Why the Allies Lost The Battle of France (WW2 Documentary)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 фев 2024
- Nebula with 40% off annual subscription with my link: go.nebula.tv/realtimehistory
Watch 16 Days in Berlin: nebula.tv/videos/16-days-in-b...
In May 1940, Nazi Germany attacks in the West. The Allied armies of France, Britain, Belgium, and the Netherlands have more men, guns, and tanks than the Germans do - and the French army is considered the best in the world. But in just 6 weeks, German forces shock the world and smash the Allies. So how did Germany win so convincingly, so fast?
» SUPPORT US
/ realtimehistory
nebula.tv/realtimehistory
» THANK YOU TO OUR CO-PRODUCERS
David Garfinkle, Raymond Martin, Konstantin Bredyuk, Lisa Anderson, Brad Durbin, Jeremy K Jones, Murray Godfrey, John Ozment, Stephen Parker, Mavrides, Kristina Colburn, Stefan Jackowski, Cardboard, William Kincade, William Wallace, Daniel L Garza, Chris Daley, Malcolm Swan, Christoph Wolf, Simen Røste, Jim F Barlow, Taylor Allen, Adam Smith, James Giliberto, Albert B. Knapp MD, Tobias Wildenblanck, Richard L Benkin, Marco Kuhnert, Matt Barnes, Ramon Rijkhoek, Jan, Scott Deederly, gsporie, Kekoa, Bruce G. Hearns, Hans Broberg, Fogeltje
» SOURCES
Berben, Paul/ Iselin, Bernard, Les panzers passent la Meuse (13 mai 1940), Paris, 1967.
Ellis, Lionel F., The War in France and Flanders 1939-1940, London 1953.
Frieser, Karl-Heinz, Blitzkrieg-Legende. Der Westfeldzug 1940, 5. Aufl., Berlin/Boston 2021.
Görlitz, Walter (Hg.), Generalfeldmarschall Keitel. Verbrecher oder Offizier? Erinnerungen,
Briefe, Dokumente des Chefs OKW, Göttingen 1961.
Halder, Franz: Kriegstagebuch. Tägliche Aufzeichnungen des Chefs des Generalstabes des
Heeres 1939-1942, Band 1: Vom Polenfeldzug bis zum Ende der Westoffensive
(14.8.1939-30.6.1940), bearb. von Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Stuttgart 1962.
Hubatsch, Walther (Hg.), Hitlers Weisungen für die Kriegführung 1939-1945. Dokumente
des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht, 4. Auflager, Erlangen 1999.
Jacobsen, Hans-Adolf, Fall Gelb. Der Kampf um den deutschen Operationsplan zur
Westoffensive 1940, Wiesbaden 1957.
Jacobsen, Hans-Adolf (Hg.), Dokumente zum Westfeldzug 1940, Göttingen 1960.
Leeb, Wilhelm von, Tagebuchaufzeichnungen und Lagebeurteilungen aus zwei Weltkriegen.
Aus dem Nachlass hg. und mit einem Lebensabriss versehen von Georg Meyer, Stuttgart
1976.
Scheck, Raffael, Hitlers afrikanische Opfer. Die Massaker der Wehrmacht an schwarzen
französischen Soldaten, Berlin 2009.
Weinberg, Gerhard. A World at Arms. 1994.
Beevor, Antony. Der Zweite Weltkrieg. 2014.
Neiberg, Michael. When France Fell. 2021.
Bloch, Marc. Strange Defeat.
Fargettas, Julien. « Les massacres de mai-juin 1940” in Levisse-Touzé.
Cremieux-Brilhac, Jean-Louis. « L’evolution du moral des troupes. » in Levisse-Touzé.
Levisse-Touze, Christine, ed. La campagne de 1940. 2001.
Frieser, Karl-Heinz. « The War in the West 1939-1940” in Ferris and Evan Mawdsley, eds. The Cam-bridge History of SWW. Vol I: Fighting the War. 2015.
Jackson, Julian. The Fall of France. 2003.
Levine, Joshua. Forgotten Voices of Dunkirk. 2010.
»CREDITS
Presented by: Jesse Alexander
Written by: Jesse Alexander
Director: Toni Steller
Editing: Toni Steller
Motion Design: Philipp Appelt
Mixing, Mastering & Sound Design: above-zero.com
Research by: Roman Töppel, Jesse Alexander
Fact checking: Jesse Alexander
Executive Producer: Florian Wittig
Channel Design: Simon Buckmaster
Contains licensed material by getty images, AP and Reuters
Maps: MapTiler/OpenStreetMap Contributors & GEOlayers3
Music Library: Epidemic Sound
All rights reserved - Real Time History GmbH 2024
Nebula with 40% off annual subscription with my link: go.nebula.tv/realtimehistory
Watch 16 Days in Berlin: nebula.tv/videos/16-days-in-berlin-01-prologue-the-beginning-of-the-end
It was baffling how the wehrmacht broke through the Maginot line at Sedan
The Maginot Line didn't reach to Sedan. That's why the Germans struck there.@@martinsto8190
The French soldiers were right, the war was being waged by Rich men in England. Their name is Rothschild.
@@martinsto8190 1940，there are 10000 residents at Sedan
I wish this episode was part 1, of 4 one hour long episodes. 28min is just too short. For this reason I will be giving this video a miss.
This episode could've been three hours long, there's so much to pick through about the 1940 invasion of France.
Amen to that.
I disagree. IMO the whole campaign can be distilled down to France being massively outgeneralled by the Germans. Their army was fine (apart from big picture general-rank-level policies like heavy short ranged tanks for infantry support etc.), their navy and air force was top shelf. Cultural explanations are BS, the rural Frenchmen having grown up in the interwar years were not soft and hated the boches' guts.
@@tacticalclochardyour brain can’t comprehend another level to that so you just go with the one your brain dosent have trouble understanding
Oh, absolutely. The Chieftain has some fascinating videos on the interwar development of armor doctrine by the main belligerents, and the French one is mind-blowing. Other aspects of French doctrine really didn't pan out either, and the social divisions within the nation did not help the fighting spirit at all.
@@0giwan I saw a great documentary on inter war aircraft development in France. As well as highlighting the miss steps that were made, the documentary went into the reasoning behind those decisions. They really didn't have a hope by the time the Germans got upperty.
I clicked on and liked this video faster than it took the Germans to reach the French coast.
Me too
Cringe joke
Yes, the old blitzclick trick!
Cringe
Blitzclick☝️😅😅😅😅
8:47 Minor mistranslation from Frieser, Karl-Heinz; I'm guessing the French general said something to the effect of "Vous êtes bien trop rapide, beaucoup trop rapide pour nous. C'est tout". The "c'est tout" was mistranslated as "it's everything" but I think it's meant as "that's it" or "that's all [there is to that]". Either way... you can feel the defeated tone of the general... like "we weren't ready for this, it's not what we planned for at all"
As somebody whose native language is French, I totally confirm what you're saying
They were so rigid in their doctrine and battle plans that they caused the "surrender memes" practically on Day 1
@@ForelliBoy2000 years of history down the drain. Now they’re cowards who surrender at the first opportunity, on the Internet.
It's a translation error by the German-to-English translator. Frieser's original German version correctly ends the quote with "Das ist alles", which has the same metaphorical meaning of "that's all there is to it" as the French original.
En effet, "C'est tout" se traduit mieux par "That's all".
"That terrain is impassable. Our enemy will never come trough there!" Famous last words of a lot of imcompetent generals.
Easy to say now when the war is over, armchair historian.
@@vortex1603 Sure, but its also true that even at the time they had plenty of historical examples of armies surprised by the position of an enemy force that moved trough dificult terrain. They should have known better.
@@RafaelSantos-pi8py They werent stupid, they knew the germans could cross the ardennes. They just didnt expect the speed and the scale of how they did so, and were too slow to react.
@@garage3022 I didn't say they were stupid , i said they were incompetent , such as "didnt expect the speed and the scale of how they did so (the germs), and were too slow to react".
" The Ardennes is a safe place for our troops to relax and refit ". Americans in December 1944.
Your graphics of various armor side by side are very helpful in visualizing what they are using.
thanks. a new thing we tried out. Also to show the size differences etc.
@@realtimehistoryit’s very helpful. Not something I’ve seen done on other documentary channels but I really like it!
@@realtimehistory how important a role did the German fear of the British naval guns ability to fire 20-30 miles inland and destroy the panzers play?
Yes old man
Wtf?@@soult.
4:48 The French actually had a small strategic reserve of 7 divisions. Unfortunately, during the breakout at Sedan they were sent to the south of Sedan instead of to it's west where they would have been more useful.
Very interesting. Never knew about the 2nd BEF landing.
What is often forgotten/overlooked is another later evacuation of troops from Cherbourg.
yeah the "second" dynamo is also something we learned about during the research for this
The 2nd BEF evacuation is discussed in Major General Julian Thompson's book " Dunkirk : Retreat to Victory "
Which explains the Battle of France from the BEF perspective .
Also , Historian James Holland has the only complete explanation of the famous halt order I've ever read .
However , I've pieced together the halt order elsewhere in the discussions here.
16:21 Circa May 26 - 28th , 1940 - British War Cabinet Crisis . The initial estimate given to the British War Cabinet was that only 45,000 solders could be evacuated . Facing the lost of most of the BEF , Lord Halifax wanted to explore negotiating terms with Hitler , via the Italians . Over the next few days , there were a series of heated meetings with the war cabinet . Churchill did an end round on Lord Halifax and was able to convince the 25 member outer cabinet to keep fighting .
.
@@realtimehistory 17:04 " Churchill has ordered 300,000 fresh British troops to France ... "
Jessie , Could you check this ? After the sickle cut , there were over 140,000 BEF solders remaining south of the Somme , including the 51st Highland Division and the 1st armoured division that disembarked at Cherourg
between May 15th to 19th .
General Allan Brooke arrived at Cherbourg on June 13th , to be in charge of 4 fighting BEF divisions ,
but by this time the 51st Highland Division had already been captured .
Over the phone , Brooke was able to convince Churchill to initiate the second BEF evacuation .
.
.
@@landsea7332 'Brooke was able to convince Churchill to initiate the second BEF evacuation.' True, but only after meeting with General Weygand, who told him on 14 June that the French army was no longer capable of 'Organised resistance.'
I didn't know of other smaller BEF evacuations till Indy Neidell mentioned it. Cause Dynamo is the most famous
16 days in Berlin was amazing. Please get Nebula and watch it! Beautiful.
I know, I know, I keep putting it off
My grandfather who served in a French anti-aircraft unit shot down two Messerschmitt BF109. He noted in a diary the movements of his regiment during May and June, a diary that I am lucky to have, with a few photos including one English (unidentified) bomber destroyed in a field near the Belgian border. in two months the Germans lost more than 1000 planes, which they will lack for the Battle of England. I like to think that my grandfather contributed in his modest way to the final victory of the allies
In his own words, seeing entire villages in flames was a terrifying vision. His unit was demobilized at the armistice, he was not a prisoner of war. And he lived a happy life after that terrible times.
Your grandfather was very blessed. Many French soldiers were not sent home
Radio and tactical airpower are two keys to early German victories that are largely, and consistently, overlooked. For example every German tank had at least a radio receiver. Allied tanks, even the Soviets during Barbarossa, where still communicating with runners and flags. When the Allies expanded their use of radio and refined their use of tactical airpower, the Germans lost.
The german army was not supiror to the tactics and will of their enemies one could say. They just had a tech advantage almost crashing their economy to feed the military.
and mass consumption of Methamphetamine
you mean when the americans brought their 2nd generation aircraft and radios... europe had none of that. alexander grahm bell of bell telephone was american....meanwhile even poor americans had telephones in their homes in the 1910s and listened to FDR in their homes during the 1930's while europe listened to grammaphones and mostly used the post for communications as everything else they couldn't afford. yeah mass production every farm with 50+ acres had a tractor and a ford motor vehicle next to the house. even the germans still used horses to pull artillery and infantry
Let's be clear. The Germans didn't lose for that reason. They lost because they solid everyone. Britain, isa, France. And fighting in multiple theaters of war. 1v1 even USA didn't stand a chance. Which is why is usa stole their scientists at the end of the war
Solo'd*
When you compare 1914 vs 1940, one appreciates the coolness of the French Command, even at the face of setbacks such as the Battle of the Frontiers and the long retreat from Belgium. Unity of command, steady heads and also a bit of grit.
And no modern tanks, trucks and planes in 1914 to give the germans the speed and shock power to replace the cavalry that machine guns and modern artillery made obsolete in a matter of weeks during that bloody summer.
Hard agree.
Coolness for incompetence?
Yet that same French Command was composed entirely of WW1 veterans, many of them highly decorated. These people had all seen the wrong end of a cannon. It is not the courage or grit of the Gamelins that is in question, but the simple competence of those who rose to the top in a peacetime army culture that overvalued "cran" (roughly, guts), unquestioning adherence to the chain of command and a boastful patriotism - and undervalued technical knowledge, flexibility and imagination. There's a lesson there.
@@kenoliver8913 I totally agree with you. My input was solely related to a single aspect of a very complex scenario, but what you mention is quite relevant. To support your claim in terms of battlefield technologies and awareness; for example the French High Command was very interested in how the Spanish Civil War was fought, but drew the wrong lessons (very slow tank attacks supported by infantry and not appreciating the value of close air support). Instead of the cult of the offensive of 1914, this was a cult of the defense, but to a calcified level. Independent tank divisions were seen as anathema by some (not all). And at the civilian government, instead of the unified government of WWI, the French had a divided government, which included brazen traitors and acolytes of the Germans, just to see the left wing being ruined.
Thanks for another fantastic documentary. In all these years there has never been a bad one.
Its worth pointing out that De Gaul was broadcasting from London, because he escaped a French arrest warrant on the RAF plane allocated to Churchill. With the resignation of the French Prime Minister he lost his authority as Deputy Defence Minister and his right to liaise with the British Government. That the French High-Command wanted to arrest him as soon as that happened is a measure of the severity of French political in-fighting that had taken place during this phase of the war.
To understand the situation in which France was in May 1940, I can only recommend a video on RUclips "L'appel du 18 juin" by Cinéma Cinémas, with subtitles.
If I'm not mistaken, during the battle of France, Panzer III still had a 37mm gun, the 50mm coming after in 1941
Wikipedia says "In both the Polish and French campaigns, the Panzer III formed a small part of the German armoured forces. Only a few hundred Panzer III Ausf. As to Fs were available in these two campaigns, with most being armed with the 37 mm (1.46 in) main gun."
So if there were 50mm armed tanks, they were in the minority.
The German armour was completely outclassed by the French Char B, unfortunately the French did not deploy them in concentrations to have a great effect. Char B was a very underrated tank in the early stages of the War.
It shows that the Germans didn't plan to conquer the world, but merely to end a war that was declared on them by France. Churchill the drunk on the other hand wanted blood and more war.
@@thebog11- 50mm guns were fitted to the Pz III only after the France campaign. Vaguely recall reading that there were a few prototypes (as few as three) so fitted towards the end of June before the end of the campaign but it’s very unlikely they saw frontline service.
@@sirrathersplendid4825Thanks!
You guys have really outdone yourself! Congrats on the excellent work.
thank you very much!
Thanks for this amazing content! There are very few history channels this high in quality featuring historical sources, maps etc
France had 102 (?) divisions , the Belgians had 22 (?) and the BEF had 10 to 13 .
The French solders fought well , but lost because the French Generals were beyond useless .
In particular , Gamelin believed it would take 10 days for the German Army to get through the Ardennes ,
so he moved his best troops to west coast to link up with the Dutch and Belgians on the west coast .
As such , there was no reserve .
Gamelin set up his HQ near Paris , a 100 miles from the front , and relied on dispatch riders for communications .
French Generals were required to follow a central chain of command , and were not allowed to make decisions on their own .
So in a nut shell , there was a complete intelligence , communications and command structure failure by the French Generals .
Also , in order to maintain their neutrality prior to May 10th , 1940 , the Belgian's refused to co operate with the French .
.
I think the French army fought poorly. All of them. There are some exceptions.
I think it’s convenient to say the army fought well and blame some
Old worn out generals. But analysis misses key points. 1) the German army had a strong aggressive and unifying ideology 2) French army was badly politicized and divided. Socialist pacifists had a strong influence among troops. Bloch who was there saw this. 3) German army had a major victory in their pocket
-Poland- and this experience is highly motivating. 4) command system was too Slow. Goes way beyond poor generals.
@@edmundcowan9131well you think very bad and you should start to read historians instead of some politicians.
The soldier is not to blame. But the upper generals are. Gamelin in particular.
@@edmundcowan9131You’re so right.
French military rifle for sale. Never been fired, only dropped once.
Outstanding as usual. Great channel, no bias just the facts. Well researched and of course the narration and commentary is top notch.
I love this channel. I've been wanting for the rest of the Vietnam War Series but you'll drop a banger like this to hold us over
I love the English Channel
Jesse really is one of the best historical presenters on RUclips - love his presentations - clear, concise and always on point!
A great video. A story of the Battle of France that often gets overlooked is the Siege of Calais, where a small and under equipped British force, supported by men of the French Army and Navy, delayed the advance of the German 10th Panzer Division on Dunkirk.
And Lille, on the road to Dunkirk, where the remnants of the french 1st army, encircled, fought for a week, blocking the logistical route to Dunkirk, until they had exhausted their supplies.
Well, " small and under equipped British force" is their fault alone. In 1940 Britain was the largest Empire in the world, with the largest military spending as well.
So why would they be small and under-equipped?
@@andrew3203 Why would they be small and under-equipped? What an uneducated question. Possibly because they had a huge Empire to defend across the globe. You forget that in 1940 the British Army was in Singapore/Malaysia, Arabia, East Africa, North Africa, India, etc.
It's called the "British Expeditionary Force", not "The Entire British Military". Do you know what 'Expeditionary' means? Probably not so I'll get the definition for you:
"“the ability to deploy task-organised forces on short notice to austere locations, and capable of conducting operations immediately."
They couldn't just fast-travel troops from Malaysia along with tanks, aircraft and artillery in 30 days. Even if they could, then who would defend Malaysia? Think about it.
@@ethanwashington60 I do think about it.
The British could have had 1000 Matilda tanks if they melted down a WW1 dreadnought for the steel.
@@andrew3203lmao you really think you can 1000 tanks out of a single dreadnought? and where are the men to staff them coming from?
"Renauld asks President Roosevelt for help, but receives only empathy."
Excuse me, I believe the correct terminology is "Thoughts and Prayers."
We have to go back to 1919 and the Treaty of Versailles, when the French claimed that the only way to prevent Germany to invade them again was a permanent occupation of the Rhineland, which was denied to them by the Allies because too harsh. In order to convince the French to give up this clause, the USA promised France they would help if Germany invaded again. That's why Reynaud asked Roosevelt for help. The answer was no.
Southern Ireland is the largest exporter of thought and prayers. They've sent loads of thoughts and prayers to Ukraine, the Russians have no chance.
@@phlm9038 They even promised a defensive alliance, but that was never put into place because the US never ratified the treaty... So the main clause to protect France was lost.
US was not in the war at this time
@@phlm9038, there was a little more to it, as history always proves, some agreements made at the end of some wars are not always very clear, and the US at the time had a large number of German supporters, and some were in Congress at the time, so the Presidents hands were somewhat tied, the American people at the time still remembered the first world War and didn't think it was our fight, so getting involved was not popular in the US, which is why some believe is the reason why the US Government allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, so they could have a reason to enter the war.
Excellent video; well researched, credible statistics, varied sources and well composed graphics. Well done 👍
This is among the best documentaries of the battle of france on RUclips. Thank you for the great content
Superb video. Thank you.
Nice work, would it be possible to have a video on the 14 days of the Battle of the Alps one day to complete this one.
Ty for uploading
You guys make the best videos. Seriously, it is very much appreciated.
How does this guy seamlessly pronounce German and French words so perfectly in the same sentence? CHEEZ man.🔥🔥🔥
Because he's trilingual.
He´s German, so dial your "cheeez" down 50% . And dial it back up when you realize that his command of English is also amazing.
Hope you will do a video on the German invasion of Denmark and Norway one day
fun fact: This is the soft launch on a 1940 series on this channel. Much like with our 1943 videos, we will release them regularly in 2024 and 2025 and then combine them into a multi hour documentary later on. Our 1943 "supercut" will drop in April btw.
Great video! Love it! Added to my playlist!
Brilliant Video once again. Interesting new tank visualisation tool :)
thanks!!
Congratulations. A very high quality video.
Great documentary RTH
Kiitos!
Fascinating that iconic WW1 sites like Somme, Marne and Verdun got overrun and fell so quickly
Superb content❤
Great video, one of the best detailed description about battle of France which i have seen👍👍👍its such a shame that you cant post all your videos because youtube demotizes them, its absurd, its ridicilous!!! Thats history! I hope this will change one day, awesome job guy's.
Always learn something new!
Real Time History makes their videos easy to understand ,but also exciting. Thank you. Love studying World War II.
Awesome thanks 👍
Another fantastic episode.
On another note, no notification and doesn't show up in my subscription list.
Thanks
Great video, very interesting
Superb presentation! I'm surprised that I am here commenting as 'early' as I am.
Leopold King of the Belgians would make a great subject for a future vid.
Great job as always. I would really like to see you guys delve into the end of the Holy Roman Empire. There is so little out there about that important event.
This content is worth more than pure gold
To quote arnold rimmer, "the side with the shortest haircut always wins"
Fact: the french tricolour is designed so the ends can be folded in and create a white flag of surrender instantly.
X- Doubt
That's why they surrender mostly
Your channel is the best. Bravo.
So well done. Love your voice, perfect combination!
Thanks.
Kinda crazy how this was such a total defeat for France that it legit overshadows the millennium of battles before this lol.
This was all about strategic and tactical brilliance+momentum as the French actually had more tanks too. Looking forward to this one!
Yes the French had more tanks, but no radios in the Tanks to coordinate attacks.
@@georgefalcon14 And according to Eastory, a YTber whom make a mapping video about Western Front 1940, they distributed their tanks across their infantry, just like the Poles did a year ago when Germany invades them!!
@@quangminhnguyen2504To be fair, by this point in history the French were complacent, horrible communication at the front to the commanders, loose formations with the tanks used, and English & French generals who hated eachother, not much the grunt can do with all this against them.
Welllll.... there was 1870 too. And that with 16 mobile divisions less and still at great speed. From a logistical point of view, might even be the more impressive of the two.
@@FrancisFjordCupola
Certainly! The post-Napoleonic Era Prussians were a much improved machine after the reforms following 1806, although 1940 is arguably the most famous collapse of all time given the expectation that they would not only hold their own but invade Germany as what was considered the pre-eminent military power of the continent.
Best channel out there
Very nice job Jessie I love the vid
Excellent commentary
If Maginot Line had extended around the Belgian border, it might be a different story.
Definitely
Exactly. In october 1936, King Leopold III reaffirmed that Belgium would remain neutral if a new war embraced Europe. To achieve this end, the Belgian government is attempting to withdraw from various alliances and denounced the agreements made within the framework of the Franco-Belgian military agreement. It was a shock for the french goverment. This led to the hasty construction from 1937 to 1940 of a defense front along the Belgian border, but nothing in comparaison beetwen the Maginot Line which took 10 years of construction.
The allies shouldn't have commited into Belgium at all and keep defensive lines on the French border, I hate to say it but it's true
@@sylvananas7923 That is prob true, but what is very often overlooked is that there was a small amount of fortifications all along up to the channel coast that ran parallel, of French guns and emplacements, just not nearly as much as the Maginot line.
@@cpj93070 Oh yeah, people ofte, say that the maginot only bordered germany but it's false, it went from the italian border all the way up towards belgium, but the heaviest fortifications were facing Germany as they were expected to be the next threat to come
One of the best facts: Gamelin played war games and concluded an attack through the Ardennes will be too slow because the troops need rest. But the Germans took methamphetamine so they could skip sleeping for several days and achieved their crucial element of surprise. Conclusion: France got beaten by Meth.
A soldier who consumes meth needs much more rest than a normal soldier.
The special forces that attacked Fort Ében-Émael took meth so they could fight for 18 hours without rest. But after that, she needed a week to recover
Meth was used only by special forces, and rarely by drivers. The same is true for allies
You are a master story teller
Clear my calendar, new @realtimehistory dropped
Who won the 1940 Tour de France? The 7th Panzer Division.....😂
Wrong! Not in 1940. In 1940 there was the non-occupied zone where they didn't set a foot (or a tank).
Is there an AI voice reading the quotes in this one? Why not get Jesse to read them out like usual?
This
Outstanding mini doc! It would be amazing to see a full length multi-part doc on this subject in the vein of the Berlin special.
Incredible what role the difference in troop morale and confidence played.
Great video. For anyone who finds the fall of France fascinating, check out the episode "France Falls" of the (superb) "World at War" documentary; you can find it on RUclips. It provides context and firsthand interviews and accounts of the state of the French nation and army at the start of the war.
great documentary series. Just take Albert Speer's account with some grains of salt and generally German officers too.
I think it is fair to say the primary agent in German success was in effective command and control. This was likely helped by the allies absolute lack of command and control at that point in the war
The French C3 was indeed a shambles. The British C3 wasn’t so bad - they’d been working on it since September 39 - but they made the colossal mistake of advancing to defend Belgium with zero prior planning, thereby ripping up all the complex arrangements.
Exceptional command and control but also freedom of tactical initiative that made the German army extremely flexible assessing the local tactical situation.This tactical initiative will progressively vanish during the war making the German army slow, non reactive and in constant retreat.
@@tonyhawk94Correct, the secret is called Auftragstaktik.
Well done. Concise yet fairly comprehensive. You have taken pains to pronounce French and German names and locations correctly. - Thankyou for this presentation.
Great episode, i wish it was longer, like 4 hrs long or something along those lines lol
"Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success." -- Erwin Rommel
The German's only advantage in 1940 was air superiority. And that's more than enough to win.
Air power was important but the French HQ relying on dispatch riders was disastrous . After the Germans got through the Ardennes and across the Meuse the French and British were shocked by the speed on the German advance .They believed they had more time to organise a counter attack
To bookend Marc Bloch's STRANGE DEFEAT, I highly recommend Ernest May's STRANGE VICTORY (2000). May's thesis can be summed this way: the Allies, and especially the French, badly misjudged German intentions. And the misjudgment proved to be fatal. I think RTH's video captures some of that misjudgment in its analysis.
I see Real Time History upload a new video.
I then go to Nebula to watch the video there instead.
The voiceovers sound just like the briefings on 90s RTS games :D
Classic analysis. Nothing to complain about overall. However, you should have emphasized one point much more.
In Sedan, the French divisions corresponded to the last ones of the French Army, in terms of combat capacity (age of troops, reservists, equipment, etc.).
Facing them, the Germans have intelligently placed their elite units (the GrossDeutschland for example).
Add to that the incompetence of General Huntzinger, and the massive presence of the Luftwaffe, and it is a miracle that the Germans took so long to break through.
Exactly this. Huntzinger deserves huge blame. The defenses weren't completed at that area. And he sent his local reserves to protect his right flank, instead of the center at Sedan itself which was being attacked.
@@pax6833 Exactly. And out of sympathy, I will not quote his remark when one of his subordinates suggested that he send some aerial reconnaissance missions to the Ardennes...
When the French and British bark behind the fence and do nothing as Poland is partitioned. Even with their numerical superiority, the static nature of the allied military doctrine juxtaposed to the German military leadership was adaptable, competitive and cunning. This also severely crippled their ability to mount an effective counter offensive. Luckily the miracle of Dunkirk saved a massive chunk of the British army. Excellent breakdown and i always love this channels dedication to accurate and in depth history ❤
Surrendering the initiative is always a bad idea.
A siege mentality is ultimately self defeating.
The French did nothing when Poland was invaded because they couldn't.
The French started to be reasonably well re-equiped only in the spring of 1940.
Before that point, they were utterly unprepared, lacking just about everything necessary for a strong offensive and even more so sustained operations.
The re-equipment and reorganisation process in the French army was 1 to 2 years late, and when the Germans attacked on 10th May, the French army was right in the middle of that process, with units receiving new tanks and aircraft every week, with ongoing training etc.
The French HC had estimated that process would be complete by mid-1941.
Between April and June 1940, French war production managed to exceed that of the Germans in tanks and aircraft, but it was too late, they could not be delivered to units in time, units had no training time on their new machines and vast quantities of brand new machines just remained in army depots and were then snatched by the Germans after the campaign.
The Allied numerical superiority was meaningless as there was no unified command and they weren't working together.
@@Raph1805 👍
"When the French and British bark behind the fence and do nothing as Poland is partitioned"
The fence was 800km wide.
Excellent video. Thank you.
RS Canada
I swear it was like hearing a summary of Lighting War: Blitzkrieg in the West 1940.
Great book even wrote a paper on it...2 years after reading it.
The French went on strike.
Because the belgian king Leopold ordered his army to surrender without bothering to tell anyone else leaving a 100km hole in the allied lines.
Excellent video! Do you intend to make a video focused on Poland campaign?
I really enjoy the style of these vids, really enjoyed the one on the franco-prussian war. Any chance you guys will do a series on the American Civil War? Would love to see what you decide to focus on and share info wise.
This is genuinely sad to look at. Poland held out for 35 days despite being attacked from both sides after the 17th day and France held out for only 10 days more despite superior strategic position.
Germany engage twice as many troops and divisions as in Poland, France also has a second front in the Alps and colonies to hold. France chose not to fight needlessly in a large metropolis like Paris so as not to destroy it, unlike Warsaw which suffered greatly. The capture of a well-defended Paris would have taken weeks (look at Lille). A more than shaky comparison
What confuses me most about World War II is how the Germans were able to defend France in 1944/45 better than the French in 1940, even though they were in a worse position.
The Germans defended France better than the French
@@jaaackaissa1633 This is totally false, from the Battle of Falaise and during the summer of 1944 until October it was a walk in the park, almost the entire territory was liberated by the Allies with the exception of pockets of resistance on coastal towns. In 1940 the Germans stopped at the Loire and their logistics were at maximum capacity. The Allies are just stopped by their logistics, the German defense is toughening in Alsace and Lorraine, annexed territories which they judge to be part of their national territory
@@pujo6532
I do not agree with you. How much territory did the allies control in the first six weeks? How many divisions did they destroy in the first six weeks?
The period of time that the military campaign took after the landing of Normandy until the Allied forces entered German territory:
days: 250 days.
weeks: 35 weeks.
months: about 8 months.
The Germans had much greater logistical problems than the Allies, Allied bombing and French resistance attacks
Because of it, the trip of the SS Das Reich division to Normandy took 9 days instead of two days
@@jaaackaissa1633 bruh, the allied front comes from a bridgehead of a few kilometers in the middle of the Norman bocage facing excellent divisions of the SS and the Wehrmacht, the front is ultra tight with a density of troops which limits any breakthrough. Once this is achieved after Cobra and Falaise it is a walk in the park and a speed of progression as rapid or even faster than the Wehrmacht in 1940 without its major clashes like Arras, Stonne, Lille, Dunkirk. France must defend the entire eastern border and the Alps, facing it in 1940 almost the entire Wehrmacht and all the Panzer divisions which, after taking Sedan, pour out onto plains suitable for motorized and armored missions. Stop comparing the incomparable and respect the soldiers of 40 who paid the dear price to defend their country
great video as always, although i dont think i liked the voice-over during the quotations
I keep turning on the bell notifications for your channel and it keeps turning itself off
I don’t know why
Obwohl ich diesen Feldzug mir schon mehrmals angeschaut habe, ist es immer noch schockierend wie die Franzosen so deklassiert worden. Immerhin haben sie sich den Verlust ihres militärisches Ansehen gut verdient.
Ach ja? Wo ist die Ehre und das Ansehen des Deutschen Heeres.geblieben? Begraben unter ungezählten Kriegsverbrechen und der Unterwerfung unter den Wahnsinn Hitlers der Deutschland in die totale Niederlage und grösste Katastrophe unserer Geschichte führte.
As the famous Wehraboo Sir Alan Brooke said "The success they have achieved is nothing short of phenomenal. There is no doubt that they are most wonderful soldiers."
25:40 most fighting was by infantry; German flanks were exposed but these weaknesses were not exploited and perhaps lulls G in to complacency
That is absolutely true. In fact, if I recall correctly, there was actually a retreat for one of the generals that had no lines of communication. Communication and the lack there of what is a major factor.
Wait didn't the French win at Hannut?
Tactically, yes (Germans lost more tanks than the French and the 3rd and 4th Panzerdivisions were repelled).
Strategically, no (by luring the French armor cavalry corps in the Belgian plain the German could breakthrough in the Ardennes. Also the 2nd and 3rd French DLM never fully recovered from their losses at Hannut making it a pyrhic victory ).
My grandpa was in the 2nd DLM.
@@tonyz7216 interesting! My understanding was that it was a tactical French victory (for the reasons you say), an operational French victory (since it freed up the First Army to advance to Lille), & strategically indecisive (since it didn't stop the German advance overall but did enable the defense of Lille, which in turn enabled the Dunkirk evacuation). But I definitely see your point about drawing French armor away from the Ardennes. Is there reason to think that the French tanks would likely have stopped the Ardennes spearhead if they hadn't been drawn to Hannut?
The battle of France was a stunning humiliation for the French and British. That they could turn it into a movie of 'Romantic defeat' in Dunkirk is unbelievable.
Getting 300,000 men across the channel off the back of German blitzkrieg offensive whilst also slowing and delaying it is impressive
@@kansazkid in Churchill's words, wars are not won by retreat. A superior force in numbers, equipment and resources was spectacularly defeated by an smaller, less well equiped, but better lead, innovative and proactive force. That is the achievement!
@@kalomboCA retreat can prevent you from losing the war though. Dunkirk was an amazing success for what it was trying to achieve and in preventing the capture of the BEF allowed Britain to stay in the war which was key to the Allies eventual victory.
@@CB-fz3li "in preventing the capture of the BEF allowed Britain to stay in the war which was key to the Allies eventual victory"
Even that was not guaranteed. Britain was running out of resources and didn't know how long they could go on fighting :
"The date 22 August 1940 is one of the most significant yet least famous in British history. It is the day on which the war cabinet faced the fact that Britain would shortly cease to be an independent power in the world. Whatever the outcome of the battle being fought by the Spitfires and Hurricanes of RAF Fighter Command in the skies over Kent and Sussex, within three or four months either Britain would become a dependency of the United States or it would have to seek peace from a victorious Germany. The reality of Britain's position in the summer of 1940 was very different both from the contemporary rhetoric and the subsequent mythology. This complete collapse of British power was well hidden from the public behind an outward show of independence and determination....". "1940 Myth and Reality" by Clive Ponting.
In others words, if the United States had refused to financially help the UK, the latter would have been forced to seek for peace with Germany.
Yes wars are also won by retreat. Napoleon and Germany couldn't defeat russia due to retreat by Russia@@kalomboC
I was always fascinated by this part of the war. I just loved the French tanks, especially the S-35.
it would be great if you could make a clip or two about the congress of vienna 1815 and the two treaties of paris but it would be nice to touch on everything, especially the german question, the italian question, the saxony poland crisis, the river treaties, the colonial changes, the return of the old dynasties , the changes in Denmark and Sweden, the slave question not settled but beginning, the Netherlands, who are the Great Powers, how France comes in, the role of Sweden, Portugal and Spain, the small entry of Spain into the Great Powers and why it is removed from them, why the ottoman empire is not allowed, the secret agreements and the holy alliance
If only history had played out differently. I think this world would be much better than it is now.
This is a remarkably complete account of the FALL OF FRANCE, including correct and revealing information on who really balked the panzers short of Dunkirk. I became aware of the story after reading Ernest R. May's STRANGE VICTORY (strange in that the Germans prevailed over superior quantity and quality of French and British men and equipment). I also grew up in the 60s and 70s when memories of Dunkirk were fresh on everyone's mind. The epic British movie THE SNOW GOOSE for that era is on RUclips. It's interesting that the Germans lost 45,000 KIA in the campaign --- almost exactly the same number of KIA they lost in 1944 as they retreated across France back to their borders under American, British, and Canadian assaults, including massive bombing. They held the 2,000,000 French, Belgian, and Dutch prisoners until the Germans surrendered in 1945. Thus inflicting a horror of separation on Frenchmen from their families that lasted five years. The Germans needed to feel the horror of war on their soil by Allied bombing and Soviet occupation to remind them of how the terror they inflicted on the peoples they attacked feels when inflicted on them.
“Without Dunkirk, there would not have been June 6, 44” Charles of England.
“The heroic resistance of the French army saved the British army, allowing England to continue the war” Winston Churchill.
Nice
Marc Bloch was one of the founders of the Annales school of history. He was Jewish and had to keep a low profile after the German victory (it was during that time he wrote "Strange Defeat," his account of what happened in 1940. Later, despite being in his mid 50s, he joined the Resistance as a courier. Sadly, he was caught, tortured and executed.
To quote a German Professor, the Germans had an inferior military, inferior in numbers, inferior in quality. Most German tanks were tracked machine guns. Most effective weapon was the 88 mm artillery. What they had was superior strategy, dynamic leadership. The Manstein Plan had surprise, deception and speed. The Germans won the Battle of France in 3 days & 3 nights when the crossed River Meuse and reached Sedan.
That professor obviously knew nothing about the each armies strength to call the German army "inferior in numbers and quality".
@@RouGeZH Germany had fuel for a few weeks of war. Lucky their armor uses gasoline that could be filled at French gasoline stations. Ammo and bombs for a few weeks of hi intensity war.
This is grossly exagerated but i agree that the war was nearly lost in three days unless a miracle.Germany had a superior airforce,the best anti aircraft and the most efficient radio communications.They had a war experience which has been crucial to promote the best officers in charge and reform the incompetent ones.It had greatly helped them to improve their logistics,tactics and capacities of combined manoeuvers.An invasion on western front in 1939 would have failed without the experience gained notably in Poland.
France had superior artillery,more powerful tanks but in lower numbers(FT17 are totally obsolete and not meant at all to serve on front line).They had well trained active troops,pilots and decent reserve,usually better trained than their german counterparts.France had also many awesome prototypes and new weapons from all kind with a technical edge.
I would be more cautious to compare the generals.All the great generals from the french expeditionnary force come from the 1940 army.Replace Gamelin by Prételat and the german would have failed to cross la Meuse which mean loosing the war.
@@Doverlicht You are right... the humiliating defeat of WWI and the Germans think different. They got rid of the old geezers and got innovators. Manstein was their great strategist. Guderian developed threir mobile armored war concepts. The airfare had great developers. Navy had Donitz. However, they lacked in the concept of Grand Strategy that involves politics, economy and war as last resort.
Lots of terrific previously unknown info like Rundstedt's orders. Super kudos