The Phoney War: Actually Not Phoney
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- If you enjoyed this video and want to see more made, consider supporting my efforts on Patreon: / historigraph
Check out my other WW2 Vids here: • The Second World War
#ThePhoneyWar #Historigraph
► Twitter: / historigraph
►Facebook: / historigraph
►Instagram: / historigraph
►Patreon: / historigraph
►Discord: / discord
►My Gaming Channel: / addaway
►My Twitch: / addaway
Join us in #WarThunder for free using this link and get a premium tank or aircraft and three days of premium time as a bonus: v2.xyz/WarThunderWithHistorigraph
If you enjoyed this video and want to see more made, consider supporting my efforts on Patreon: www.patreon.com/historigraph
Check out my other WW2 Vids here: ruclips.net/p/PLk2daSTx1RZv3JUm35TfOigCrkV6eMEBf
Great you are doing this!
I was hoping you'd go into a bit more detail on some of the decisions chamberlain took that were less peaceful. great videos by the way! keep it up! :)
I might do a video in future looking at Chamberlain in more detail
@@historigraph Would prefer it if you would do a video on Denmark in WW2 just one video.
I'd be very interested in seeing that :) this is quite a good point you made @@historigraph
HMS Courageous's mission to find U-boats was a success.
It found one alright.
Fr tho
The sinking of Royal Oak so close to home really galvanized the attitudes of the British public that it really wasn't just a war to be fought over in France.
Close to home?
It was practically in their bedroom
You talk about this from a very british perspective. I was always under the impression (from a very German perspective) that the "Phoney War" concept came up because of how the french Saar offensive went down. They gathered their forces and took some very limited offenses, but because germany beat poland so quickly and reinforced their front they just quietly left again, which left the impression that they werent even planning on doing anything.
Edit: Apparently German soldiers were even ordered to not engage the french as to avoid a two front war.
Each of the nations involved have their own conceptions of this time- I was focusing on the British memory of it in the second half of this video, yes
The Germans talked of a 'Sitzkrieg', and from what I understand you're correct
From the Polish perspective - According to defensive treaties Poland was to survive 2 weeks for France and Britain to mobilise their armies. Poland Survived 4 weeks before the Soviets invaded from the East.Allies did absolutely nothing to help the Poles.While luftwaffe were bombarding cities and shooting escaping civilians,British air force were dropping propaganda leaflets at German cities. French promised after 2 weeks to go on full offensive in Saar and the British were supposed blockade German ports by the sea.Nothing was done in that matter.Allies also did not declared war on Soviets after they inavded, so many poles see it as western betrayal and as ''phoney war''.
“If we did not collapse in the year 1939, that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, roughly 110 French and British divisions in the West were completely inactive as against the 23 German divisions”
-Wehrmacht General Alfred Jodl at the Nuremberg Trials, 1946
Also Polish version of phoney war literally translates as ''weird war''(dziwna wojna) which is interesting.
@@ecoper210 From a French perspective the offensive was abandonned as to save manpower after the catastrophic losses of WW1, the idea was that offensive or not the German would be defeated anyway, and so Poland liberated, because of the Allied blockade so better do it the less costly manner even if that meant Poland would suffer occupation for a time.
France did some limited offensives in Germany, meeting very little resistance.The thing is, they quickly went back home, expecting some huge counter-offensive to which they weren't prepared for. But also, French "doctrine" had already determined the strategy : hold the Maginot Line and fight the Germans in Benelux.
...and it would've worked too, if our goddamn Ardennes forest had done its job.
YOU HAD ONE JOB, TREES!
The phoney war not actually phoney? What’s next, you’re going to tell us the maginot line was actually a good idea?
Who would do such a thing???
Ironic
What's next is that he's going to tell us that Op. Sealion was actually a bad idea.
@@historigraph it was great the other parts of the plan failed.
Kay T ruclips.net/video/-XVHYg6gvWU/видео.html
What was most unfair to Chamberlain was he went into the Munich conference with the British army telling him they desperately need more time to prepare for war, so if buying time wasn't his top priority, it had to be close, and he did buy another year before the war started.
People also ignore the massive factory building plan he put into place.... the very reason the RAF was flying Hurricanes and Spitfires not Gloster Gladiators during the Battle of Britain was due to those factories. How well do people think the Battle of Britain would have gone if the RAF was flying Gladiators, obsolescent bi planes, against Me 109's? How well would the RAF have done had Britain gone to war in 1938... with the SAME situation? Gladiators vs 109's?
Idk about the airspace, but seeing as you would have czech's with their military and probably later Poland, Germany wouldn't be in a good position
Munich conference... More like Munich betrayal. Chamberlain sold out Czechoslovakia to Hitler for a false sense of safety. Even though the Czechslovak army had prepared strong fortifications along the border and was well equipped and supplied, ready to put up a fight. Chamberlain is and will always be seen as a cowardly appeaser who bent the knee to Hitler every time he demanded it.
Lukáš Szabó Did you even read the first comment? Chamberlain intended to use the Munich conference to buy time to rearm Britain, as Germany had had a head start, being the aggressor.
@@innosam123 Did you even... History? Churchill has been asking to start the rearmament since 34. Chamberlain laughed at him and did nothing. Instead he betrayed his allies to "buy time" and started rearming in 38. In short, he was a cowardly moron.
Also, with the state Czechoslovakian army was in and the fortifications it had at the borders, it could have held Germany for quite some time.
Instead the UK and France had been doing jack shit till 40 and let the eastern europe burn.
Will you ever cover Polish defensive war (1939)? And maybe cover the theoretical plans of polish Marshall Józef Piłsudzki to attack Germany before it develops it's military?
That would be a superb topic!
I polecam nauczyć się szeregu przedsięwzięć jakie poczyniła Francja w odpowiedzi na niemiecką agresję.
@Benito Mussolini 1000000 mln german soldier
Raginis wasn't fight with 40000 german soldier. In the battle of Wizna was fighting 1-3k german soldier. Most Poles after the artillery fire escaped from the battlefield, and there is not even a certain version about the death of Raginis because there are different hypotheses.
Would like to see that
The Y2K computer problem had some similarities. Lots of preparation led to less impact. And the population called it phoney because it succeeded.
I believe that most of the critics directed towards Chamberlain stems not from from his performance during the war, but because of what he did (or rather didn't) earlier. Because of the lack of reaction to remiliarization of Germany, Anschluss of Austria, selling Czechoslovakia to Germans. Shortly - appeasement politics.
And I had always believed that "The Phoney War" term is related to the lack of any major activity on French - Germany border, unlike in WWI. Norway and Battle for Atlantic having nothing to do with it.
Yes he is side-stepping whole issue. "It was phony only on French front" - that was the only front that mattered, since Germany would collapse within weeks if some effort was given and there would be no WW2 and no holocaust.
His reaction was possibly perfectly appropriate. The fact people think all he did was appease Hitler is a huge compliment to his abilities. All while dealing with Germany, he was constantly rearming the British war machine. They get a lot of shit for using old equipment in the early war but that's because it was all built years prior in Chamberlain's rearmament efforts
Neville was actually very clever. He re armed Britain from 1936 after he saw what Germany was doing. The reason Churchill government did well was because Neville had built the foundation of the armaments ministry earlier.
@@alexcc8664 I thought it started rearming earlier, about 1933
@@tomirk4404 no not really. If you look at the spending on the military it was from 36 it began to rise . Most people in Britain liked Hitler until the late 30s
I was born after 1945, and had always heard of it as the Sitzkrieg, and that was only in France *while the Battle of the Atlantic raged.*
"Sitzkrieg" is German for 'sit-down war'.
I feel like its because WW1 started with a bang and in weeks france and belgium were invaded and all that stuff
the public was probably expecting something like that to happen again but it didn't
The British were the definitely the best at overestimating.
Better than underestimating and speaking German a few years later.
What else is new?
@InfiniteMushroom found the fascist
@InfiniteMushroom there is only the minuscule disadvantage of being part of a big nazi Reich, from Europe to India and probably China.
@InfiniteMushroom keep telling yourself that
Isn't it implied/understood that the phony war ONLY implies to the French, Germany border. Do to the low intensity of the conflict in that part of the world.
I think the reason why they called it "The Phoney War" is because there wasn't any groundfighting in France, at the time.
But everywhere else it was a completely different story, as this video shows. And in May 1940, when the Whermacht WAS finally ready, it came like a dam burst.
I mean, why everyone says groundfigting in France? There should have been groundfighting in Germany in the first place. Anyway, now when we know how the things turned out we can be smarter and say that France/UK should have atttacked Germany and blocked their harbours, but at the time they thought that they are doing the right move. Again sadly, for Poland it resulted in attach from both sides and an occupation that really ended with the fall of Soviet Union.
Just found this channel and instantly subbed. It is great to see someone dedicated to tackling the huge amount of bad history and popular myth surrounding WW2! I completely agree about Chamberlain's unfairly bad rep - the real man who should go down in history as the face of appeasement is Stanley Baldwin. Chamberlain, whilst following the appeasement policies of his predecessor, actually did a huge amount both as Chancellor and PM to ready Britain for war. He wasn't the bumbling idiot you see in film, TV and even a lot of history books.
Even in France, their was the invasion of Germany in 1939 (Saar offensive), as well as air battles, and commandos fighting.
As far as I remember, the Saar offensive was very quiet and they withdrew within a week.
@@aloadofbollocks988 Indeed, but it was stil fighting
That's why it's considered phony you don't see a large scale push from France just a limited offensive then withdrawal with less than 3000 casualties on all sides
Love how they look behind as you start speaking.
I don't fault British planners for "over estimating" the bomber threat to their people prior to the outbreak of the war. Enough bombers usually get through to do some damage. British predictions of mass casualties and mass displacement of civilians due to air raids were repeatedly borne out later in the war...in both Germany and Japan. If Britain had been on the losing side British civilians would most likely have suffered even more than they did during the Blitz. So, its better to be over prepared than under prepared or to not be prepared at all.
England was bombed 50 times in the first year of ww1 but zeppelins and they are slow
thanc you for the upload historigraph love ur content
A interesting and very deep analysis of a chapter of WW2 that is often overlooked. Well done!
It's more than a little ironic to send a carrier U-boot hunting only for it to be sunk by a U-boot... Still that perspective on the fighting that was happening (just elsewhere) is a pretty good point
But Phoney is not Just a perspective of Churchill enthusiasts, I don't live in England and what I thought/percieved caused the idea was the allied response to the invasion of Poland; fighting and Norway and the Atlantic when you have a border with the enemy
Artificial Gravitas boot
Artificial Gravitas Blame the French Strategy of hiding behind the Maginot for not going on a mass offensive to the Rhine.
I mean it wasnt a bad idea, it was just totally new and in hindsight executed poorly. Carriers went on to be extremely useful ASW platforms in the battle of the Atlantic, but the fact was nobody had deployed a carrier in a campaign before and nobody really realised the escort group and tactics required.
You could say it was successful in finding one
Again, I’m so excited to see that you’re being sponsored, I know we’re all enjoying seeing your content more often! Thank you from all of us!
Wait, are you trying to imply that the simple and straightforward narrative I was told as a child was actually a simplified overview that used catchy terminology and broad-strokes outlines of the war and NOT a highly detailed and exhaustive account of one of the most complex and significant events in recent history?? HERESY!
Hey! I resent that remark!.... whatever it was. 😂😂
That’s the paradox of history. Competent prime minister trying to avoid unnecessary casualties and buying the British Army another year to prepare is remembered as useless. Bungling politician Churchill who messed up most things he had control over is remembered as a hero.
Partly true in both cases, but if Churchill hadn't of come along, what do you think would of happened?.....I'd love you to tell me please.
It was not called the phony war because its few casualties were only pretending to be dead. It was called the phony war primarily because Britain and France promised to support Poland in the event of German hostilities, but did little more than issue declarations of war when Germany invaded.
Desperate attempts to stop short of actually fighting, understandable in light of WW1.
C'mon, everyone knows it is about lack of substantial action from French and British, not about Poland. Actually that's the biggest flaw Poles are emphasizing. Soldiers were also suffering lack of morale because of it. Some minor skirmishes don't make it serious. Leaflets WERE dropped from the planes instead bombs, so what "is not true" here?
This changed a lot of what I thought about the phoney war. Thanks because I did not know that the action was quite rough during the Phoney War.
I really think that this video explains nothing
Yes, there was "battles at sea", there was the whole business of "Germany vs Poland, Denmark, Norway"
But the video says *nothing* about what is considered "phoney" - total inactivity on Franco-German border, where all the action was/is expected
In some ways it seems like it might be in Churchills best interest to keep up The Phony War myth, it makes him the man of action taking over for Chamberlain as well as keeps less heat on the defeat in Scandinavia. If what the ex French minister of defense in The World At War documentary said is true they also had plans to aid Finland and bomb Baku so trying to forget about those past plans could be vital for future peace.
No, if it hadn't been for Churchill we would have sued for peace after the fall of France, and become a puppet state, eventually occupied just as France was. The 'phoney' war' was a popular misconception among the media and public because after all the hype and build up, no one was bombing or gassing them at home, all that soon changed with the invasion of the low countries, things got 'real'.....Very quickly. My father was in South wales in the R.A.F. guarding the docks when news of the French capitulation came though on the telephone, withing minutes a German recon bomber flew over so low her could see the pilot look down at him, he fired and soon after the docks were bombed!
Only one problem, I always thought and was told that the phones war ended with operation weserübrung, not with the German invasion of the Low Countries. Nice video though! Loved it as always
From the literature I have read its traditionally dated as ending in May
And yet the Battle of Norway began in early April.
Tanks rumbling across France woke people up to the direct threat I imagine, next thing you know....Dunkirk!
@@rob5944no we by by by
Thank you for educating us on this.
I swear, upon re-watching this video now: I can't help but think of COVID-19. How the actual "war" was immediate and drastic -- ICUs over capacity and families torn apart -- but a larger portion of the population was left confused and disoriented when the cataclysmic disaster never came for them specifically. People's opinions cloud the history recorded. There's no doubt about that.
A very fascinating analogy, something I can't help but agree with too.
COVID was far worse in October '21 for me in the UK, yet nothing was like the anxiety and paranoia of February -> April '20
>Set out to find submarines.
>Sunk by submarine.
Mission accomplished?
The Battles of Narvik, in spring 1940, were, in my humble opinion, the turning point of the war. The Germans ended up with a significant number of capital ships sunk or put out of action and lost half of their fleet of destroyers. From that point in time, operation sea lion wasn’t a realistic option.
That's nonsense.
Even before Norway Sea lion wasn't a realistic option.
Another great video as usual thank you!
Chamberlain oversaw and had approved the many fighter aircraft in production that were to be key in the Battle for Britain. In particular some 630 Hurricane fighters.
He was also there for the many tank programs, the Sten gun, and the air defence of England particularly CIvil defence and the Fire Watchers. No matter what you think of him some of the tools he gave the military enabled the fight to begin with.
On The fighters he signed at the very last minute Largely thanks to Churchill efforts in parliament (that Baldwin rebuffed and shat on all over for years, often with Chamberlain. While lying to Churchill's face) and made only fighters to save money (his words) so not really because he believed in their capabilities (again his words).
And Churchill begged for those things in opposition to the entire parliament for many years (since 1933-1934) being ridiculed and rebuffed by parliament and Baldwin and Chamberlain .
So yes excuse me that I am not immpresed that he and his predecessor did the minimum amount of military research and funding required, and put any real attempts to start rearmament in the trash bin till the munich crisis.
Why do so many people try to defend Chamberlain conduct with regards to the war I will never understand.
And btw what exactly does the sten gun have to do with Neville Chamberlain???
@@netz8439 There was significant rearmement after 1935 in the UK. Particularly after 1936, but not of the Army. The RAF and aircraft manufacturing was massively expanded ( the RAF was quadrupled in size). 7 Battleships were laid down, 21 cruisers, 33 Deatroyers, 24 sloops, 4 Aircraft carriers, 21 submarines etc. Chamberlain was a poor war leader but remember at Munich he was dissuaded from taking a hard line by the lack of support from Dominion governments, the military staff, and the French.
@@martinhughes2549 I agree 100% that the military staff and the rest of the government share a huge part of the blame.
But my point was that lately people act like Chamberlain acted like churchill would've (he didn't had a choice the poor bastard).
Now as to rearmament (which he opposed in his previous position as as the exchequer aswell) he didn't do all that he could from the moment he entered office, and that's for sure.
He only expanded the raf under pressure from everyone (and at the last minute), not in the least churchill, even the military staff that was against it changed it's tune at the time if the rearmament.
And he also try to save money on it by choosing to focus on fighters and not bombers (his words), which of course at the end saved Britain in the war, but it wasn't really intentional.
As for the navy the expansion is not something that he pushed for,
It was years in the making after being postponed for years.
We can't know what would've happened if France (which I agree 100% bear a huge part of the blame, for the failure to do so) and Britain took a stand from the start (when churchill pressured them).
But from what it looks like from what we know from the axis side after the war, it would've seemed that hitler would've backed off.
And my point was that Chamberlain was a weak leader, and that people should stop making excuses for him.
@@martinhughes2549 oh and the rearmament didn't start in earnest, until late 1937 at the very least.
@@netz8439 Perhaps but see my above comments, easy to be wise 80 years on.
The clip from the film where a civilian threatening to hit the other will be a Merchant Seaman, not Royal Navy. The Merchant Navy suffered worse than any one else at that time due to the Royal Navy's failure to protect the Merchant Ships. The Battle of the Atlantic started 9 hours into the war and went on past the official surrender,
"Appeasement" is also a bit of a myth. When Czechoslovakia was sold down the river in the autumn of 1938, the United States was strongly against helping Europe resist Hitler by supplying military aid. Britain and France were frantic to avoid war with the Axis because they expected the fight would be without U.S. assistance. The U.S.A. did not begin Lend-Lease until France had been occupied for a year.
Hannah Miyamoto yeah agreed, plus France was also for war when the Rhine was remilitarized but UK and US where not so fond of it and was shelved
Chamberlain couldn't get support from the Dominion governments ( Canada,Eire,Australia,South Africa,New Zealand,Newfoundland) for war. Remember that after the 1931 statute of Westminster these states were all fully Sovereign,including on foreign policy. Chamberlain needed a very clear causus belli to enable that support, even in 1939 Eire stayed neutral. What if Canada or South Africa had?
Histograph you are a legend.
Actually it was phoney.
Nah
Historigraph Yeah
Victor Davis Hanson has some great videos on wwii. Worth a look.
Also the French did an offensive into the Saarland during the 'phoney war' albeit with limited success.
@Espresso Depresso pretty much
The Germans barely had any forces at the front, the brunt of German units engaged in Poland. Had they wished, they could have pushed 50km at least in 2 weeks.
Fun fact. The French actually pushed into Germany while they were invading Poland. But after some stiffer fighting and Poland collapsing they lost their nerve and withdrew to the Maginot Line.
The 'Phony' War was anything but to the men who fought, were injured, and died in it or to their families.
7:45 - 7:55
Not forgotten but rather deliberately overlooked. Churchill did more damage to this country than Hitler ever could have wished to do.
Well, the move clip for the start WAS true, as, in the ground, the war was somewhat of a phoney
I disagree in that the UK had always expected France to fight the war for them and that the Western Allies collectively wanted to avoid a war on their own territory, as France had suffered in the first world war, by trying to divert the fighting to Scandinavia by threatening intervention in Finland through Norway.
While you point out that many naval engagements took place I think you're missing the point in that it is considered by many to be a phoney war due to the lack of actual confrontation between ground troops of the Western Allies and Germany in Western Europe.
Nobody is referring to events in Poland as a "phoney war" but that term is rather used to describe the fact that the Western Allies stood by and did next to nothing other than drop leaflets while Poland (and Finland) was being ravaged.
I do really enjoy your videos !
However I do sense a strong bias towards the UK and would be interested to hear your take on the notion of "Western Betrayal"
I rarely sense a UK bias in his videos, he frequently details the incompetence of pompous British officers in his other videos
The idea that France stood by and did nothing isn't really a fair perspective either.
Poland fell incredibly quickly. The Saar offensive was genuinely the best France could be expected to do at the time, with 40 divisions taking part.
It was a quickly thrown together operation, against a heavily fortified and easily defended position, by an army still in the middle of it's mobilization. Of course it didn't have immediate success.
But after only two weeks of fighting, the Polish position was untenable, and by the 20th, with the Soviets involved, it was over.
Not a single army in WW2, no matter how aggressively minded, saw large operational successes into enemy territory EXCEPT for when the Axis benefited from surprise attack.
Finland ain't an ally
Firstly, France was by far the bigger land power, the UK was stronger at sea....Norway was vital to Germany because of iron ore supplies, so the Allies wanted to cut it off, but were beaten to it. On one in France or the UK wanted another bloodbath on the same old battlefields, also this time mass bombings and gas attacks were being predicted. I wonder how a mother who may well of lost her husband in the trenches, perhaps brothers too, now facing the prospect of her son heading off to fight might of felt?
Good video. It's worth remembering that the Allies were not really ready for offensive war in 1939/40. Not something you can blame (mostly) on Chamberlin.
Its rather cold but still I think true to say that since England had went to war in defense of Poland and then did nothing to defend Poland that it was indeed a phony war. I don't think its a stretch to say that neither France nor England wanted or was ready for the war. Yes there were combat losses but I wouldn't say the conduct of the war was being aggressively carried out. Considering there were still some who thought the major clash of arms could be avoided I think the term still fits.
I always took the slight to mean not that combat wasn't occurring but rather those in leadership positions were not yet ready to commit to all out war in Britain. For instance shying away from bombing German territory for fear of reprisals, the extremely limited Saar offensive that seemed to be more a message rather than a true offensive. The term I think is meant to highlight the still very heavy reluctance of many to fully commit to war.
Its not until summer 1940 when France, Norway,Denmark,Holland,Belgium fell that the character of the execution of the war seemed to take on the steel that would characterize the British will to fight.
Not sure what Britain could ever have done to defend Poland- steaming into the Baltic would've have been complete suicide. As for an attack on Germany, the British were always going to be dependent on the French army, which was massively unprepared for war
Historigraph I don’t disagree that the options in Poland were limited. However the options in western Germany were there had both the allies been aggressive. General Westphal stated that had France and Britain aggressively attacked in the west in September the German forces in that sector could not have held more than 14 days
@@mcdonie1975 "did nothing to defend poland" We entered the war because of them and lost millions of men to the conflict. I'm not sure exactly what you expected but as Historiograph said, steaming into the Baltic would have been pure suicide.
To quote General Edmund Ironside: "Militarily we ought to have gone all out against the German the
minute he invaded Poland. . . . We did not. There were many reasons. We were to prepare for a long war. The French Air Force was so bad that it might be annihilated like the Polish Air Force. We were expanding rapidly in our industry. The British army was crossing to France and passing up to the front. All was to our advantage to wait. And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the east. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves. We had to subordinate our strategy to that of the French and so didn't let our Air Force in. We missed a great opportunity". Ironside Diaries, pp. 113-14.
Whats even worse is that the Polish told the British and French multiply times that they would not be able to hold and that the The Franco-Anglo armies would need to bomb Germanies' industries and launch major offensives to cause the Germans to move troops back to the west and allow Poland to counterattack. They even lied and told Poland they would do all this just to buy time.
@@historigraph I remember reading that the British would not send The Royal Air Force to be deployed against German units in support of a French offensive and aerial bombardment in Germany, which the French and British promised Poland they would bomb Germany and launch an major offensive to force the Germans to withdraw troops from Poland to allow the Polish to counterattack.
love you're videos so much :) one even saved me from a exam
Another banger
'the bomber will always get through' was a myth based on the fact that the performance of fighter aircraft at the inception of bombers was about the same, so given that bombers were more heavily armed they had a tendency to survive aerial engagements. However by the SWW fighter technology and performance made them a real threat to bombers; additionally in the interim period it had been realised that aerial bombardment was a real threat, and so anti-aircraft artillery [AAA] and other passive defences had grown in strength. Ultimately RAF Bomber Command suffered the highest percentage of losses of any uniformed allied force during the SWW, thus proving the bomber did /not/ always get through.
I see a lot of comments that defend Chamberlain here (saying his appeasements were to buy time, for example. which may or may not be true to some extent (though I don't see any basis for it with regards to how he voted and what he did to increase and prepare the military before the munich crysis) but Britain needed that much time to prepare to war mainly because of him and his clique).
I suggest that you check what he (and his clique) did to prepare the nation before the war started (and I am talking about years here), and what Churchill did in the parliament before the war started (again I am talking about years).
I'll give you a tldr
Churchill repeatedly begging to start building the military up(with focus on armor and air) because he is seeing what hitler is doing, and Chamberlain and the parliament ridiculing and rebuffing him.
Churchill was not an infallible leader, nor was he ever portrayed as one.
But he knew to spot danger and how to rally and lead a nation in times of war.
I see too much people hating on him for completely partisan reasons, he was most definitely the leader Britain needed at the time.
It's certainly seem to be in style to be a contrarian to historians of days of old, just to be a contrarian with often no regards to why they were saying what they said.
Hm interesting can i see some sources to confirm?
@@BajanEnglishman51
There is the book appeasement and the road to war.
There is also a detailed description of how churchill tried to increase the military budget in historynet .com,
That also goes into detail about the mistakes of Chamberlain and some military higher ups.
@Julius Rock It was too late at that point, Britain had to give up everything in order to defeat Nazi Fascism near and the Japanese Imperialism afar. Churchill at least acknowledged it and was will to live with that consequence for the time being.
I'm never too hard on Chamberlain, he was an elected leader, answerable to parliament with public opinion to consider. He wanted to increase spending on health and housing, not get us into another bloodbath. All this while Britain was recovering from the depression. How and where were the funds going to come from to build up armaments while many children had no shoes and were living in slums? Can you imagine a politician selling that today? Hitler had the luxury of dictating, regardless of fatally damaging his economy and respecting borders, hell bent on domination.
So the Phoney war was like the Quasi War. Mostly dealing with intermittent sea fighting, and merchant sinking.
Still, you don't really discredit that the Phoney was the lull period compared to the rest of the war, which can best be summarized as France & Germany trying to see who blinks first at the border.
05:07. The battle of THE Britain, never heard that b4, its always been ' the Battle of Britain '
Another fine piece of work. Literate and understated in the best British fashion! "Steady, boys, steady!"
It is also often forgotten that in the FWW Churchill was the main architect of the disastrous Dardanelles campaign. Also Chamberlain wasn't alone in his appeasement strategy. In the leadership tussle and even later Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax wanted to make peace with Hitler. His desire was more aligned to Chamberlain's than Churchill's.
*fighting occurs everywhere, but in europe*
Europe: Finally! No war! No more fighting!!!
Ah, War Thumper celebrates "Sitzkrieg." While Hitler took a Winter break, everybody else got ready to fight The Enemy at the door.
'morning of sundee'
Don't you start- I get enough mockery of my pronounciation from the other half
@@historigraph XD
Look at this arrogant Suth'ner!
It’s still accurate to call it the phony war when what should have been the main theater of the war of the time was going at a snails pace. Germany’s forces was like a sloth defending against an elephant
Good job.Very good animations.See you in the next video :)
I love your videos! Thank you for creating such interesting content!
I’m curious what the British people were expecting considering that aside from the Zeppelin raids, none of the fighting ever reached the British Isles.
I mean are we talking about rationing and the men being sent off because you’d think at least some of those measures would be done soon after.
I have a distant relative that died on that battleship in scap flow
Historigraph, I get what you're saying, that despite popular belief, there was, indeed, some fighting going on in the first months of WW 2; that's true. However, despite that, there wasn't any large scale fighting on the European continent - not between the western allies and Germany - and that's why it's called the Phoney war or Stizkrieg, as the Germans called it. The western allies had declared war against Germany at the beginning of the invasion of Poland and then for all intents and purposes, did nothing at all to help their Polish ally. The French took two steps into the Saar and then stopped while the British essentially took no steps at all. Now IMO, the important question isn't so much was there or wasn't there a Phoney war (yes there was), but why? Why did not much happen in the first 6-8 months? And the answer of course is that the Germans were involved in the East (with Poland and then with the post-Polish campaign re-fit) while the British and French didn't have the capacity to directly assist their Polish ally - not in a coordinated or meaningful way. By the time concerted action could be taken the Polish campaign was already over. It must be remembered that at the outbreak of war, Britain was an air and naval power, it didn't have a large standing land army. So undertaking an immediate invasion of Germany was simply out of the question for the British, while the French, who did have the capacity to act and possibly could have stopped Germany in it's tracks, made it perfectly clear that they weren't going it alone. So, hence the so-called Phoney war period.
Mean while Poland screaming : Help!!!!!!
Well... from polish perspective, it was phoney enough. PS: yes, actually it was and is true.
In "The Gathering Storm" Churchill outlines British policy predating the war that set the stage for the fall of France, including Chamberlain selling out the most modern and powerful military force on the German border, the Czechs. 25% of the tanks that rolled over France were Czechoslavakian. Hitler barely had 2 Panzer Divisions at the time and Russia was prepared to back Czechoslavakia and German Generals were planning a coup if Hitler started a war at that time. That was the day Continental Europe was lost.
I didn’t realise government advisers lived so long . A million were going to die.
I didn’t know Ferguson was that old.
Churchill was a man suited for that exact time, Chamberlain wasn't.
And the fact that Britain was in any way prepared for war was thanks to Chamberlain, who ordered, amongst other things, the building of vast new aircraft factories, not to mention buying the time that the British Military TOLD him they needed (which they did). Do not forget that prior to the war Chamberlain also had to deal with the House of Commons, which was largly anti war, and represented a people who were also largely anti war.
Chamberlain was damned if he did and damned if he didnt. What would have happened for example if he had taken Britain to war in 38? To put things into perspective, the Hawker Hurricane was only just rolling off the production lines in 1938, and Spitfires would not start production until 1939... how do you think the RAF would have fared in a Battle of Britain flying Gloster Gladiators?
@@alganhar1
I agree with you that most of the blame lay with Baldwin (Chamberlain predecessor and a man Chamberlain mainly backed in his anti war sentiment)'
But I am going to call bullshit on all of the rest of your framing.
Chamberlain was in an appeasement mode long before he was in office (he was part of the anti war parliament), and seriously started rearnament a bit too late than he could and should have (even though Churchill begged to start since 1933-34).
Let's start with my favorite
But muh hurricane: Chamberlain and Baldwin ,both put off on signing on it and the company paid from it's own pocket for initial production (the only thing that saved Britain)
Btw he only did that in the end because they were cheaper than bombers and he had to seem like he was doing something, he said himself that he didn't believe in their capabilities as a defence force.
All of the other military things that he did were nothing spectacular.
And it seemed he actively fought rearmament until the crisis at munich.
Why do you guys suck Chamberlain cock so much?
Do you try to appear nuanced without really knowing what you are talking about?
I really don't understand.
By all prewar accounts we have Chamberlain was slow to start rearmaments bungled some things pretty hard and generally appeared to be a naive apeaser (even before he became the prime minister)
So why all of the Trying to explain him even though he doesn't need to be explained.
@@alganhar1
also with regards to the aircraft factories thing It's only really started in 1938 after years of inefficient administration (something Churchill spoke about for years, in fact his most prominent speech to parliament in 1934!!!! Was about exactly this).
He was also to blame for failing to rearamament but he made the raf chief commander resign and take all of the blame (not complaining about that he was a shit that didn't heed Churchill's warnings exactly in this regard, and was generally a shit administrator).
@@alganhar1 Chamberlain was nothing but a cowardly backstabber, giving promises to eastern european countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia, then selling them out to Hitler or not sending them any help.
Love the new thumbnail bud 👍
It is phoney, because you were waiting, waiting... Yep, still waiting. Always nice to have an islald to defend, rather than long border.
Neil Ferguson's grandad worked for the MOD.
Sorry, but the pub seen from "Dunkirk" doesn't show the difference in attitudes between the military and civilians, but is there to represent the difference between what was happening at sea (both the Royal Navy and Merchant Navy) and what was happening to most people in the UK at the time.
From the Polish few this was the lack of offensives from France and the UK on the western front which they promised to do
Should of played the clip on a little where Victor Madderns' character strongly objected to Mr Holden saying that......good old film, that!.....Ah, he did, sorry.
Interesting and informative video
If the Phoney War was Phoney, then what the hell was the Invasion of Poland and the Invasion of Norway was all about
wasnt the battle of narvik where the allied forces managed to for the first time to reclaim a lost city from the germans?
Excellent analysis.
Not mentioned: British and French activities to oppose Germany.
Sure, the German navy attacked British ships and lost some submarines in the process. But it was Brittain and France who declared war on Germany. What actions did they do to attack the Germans?
Very good analysis about this case study. Habitually no understood...no clear.
Prepare for the worst, and hope for the best, as we should now with Covid.
You forgot Denmark
In my opinion, the war was phoney. Between 1939 and Operation „Weserübung“ there were no ground clashes (or even air clashes), nor any decisive naval battles (decisive in a strategical way). I think saying phoney might be unfair to those who fought and died in that period on the Allied or german side, but still, some naval clashes with submarines are not comparable to the western campaign 1940 where Britains primary ally France was knocked out.
Ah yes, the battle of the britain
Britan managed to betray Poland two times in the same war.
Oof
I'm sure if it was the other way around the Polish would have ridden their glorious winged hussars right over the English Channel and single-handedly punched Hitler in the face.
Ask yourself a very serious question. If Britain had sent it's whole army to Poland to repel the invasion, how would they have got there? And if like what happened to France, Poland still lost with Britain's support, how would those troops have gotten home? Or did you expect Britain to surrender her whole army for Poland?
Once. 1939 was not a betrayal.
@@deathman11jackd 12th of September Allies met in Abbeville and decided not to attack Germans and help Poland this way.
I mean, the fact that Britain and France didn't manage to take any meaningful offensive action against Germans in the west for over a month, during which the bulk of their forces were busy fighting in Poland, was a major failure on their part. Given that Polish leadership was assured that such actions will come in about two weeks from the declaration of war does make it look a bit like a betrayal from our perspective. However, the responsibility falls at least in half (if not more) on the French and there were deeper and more complicated reasons for that failure than simply ill will or incompetence.
I can appreciate this video and the information it brings forward, however I believe the story isn’t being told from enough perspectives, and the timeline isn’t fully detailed. For example, if I am correct, hitler did not wish to fight the British even after the declaration of war, in hopes of somehow getting Britain out of the war. I recall he held the British people in high standards from his book (I remember watching a video about it awhile ago, so I apologize for the inaccuracies). I would imagine the phony war exists as a term for the French and British, as the term sitzkrieg does for the Germans.
Oh hell yeah. Every time you release an episode it's like I've been waiting for it my whole life. This is one big example of the British contributions to the popular historiography, not unlike the agreed-upon start of the war in 1939, even though the Japanese and the Chinese had been going at it since 1931, the Nazis, Fascists, and Soviets (and to a lesser extent Poland and some elements of the French government) had been engaging in a proxy war in Spain that began in 1936 and ended just a few months before the "official" start of hostilities in Poland, and not to mention the localized, identity-related conflicts that had been simmering throughout the various borderlands of the recently-created European states since the end of the First World War.
The more I delve into this period, the more difficult it is for me to say where one conflict ends and the other begins. I'm dubious about older media like documentaries, but I heard it described in one that "World War II could really be described as a series of interconnected civil conflicts rather than one large singular conflict" and I think this is spot on.
I've taken to using Victor David Hansen's term, calling it The Second World WARS.
I was taught the Phoney War seemed to be such that even through it was the British and French that declared war on Germany, the actions they took made it seem more like it was Germany that declared war on them in 1940.
Also it seems many people are confusing "The Phoney War" with "Western Betrayal" in the comments. Which while they may start at the same time they are two different things.
Good topic, but this video left me with more questions than answers. I’d really appreciate more on Chamberlain and his true story, rather than the Churchillian myth. I seem to recall seeing somewhere recently that while outwardly appeasing Hitler, Chamberlain was buying time while Britain prepared for all out war. This seems like a story worth exploring, and if there is truth in it, telling.
British rearmament actually began in 1936, under Stanley Baldwin.
I've read Churchill's biography by Andrew Robberts. There is no denying that Chamberlain was buying time, even from serious Churchill biographers. But a big problem is that Britain waited so long to start preparing. Chamberlain was not the sole person responsible for this; indeed he was more the unfortunate scapegoat due to timing. But he was part of the problem.
A main issue is that it was Churchill himself who was pushing for diplomatic resistance and war preparations as soon as Hitler gained power. He was not popular for this, almost an outcast in his own party. When he was picked as PM in 1940, it was due to the overwhelming failure of the whole Tory leadership during the 1930s to prepare as Churchill, a MP backbencher for most of the time, ceaselessly warned them against the Fascists while they focused on the Communists (and saw Fascists as lesser evils, almost friendly even). Lord Halifax was also a PM possibility, but he himself refused (in part because he would have had to desist from his knighthood to sit in the House, the same reason Churchill refused knighthood until almost his deathbed). Chamberlain himself was seeing his health failing.
Churchill was a disaster and a half. Even before getting into power.
It is remarkable how he got a second-third-fourth chance.
Sorry Historiograph, but you focused on some side events and completely failed to even mention the main component of the Phoney War that actually made the war phoney - the complete lack of response of allies - the English and the French, to Germany's attack on Poland. The alliance was supposed to work in such way, that in case of German attack on any of the three, the remaining two would come with aid. To us, Poles, Phoney War is always associated with England and France declaring war on Germany on the 3rd of Sep. and then doing absolutely nothing about it. In fact, most of Poles see it as an act of betrayal. I'd like to add that our country's defence plan at the time was totally based on the idea that our soldiers would hold the Germans off for as long as possible until allies attack Germany from the west (the plan was very appropriately called Plan West). You can read more on Wikipedia, which very coveniently has large articles called Plan West and Western Betrayal.
Yes, yes, I know - there was the Saar offensive which was a complete fail, considering Germans had almost no troops to defend the west at the time as all of them were fighting in Poland, and RAF planes dropping propaganda leaflets (instead of bombs) over Germany - all this while our boys were pointlessly giving their lives to buy some time for the allies to move in.
PS1. Yes, my comment is most likely to be somewhat biased, but I think I still made a reasonable point on what the Phoney War really was. I think nobody doubts that war with Denmark and Norway, as well was allied naval battles against Germans were the 'real' war.
PS2. Here in Poland we even have a joke on the Phoney War: It's September 1939, English plane drops propaganda leaflets over Germany. One of the crew, bored with all this, just throws the entire pack of leaflets overboard in one piece. The pilot reprimands him: "What have you done?! You could have hurt someone!"
Some fair points. Though I’ll always argue that, yes, while the French should have been better prepared to attack Germany in 1939, I’m not sure what people expect Britain (assuming France does what it did historically ) to do. Sail a fleet and support an expedition through the Baltic? Would’ve been suicidal
@@historigraph Let's think - Britain could have moved its planes on french territory close to german border and support french offensive. Meanwhile prepare ground troops to be moved over the Channel. The French could have made much, much better effort while attacking. They outnumbered Germans on this front heavily, because all the german armies were at the east, busy killing Poles. All this together, if well coordinated, could have been a reasonably easy victory over Germany. Would it have saved Poland? Maybe, maybe not - one has to remember that Russia was allied with Germany and attacked Poland on 17th Sep. But my point is - allies did nothing despite all the reasonable possibilities, and that's what made the war phoney. All the allies needed to do is be more persistant in their actions. Now, the French lost two thousand troops on the Saar offensive, which probably discouraged them from pushing any further. Two thousand, very bad. But is it better to later have german campaign in 1940 and lose entire country at over 100x the casualties? And then Battle of Britain, with all the bombing and civilian casualies?
I know it's easy for me to be an armchair general and strategist, especially with all the post-factum knowledge we have today, and point my finger on all the mistakes. However, I kinda feel that France and Britain heavily contributed to their later fate. I don't want to say they deserved it for their negligence and selfishness which later turned against them.
But back on the main topic. While I may be the douche that makes all the accusations in the comments, I'm of little importance here with my blabbering. However you, dear Historiograph, you are creating historical content that reaches thousands of people of different age and historical knowledge, and you are (should be) burdened with heavy responsibility to provide historical information as accurately and objectively as possible. Now, don't get me wrong here - I've already seen most of your videos and I absolutely love them! You are doing fantastic job, really. But this one video about Phoney War is not just somewhat wrong - I think it's a total misconception at the very basis, because it's fully focused on defending a theory that is misinterpreted in its entirety.
Thanks for this video, calling this period a phony war in my opinion is disrespectful to all those who were there.
the phoney war was mostly in europe though. france litterally did nothing but the saar offensive which was so small it didn't affect the war much. they gave germany more than half a year the time too prepare for the war in the west.
A terrible side effective of 'the bomber must get through' theory (which was widely held at the time, not just by the British) was that the UK held back the bulk of their interceptors from France to defend the homeland. This would have devastating repercussions when the Battle of France started and the Luftwaffe was used as flying artillery (but not actually close support) and there were less fighters available to stop them and France had not been able by her damaged economy to invest in newer fighter designs equal in ability or number to those of Nazi Germany.
One less known side effect is the absolutely horrid amount of casualties the Royal Air Force and the Armée de l'Air Française took in conducting strike missions against the advancing Wehrmacht. Due to to the primitive bomb aiming devices of the early war and the lack of dive bombers in those two forces the strike bombers had to fly low, straight and level over the Nazi units. The Wehrmacht which had had combat experience in The Spanish Civil War had invested heavily in mobile 20mm anti aircraft guns and had dedicated interceptors available to seek these essentially unescorted missions out. In some cases a squadron would go out and only one aircraft might return and at the height they were operating at the crews usually crashed before being able to safely bail out.
Considering the British and French did absolutely nothing to help Poland despite promising to do so, and the French just sat there T posing while most of the German army was distracted, yeah it was pretty phoney. I think it's clear everyone is talking about the Western Front when they say the Phoney War, especially since WW2 didn't even begin with Germany but rather began in Asia between China and Japan 2 years earlier but since the British, French, and Dutch did nothing on that front but embarrass themselves it's not recognized as well recognized. I wouldn't say a couple ships being sunk suddenly makes the war intense, the US navy lost a ship in the Iraq-Iran War and we weren't even involved in it.
Can someone explain the Saar offensive to me please? Why didn't France at least attempt a full scale invasion when they had so many troops?
I mean, it is true. It's really just referring to the front line that had no fighting really or major offensives when in comparison to WW1 it was.... weird. There was little fighting there in main Europe. I never really thought anyone took it to mean more than that.
First let me say that this is by far my favourite video so far from your channel, which I watch regularly. Particularly in that you address a commonly held myth rather than just rehashing something that seems in vogue (we've all seen all the history channels magically coming up with the same topic magically one after the other). In general that is my favourite aspect of this channel: its originality.
A tiny, tiny note: at around 8:40 you say "... perpetuates itself through a weird kind of circular logic. The phony war was phony because chamberlain was in charge, and it was because chamberlain was in charge that the war was phony." These are actually the same statement though. I think you sort of lost the thrust of the statement which I assume was along the lines of "we know chamberlain was ineffective, as evidenced by the phony war, but the phony war was phony because chamberlain was in charge"?
The two elements mutually reinforce each other; the 'phoney war' is made to look more phoney by association with Chamberlain, and vice versa.
Phoney because nothing much seemed to happening close to home.
The first phase of the war did seem phoney because both sides were preparing to war. Hitler never believed that Britain and France would declare war for Poland, so there wasn't any "Schlieffen plan" that germans could executed immediately like in ww1. And French military doctrine was being on defence until all resources of both colonial empires (France and Britain) could muster. And nobody wanted escalate air war by bombing cities, at first. Thing only was that Germans could muster enought forces with good plan before France and Britain could, striking when both empires were still gathering power.