco prussian war wasnt 1865. Ardenne forst not ardenne mountains. Who tf is the joker? Just shows how with enough confidence you can sound efucated and convincing while still not know anything about what your talking about
This guy talked alot of nonsense during the podcast, pro bullshitter.
Its funny also he says grande armée which waz the name of the french army during the napoleonic war
There are Ardennes mountains but not where the Germans crossed. He made a few mistakes indeed.
Yeah and y is Joe Rogan interviewing a guy talking about things u can easily find on Wikipedia or any ww2 documentary about the battle of France 😂😂😂😂😂
@@Waterboarder25 This is kind of what Joe's podcast has turned into the past few years. Everytime I return hoping for something original, it's just some idiot he found who fooled him into believing they're some sort of expert.
The #1 determinant was that the Allies spent 21 years assuming everyone wanted to avoid fighting another world war, while Germany spent that time fantasizing about the rematch
thanks for the netflix take
@@FamiliarAnomaly It's true though, and it was reported on extensively by journalists living in Germany in the 1930s who were watching the run-up to WW2 in person. The public, especially vast swaths of disenfranchised WW1 veterans, were extremely pissed at the way Germany mismanaged the war, and were also extremely bitter about all the reparations the Allies jammed into the Treaty of Versailles, which wrecked Germany's post-war economy. While there was definitely widespread trepidation about another war, the idea of revenge against France and England for WW1 was also a very popular sentiment that Hitler harnessed to great effect as part of his power grab.
The Germans marched in backwards and the French thought they were leaving.
@@FamiliarAnomaly Disprove my statement. Find me evidence from both Weimar & Nazi Germany where the population wasn't highly motivated to recoup the losses France and England imposed upon a defeated Imperial Germany. Everyone was outraged over losing Alsace-Lorraine; having the Rhineland occupied; having the Ruhr industrial area seized by France to pay back it's defaulted debts during the Depression. Find me evidence that the Germans weren't just as infuriated with the British for dividing Prussia to create Poland out of thin air, and having the Danzig corridor taken away. Same with the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. These were all regions that had historically been German since the Holy Roman Empire, and now they were gone.
I ask again.... Prove to me why my initial statement is wrong. Show me where Germans weren't extremely motivated to reclaim their lost dignity and manifest destiny within central Europe in light of the humiliating dictate known as the Versailles Treaty. I'll wait.
that and the fact that the Allies were expecting Trench Warfare and got Blitzkrieg instead
“History is written by the victors.” - Winston Churchill
"History will be very kind to me, for I intend to write it."
Winston Churchill
Except it isn't. If you take a long enough timeline, everyone ends up a loser. Most of the great empires no longer exist, including the British Empire.
Interesting quote to apply to WWII lmao
Hitler stopped at Dunkirk. Maybe one of his biggest mistakes of the war. Well, that, and Stalingrad was foolish.
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - written by William Shirer, German. History not always written by the winners. Just one example
Stopped listening when he said the german tanks where not as good as the british tanks.. you fucking what bro..?
He obviously meant the French tanks
So the most numerous tank in 1940 Panzer II was better than what british tank?
The german tanks in 1940 were very light, and the brits had heavy tanks. Germany had much better tanks one year later
Remember Napolean after Jena. “Hats off gentleman. If this man were around today we would not be here now.” Speaking of Frederick the Great
Ironically it was also Napolean that was part of the events that set in motion the unification of Germany.
The war took place in 1871 not 1865. That was the brother war between Prussia and Austria.
Also the first time I ever heard that Rommel and Guderian were also responsible for the Ardennes offensive plan. Only ever heard Von Manstein associated with this genius strategy
The Ardennes offensive was led by von Rundstedt, Model and Manteuffel
Von Manstein made the intial plan, yes. But Rommel and Guderian became a part of it and actually led their units into battle.
In 1996 I drove my 1980 Subaru wagon across the entire US in 52 hours straight with no sleep. I just had cigarettes and coffee. A massive snowstorm was following me, and if I stopped for an hour, I'd be stuck under 3 feet of snow. I don't think I could have done 72 hours though, unless I had some coke or meth.
Born in the wrong country at the wrong time
Or Adderall, hopefully non generic
Well the Germans were on meth
Sid you pee in the car?
@@mohammedkotah5598 No, I got out to pee when I got gas.
This guy sounds like he's making it up as he goes along, after watching a Netflix series.
The Nazis took some BIG RISKS in the invasion of France, and it paid off so everyone just remembers them kicking ass. But there were certain key points where things could have gone very differently, and if the Allies had reacted differently, people would say today that the high-risk high-reward plan was a stupid gamble.
Well done for the only sensible comment in this section, which is full of pedantic, small-minded people focus on detail instead of the bigger picture. Any other tactics except going through the Ardennes, using meth to do it more speedily and getting lucky that the Brits and the French were so reluctant to engage(Democracies political elites fearful of re-mobilising or telling the population anything, lest they be replaced) that they didn't do a rigourous evaluation of vulnerabilities, would have led to a gradual Nazi defeat within 2 years.The Nazis occupied regions, would be gradually pushed back onto the Soviets
Germany was shocked they succeeded like they did.
@@nonyobussiness3440 It was the military equivalent of a Hail Mary pass.
@@michaelwong9411they also did not want to hold France or conquer the uk because they didn’t have a big enough population to do it and there was no way the populace would allow them to rule for long.
What he said was similar to what I was taught/read about the battle for France during WW II, a soft spot in the Maginot Line (the French line of defense) was thru the Ardennes, and German armored divisions took advantage of this opportunity.
There was no soft spot,the Maginot Line stopped there because the Belgians were neutral and didn't allow the French to build defensive lines
Japan, Germany and italy had big balls
Italy not
italy meatballs
And bad ships and tanks.
Japan was crazy, Germany great but deluded and Italians were just cowards
@@dominicjohnson8427 Adolfo made foolish choices later could’ve massacred like half the english army of the belgian coast but had mercy only for them to destroy the great victorian German cities.
For anyone interested in a deeper dive into this, I would recommend watching the "France Falls" episode of the excellent series "The World at War" made in 1973. It's on RUclips (although unfortunately I assume due to copyright reasons it's been edited in parts).
It includes interviews with very senior political and military figures on both sides - still alive in 1973 - and gives a very good overview. Enjoy !
Is this an official Joe Rogan channel? I mean the copyright watermark in the middle of the film. You got some balls fella.
France had the world's best equipped army. They had, however, the worst government and military high command in Europe. Hitler wasn't stubborn though. He was persistent but he stole Guderian's plan and made it work.
Missing the part where the French declared war in Germany after the War in Poland, then the Germans invaded.
well, yep, but in the meantime, the french had finally stopped to, read the rewrote french translation of Mein Kampf allowed by Hitler and had read the original version, where Hitler's intent for France were explicitly written. It's not like if this declaration of war was not 100 % legitimate. France had a defense pact with Poland to respect.
?
Most propaganda by the Alllies miss this part were France and England declared war on germany.
@@davecopp9356 most revisionnist propaganda miss the part where France and Britain just respected their defense agreement with Poland.
@@davecopp9356 Most Axis propaganda miss the part that the Franco-British comitment to Poland was not a secret , so invading Poland was therefore a de facto declaration of War by Germany .
Two interesting facts to add. The french commander who was responsable for their defensive admit the germany was not better than them but they we‘re much much more faster.
Secondly after WW1 germany has to sign there capitulation in a train waggon on a desk. When french surrended Hitler forced them to the exact same desk in the same waggon to sign their capitulation and later presented this waggon in front of the Brandenburger Tor.
I'd like to add a few addendums to this guy's comment.
1. It is far too reductive to simplify Hitler's motives for the Battle of France as "revenge" for WW1. France and England had declared war on Germany during the Polish campaign, against Hitler's wishes. England sent the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) to France, and both militaries began to mobilize. Hitler NEVER wanted conflict with the West, let alone a protracted war. However, when two nations declare war on you, begin to mobilize and refuse negotiations, you must act as if it is wartime. Hitler knew Germany would almost certainly lose if France attacked first. He KNEW that Germany had to attack first and attack fast to win.
2. Hitler and Mannstein independently came up with the idea of attacking through the Ardennes Forest. They essentially had to meet in secret to draw up the the initial blueprints for the Sickle Cut plan because the other generals wanted to push forward with a plan which would have certainly failed.
3. Every military in the world takes stimulants. Even during WW2 American soldiers took stimulants.
If you genuinely think that hitler would just stop after invading poland then you are one of the dumbest people in the world. By 1939 germany was so buried in debt because of amount of military spendings they had to revive their miltaey. It was necessary for them to invade and loot countries to keep their economy alive
Yeah this presentation of events is misleading and leaves out a lot of relevant information, not good history.
1. False. It is true Hitler desperately hoped to get a long-term alliance....with Britain, not with France or the whole "West" (whatever that means). Hitler considered the british as natual allies since being "aryan" germanic cousins, and always dreamed of a London-Berlin pact : Europe to Germany, Ocean to Britain. In this way, he always offered generous terms to Britain, and he never really took serious action to try to stir up revolts in the british empire, because he considered it as an expression of natural race order.
But he had betray too often the trust of the Brits during the 1930's, renouncing his word to claim new lands after the munich agreements meant nobody on international stage could trust him again. Plus, the brits knew they would be vassalized by the germans anyway if they left them hegemony over Europe, they always opposed to the nation aspiring to dominate continental western Europe for this reason : Spain with Charles the Vth, France with Louis the XIVth and Napoleon, Germany with Wilhelm the IInd and Hitler.
But as for France, as he explicitly said in Mein Kampf (Hitler was one of few policians in history to be honest in his political writings), he considered France as the hereditary ennemy of Germany for the domination of western europe (which is partially true) and that for one of the two nations to prosper, the other one had to be taken down. He also wrote that Germany would never be entirely reunited, as long as France hold Alsace-Lorraine and Strasburg. (fun fact : when Hitler took power, an alarmed french far right managed to cofund with french jewish organisations (their traditional enemies, but enemy of my enemy is my friend) and diffuse a translation of Mein Kampf in French, to warn and wake up the deeply pacifist french public opinion on who was the new master of Germany and what his intentions were towards France, prestigious french marshal Liautey writing in preamble of the book "every frenchman must read this book".
Hitler sued them, as they had published and translated his book without buying the rights, and according to international treaties, french editors were forced to withdraw this translation. Hitler presented then his own translation of Mein Kampf in french, where he had erased all the anti-french chapters, saying Alsace-Lorraine belonged forever to France, that reconcilation had to be the priority, and France and Germany had common ennemies above all.
2. True. The plan was from Mannstein mind. But it was incredibly risky. It would have taken the french aircraft to track the tanks columns advancing through the Ardennes and the french headquarters to react in time, and Germany would have lost most of his tanks and the war with it.
3. True. But germans were quite the champions of stimulants in WW2.
He was a gambler, and he gambled right that France wasn't ready for war when he attacked Poland. He ABSOLUTLY wanted war with France, just not a war on two front and everybody knew that war with France meant war with the British Empire. if he didn't wanted war he wouldn't have started it... i hate the revisionism that we see lately.. poor Germany had to defend itself from the West.
100% correct. Hitler wanted an alliance with Britain more than anything and he absolutely did not want to fight a two-fronts war. This is why he made Joachim von Ribbentrop the foreign minister, he was well-versed in English and had many contacts in the Anglosphere. Ribbentrop's number 1 priority was securing the alliance with Britain, but he failed largely because he was unpopular among the British who found him quite snobbish.
This is a bar talk level of history discussion
Like Patton said we fought the wrong enemy
Shut up man
Incel energy
During ww1 the us government and numerous newspapers reported that German soldiers were throwing babies up in the air and catching them with bayonets. During the Gulf War, a congressional inquiry released testimony that Iraqi soldiers were going into hospitals, pulling premature babies out of incubators and smashing them on the ground (also reported in numerous newspaper). Do u believe those things actually happened, or do u know what war propaganda is? If u know what war propaganda is, why suddenly believe 100% all the war propaganda around ww2, particularly when to this.day it provides the political.justification for the existence of a certain small country in the middle east that definitely doesn't have an outsized influence on American politics and foreign policy.
@@thomass1891communist. Youre so dumb, name one successful communist nation
@@thomass1891 Says the dude watching Joe Rogan clips lmao
Interesting that a guy like him gets the dates wrong. Germany and France were not at war in 1865 but in 1870/71
missing the part where he mentions that the Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany, which divided Poland between them. The Soviets occupied the eastern part of Poland and helped secure victory for Hitler
Everyone looked for their interests, Britain is no different. Always remember, Brits are only nation that made Lebensraum actually work in North America
@@worlddd7777 Nazi Germany modeled a lot of their ideas and goals after things the US and UK had done to become world powers. Slavery, living space, genocide, racial hierarchy, industrialization etc were all modeled after the US and UK. Prussia and Nazi Germany was supported by a decent amount of UK and US industrial leaders and politicians that liked fascism and German ancestry. Its very weird. I heard one fringe thinker state, Nazism/fascism was something Prussian sympathizers in the US and UK outsourced, off shored, developed, tested...then exported to the world and imported to the UK and US.
@@worlddd7777 Germans thought it was hilarious and bizarre when they caught a native american soldier after Dday, they could not believe it and laughed and asked him wtf he was doing there. they let him go and return safely.
What war happened in 1865? The Franco-Prussian war was from 1870-71. There was a war in 1864 between Prussia and Denmark though
This guy had me screaming...his history of ww2 is so shockingly poor I nearly punched my monitor
Plus he forgotten to mention that apx one third of Germany's weaponry when attacking France was actually stolen from Czechoslovakia 🥴
Your understanding of the war may be flawed as well, as you only know the version which was written by the winners.
Can you give some examples of why he is wrong?
ROGAN A CLOSET COMMUNIST - WHAT A POS
I was pulling my hair out as well.
Carlos Lehder tells Escobar in Narcos, "Hitler said that a politician should never take a pic in a bathing suit."😅
Also elements on the French left demoralised and subverted the French military. There was a strong pacifist movement in the 30s. It was easy for this to gain traction given their national experience of being bled dry in WW1.
The Big Army (la Grande Armée) wasn’t the name of the army in 1930, but Napoleon’s army during the 19th century.
German tanks much more advanced than british
Except that the British invented them.But I take your point, because Britain wasnt interested in land warfare innovation, because it had the best and most advanced Navy and didn't have to worry about invasion.
He clearly miss communicated, or missremembered that the French tanks were superior, which they were, except for the lack of radios, which was 1 of the deciding factors in the German tank divisions having ascendancy even though technologically less capable in other ways
That's a myth.
If anything they were less advanced than the Brits.
The Matilda II is so heavily armored that Rommel has to use the Flak 8.8's to destroy them, when his facing them in Africa.
Because the Panzer III and IV's arn't getting it done.
That's not true. The majority of Rommel's tanks were Panzer 38s, which were Czech. The French command was a joke. That was the difference.
Thé artillery let down thé Maginot Line. Without cover thé soldiers had to retreat. It was Bad. Also WE had heavy tanks which were equiped without heavy canons. But they were not well designed, many survived engagement only to be sobotaged by crew because stranded with mechanical failures and no support.
Look for the b1bis Eure.
Not really. Especially not at first. Even their famous late-war heavy tanks, the Panther and the Tiger, were troublesome vehicles in terms of reliablity and useability. In hindsight, Germany would have been beter off if they had produced simpler, cheaper and more practical combat vehicles.
French though it was 1914 again and they had a bunch of old generals that knew nothing about modern warfare. At the time France was still dealing with WW1 and had not even re built their army much.
They expanded violently but they were poor countries, relatively. Italy's performance was abysmal. When the Nazis won the battle of France, they learned the wrong lesson: that they were very powerful, when the truth was that France was not as powerful as people assumed. And so they went on with barbarosa. Blietzkrieg needs fast wars and you can't win Russia fast enough. The distances where inconceivable. That's what is the big advantage of Russia- space. What did Hitler expect from his wermacht to do? March from Poland to Vladivostok in a summer? the whole thing was fueled by hubris.
and meth, that's the point haha
France had a larger army and more hardware, tanks, planes, etc…Just. Very poor tactics …And it wasn’t just France …Germany took over Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, and a very impressive blitzkreig in Greece to secure there southern flank…Plus they reinforced the Italians in N.Africa and were able to drive back the British …It took a bit for the allies to learn the new German tactics and counter it .
The German plan also was chaotic. Instead if a knockout punch to Moscow they wasted time and resources on Leningrad and Stalingrad, losing their best Army. The Germans could just glimpse the skyline but never entered the city. Taking Moscow doesn’t mean game over, but it would have given Germans secured aerial dominance over most supply routes and manufacturing hubs. It also would have been a morale crusher and a communication breaker. Funny how about three years later the Russians were in their Capital city.
@@googull4778 Germany was desperate for food and oil. The goal was to take the fertile soil of Ukraine and the oil in the caucasus.
@@Shad0wack absolutely. But the mainland Russia campaign was dismal. If they bifurcated it through Moscow it would have effectively punched out the government control over most of the population. No supplies would go north and it would have been mopped up by the Finns and a smaller northern army group. With the main road and rail network, which webs out from Moscow, in German control, the Russians would be constantly on the defensive until something gave.
First war was in 1870, not 1865
No mention of the Maginot line
That, and the Ardennes have hills, not mountains.
I noticed that too. But it so routed, so easily defeated, I figured he didn't see it worth mentioning.
@@joe18750 I mean it only lasted 500 years.
@@EAFM What? The Maginot line was built after WW1. So, it was only a couple decades old. SMH!
@@joe18750 the line of castles and fortresses along that line are quite old. The term maginot line is more recent, but the actual barrier deterred the Huns for quite some time.
Watch the World At War Episode - France Falls. It explains it. The French had the largest and best standing army in the world. But as a French General says in the documentary, when talking about WW1: "Victory is a very dangerous opportunity."
And now the French President is married to an old dude! 🇫🇷
Basically not much changed
Is he maried to your mom?
Oddly enough old French dudes shave their pits.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@BillMcGirr unlike your mom
Old women
The french army was of great quality. Their tanks and fighter were as good if not better then the germans and they had a larger force. The real problem is the french military leadership had no idea how to use these weapons. They assumed ww2 would be a static war like ww1. The germans had the military leadership with foresight who anticipated a war of movement. That is why they did things like concentrate their armour as opposed to using it piece mail as infantry support. If the military leadership was even france would have wrecked them. Unfortunately for the world that was not the case.
Fun fact, when Czechoslovakia was invaded in 1938, Poland took a slice as well. Yup.
I don't know about that
@@TonyBongo869 fun fact: czechosolvakia allied with the nazis.
@@RudyRude-wp8epNot a fact at all. The Czechs had no choice but to surrender and sign off the country over to Hitler. Most of their men counts fought the Germans on the Western fronts. They also continued to uprise from within the state by commiting and conspiring attentats and assassinations of various high ranking nazi officers during the protectorate era.
You always have a choice. They chose to fight with the nazis.
@@RudyRude-wp8ep They didn't fight with the nazis tho lol They didn't join Germany the way Italy did.
Rommel and the tank commanders were the smartest commanders but no matter how good the short term strategy the long term outweighs it all.
Btw , Bismarck, who wanted to unite German, so he thought "what does every German hate? " Answer: the french. So for the first time, France faced the united German forces which turned out to be massively superior than the french, so they won . He didn't (the quest) mention that.
He didn’t want to unite Germany he just wanted a bigger piece of land for Prussia. Because of him Bavaria is still annexed till today 😢
The forces were not superior, Germany had a lot more people in both World War I and World War II the German army and the German population was 1/3 larger than either the British or the French population and army.Only combined did these countries have more people, and because the Brits never kept a standing army due to the superiority of the Navy, The Germans had the advantage in land numbers in the initial stages of both wars anyway
You know I just found out France did fight in WWII. But it was very brief and they were easily routed by Germany
well, they were at 1 vs 2. Germany had 80 millions people, France 40 millions. Britain just provided a small expeditionnary force, Belgium and the Netherlands had no tanks nor aircraft.
Then what happened
Germany and Russia BOTH invaded Poland in 39, invaded Poland, and yet the Allies only declared war on Germany? Odd!
No russia back than.that was ussr.after the octobar revolution russian elites escaped from the country.many of them were fihgting in German army against communists.like kozaks,"belogardejci"...
the soviets were even part of the Nuremberg Trials. So they not only recruited from the SS that they had captured but even went on to judge some of those they didn't get. It's crazy but we legit judged Germans for attacking polish cities, when part of the judges had attacked the next town over at the same time.
Let's say both the Allies and USSR were run by a certain group of people
@@blitzy3244 outch
Because the allies were in a defence treaty against Germany not against the Soviet Union and they didn't have the capability to go to war with both.
Shocking lack of coordination between the French and the British
I think after Joe saw the video of Hitler at the Olympics, he wanted to talk to this guy about the German meth use. The fact that the guy knew so little about WWII history was a distant second to what Joe cared about.
Great interview by Joe.
Norman didn't really do his homework. He has the wrong year for the Franco-Prussian war. It started in 1871. The Germans knew they couldn't use the same invasion route as that war because France did a better job defending that area so they developed the Schlieffen Plan for WWI. The Prussian military was considered the best but that plan was not realistic. They had to take Belgium rapidly and use their railroads to move up the army quick and drive a wedge between the French and British. It took much longer to conquer Belgium and they destroyed the rail lines.
Blitzkrieg was developed in Poland. It was combined arms, tank divisions and air forces working in conjunction to rapidly encircle and bypass static strong points and get into the rear area. The infantry would come in and mop up these cut off spots by surrounding and taking them out. The old guard wanted another Schlieffen Plan. It was the innovators, like Gudarian that wanted to attack through the Ardennes.
LOL, the Franco-Prussian War started in July 1870 and ended in January 1871.
The term Blitzkrieg might come from the Polish campaign, but it was not “developed” in Poland by Germany. Combined arms goes back as far as 1918, and just about every nation in Europe dabbled with the idea in the Interwar period.
And when the Nazis realized the meth thing was actually kinda counterproductive in the long run, they dumped their stash here in Finland.
So Finland was the place to be post-war
the ardennes is not a mountain by the way, its a forest
In a hilly area!
Germans marched in backwards and the French thought they were leaving
France just handed to Germany.
It took 6 weeks to Capture France.
3 years later they were freed.
They didn’t have a chance vs the most powerful army in the world (Germany)
Freed? More like under new management.
@@scarecrowman7789 silly comment.Germany got lucky with our the Ardennes tactics.Retrospective analysis shows that defence of the Ardennes by the allies, or any other tactics by the Germans would have led to eventual German defeat without the USA even becoming involved
@@scarecrowman7789 They weren't though. France alone had more tanks, men and artillery. France and the UK combined outnumbered the Germans at least 2:1 in every category. The Germans had the best trained military at the time and their military leaders were a lot more on the ball than the French or the UK. A combination of that, and some luck, is why they steamed rolled the French. Similar thing happened in the Franco-Prussian war.
1870-1871 was the Franco- Prussian war not 1865
They walked in. The French people protested for a few days and then put up their white flags like they do every protest without accomplishing anything. 🏳🏳🏳🏳
Rommel was the most famous because he would go against the British and Americans in N Africa. But the true genius of blitzkrieg of Guderian. Before the war, he wrote a prophetic book called "Achtung Panzer," which laid the theoretical underpinning of Blitzkrieg, armed thrusts in coordination with air and ground forces. (And he could practice what he wrote about. He was highly popular with the corps he lead in the field, France and Russia, so much so that his troops would paint "G" on their tanks signifying who was under their command.) It's doubtful that any British or French general studied Guderian's book. Allied generals still focused on the tactics of 1914, not 1940. Their stubborness mistake would prove fatal. Took the Wermacht only 5 weeks to reach Paris.
This guy is a fraud. My father has successfully sued him twice for plagiarism.
I bet pal. And my dad is the ceo of google and is gonna get you banned!
The part not mentioned here is the lack of aggression from the French and British. They did not fight when they could have fought and worse, they gave up when they were attacked. This is why they lost in the early going.
The Brits did not give up, they fell back, which is a legitimate military strategy and then handed the Nazis ass to them in the Battle of Britain, crashing the German air force
@@Rowlph8888 They didn’t hand them their ass but they won. But this only after they sat on their asses when they should have attacked Germany. They’d never have had to fall back to England is France and England attacked while German forces were concentrated in the East.
Decent explanation but lots of errors.
B.S.. All Germans wanted revenge against France as well as international finance for the Treaty of Versailles. However, no country in Europe - not one - wanted another war after the first world war. France had lost a generation of men, and did NOT want to lose another generation. When Hitler's armies invaded, the French fought not to win the battle, but to not lose men, that is why France capitulated so quickly. Also, the French government was very balkanized, rife with factionalism.
He's right though about many Germans' apprehension about taking on the British Empire, and possibly the U.S., this would account for Hess' flight to England.
When speaking of materiel, yes it is true that German tanks were inferior, not just to British tanks, but also both French and Russian.
@@ianarchibald1423 France sucks and ur very geh
@@ToddBacon mad that ur country got fucked in 2 holes
France and England declared war on Germany.
yeh in the same way the US declared war on Japan
Nope. Nothing like that. By Germany invading Poland, the British and French had a pact with Poland to ensure they would be defended. Hitler once he had the Soviet pact, basically led Britain on that they would not invade, they just wanted Danzig back. Poland refused, got invaded and pulled Britain and France back into a World War they didn’t want. This was all part of them being a League of Nations, not dissimilar to NATO. History repeats.
@@jodu626 Yes, we all learned in 2nd grade history class on when Germany sneak attack bombed England and France's naval ports, killing 3000 people, and they rightfully declared war on them the next day. Just like when the US declared war on Japan on December 8th 1941. Also, are you mentally re+arded?
@@RogueCylon France and England declared war on Germany... your response: "Nope. Nothing like that."... They literally did declare war on Germany. My God, are you a dimwit. lol
@@chrisgriffin7357 i didn’t say why they declared war. shouldn’t be jumping to conclusions my pedigree chum
the french army was actually one of the best in the 30s. he said 'it was not good'. they had teh best tank of the 30s and they were much more mechanized than the germans, which were still using a lot horses, at the onset of war.
In most of East Europe they were glad that Germans came. In East Prussia & Ukraine for example
And then the death squads showed up
This guy forgot to mention the Maginot line
Italy never fought in ww2 they walked everywhere with there hands up in the air 😂 all they knew was how to say I surrender in multiple languages 😂😂
incel comment
It was Mansteins plan! Rommel and Guderian simply followed the plan as Manstein was not on the field of war at this stage but an office.
france and britain declared war on germany....
Lets use some brain power here, why did they declare war
Cool story. Too stupid to elaborate?
@@knottsscary Because they guaranteed Poland's borders.
@@mitchelcohn5464😂
Hitler had no desire to fight France and Britain. No upside. Occupying France was a drain on resources. He always knew the real threat to Europe was Stalin.
Apparently, they just had to put their shoes on and walk right over there.
It was France. you expected more?
Ohhh. He just wants to mock the Germans
When side effect is the desired effects. Absolutely mental
1865 ? 1870 is he a expert my grandson now more
In what fantasy world does any historian claim the British had better tanks than the Germans 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Probably because the British destroyed Rommel in North Africa.
Lot of over simplifiction going on here... Remember that this is Spring 1940, Tigers and Panthers don't exist. The Germans have Panzer I's, II's and III's, some MKIV's as support plus Czech PZ38 and 35T's - That's it. Britain has things like the Matilda which is actually really good for the period with a good balance of armour, mobility and armament. The French have tanks like the excellent Souma S.35 and Char 1B Heavy, both of which the Panzers can't really handle. Luckily the Germans can use Flak 88's, artillery or even Stuka strikes but in a 1-on-1 engagement, the German's are going to be in trouble if they can't use mobility to get shots in at weak points.
@@leefr76 The british outnumbered Rommel 2 to 1 in North Africa and he beat them handily. It was only when the Royal Navy blockaded German supplies that Rommel had to surrender. Germans outperformed their enemies pound-for-pound in almost every battle.
I’ll answer in two words, the French
I'll qualify you in two syllables : ass-hole.
They walked in backwards and said they were leaving...
I saw an ad for a French rifle from WW2 on eBay the other day. It said "never fired, only dropped once."
you mangled the joke. any weapon is likely to be dropped. but when you surrender, you throw it down. So the joke goes, " barely fired, thrown down only once".
For an accurate account, read instead the memoirs of British Marshal commander Lord Alanbrooke
He's right about the meth, but as usual idiots in this comments section on micromanaging and pedantic about if you wrong details.This guy actually has more credibility on the drugs issue than most historians, as he rightfully said just regurgitate other people's soundbites, rather than doing official research from archives.
Methamphetamine was clearly the primary factor in the victory of Blitzkrieg, as it was entirely based on speed, even though there were other factors, e.g.: slowing the allies down with masses of refugees flooding the North France. the Germans were efficient because a tyranny meant they didn't have to worry about being replaced, unlike the democracies who did and Germany's industrial capability was only slightly ahead of the Brits because they had a much larger population.Detailed analysis has shown that if the Nazis had tried any other tactics, or if the Brits and the French had defended the Ardennes in even a moderate capacity, most of the Nazis tank divisions were in a traffic jam, regardless of the meth, would have been firebombed and Germany would have lost a war as the Brits gradually built up their tiny standing army to supplement the French and forcing the Nazis back, whilst the Brits Navy blockade starved Germany and occupied regions began to full to pieces and the Soviets obviously would get involved at some point to end Germany as a nation in the modern sense after France president would be finished with them, without Roosvelt about 2 calm things down
😮meth would rather make German soldiers ineffective on the battlefield. So this story sounds bogus.
No sleep, aggression, no empathy.. perfect for an invading Army
Some comments give hope. This guest does not...
Desired side effect😂
The Germans got very lucky on almost every facet and the British and French were entirely incompetent on every facet. Also the Germans were all on meth so kind if an asterisk there.
they should have been drug tested and banned from war for 3 years, PED's is cheating
How were us brits incompetent? Won the Battle of Britain and fought hard in the North African campaign. Not to mention protected our interests and the biggest empire overseas.
@@scarecrowman7789 in the early war? It was called the Phoney War for a reason. They as well as the French had reconnaissance of the German columns in the Ardens and did nothing with it.
If hitler wasn’t so into himself and could of shred power with the Soviet Union. The Allies would of lost. Russian lost the most troops in WW2.
France had the strongest military in the World in 1939 but horrible leadership and tacticians.. Ultimately that led to its downfall. This shows that you can have the best armies, if you have poor leaders you are fucked.
"Their tanks were not as good as the British tanks"....is this "expert" for real
39-40 the majority of the German tank army consisted of light tanks. The heaviest tanks the Germans had were the PZ III and PZ IV and only in small numbers. In contrast, the British and especially the French had the better tanks. more heavily armored and more firepower.
German tanks at that point in the war were very weak and easily overpowered by allied tanks.
Maybe go and do some research before criticizing someone.
French tanks were better than the German ones in 1940, but the speed of Guderian(even Von Manstein ordered him to halt his advance) scared the crap out of the French/British.
"I know the word Panzer therefore IM the expert on this topic"
France struck first and invaded Germany in October 1939.
It was defended by Frenchmen.
Now you know.
France has always had the best army…………………………………………….in their eyes
0:12 .....IMMEDIATE DISTRUST
What you mean?
Which model of Rolex is that?
The Germans were badass.
No, just initially effective because they were railroaded by a tyranny giving them single-mindedness and tunnel vision necessary and they got lucky with the only tactic which would have worked than any other tactic that they chose would have led to eventual defeat and the dismantling of Germany, with the French hellbent on that
Once this initial advantage of mindset was gone, the Nazis unravelled as expected
@@Rowlph8888 No, they were badass.
lol, for a minute.
@@joe18750 Lol, for years!
@@ledzeppy7507 They were on defense much longer than they were on offense. From the winter of '41,'42 to the end of the war Germany was on defense.They had already failed in Africa. If your definition of badass is playing catch-up, then it's quite different than mine.
If America got split in two by another country and my people on the other side were getting slaughtered by the 10's of thousands a week who wouldn't come to their rescue?
Belgian mountains????
Why the fuck he saying this with a big smile... like he love this!!!
Poland was beaten. Please we do not beg for freedom we fight for it . Poland 4ever