I bet there was that one guy that said "what if they come through the woods?" and they all laughed at him and said he was stupid... And then they died.
That’s kind of what happened. The troops that were stationed there knew that the Germans would break through the woods and sent a message to the higher-ups, they laughed and said that it was impossible. Shortly after the Germans broke through.
Actually the British pointed out that the French had deployed their forces too far forward and were vulnerable if the Germans punched through the line. General Gamelin who was in charge of the allied forces disagreed. The betrayal to the Germans of the fact that the allies had captured the German plan of battle (by the former king of England who had abdicated and was serving as a staff officer in France) prompted Hitler to change from the current plan to the Von Manstein plan and an armored thrust through Belgium, this worked, and as the British rapidly withdrew without engaging the Germans much the former king went AWOL and with his wife went to Spain where they lived in comfort along their National Socialist friends, until shipped off to the Bahamas by the British Royals in order to keep them as far away from the war as possible. There are many reasons in terms of equipment an tactics as to why the Germans were so effective but the strategic factors are listed above. One thing that should not be forgotten is that the French Socialist government had purged the French officer Corps of officers who were not loyal to socialist political aims, this is a major factor in the failure of the French army also. Interestingly Biden has started the same process in the U.S.
@@peterjones4180 I find your whole account very interesting but even more to the point I find it interesting how you managed to swiftly turn the whole thing into something about US politics of which I could not care less. Thank you for the account though
@@chrisrosenkreuz23 Well when ANY country purges its officer corps to establish a political focus it always weakens their capability in the field. As the U.S is our strongest ally , and as we are facing the threat of an expansionist China the politicization of the U.S armed forces is important to us as it weakens our defense.
Important reasons not mentioned in this video: 1) *Lack of reserves* Once the Germans had cut off the bulk of the French and British armies in Belgium and broken through the center, there was nothing in their way as they raced toward Paris. There were no available French reserves, nothing the French could use to halt the German advance. This is perhaps the most important factor, bigger than any of the issues related to morale and psychology discussed below. The physical facts simply were that there was no way for the French to keep fighting for the bulk of French territory. 2) *French society was deeply divided.* Like many European countries in the wake of WW1 and the Great Depression, the moderate or centrist forces in French culture and politics were increasingly weakened in the face of growing strength in both the far right and far left. The far left looked to the Soviet Union and the most extreme phases of the French Revolution for inspiration while the far right looked toward Germany and Italy, or to France's previous illiberal monarchical regimes, especially absolute monarchies. It's crucial to remember that at this point, no only the far right but ALSO the far left was soft on Nazi Germany and unenthusiastic about war with Germany, because of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939 and the German-Soviet joint invasion of Poland. Thus, the French government and constitutional system did not command the widespread, deep and passionate loyalty necessary for the public, military and politicians to fight on despite setbacks, and significant elements of French society looked down so much on their own system that they were at least seriously tempted by the prospect of foreign takeover if it resulted in radical change. 3) *Extreme fear of aerial bombing.* Between the world wars, a consensus increasingly arose that any future war would involve massive aerial bombing of cities with effects basically the same as what, later, would be anticipated as the results of all-out nuclear war. In comparison to the actual, much more modest capabilities of air forces and bombers in the 1930s and in the early years of WW2, this fear was wildly overblown. But the fear was so great that it played a big role not only in pre war pacifism and appeasement (Hitler threatened mass bombing to help get his way in Austria and Czechoslovakia), but also in demoralizing the French, especially when news of German terror bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam got out. Although those bombings were minor compared to the mid- and late-war allied massive bombing campaigns, they were shocking in their day and fed into French fears that their beautiful cities would be made into ruins. 4) *Psychological shock.* World War 1 in the West had, for the most part, been a war of methodical slowness and rigid precision. France had won the war that way but their decision-making process was much too slow to cope with the much faster pace of WW2. Not only did this result in repeated battlefield defeats, it resulted in constant huge shocks as each new development of German breakthroughs, rapid movements, and large-scale battlefield encirclements and surrenders, which were such a huge contrast to WW1, rattled and demoralized the French. 5) *Legitimacy fears* France had a long history of overthrown governments fleeing the nation's territory into exile. Kings, republics, emperors, all followed one another into flight and thereby not only lost practical power but also perceived legitimacy. This was why, although the French government considered fleeing into exile into France's colonies in North Africa and carrying on the fight somehow from there, it decided to stay on French soil. Because if it had fled, it feared that some other government would be installed and it would become irrelevant and unable to make a difference. And indeed, the French Parliament remained in existence after the Armistice, and arguably on paper acted legally when it handed all its powers to the WW1 hero Marshal Petain. The French government remained legally continuous and was recognized as legitimate by not only the neutral USA, Switzerland etc but even, for a significant time, by their former British allies. Charles de Gaulle's "Free French" in Britain were seen at first as just a ragtag bunch of refugees with no domestic support or power base or legitimacy, just as the French politicians had feared becoming had they followed him into exile. 6) *Underestimating what giving up really meant* At the end of WW1, the Armistice that ended the war had many negative consequences for Germany such as losing colonies and some disputed border areas, owing heavy reparations, putting up with strict limits on its military, etc., But it did not result in Germany losing its independence, having its capital and the bulk of its territory occupied by foreign armies, a subservient government having to operate in a minor city far from the actual capital, etc., let alone the end of free elections, free speech, etc (quite the contrary, elections and freedoms were made freer than ever). Similarly, when France had lost to the Germans back in 1871, they lost a couple of culturally mixed border provinces, had to recognize German unification and the new German emperor, and pay an "indemnity", but were otherwise left alone. And while Nazi Germany was controversial and feared before the war, it was not universally seen at the time the way we see it now, as the uniquely extreme notorious evil that it is today, especially because the Holocaust as we know it had not yet begun. So while it can be hard to put ourselves in the perspective of people in 1940, we have to remember that, for many of the French of that time, asking for an armistice to end the fighting was, while painfully humiliating, not the end of the country, not the end of the world, not the shameful enabling of a monster's effort at world conquest and endless nightmare that made the devastation and death of fighting to the last man preferable.
Thanks for the info I've visited many parts of France and enjoy the culture and studied European history but a couple of your point I hadn't considered before. I had family at Dunkirk, North Africa and Yugoslavia so have researched those areas. Would love a second home in France some day
I'm french, and i just wanted to say if you guys want to know how deeply affected France was after WW1, just walk into every little village, and you will see. Every village has its own deaths monument. And it's kinda impressive how WW1 deleted a whole generation of men. In my opinion, that's the main explanation of what happened at the beginning of WW2.
You may forgive them for being ig orant of the facts. The Fench soldiers fought bravely, but their generals where fighting the wrong war. Simply put, they where outmanouvered because of their generalsn incompetence. If it was not for the brave Fench fighting man the BEF would not have been evacuated. To the French soldier. Thank you
I don't think this explanation is useful, especially since the Germans suffered no less losses than the French. And those war memorials even in the tiniest village are a very French thing and do not exactly correspond with military losses. Furthermore, the French army wasn't inferior to the Germany army, especially with respect to tanks like the French Somua S-35. It was the superior German conduct of war against very static French warfare that made the difference.
Same in the UK, and I'm sure in all small villages from those who participated throughout the world. Always lay a wreath, and ensure my 2 girls 👭 at least understand the sacrifice those young men made 🙏
@@higamato3811 may be, i don't know if that explains everything. But Germans remained with a feeling of revenge after Ww1 (i'm not judging). They never suffered any looses or destruction on their territories. I feel like they lost the war with a strong feeling of injustice. So they developped that fighting spirit of revenge. France ended the war being completely traumatized.
ya i completely agree, the british were reluctant to fight as well after the devastation of ww1, just they had the advantage of being an island and having a strong navy
Um, actually.. When France was building the Maginot line Belgium was cooperating, and the plan was for Belgium to continue the forts on the German border to the North sea. Shortly before the shooting started Belgium stopped cooperating with France and Britain, not allowing them to pre position troops on the German border. None of which was mentioned in the video.
My dad was in the Grenadier Guards. When they marched to face the Germans the Belgians hung Union Jacks from their Windows, until the BEF withdrew to avoid encirclement. As soon as they left the Belgians took in the Union Jacks and put out Swastikas. The British troops didn't think much of the Belgians after that. It has to be said that Flanders had been an invasion route for many armies over many centuries.
I do not think you can truly blame us for that. We are a small country. We do not have the means to hold off bigger countries. With france waivering and their strategy effectively being keep the war in belgium it is only natural belgium tries to find a way out of the mess.
@@koopalibrary The issue is that there was no way out. France couldn't pierce throught its frontier with germany because of the siegfrid line (equivalent of the maginot line). Hence France couldn't invade Germany in any close future. Anyway, France and UK were playing time, they needed it to convert their superior industries to war. At the very least, plans of Germany invasions planned for late 41. Germany on the other hand HAD to conclude the war as fast as possible, as the allies would get stronger and stronger while germany blockaded by the franco-british navies would have supplies issues. But Germany couldn't neither invade France throught the german-french border because of the maginot line, but as germany was a dictature, it had no issue to invade neutral lands to go to france, which left 3 options: 1/ Going throught the alps through Italy, but at that point Italy wasn't part of the war. Anyway, an invasion passing through a mountain would have been a nightmare. 2/ Invading Switzerland, same problem, invasion through moutains, it isn't even sure germany could have invaded switzerland. 3/ The only real option, invading through belgium, a perfect road to france with its flat lands. Really, Belgium shot itself in the head by trying to play neutral.
Let us never forget what the French had to sacrifice to support the British and its empire to escape the impossible of Dunkirk. As a Brit myself I want to personally thank you for what you did to support the most darkest of dire of days. We’ve had our moments but you were there when it truly counted! 👊🏼
Further evidence of what I've always said... soldiers don't lose wars, generals and politicians do. As a career military man from a NATO country, I've worked many times with soldiers from all over the alliance and I can tell you this... I've never really had any concerns about the individual French soldier. Their political leaders however, are another matter entirely.
If you have low morale or/and no ideological basis yeah no,soldiers can still lose war. Especially world war, and especially a second one. Also knowing theres not much on the line which it tied to morale and ideology can do that. One of the (if not the main) reasons why eastern countries and USSR fought way harder than western ones.
@@vermilion6966 If there's low morale, whose fault is that? And if there's nothing on the line or no basis for the fighting, why are they there? Who ordered them into battle? I've yet to meet the private, sergeant or lieutenant who ordered an army into battle or the invasion of another country. Responsibility rests at the top my friend, not the bottom but I have met plenty of people who believe differently.
@@hughjass1044 and if there's nothing on the line or no basis for the fighting, why are they there? - I mean you can ask any nato soldier in iraq or afghanistan why, most wont answer anything coherent, yet theryre still fighting. youre saying it like its uncommon. And morale can be low for reasons other than you sergant being an idiot. Or your president. Or whoever.
In comparison, the chinese- ravaged by 30 years of civil war, wracked by opium forced on them by the British, divided politically between communists and nationalists and warlords fought on from 1933 all the way toll 1945 - never surrendering despite 30 million dead and the massacre of their populations by the Japanese. They fought on with makeshift weapons and mere cheap rifles against tanks, artillery and aircraft/bombers - tying up over 1 million japanese troops on the Chinese front and inflicting the majority of casualties (albeit at huge costs) on the mainland. The French, when they heard that they had to receive British war rations as food immediately decided to suffer the ignominy of surrender
@@slslbbn4096 Not really there are many other reasons they surrendered your just nitpicking 1 The risk of paris getting bombed or the Eiffel tower getting destroyed 2 They pretty much couldn’t fight the entire army was in shambles or it would’ve taken weeks or even months to reorganize the army. 3 Couldn’t fund the war effort 4 No military support from Britain
@@spiritorange8325 the Chinese fought in Shanghai till it was razed. They then burnt Changsha rather than let it fall in the hands of the Japanese. Despite Chongqing (the 3rd capital) being amongst the most bombed cities in WW2, the Chinese fought on till the end. As to lacking treasury, this is China which was much much poorer than France was then They had worse logistics, shifting weapons from across the Burma highway across the Himalayas to China. What they never lacked was a will to fight. The French capitulated in a sign of weakness. Their inability to bear losses or stomach the necessary loss of millions of lives relegated France to a minor power ever since.
I watched as far as when he said that the Maginot Line went as far as Belgium and the intention was for the best French units to stop the Germans there. This isn't correct the Line stopped at the Belgium boarder because the French Government didn't want Belgium to be on the wrong side of the Line of defence and thought that if it was this would be like saying to Germany you can have Belgium. They encouraged the Belgium's to make there own defensive line that would attach to the French line. The Belgium's where actually doing this but had left it to late to complete.
This is not correct either. The Maginot Line ceased to a priority for the French government in 1935, one year before Belgium declared its neutrality. The diplomatic argument has been invoked countless times, but there is a technical reason for the Maginot Line to "stop" at the Belgian border: the area there is mainly flatland and heavily urbanised, which makes fixed fortifications virtually useless. By 1936, the French government had, at last, yet too late, started to focus on modernising the army's equipment,and the Maginot Line was no longer a primary objective.
@@Mustang1984 as far as I know. Belgium government don't want french to extent the line. because they promise once it done they continue it on their border but it didn't happen because the war is already started
Thinking a line of fortifications might have stopped the inevitable in 1940 in the West? What saddens me is that some people genuinely think so, even today. Consarn it, that was already partially outdated during the 1st WW! What on God's Green Earth made them think this would have been better more than 20 years later, with all the improvements in signals, air power and armoured power?? Not to forget the parachute troops, whose use had been pionnieered at least since 1930 by the Soviet Union??
One half of My family came from France to America after the Versailles treaty and America quitting the League of Nations . The writing was on the wall, Germany was going back to war and the allies expected France to hold the line like it did in WWI. And France simply wasn’t capable of doing that again.
Had the British lived up to their end of the deal and sent an actual army to France after it pushed the French into the War, things would've been different. The French were appalled by the small force the British sent to France by May 1940. We're talking 350 thousand troops at the most. Compared to the much larger force Britain had put into Europe in WW1. It's kind of pathetic that the British wanted that War but expected the rest of the War to fight it for them.
@@shanejones6955 "It's kind of pathetic that the British wanted that War but expected the rest of the War to fight it for them." An interesting comment and a British tactic you see at other points in history too. Britain essentially rose to great power status through its position (island) and sea control. Look at the 7 Years War for instance.....the bulk of the heavy fighting in Europe (the main theatre) was done by Prussians, Austrians, Russians, French etc. Britain while certainly present was able to pick and choose its battles and focused on taking exposed French colonies (Canada, Pondicherry, West Africa). Similar during the Napoleonic Wars - mass financing of Austrians etc to keep the French busy, then selective landings by the Royal Navy (Spain/ Portugal 1808/09)
@@michealohaodha9351 _"and focused on taking exposed French colonies (Canada (...)"_ and somehow France was winning at the beginning in north America, despite being totally outnumbered (e.g. battle of the Monongahela (1755), battle of Carillon (1758), batle of Sainte-Foy (1760), etc...).
@@krips22 Sure, they were never going to just roll over and did have some advantages, natives allies (key at the Monogahela) and initial British incompetence (Carillon/ Fort William Henry). But Québec was dependent on France for resupply and reinforcement. Cut off by the Royal Navy and outnumbered (80k French colonists vs 1 million British in the 13 colonies) Canada was untenable.
There is something that everyone seems to forget : WW1. WW1 was still a fresh traumatism, France and UK wanted to avoid at any price to fight another WW. Losing hundreds of thousand men just to gain several miles or just to defend a city like they did during WW1 was surely a bad memory and it led to strong pacifist mindset in these two countries. In France we sometimes refer to WW1 as "la der des der" (the last of last). While Germany being on the losing side felt humiliated and wanted a revenge especially their leader : Adolph Hitler. The mindset is important in wars !
they lost the moment they couldn't muster the heart to defend their capital city. they wanted to preserve the beauty of Paris. but what's the point of national symbols if they are not used to rally the nation. The soviets did the exact opposite. they defended Stalingrad inch by inch. as a result, they emerged out of WWII as a superpower, unlike France.
1:13 The Maginot line was never intended to stop an ennemy, the french knew it was not possible, it was intended to slow down the ennemy's advance to give time for France to fully mobilize.
@@kayzeaza The Breakthrough was through the Ardennes... more French troops in Belgium, would have just more French cut off once the cut through Sedan was made. I think you overestimate the difference more French in the diversion front would have made... the German push into central Belgium was always a feint to the real push.
@@wolfshanze5980 the ardennes is also partially in Belgium, they needed to breach the albert line to reach it. Belgium allowing French troops in before hand would have certainly helped greatly.
Exactly and it already starts with a false statement France never surrendered the French government, on the contrary of the French army, signed an armistice witch meant they still had an Army and territorial integrity and that's how Free France still fought till the end of ww2 and won the war being the main contributor in the North African campaign saving the british army twice at Dunkirk and Bir Hakeim and fought with soviets in the eastern front being the only ally Nation to actually help and sent soldiers to fight with USSR, and it was all the way after 1940 just like the obvious inner fights of resistance in France.
The video isnt bad, but it does have some flaws. For example the video say the allied units evacuated from dunkirk, and then the germans attacked through the ardennes. This is not the case, it was AFTER the germans had attacked through the ardennes and encircled the allies at Dunkirk, that the allies evacuated from the port city. The French had originally hoped to set up a defensive line at the Meuse river, giving Belgium maximum assistance. However, because of the rapid german advance, the French decided to set up a defensive line further west at another river. It was while this was hapening that the Germans advanced through the Ardennes, eventually encircling the allies at Dunkirk where they had to be evacuated.
🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷☦⚓👋👑👋 I think french value life and good food than glory That's good for them Support life instead pointless glory 🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷👑👋👋👋👋
Because their army had been surrounded in Belgium/northern France, was out of supply and the British had retreated back to Britain. They had no army left and the Italians had just invaded from the south as well and they weren't 100% sure Franco-ist Spain wouldn't jump in too, you'd be a fool not to surrender considering those odds unless you just like your civilian population being slaughtered,
@@lepepe well fortunately his 'Italian' Front was much further away, seperated by thousands of kilometres of ice without infrastructure from his heartland. And yeah I'm not saying he liked his civilian population being slaughtered but lets just say his own actions demonstrate that he wasn't as averse to it as others were.
Yeah,I mean we all saw what happened to Germany when it faced a tree front war.They also got to keep their empire,though not as important as the Marshall plan,it was also important in the post war rebuild
Bullshit. If they had half the heart of the Poles, they could of held out much longer. Moreover, the French "Resistance" was pathetic compared to Poland's.
@@ThugShakers4Christ I mean we're having a civil discussion,let's try not to trash the history of a proud people and it's struggles.It is unfair to place a nation over another since we didn't get to live trough those conditions and mindsets.We to judge now that we know the outcome but the sequence of facts and traumas back them led to unfortunate misconseptions most if none at all could have predicted
Once the Germans had broken the line of the Somme in early June, there was practically no chance of the French being able to stop them anyway. Continued fighting would have led to further casualties for no actual gain. p.s. The withdrawal from Dunkirk was after (and in consequence of) the German breakthrough in the Ardennes and the advance to the coast. The Belgians had already surrendered by that stage.
Well they did expect that they would pass through the Ardennes but they underestimated how fast the tanks would be able to travel through the Ardennes. They thought they would have enough time to reinforce the place once their scouts spotted the Germans passing through, which they did, but they were too late by the time they got there.
In fact, it's not totally true... You have to know that the german plan was very very risky like a gamble and the French generals had put the 2nd and the 9th french army in front of the ardennes, it was truly unsufficient and they were poor troops. BUT to avoid a possible attack from there, they had put in reserve behind these poor armies, the 7th armoured army, one of the 3 best french armies equipped with hundreds of heavy and medium tanks to pin any mechanised offensive by the ardennes, then the superior french artillery (in 1940 french army has 3 times more heavy and medium artillery with excellent 155 mm and 105 mm), this artillery would have then crushed the mechanised units in ardennes unable to move easily. Why German offensive succeeded then ? The offensive of the Germans in Netherlands wasn't predicted, and the Dutch Queen which was of the Family of the English King asked him to influence French to send some troops in Netherlands to save as much of territory that they can. French best armies and BEF were involved in Belgium, with the plan Dyle in action, all the units had already a misison and were engaged in fight. French Generals which truly thought Germans generals would not be as fools to risk their best mechanised troops in the ardennes gave orders to the 7th army to leave her position behind the 2nd and 9th army. The Dyle plan became the Dyle-Breda plan... The breda variant was the 7th army running to Breda, a city of the extreme south west of Netherlands. This french elite army ran so fast that they arrived in time, they easily pushed back the advanced reconoissance german troops... But the junction with Dutch troops never truly happened. Allies (I say allies and not french only) were wrong when they thought that the unprepared and weak dutch army would resist enough time to join the 7th army. When the 7th army arrived there, they crossed a totally disbanded army, with very low morale, the Dutch were broken (as French and British will be in end of may june) ... It's pity that we sent the 7th army there for no true reason. The french Generals wouldn't have followed the orders of the civilian french and british gov, the germans would have been pinned and destroyed in the ardennes. After the breakthrough of Sedan, the german armies didn't have a nice and quiet promenade, it was a fierce fight, but desperate one as french generals were not very reactive : French so called cowards managed to destroy 40% of the luftwaffe strength and half of her mechanised troops. French lost also more KIA soldiers in 6 weeks of 1940 fight than in 3 months of Verdun 1916 (the bloodiest battle of WWI), proving they fought honourably. The blitzkrieg of 1940 is a MYTH, German made many many mistakes, but the Allies were unreactive and were so stunned, also British and Belgians played their own partition without informing their allies. French have surely a big responsibility in the failur of 1940, but not 100%... British generals had worked on the "ALLIES" plan. Belgium only began to work with French and British after the invasion of the 10th may because of their neutrality... The British left their position in Belgium to run away to the coast without warning french and exposing french flanks to german attacks etc... British refused the french last chance to cut the german pz div too much advanced in france without any link with their infantry and with their communication and ammunitions lines too much streched... French generals wanted to attack straight south and straight North with all the last reserves. British had already decided to abandon France (and we can't blame them truly, but the single chance to reestablish the position was the french counter attack, German would have lost 7 or 8 pz div in a round : a tank without fuel nor ammunitions is like an iron grave). My job is not to blame British... but to tell the truth, French aren't the ALONE guilty in a COLLECTIVE failure. And yes, Germans were VERY VERY LUCKY. The true Blitzkrieg was done in 1941 : against balkans then against red army... It worked perfectly at the beginning, but Russians had a vast space to defend, giving them a strategical profoundness and also Russians were numerically outnumbering the germans, France hadn't that strategical space nor the superiority in mne (40M of french against 70-75M of Germans... BEF was a professional but little army. in 1914-1918, British sent 4 times more troops in France).
@@madensmith7014 Stop spreading bullshit. For the high french command the Ardenne was impossible to go through. they put a regiment there but that's it.
My understanding based on another channel (week by week) and things I think: 1) Biggest issue was, that "the plan" just did not work. France was sure they will be able to stop the attack before it moves to France. Slow it down, destroy enemies on bunkers, with artilery on the borders, with strongpoits to work with. Germany found way around it. 2) With best, experienced, proffesional units destroyed/cut off in Belgium/Dunkirk, France lost core of its army. 3) While Germany had clear idea how to run the offensive (just go forward and destroy anything in front of you), French plan failed "day one" - their idea of having Maginot line protecting them to concentrate and not allow offensive crumbled immediately. Without it fighting in open field, with front too wide and unstable to be defended, it was just question of time to crumble. French army was outnumbered, without proper plan, without defenses, without organisation after first offensive (ended with Dunkirk) and most importantly, with no time. Few decades before, they would dig in and it would work out. 2nd world war, it doesnt - tanks, planes, it was just moving too quicky. Yes, there were few inspiring military geniouses in history (like Caesar, Napoleon or people of similar calibre), who might have figured out the way to win, but there was so little time, so much pressure only few people in history managed to figure out the way out.
I'd say the will to fight on wasn't there either as to this day in the north of France there are still areas unaccesible due to ww1 and back then ww1 was still fresh
@@AwoudeX la France n'avait pas la volonté de se battre ? A bon . vous pensez que les allemands sont arrivés en France " la fleur au fusil " ? les incapables étaient des états- majors britanniques , Français ainsi que les politiques ! mais certainement pas des soldats français . l'Allemagne a commencé a se réarmer a partir de 1933 avec l'arrivée d'Hitler au pouvoir . les allemands ont eu 7 ans pour s'entraîner ; l'Angleterre et la France ont commencé a prendre au sérieux une éventuelle guerre vers 1938 . lors de l'invasion de la Pologne l'Angleterre déclare la guerre a l'allemagne suivie de la France . en France la mobilisation générale commence en 1939 . L'Angleterre qui pourtant a déclarée la guerre envoient un corps expéditionnaire de 450 000 hommes environs . en mai et juin 1940 l'Allemagne passe à l'attaque par les Ardennes endroit hautement improbable par les états majors anglais et français . en un mois 175 000 soldats français sont tués , 220 000 blessés , coté Allemands 168 000 soldats allemands sont tués et 195 000 blessés , côté anglais 4 600 morts 25 000 blessés . le 27 mai 1940 au 4 juin l'opération dynamo permet d'évacuer 338 000 britanniques et canadiens les français appel cela débandade anglaise encore une traîtrise anglaise car : ni Churchill , ni Ramsay , ni Gort , ne préviennent l'état major militaire français ni sont gouvernement .outre les 338 000 évacuer les britannique abandonnent 2500 pièces d'artilleries , 65 000 véhicules blindés , 450 000 tonnes de munitions et approvisionnement divers , 150 000 tonnes de carburants . ce que les anglais appels le miracle de dunkerque est un véritable désastre la grande bretagne n'a plus d'armée digne de ce non . le général allemands , commandant avec Rommel l'armée allemande dit : malgré notre écrasante supériorité numérique et matériel les troupes françaises contre attaquent a plusieurs endroit . je n'arrive pas a comprendre comme d'aussi valeureux soldats , luttants a divers endroit a 1 contre 10 'et parfois même trentes 20 parvennentent encore a trouver encore suffisamment de force pour passer a l'assaut : c'est tout simplement stupéfiants ! je crains que dunkerque soit un échec pour nous : la quasi totalité du corp expéditionnaire britannique vont nous échapper ; car quelques milliers de braves nous barres l'accès a la mer . dunkerque m'apporte encore la preuve que le soldats français est le meilleurs du monde . je rappelle que l'armée française eu les honneurs militaires par les généraux et l'armée allemande . ce qui n'est pas le cas des britannique en France ne ditons pas : partir à l'anglaise . Dunkerque une victoire britannique ? je ne crois pas il n'y a pas a Londre : Dunkerque Square , Dunkerque Street ! tout comme : Isandlwna ! les Anglo-saxons ont le chic de transformer des défaites et désastres en victoires
@@ybreton6593 Not gonna try and translate everything, my understanding of French is too limited and i can't be bothered on an English main platform. My guess from the first parts is that i triggered you and probably because you misunderstood. What i meant with 'the will to fight' was that France was still weary of ww1, planned to hold out defensively for the most part. Just to clarify, i did not meant any disrespect to the French soldiers. I think they did the best with what they had at the given situation. I also think that it made sense to not continue the fight because that would only serve to delay the nazi's for a few moments at the cost of how many lives and how much destruction. They bombed the hell out of Rotterdam because we the Dutch gave them too much of a fight. I can imagine not wanting that to happen to Paris or other cities.
8:25 During ww1 the harchest combat took place on the Western Front yet 90% of the Western Front was in France. Germany on the other hand or the UK saw no combat on their own soil.
The British Commonwealth & Empire suffered over 2.7 million casualties (killed, wounded, & captured) on the Western Front. Is where these men fought really more relevant to you than that fact?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 France on the other hand suffered 5.9 millions casualties (without colonies and killed and wounded only) and the french territory was left irremediably damaged to the point that there is a huge area today known as "zone rouge", spreading from Lille to Nancy, which is still considered as impossible to clean and impossible for human life. Due to the significant human and structural damage caused by the First World War, France still had not fully recovered when the Second World War broke out. Yet when Germany invaded France in 1940 for the second time in less than 30 years, about 100,000 french soldiers and 21,000 french civilians were killed in less than a month and half and the french territory was ravaged once again. To put that in perspective, the british army for example lost a total of about 300,000 men, but for the integrality of the second world war which lasted six years.
Diferent kinds of war. In 1940 Feance wasnt fighting a genocide war and thought It would be just a occupation and then peace (Just like many Wars in the 19th century). In 1941 the soviets were fighting a existential war, there would be no occupation, but destruction of the State and genocide for the populations. Also, remember when you are talking about war to fall on the trap of hindsight and illusion of inevitability.
In a way,they were surrounded.Their only ally was a channel away,fighting to the end would turn the country into a wasteland,kill it's economic future and making it a secondary power in the post cold war "colonialism"
@Nuclear Alex true. Also Stalin forced them to and had ruthless tactics to prevent soviets from defecting in the beginning when they thought germans were liberators from communist oppression. The soviet propaganda machine also kept morale high after it became clear that the germans weren't liberators at all.
Dunkirk is one of the most misunderstood factors of ww2 the germans could have captured or decimated the retreating troops there but high command were negotiating with the British for a cease fire one of hitlers main mistakes was not understanding why they wanted to continue fighting
This isn't true at all. The German army halted but this wasn't because they were altruistic, it was because their supply lines were seriously overstretched and they could have been vulnerable to allied counterattacks and they wanted to regroup and consolidate their forces before finishing the Allies. Hitler wasn't making the British any favors (if he was there wouldn't have been Luftwaffe airstrikes on British positions or U-boots sinking vessels in the English channel).
@@sErgEantaEgis12 when hitler ordered the armies to halt his generals who were the best in the world were flabbergasted because they had the British where they wanted them but hitler still wanted to believe he could get British cooperation against the communists. People forget he didn't want war with Britain or France they declared war on Germany. They could have continued beating on the French as they were done for but didn't. He also knew that the German navy was never going to be powerful enough to invade England and that the Russians were just biding there time for an invasion of Germany. Even before understanding how useless the Italian military was they knew they didn't have the manpower or fuel to fight a two front war.
@@merleshand2442 Hitler totally wanted war with the French and even used it as an argument during the whole 30s, beating the Germans with anti-French propaganda. The ambassador of France in Berlin described less than 5 years before the conflict how it was dangerous to be a French in Berlin. Mein Kampf also describes the French as "hereditary ennemies" and the British as "Germanic brothers" but also as the biggest threat to the unification of Europe. Hitler was clearly taking notes on the case of Napoléon. Besides, the Germans stopping their advance willingly at Dunkirk is a total myth. The Germans were fighting hard to get through but couldn't. The French army and also British elements put up a heroic resistance. Some accounts by German officers describe how they considered Dunkirk as a strategical failure, because the aim was to capture the British Expeditionnary Force and have the advantage in peace talks.
@Phrnch Mdl Yeah French tanks were probably better...without radio ? And French airplanes were probably better...although few of them were modern enough to fight seriously in 1940 ? Dude do u even history ?
@Phrnch Mdl Tanks are useless if not used properly, as French and Soviets losses proved it in 1940 and 1941, respectively. Are you 12yo ? Tanks do not operate alone.
As an aside, the Americans were similarly convinced in December of 1944 that the Ardennes were impassable and suffered a rude awakening during the Battle of the Bulge. It was the costliest battle for the US during the war and almost turned into a total debacle. So much for learning lessons.
🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷☦⚓👋👑👋 I think french value life and good food than glory That's good for them Support life instead pointless glory 🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷👑👋👋👋👋
@@eliascommentonly4652 well first your sentence makes no sens. and second, we value our freedom more. and we value also cooperation a lot. that's why we protected the fleeing british. and that isn't called pointless glory. your mindset is the same as the one that most collaborators had during the occupation.
The attack on Holland and Belgium was diversion meant to lure the British and French troops into Belgium. The bulk of the German Army was concentrated in the Ardennes and attacked when the deception worked. The Germans then attacked Sedan which was very weakly defended and pushed on to the French Coast trapping the allied armies in Belgium. Hitler then made a strategic blunder by stopping his Panzers from attacking Dunkirk. Instead he opted to let the Luftwaffe finish the allied armies. This allowed the rescue at Dunkirk to happen. The rest is history!
The attack had almost run out of steam, and Guderian came very close to being surrounded. It is very possible that they were simply unable to finish us at Dunkirk
I am french and learned this history at school but your question is a good one. I never found a convincing answer. The question is often avoided. you should know that one part of the government was ready to continue. it was therefore probably possible.
France played the long game. They knew Germany would in the end be defeated. To continue the fight would have left Paris looking like Stalingrad. Better to pull back and prepare for later. There wasn’t a good reason to continue a fight they weren’t(yet) equipped to win.
@Phrnch Mdl Wow, that is a very interesting thought. It's quite an enormous gamble. I wonder if they actually thought that way at the time though. It would require both incredible foresight and good luck. There were so many possibilities which would result in France not getting their freedom. Is the idea that they intentionally chose to be captured to defeat Germany possibly just an attempt to save face from the disgrace of defeat and then virtual collaboration by the Vichy government? As an aside, why is it always called the Vichy government and not the French government? They represent the entirety of France. Calling it anything else is most likely a psychological method of denying France's accountability. In addition why did France never divorce herself from her colonies so that they could assist liberate France at a later date? That lack of action has always puzzled me. Even when invaded and facing certain defeat France would not assist Britain and instead blamed Britain for France's defeat. It's as if despite WW1 a Napoleonic anti-British mindset still remained. I suppose that not taking any blame is a proven political tactic, but 70 years after the fact you would think that they would have some insight. I actually believe that France was psychologically defeated before the German invasion and I suspect that the Germans knew this. Stalin was assisting Germany by the use of 5th columnists communists in France well before the invasion through sabotage of French equipment. The French appear to have an incredible capacity to self deceive about their history which was probably fostered by the US post war inclusion of France as one of the victors of WW2 rather than their exclusion (due to the looming Soviet treat and the desire of the US to break up the rival British Empire). I would however love to be proven wrong in my views. Do you have any information that would substantiate the idea that the surrender of France was a tactic to hasten a war between Germany and Russia? It's an interesting subject. All the best.
@Phrnch Mdl Yes, I am aware that Germany had huge problems with oil supply, with the only significant fields being in Romania. Oil had a huge part to play in the invasion of the Soviet Union, though there were also inevitable idealogical reasons too (though that didn't stop a pact between Russia and the USSR before). And you are right about Standard Oil (am I right?) for a while shipping huge amount to Spain which ended up in Germany. Ploieşti was bombed in operation Tidal Wave, which though extremely costly to the USAAF who considered it a failure, disrupted oil supply significantly. Not one thing that you have stated is wrong. I just find it hard to believe that it was planned from the fall of France to go that way. It did work out like that, but it could so easily have been different. Germany could have secured Baku oil. There could have been another revolution in the ranks of the Soviets. The US could have sat the war out. There are simply too many permutations. I am sure that a lot of very powerful people probably thought as you have stated and engineered a lot of it though. It's really making me think now since you brought it up. I had never thought that Standard Oil's actions could have been anything but greed. I shall have to ponder this further. Do you have any more insight?
@Phrnch Mdl I'm very curious now. Do you know any books which talk of what we are discussing? Globalists is a term which I am not familiar with. Many years ago I read an article on Operations Bernhard and Andrew by the Germans and how they may have moved the vast SS funds via Switzerland and Sweden to the US to capitalise on the US economy, which didn't surprise me. It also claimed that we'll connected US bankers involved revealed the British Ultra codebreaking to the SS. I doubted that. Very shortly afterwards the entire SS, but no one else, stopped using Enigma and reverted to couriers for unstated reasons. This was why the 9th and 10th Panzer Divisions evaded detection at Arnhem apparently. There was also speculation that large quantities of US Dollars were forged though this was emphatically denied by the US. I wondered about this. The Pound was more difficult to forge than the Dollar, yet they were able to forge the Pound and not the Dollar? Strange. Of course everything was captured by the Americans. Still I gave them the benefit of the doubt as the Germans started forging British currency first. Coincidentally, it was in that article that I first heard of Standard Oil's supply to Germany. At the time of reading I thought it interesting, though probably a fanciful conspiracy theory. As I grow older and wiser (I hope) and I realize how much was and still is hidden from the public, I am less inclined to dismiss that article. It makes sound economic sense.
@@ivancho5854 Dude you say amazingly st(upid things. Have you an IQ of 50 ? "why is it always called the Vichy government and not the French government? They represent the entirety of France." Woah, you have clearly no idea how WWII went lol.
Having the German Luftwaffe destroy Paris like Warsaw, St. Petersburg & Moscow would have served no military purpose! By the way Paris was only saved by the refusal of the German Kommandant Dietrich_von_Choltitz to set it ablaze. de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_von_Choltitz
I'm reading Shirer's "Fall of the Third Republic". In it, he gives a graphic cost of WW I to the French. To wit: They lost 30% of their young men aged 18 to 25 in the conflict. This, he calculated, added up to some 2.5 millions of citizens that they would not have by the 1930s. Even getting Alsace-Lorraine back from the Germans after the war did not negate the population loss in the war. They also welcomed laborers from eastern Europe into France to help get industry moving again, without whom that would not have happened at all. In WW I, they lost "the flower of French manhood", and were determined to not ever let that happen again. Not to mention that General Weygand just was not equal to the task of this 1940 onslaught, which left Germany in an even better manpower position than in 1914.
The numbers of casualties are the most astonishing here in my opinion. France lost about 100.000 men before asking for an armistice. In World War 1, both sides lost more than a million men and both sides were still hoping for victory. The addition of tanks just uppended the entire strategy of fortresses and trench warfare. You could literally just roll over your enemy and make stark advancements into the back of their line, attack their lines of communication, supply and reinforcement and, most importantly, flank the enemy. Quite similar to the Cavalry charges of the napoleonic wars, only that not every foot soldier could kill a horse with one bullet. Tanks could make up the distance from the French border to the French capitol within one day, not even needing roads. That made the movement of troops way faster and the world way smaller. Saying they are two days from Paris meant that they are still sitting in Cologne. It just cuts down the time for your own organization tremendously.
Already starts with a false statement France never surrendered the French government, on the contrary of the French army, signed an armistice witch meant they still had an Army and territorial integrity and that's how Free France still fought till the end of ww2 and won the war being the main contributor in the North African campaign saving the british army twice at Dunkirk and Bir Hakeim and fought with soviets in the eastern front being the only ally Nation to actually help and sent soldiers to fight with USSR, and it was all the way after 1940 just like the obvious inner fights of resistance in France.
@@danielk5780 Well i guess it's not your fault you never went to school or something. France allowed the coward brits to escape at Dunkirk as the german where trying to enter the city and capture the entire french and british army. The French army did an heroic hold of the city with a 1:5 ratio while brits where escaping on boats.
French army has saved british forces in Dunkerke : “Despite our overwhelming numerical superiority, the French counterattacked at several points. I cannot understand how these soldiers, sometimes fighting 1 against 20, find the strength to attack. It's astonishing. I find in these soldiers the same enthusiasm as those of Verdun in 1916. We are not breaking through anywhere and we are suffering terrifying losses. […] Dunkirk brings me proof that the French soldier is one of the best in the world. The French artillery, so feared already in 14-18, once again demonstrated its formidable efficiency. Our losses are terrifying: many battalions have lost 60% of their troops, sometimes even more! " general Von Küchler
The duration of the 1940 campain in France was 45 days only but the german losses were 50,000 dead and 150,000 injured , the equipment losses 1,400 planes and 1,000 Tanks and thanks to the french troops sacrifice many english soldiers could escape from the Dunkirk trap ...
In the interest of balance, many of the troops fighting rear guard actions were British (not all were English). Sometimes fighting until out of ammo knowing they had no chance of rescue. Also, one third of the troops evacuated were French. So you could argue British troops sacrificed to allow French troops to escape. The fact is that they were allies. Although the British army was professional and fully mechanised by continental standards, it was tiny. The main contribution the British could bring was their navy and air force. As well as the French effort often not being acknowledged I think the RAF efforts also get forgotten. The Battle for Norway and the hunting down of the large German ships meant that the Germans had also pretty much lost their surface fleet early in the war. The French put up one hell of a fight which they don't get credit for (although it's more widely know now than a few years back). Much of that was after Dunkirk. Many of the French troops evacuated from Dunkirk returned to France. British troops were also still being sent to France after Dunkirk. The fall of Dunkirk wasn't the fall of France. The German air force losses cost them dearly when it came to the Battle Of Britain. As well as British and French troops there were also small numbers of Indian, Cypriot, Senegalese and Moroccans evacuated from Dunkirk. Although 80% of the vessels involved were British there were also Belgian, Dutch, Canadian, Polish and French vessels. About 28% were sunk.
A point not to forget is that Germany actually prepared for war with the Spanish civil war in 1937, test new technologies and so on, while 'Allies' were thinking that nothing like WW1 would happen again, and therefore no such preparations were engaged.
Not quite true. Britain had been gearing up for a possible war for some time. The radar, observer corps, Spitfires and Hurricanes didn't appear overnight. Neither did the Maginot line.
I think it's just a pattern in German-French history. After Napoleon, the French became arrogant and overestimated their potential. After Franco Prussian war, the Germans became arrogant and overestimated their possibilities...
Lol good for the French for not trusting the British promise of bringing the US to the war. We were not ready at all to face Germany at that time. Nobody was.
There was never a British promise to bring the Americans into the war, how could there be, when America was so isolationest. Pearl harbour did that. And a little know fact is that Britain warned America weeks before the attack what was coming, and gave them newly developed radar. Unfortunately they did not trust it or were fully conversed with it.
@@michaelothen3744 Actually America was not isolationist at all, if we are talking in the strict sense of the term, in that period. We have been sending loads of supplies and materials to especially Britain since before the fall of France. Hell, we were even engaged in naval shootout with German U boats on the Atlantic with a specific order from FDR to attack german submarines on sight and occupied Iceland and the surrounding isles to prevent the Germans landing there controlling the route. So we were just in a state of undeclared war and was just bidding our time to get fully prepared before facing the german war machine. And yes the attack on pearl harbor by Japan was a bit of a surprise but not in the sense of how did it happen but when and at what scale. The intelligence agencies already predicted an attack but since the negotiations have been still ongoing, so much so that it kept going on till just a few hours before the morning of the attack, they didn't expected an immediate turnaround.
America And British were not completely isolationists. America was helping the french by giving them food water medical supplies and other help. The French along with other countries however were still recovering from the aftermath of world war 1 including low Army Reserves, lack of weapons or using ones that are obsolete or barely useable,many leaving France to other countries, disease and injury,bad management and other economic issues. When Japan invaded pearl harbor this provoked the Americans to go into war attacking Japanese Germans Italians Romanians and other big and small members in the Axis. This also encouraged Americans to do more in the war espcially helping the french get secret training to formation of the free French to murder German troops and to help liberate france and others
When Prussia unified Germany and took Germany as the new name of the unified state world power shifted. HRE Napoleon ended. Prussia/Germany Franco returned the favor by a series of wars in the 1800s. Even prior to the Great War.
One example of French contribution for the Operation Dynamo (the Dunkirk evacuation): The French defense at the siege of Lille (~40,000 French (w/ 50 tanks) VS ~160,000 Germans (w/ 800 Panzer tanks)) allowed to add 2 or 3 days for the Soldiers trying to leave Dunkirk - and save at least 100,000 more troops in Dunkirk (source: W. Shirer).
@@quentindumon9039 I presume you are referring to all The French Troops that Britain SAVED? Yes we probably treated the tens of thousands of French Troops to Roast Beef. Of course after saving your lives you double crossed us by stopping the UK, Since we would stop your illegal control of the EEC, from joining = TWO Vetoes! Then you tried to veto our leaving. France JUST A PROBLEM FOR ALL OF EUROPE, a TAKER NEVER a GIVER! Well except taking North African Land! South East Asia, then REFUSING to defend it. Fighting on behalf of the NAZIS at Operation Torch! TRAITORS and French Military are a linked words?
@@quentindumon9039 I love the way that French call fries SHIPS, can't even spell Chips. Something to do with a very poor level of EDUCATION and IGNORANCE of TRUTH and HISTORY?
Battle of France was the most brutal period of WW2 relative to its duration, for both sides, French and German. It was more brutal than Stalingrad, or than the D-Day in Normandy.
If Charles De Gaulle had more power over the nation/military. I genuinely believe the French army would have been able to hold back the Nazi attack, countering the blitzkrieg. He predicted exactly what Nazi ambitions were yet was completely ignored. He wanted to modernize the French military by making it more mobile and improve logistics. Battle of France was won purely by German logistics. Plus, Britain wasn’t backing the French to push on. The French made many requests for the British to send more ade to pursue the fight for France. Yet all requests were turned down. Literally abandoning France.
You have to understand France situation at this time. The reluctance of USA to declare itself as an ally, The German-Soviet pact ongoing, UK refusal to fight back at Dunkirk, french army containing italians in the alps, Spain out of the game... Also the government of Petain legitimacy is disputed at this time, unfortunatly Roosevelt supported him until 1942 with disastrous consequences on the french army.
The pact between ussr and germany only meant that ussr wont attack germany. it meant nothing for france and changed nothing. its not like they expected help or that ussr would attack france instead France and Britain refused to sign anything for cooperation purposes with the ussr themselves, partly because they wussed out partly because they hated the ussr. Like always, everyone hated each other trying to save their skin. Its such a clusterfk If all 3 m-r-ns actually combined forces and did their part, this war prolly wouldnt have lasted even 2 years and wouldnt have led to the deaths of millions
British history of that time says some French units sacrificed themselves to allow most British and a few French troops to have time to escape at Dunkirk. They realized fighting on they would not win, yet they did. No, I'm not French. I just like to see the whole truth told.
Possibly true - although the thing with revisionist history is it rarely gets aired until the people who know the facts are dead and buried. I’d be very wary of any “history” that suddenly appears around sixty years after the event.
@@annoyingbstard9407 I strongly feel you believe the revisionist history. That you bring it up suggests that strongly to me. I was alive during World War II. I could be wrong about you, so at least I leave that open. The reason the French surrendered except for the few French units that sacrificed themselves was an extremely complex thing not given to being learned on a single video, imho. Bastien below touches upon an important one. Another is the French were prepared to fight World War I again. The French Generals during World War I, in fact all nations involved, believed that brave, frontal charges like in warfare before was how to win a battle. Not doing a frontal charge in the face of a dug in enemy was considered cowardice by most at the time. As the English Army retreated to England rather than surrender en masse meant France was alone against the Germans.. Many German tank units were behind the main French Army stuck in the World War I defense line. The French Generals knew most of their army was cut off by German Panzer units and could not be resupplied with food and ammo and transport to support a large army. The French Generals realized with the withdrawal of the British troops there wasn't enough French Army left to defend Paris as the bulk was cut off in the Maginot Line. They were mostly infantry and the more mobile German Panzer units could starve the bulk of the French Army. This was what I was taught in European history in college. Of course, people argue we never went to the moon, that the earth is in fact flat. I can't stop people from saying the French could have done this or that. It's like arguing with Monday Morning Quarterbacks. Hindsight is always better than being in the actual moment. You know not only history but the meaning of words are being changed to suit today's politics. Socialism once meant only paid for by taxpayers, or society at large instead of being paid for buy a private individual or a group of private individuals. For many today, they use the word Socialism to mean Communism or that Society owns everything. That's a huge change in the meaning to suit today's politics. I can't change that. Oh, for those who believe an armed militia can defeat a modern Army there is this to consider. The French could own personal weapons during World War II. Just like in America today. So why didn't the French people take up their personal arms and defeat the German Army the combined English and French Army couldn't if a militia can do that. Probably many reasons. But one is the Germans told the French people if they used their private weapons to fight against the German Army, then the Germans would pick out 10 innocent civilians and shoot them. If the French still used private weapons, then the Germans would pick out 50 innocent civilians and shoot them. Next came a 100 innocent civilians to be shot until the French laid down their private weapons. I don't know if that ever occurred. But the important factor here is the Germans did not try to fight against the armed French civilians and shoot them. They shot innocent people on purpose. This caused innocent French to tell their friends not to use their private weapons against the German Army. That was effective.
Didn't that idiot Degaulle shoot at the Americans in Africa when they arrived to assist them in their weakened dilemma? If I were commanding the American forces, I'd have left immediately and let them stew in their own juice!
Just think about it : if only Luxemburg (the country) had decided to join the French alliance in the 30's, and the Maginot line had been extended to the border between Germany and Luxemburg, then the 1940 breakthrough would have been harder by far (for the Germans).
Not really.. they just could have gone trough Switzerland and even join with Italian forces on the way. Besides, the longer the defence line, the more you have to scatter your troops to hold it.
It would have been more effective if those soldiers stationed at the Maginot line would have been mobile to join with the army trying to stop the Germans in Belgium instead.
Have you met my friend? The shaped charge? German Pioneers would probably have been used in similar ways (not gliders, obv) as at Fort Eben Emael (spelling?). I agree to your point that it could have taken longer, but based on how history actually unfolded, I have to believe that it would have been the same outcome. In a mobile war, the side who can rush forces to a breach more quickly will win, and the Germans, while not as mechanized as other nations, did have enough panzer forces organized as such to exploit these opportunities. In fact, it is possible that the lessons learned from a German assault with pioneers and armored forces could have been the lesson they needed in later siege warfare: Leningrad, Odessa, Sevastopol, Stalingrad, Kursk, etc
@@donalain69 just gone through switzerland, as if that is just a cakewalk and suitable terrain for tanks. Not to mention not the same options for encirclements
Nah, Switzerland saw more money holding and keeping the money of corrupt politicians, narcos, arm dealers and nazis. morally i don't know but economically was a good move
Poor France. They were willing to fight. But they were outmaneuvered. That's what got them. Because the French and British had the better tanks. It was just that the Germans knew how to use theirs better. That also didn't help the French. What a defeat they suffered. Nice video.
@Nobby Nobbs---I was aware if the lack of radio's in allied tanks. And I still say the Germans used their tanks better. Which really helped in this battle.
Short answer: frances army was shredded, lost 60% of its land, its best army (or whats left if it) was stranded in the UK, and if france did not surrender when it did, it was likely that the army was going to desintegrate and completely begin to disobay orders as the writing was already on the wall. No wonder they didnt fight till the end.
@Jeff Guse Wrong. Corsica became part of France in 1786. Napoleon was born in 1796. I didnt bother to read the rest of your post seeing as your first sentence was incorrect.
people like to say the Maginot didn't work but it still forced the Germans to pass through the low countries. If anything, they probably would have fared better with a longer line, the expectation was that the Belgians would also construct fortifications so the French army could defend on a shorter front.
If French didn't want to fight, they wouldn't have declared war on Germany when it occupied Poland . They wouldn't have helped Belgium war. So probably French had confidence and we're ready. They also made all arrangements and protections. The allies might have realised French preperations were enough. So what went wrong ? Its the German strategy. Its fast war was shock to French. They didn't expect this much damage within just few weeks of war.
first, it was the decision of the army hq. second, it's called helping your allies or at least attempting to avenge them, thing that the US never did. third, neutrality doesn't stop the germans. we would have still been attacked as the UK had also declared war on germany.
Im late but, do you genually think that Hitler would actually give a flying fuck about france's neutrality? France had to fight because wheter they liked it or not they knew germany was coming for them after, cause germans were filled with revenge lol
France's domestic politics played a much, much larger role than people think. Some on the right were really happy to see the country fail if it meant they could get to power. And with the first defeats in May 40, they seized this opportunity and got influence in the war cabinets (Petain) On the left side, communists' role in internal sabotages is also underestimated. Since the non-aggression pact of August 39, french communists were ordered to "help" Germany.
True. Post-war "pacific" policies - which mean no plan policy- has totally separated the right wing nationalist realpolitik of strength and remembrance from the left forgetful disdainers moralist pacifist which is responsible for the mess of the post-war. Lesson learned: NEVER BE IN THE CENTER.
You have your enemy concentrate his forces on a different front? Pull back your armies and give him 8 months to consolidate and reorganise. Phoney War was a galaxy brain move
@@borninjordan7448 well and what about the brittish then? they stayed carefully away at that time and didn't push either for an attack. what you are doing is called french bashing. and the US aren't any better since they never helped their allies.
I just started learning about the Franco-German war of 1870. Fucking amazing how well prepared the German were to war that they were able to be-siege Paris and tool over much of Northern France. Germany was pretty much in charge of the new French Republic after the fall of the third French Empire and Napoleon the 3rd went into exile.
@@selinane2Seli-zw3pz That they fought a modern war through movement and supplies. They were able to field 2 to 3x their enemy numbers and continue bring supplies while the French struggles throughout the war. Logistics was the key to the French defeat. They had 130k armies surrendered because there was no ammunition to continue fighting.
@@discover854 Yeah they were fully prepared with a better logistic, while French relied on average generals. But it can be easily explained : Prussians did have experience of modern war with their recent fight against Austria. Then germans were ready to fight, they set a trap with Ems dispatch, french fell on that lol. It's clever, but not that amazing.
whats amazing is a medium sized land locked country fought the world 3 times in 70 years. only reason germany didnt beat french ass sooner was the were not a country. as soon as they became one they were like.." c'mere my lil bitch"..
@@kheindl100 medium sized ? Germany had a population of 60 millions in 1914, it was considered a big country. Moreover, look at a map of Germany in 1914 or even 1939, it's bigger than today... 3 times ? When was the third time ? Germany had plenty of allies ie all other continental empires in 1914... Landlocked? Hum clearly you never saw any map of Germany
Actually, I don't understand this surrendering reputation. In fact, England left the fight many days before the french surrendered. And if the front line massively collapses, then what else do you want to do...
After defeat in 1870 Fwance paid an indemnity and got on with it - the Germans eventually left. So i could see the 'logic' of surrender rather than ravaging the country in combat a la 1914 - 1918.
Hahah, French could had easily annuled his declaration of war during the Phoney war but they didn't. Why? I mean Poland and Czecholosvakia had ceased to exist. (The two main reasons allies declare war on germany) So why they had to mantained their declaration of war.
The command and control of the French military, especially the upper echelons, was extremely poor and slow to react. Every time they had gathered themselves and were ready to respond to German moves the situation at the front had changed and their response would not have worked. They also dispersed their armor (which outnumbered the Germans) across the whole front in an attempt to be equally strong everywhere, but ended up being equally weak everywhere. They also failed to set up effective reserves to stage counter-attacks and the few times they did so they either lacked sufficient armored support or was too late to arrive to make a difference. Simply put, they were expecting to fight the last war against the same strategy that failed Germany and didn't take into account new tactics and technology and were slow to respond to rapidly changing circumstances.
Had France truly committed itself to help us (Poland) in September, the WW2 would have been an insignificant footnote in history books... However, they decided they wont "die for Gdansk", so they had to die for Paris, as simple as that. I would also like to remind people of a note send to the gov of France from Poland stating that if France decides for a preventing intervention in Germany in 30's as a response to breaking of the Versailles agreement by Germany, Poland will help. WW2 could have been prevented at so many points in time.
Actually, after the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936, the French government wanted to occupy the Rhineland. But you know who prevented them from doing so ? The UK and US.
@@xXArnOdu974Xx Actually, that simply isn't true. France had absolutely no intention of ordering a general mobilisation. The Deuxieme Bureau had wrongly informed Gamelin that Germany had sent over 200,000 troops into the Rhineland, when the correct number was around 5,000. Still, if it comforts you to blame the Brits. and the Yanks for French failures, feel free.
@@xXArnOdu974Xx So am I. You might perhaps consider buying a book on the subject. Try 'In Command of France; French Foreign Policy and Military Planning, 1933-1940' by Robert Young, for a start. A much better idea than simply making things up.
The French during the Franco Prussian war fought after many of their major cities fell. They had pride in their country then. These French were different.
Yeah, take into account the Dutch have been neutral during WWI and had no reason believing involvement in this war as well. So without any proper mobilization, and depending on a defence system centuries old (by flooding certain areas) were completely outrun by the German paratroopers. Invasion began May 10th, the city center of Rotterdam was levelled by bombings on 14th, and capitulation came 15th when threats of basically bombing each noticeable city were made. We'd probably would've lost Amsterdam, the Hague, Utrecht and Haarlem if capitulation wasn't signed. The Germans overrun our army outnumbered 3 to 1. Pretty sure the French and Belgium situation wasn't that much better.
@@Snaakie83 we werent overrun by their paratroopers next to krete their airborn operations failed misserably, also we kinda holded them at "De Grebbelinie" and the "Stelling of Kornwedderzand" hence why they also bombed Rotterdam since they thought they would take The Netherlands in 24 hours, also the reason why the germans where so fond of our forces and whith lots of respect to (note not all germans thought soo)
@@alanle1471 With the HUGE difference that in 1870 the French surrendered after their Emperor was captured at Sedan which is only a few kilometers away from the Franco-German border sooooo they were not different. (not bringing that in the 1st and 2nd WW France lost more cities than in the war of 1870)
The French and British Forces wanted to move into Belgium, to set up defensive lines although the Belgium parliament did not allow this.The worst thing about the French collapse is that the French had a bigger army than the Germans, and more Aircraft in reserve than we had in the entire RAF. And the French government were requesting more and more support from the RAF
When performed well, an enveloping maneuver can destroy a larger army. In the First World War, the enveloping maneuver was disrupted by British arrival and so it failed. But at the Second World War, the maneuver was performed at the other side from where the British and France forces gathered, because they thought the German would did the same old play.
The question is: Why didn't Britain fight to the end (on the continent) in 1940? The British chose to flee across the Channel rather than help France with all their might, but demanded that France continue fighting and suffer the destruction of their country.
At the end of WW1: France: Ok we finally defeated Germany, to prevent a future war we need to form an autonomous Rhineland to keep the Germans away from the borders of western Europe. UK: nah that's too harsh, drop that demand and we will form an alliance with you so you wont need the Rhineland. US: yeah UK is right, beside with the League of Nations you will be safe. *Versailles is signed and US refuses to join the League, the UK proceeds to refuse to make an Alliance with France and to try and undermine every attempt they do to enforce the Versailles treaty from the Ruhr occupation to the remilitirisation of the Rhineland.* *WW2 starts, the US is still twiddling it's thumbs. The UK proceeds to flee to it's island and takes the time to bomb the french fleet and invade their colonies, supporting Vichy propaganda in the process.* *US finally joins, collaborates with Vichy on multiple occasions and plans to occupy France, even after D-Day.* Today: US & UK: and that's why the French are ungrateful cowards.
@ceo of tech the great It's roughly a generalized explanation for France's cautious approach towards cooperating with the U.S. and U.K. to this very day.
@@chaoticposting4591 Oh yes ! That is true. The British remembered what a mighty France was and were afraid about us. We wanted to invade Germany and stop Htiler earlier but they did not support us.
This is exactly why one of my ancestors sacrificed all his wealth in France to leave and bring his family to America. He was not the only smart wealthy person in France who saw the writing on the wall after WWI. France was going to have to bare the brunt of fascism again or descend into itself
Gort had already made the decision to evacuate the BEF by May 23rd; it was a matter of getting to Dunkirk w/o being cut off and to do so in "good order". Kinda helped that the French First Army held out in Lille until Dunkirk was finally taken, holding that town really hampered the German's ability to move up men and supplies; likely another factor why they didn't expend more effort to capture the BEF.
Most of the commentators here clearly know very little of French military history. Yes, the French lost- very quickly- in 1940. The British lost in 1781 to a bunch of "upstart colonials", and the Americans lost in Vietnam to a bunch of "villagers". In all three cases, the defeated greatly underestimated the fighting prowess and determination of their opponents. Every major nation in military history has had it's share of high and low points.
The French also lost in Vietnam in 1954. All the wars you listed had no long term impact on those nations. France just didn't lose a War, it lost it's entire county and a huge chunk of it's population was subjected to the horrors of the holocaust under the Nazis. Without the U.S and British liberating it, France would have ended up as either a puppet of greater Germany or the Soviet Union. The countries you listed never had to be liberated from the complete domination of another. Losing a colonial war that has no long term affect and losing a War that cosy your country it's independence and parts of it's population to end up in extermination camps and gas chambers are totally two different types of "losses." Fun fact. The U.S military didn't lose Vietnam. The popular will and political support for it "lost" the War. The U.S could've simply destroyed North Vietnam but held back out of humanitarian concerns and world opinion. The U.S lost 47 thousand combat troops in Vietnam over 10 years. The Vietnamese lost 2 to 2.5 million people and about 20% of it's total population. U.S forces never lost a single engagement over a platoon size.
The Americans killed millions in Vietnam. I would hardly call that a loss. Not to mention they weren't fighting villagers they were fighting the Chinese and the Russians.
@@adrianbrown7586 You're simply wrong. The number of Russians and Chinese actively assisting the Vietnamese was minimal. We weren't "fighting" the Russians, or the Chinese, or even the NVA; we were fighting an entire people- and we underestimated them the entire time. Kissinger even said in 1972 that he refused to see how a fourth-rate little country didn't have a breaking point.
@@shanejones6955 Defeat, and the consequences of defeat, are two entirely different things. Prussia was defeated and occupied by the French in the early 19th century even more rapidly that the French collapsed in 1940- and Napoleon's army lacked mechanization-, but no one has ever questioned the military prowess of the Prussians. And your "fun fact" is false. We lost in Vietnam. We lost because we failed to achieve the strategic objectives which we engaged the North Vietnamese over. Your comments regarding U.S. casualties compared to the Vietnamese, and U.S. forces not losing any engagement over platoon size are all true; they're also irrelevant. They're irrelevant because we didn't make war on the Vietnamese to avoid losing any battle of platoon size or larger, and we didn't make war on the Vietnamese for the purpose of inflicting a larger kill ratio. We made war on the North Vietnamese in order to maintain the South Vietnamese government and prevent the spread of communism in Vietnam. We failed on both counts. That we could have destroyed Vietnam is also irrelevant, because we lacked the will to do so. Every major nation in military history has been defeated at one time or the other. Unfortunately, we Americans like to judge the French based on one campaign- that of 1940. We ignore the fact that all the world's major powers- even the Germans- were astounded by the Germans' accomplishment.
@@adrianbrown7586 when you invade a country to suppress a certain organisation and you leave decades later with that organisation still not suppressed that is a loss
If the French leadership had fought a necessary war in 1940 (WWII), instead of having fought an insane and ultimately unnecessary one (1914-18, WWI)- essentially throwing away the lives of a generation of brave young Frenchman due to incredibly stupid and life wasting tactics - we wouldn't be discussing this now. Also worth remembering: in those brief six weeks of war in 1940 more than 100,000 (not 92,000 as stated) Frenchmen died along with thousands of British. Essentially France had been bled white in the First World War and simply could not fight a Second one.
wrong because war would have still arrived onto french territory. and pointless? that's also a war that many other country have fought in. us fighting was us being loyal to our promises and helping the countries that we are allied with. all wars are meaningless taken like this.
They didn't have the largest W.Europe's army, plus they didn't collaborate with the invaders, as,sadly, a lot french traitors. Denmark was a little country that was invaded by surprise, without any declaration of war, they Simply couldn't have resisted to the Wermacht, in spite of everything they saved a lot of lives, either Jews or political oppositors, yes there were collaborators, but surely more less than in France!
@@lastprussian71 they didnt stand up though, the norwegians, or even the belgians were in similar positions and they fought. the swedes like i said always play both sides to make money which is arguably more shameful.
the refusal and inability of France to fight Germany when she invaded was down to 90% leadership failure, ineptitude, 5% communication and lack of coordination when going into battle, and 5% equipment France had more of everything but Germans had better of it. the french army could have done better with better generals.
@Nobby Nobbs They were helped by the English and British of course, Denmark and the Netherlands got almost no help. The germans got so annoyed with the delays in the Netherlands (6 days instead of 1 planned) that they leveled the city centre of Rotterdam by bombing, to get the Dutch to surrender. but apart from that, the Belgians did put on a very good fight with very old equipment, the Germans spoke of "tough opposition" and "extraordinary bravery" in their reports.
@Nobby Nobbs no before, it was a defence developed in the 18th century. It was supposed to stop artillery, big cannons would get stuck in the mud. It was already outdated in WW2. They did use it, but it could not stop airplanes or tanks of course. The germans used a lot of paratroopers to capture the goverment city The Hague, but could take the entire city, so the government and queen managed to escape to england. But the germans would have taken all of the Netherlands in like 10 days if they hadn't surrendered after Day 6, we didn't have a Channel to stop the german tanks
Germany during that time already planned this invasion since WW1, they already know what to do. WW1 never became over as Germany was never destroyed. WW1 was just suspended, Hitler didn't do sh@t about war strategy, his Generals already knows how to beat the allies.
There were some historical rumors that the French didn't want to end up like the destruction of Poland. Still though French kings and emperors wept and tossed in their graves.
And these days France would like to create EU Army to protect Europe against Russia instead of US. Poland learnt at 1st of September 1939 what such a protection from France means as it was left completely alone. If France would attack Germany at the same time it would be extremely tricky for Germans to fight on both ends. If Poland would accept a peace treaty with Germany in 1939, Germans would attack France instead. Poland did not do it because it was loyal to France and it was a big mistake.
Interesting I had never considered that the decision to surrender was, from the view of present times, a good one. They avoided further loss of life and protected their infrastructure (to a degree). Now, had the war ended differently, we'd have a different point of view. But as things turned out, could have been much worse for them had they not surrendered. Lot of speculation in this but it can be considered.
@@timothyhouse1622 we couldn't have stopped the nazi. I don't justify the deportation, but yeah surrendering at that moment saved hundreds of thousands of lives of french soldiers and ccitizen. and the deportation was fully organized by vichy.
Americans seem to forget that the French helped the 13 colonies gained their independence from the British. Without their aid, the US would never have existed!
Oh, c'mon. Just because French "help" once means US has to repay it indefinitely? The debt had been paid in 1917-1918. Had the American didn't interfere, the victorious German eastern armies would already occupied France in 1918, not 1940.
@@boulderbash19700209The US entering the war in 1917 helped to end the war faster. France and the UK were not losing the war nor were they on the verge of collapse by that time. Paris nearly fell at the start of the war but it was saved at the battle of La Marne. It was essentially a stalemate on the western front till the US came in. The US forces arrived in time, after the russians pulled out of the war, to stop a last ditch effort by the germans to achieve victory.
@@alainw77 Really? British and France couldn't won while German had to divide their attention to Russia. With Russia out, the victorious eastern armies were ready to overwhelmed British and France trenches. Indeed, that was what German did, but the Americans arrived while the offensive was half way through. That's the reason of German surrender.
@@boulderbash19700209 It was the threat of potential greater US involvement which unsettled the Germans. The actual military effect of US forces was minimal. The awesome advance of the British and Empire troops in 1918 was the clincher. That and the always-overlooked stranglehold of the Royal Navy over German supplies. Germany was starving - the Allies weren't.
A LOT of errors in this video. Here, let's me correct the points your are making: - Underestimation of the german army Nothing points to that at the leadership level. On the contrary, the french were worried, with reason, with the size of the german army and particularly its overwhelming airforce. - Unwillingness to go to another war Meh... France had been the strongest proponent of acting against germany in 36 then 38. Sure the mindset was very different form 1914, but the french commoners overall were buying into the french propaganda of superiority and incoming victory. - Focusing too much on the maginot line This is ignoring the realities of France demographics in the 30s. France was half the population of greater germany, but only 1/4 of its men in age of conscription. To field an army to a size close to the german one, France had to rely on older and less fit men. Have those men in forts, where they wouldn't have to march, would free younger men on the hotspot of the coming war, the belgian front. Furthermore, Paris itself is less than 200 miles from the frontier, and north eastern France was where the industries were (because that is were the iron and coal deposit are). The maginot line was supposed to resist a surprise attack for 2 weeks, giving time for the french to mobilize, and avoid a repeat of 1914 (the immediate loss of industrialy important territories during the initial assault). The entire point of the maginot line was to force the germans to attack north, along a much shorter front, where the diffential in population between france and germany would matter much less. -Focusing to much on ww1 defence plans Once more, that is incorrect. The french plan was to advance into belgium, not stay in defence. What is correct however is that, as the french had won ww1, they had kept their old generals (there was on full generation difference between the french and german generals, THAT is in my mind the main reason of the french defeat), and said generals were slow to act, as indeed they were used to in ww1. - Ignoring the ardenne Indeed, this one was the main reason from an operational point of view of the defeat. Gamelin was so convinced the germans would attack through northern belgium that he threw everything he had there, including the reserves, which ended up being encircled when the germans pierced throught southern belgium. Just a few remarks: 1/ The french didn't think the ardenne were not crossable, they had planned that the germans would take 60 hours to do so, it actually took them 54 hours, so the estimate was about right. The downsides of attacking through the ardenne were so important logistically speaking that Gamelin couldn't believe the germans would be mad enought to do it. 2/ He was nearly correct, the germans plan of attack were going through northern belgium, until January 40, the last time they planned, and cancelled last minute their attack (bad weather). Had they not cancelled their attack, they would have done exactly what Gamelin had prepared for. But following the cancellation, the germans made a war game instead, and an officer plane crashed by accident into belgium (because once more of the bad weather), and as the plane contained the invasion plans (that the officer didn't burn well enought) the germans understood their plan was known to the allies, and Hitler chose instead the crazy plan of Von Manchtein (going throught the ardennes). 3/ Von Manchtein had been militing for an invasion through southern belgium because he was in charge of army group B, the southern one, and wanted to be in charge of the main force (hence the southern force would have to be the bigger). He has been such a nuisance to german high command that they "promoted" him as police chief of poland. But Hitler met him on his departure party to poland, where he had the time to explain him his idea, that hitler loved instantly. All that to say that there had been a lot of luck playing there, and leading to the germans having the perfect counter to the french strategy. -Not taking immediate action after germany invaded poland This one is wrong too. When germany invaded poland, it took 3 weeks. First France had to mobilize. In peace time, france had 22 full strenght divisions, the rest being obtained through mobilization, which took 2 weeks, the plan logically starting with defensive units. France then advanced in front of the siegrid line into germany, but by then it was already too late and Poland was falling appart. The issue then was that if France tried to pierce throught the siegfried line, it would have ammunition issues (we are in 39 then, and france wasn't ready purely on the material side). For example, artillery pieces had order to fire at maximum 3 rounds per day, in order to avoid emptying the stockpile. Had the french forced their way through the siegfried, the germans would then turn back their forces on exhausted french forces and won the war by october 39. - Reluctance to fight once the front was broken. Wrong too, the french in May 40 had 110 divisions. After the encirclement and dunkirk and taking paris (after 3 weeks), they had 60 division left (and nearly no motorized). The germans had then 140 divisions, and the frontline was huge at that point. During the second phase of the invasion, case red, the french simply didn't have enough forces to prevent encirclements after encirclements by the fast german motorized divisions. 3 more weeks later, the germans were in bordeaux and in front of lyon (look on a map to understand that not much of france was remaining), and france had 22 divisions left. - Avoiding the destruction of the nation This is partly true. First, the french govt took a boat to algeria to continue the fight from there, but while they were travelling, at vichy, pro Petain politicians had the parliement vote him full powers (it looked a bit like a coup actually), so when the govt arrived at algers, they were arrested for treason. Then as much as spitting on vichy france is easy, once has to understand their mindset. The USSR had made a pact with germany, the US didn't want to join the war, and the UK had run away with usain bolt speed. Now nobody believed the UK alone could beat germany (rightfully so), so considering the previous UK diplomatic actions under Chamberlain administration in the previous years, it stood to reason that the UK would recognize it couldn't beat germany by itself, and negociate of itself first, throwing its weak french ally under the bus in the process. Fighiting a loosing fight in which french cities would be levelled on after the other made no sense then, and the best course of action was to conclude a peace right away while france still had some cards under its sleave (like its fleet and colonial empire which still could be an annoyance to the germans if the french didn't quit the fight). Interrestingly, De Gaulle, who would found the free french, was then in London, and he was in contact with Churchill. He did recognize that Churchill wouldn't stop the fight. From then, in his mind it was a matter of time before the USSR or the US join, and remaining into the fight made sense. At the end, it is correct to say that as thing happened the outcome was the best france could hope for. Had the catastrophy of the ardenne not happened, the front would have formed and french and germans would have butchered each other by millions. Or had the french refused to surrender, the germans would have blasted their cities and civilian casualties would have been enormous. One could imagine a better outcome maybe (like france not entering the war, and waiting for germany and the USSR to destroy each other), but that is really stretching the alternate histories
German army lost 1/2 of their planes and 2/3 of their tanks during Battle of France. Without those losses, battle of England or Barbarossa would not have been the same.
The French were still recovering from WW1. Infact France didn't have the population to fight another war. So many young men were killed in WW1 and not at home making babies that France had a huge decline in population. No country soon after WW1 was ready to fight another war. Germany beat up on a bunch of countries that were scaling down their armies and not rebuilding like Germany.
France did have a smaller population, but Germany lost many young men in WW1 too. As did many nations. Number of deaths military and civilian in millions (rounded)... Germany 2.7, Türkiye 2.3, Russia 2.3, France 1.9, Austria-Hungary 1.8, UK (including Ireland) 1.3, Italy 1.1, Serbia 0.6, Romania 0.5, Bulgaria 0.4, British Colonies 0.2, USA 0.1
Another thing--you have to look at France's surrender in the context of what they'd been through in WWI. France had suffered horribly in the Great War, especially since most of the fighting on the Western Front had been on French soil. The French had hardly forgotten those years, and when it became obvious that Germany had dramatically improved their performance it's not a surprise that they lost heart. Psychology is a huge aspect of warfare, and the mental effect of the blitzkrieg on the French was simply devastating.
@@dominiquebeaulieu france is the country that suffered the most or maybe the second most through WW1. so yes. and if you say that it's not an excuse, then what about the americans that still for many refuse to talk about vietnam? yeah a war were you lose so much of your youth is traumatising. and yes there was also a strong pacifist movement in france at the time.
My co-worker is french and it's true. He also hates taking showers. Plus his name is xavier, which supposed to be the name of a X men character, not a real human name.
Similar to bribing the Vikings who traveled up the Seine...They didnt want their cities desrroyed. However; they were lucky that German officers disobeyed orders to destroy Paris when the Germans withdrew.
Fance did not surrender. As soon as Germany stepped foot in France. The French army went on strike. Because they wanted a one hour working day. With 45 minute lunch break. And a 15 minute smoke break...
Main elements are present in the video, but some elements are a bit misleading or missing. Due to a limited British corps, despite 8 months of respite, the Allies were outnumbered by the Germans. All-out offensive was not possible, all the more after the surprinsigly quick fall of Poland, and was against the defensive strategy of strangling Germany by a bockade. The whole operational doctrine of the Allies was a linear defence of all their territory. Meaning that, once pierced in one point, the front would crumble if not reestablished by quick counter-attack. The reserve for counter-attack, initially in the Centre near Ardennes, was sentby French CinC to the extreme North when Netherland was attacked. So Ardennes offensive could not be contained. After Lille and Dunkirk, new French CinC organised a creditable resistance on a linear front North or Paris, on Somme river. But with nearly all the armoured force lost in Belgium, it fall also. It's not the fall of Paris that decided the government to surrender. The fight kept on in the depth of France : in Brittany, south of Loire, in East behind Maginot Line, and in Rhone Valley. But French were totally outgunned and desorganised by the speed of the German offensive. Not all the government wanted to surrender, but Marshal Petain, the most respected general of WW1, put all his influence to back it. With disastrous effect, whereas resistance in North Africa and from London was still possible as De Gaulle proved it. The French ordered they soldiers to stop fighting when then signed the surrender, but the German kept on advancing until the official time of ceasefire, making one million prisoners AFTER the end of combat. This image of mass of prisoners was used by German propaganda to change the French multisecular reputation of great bravery celebrated after WW1, with lasting effect. The French fought bravely and lost heavily to the combination of tanks and assault airplanes that nobody knew to stop until the Soviets in 1941. UK was protected by the Channel but kept on losing battles in Greece and North Africa until Barbarossa. Afer the war, American army asked key German generals to give explanation of their early success. The Germans were dismissive of the quality of French and Soviet armies, insisting on the professional and morale quality of German army, when the difference was rather that Germany was the only nation who fully prepared a war of aggression after the disaster of WW1.
A French historian friend of mine told me that half of the French population was completely in agreement with Hitler's policies, during the Nazi regime.
What’s the name of your french Historian friend? It is absolutely wrong just a very small minority of French people support Hitler’s regime. French SS volunteers were very few, compared to many other occupied countries.
I wouldn't say half the population but a good amount for sure. You need to take into account the colossal rise of fascism and authoritarianism in the entirety of Europe at the time though.
3:47 Why did the Brits flee in the midst of the battle !? ... Why does popular culture says French 'easily gave up' (sure, 92k deads in 2 months), but never mentions the Brits fleeing so early ?
I'll tell you why. Because we kindly sent an army to France to help, but the French army did not put up enough resistance so we had to flee our army to save us from losing them before. We also liberated France in D DAY. So france made us nearly lose our entire expeditionary force.
Didn't see the point of losing our army when the French had failed so badly. Their country..... their responsibility to defend it. We did take a lot of French troops with us and came back in 1944 to help liberate them, so.....
As well as achieving the first victories against the ‘unstoppable’ German military war machine, Britain achieved that which no other nation in the world could even possibly dream of accomplishing in the early 1940s - namely fighting, at any one time, a global war in the Middle East, the Far East, the Indian subcontinent, the Pacific, North Africa, West Africa, East Africa, the North Atlantic, the South Atlantic, the North Sea, the Barents and Arctic seas, the Mediterranean, the Adriatic and of course mainland Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia too. They were the only military power in human history to achieve this.Germany’s war was regional by comparison. Japan’s and Italy’s war the same.In 1941 the British were fighting in all theatres of war, concurrently, in all corners of the globe and against better prepared forces of vastly superior numbers. Not only was Britain, for the third year running, trying to prop up a blitzkrieged ally - France, then Russia, then the United States - but the incapacity of the U.S. Navy to provide any convoy protection on its east coast almost lost the allies the Battle of the Atlantic. Even after the British hastily deployed 60 escort vessels to cover the US coast, shipping losses climbed to a level that undermined British ability to feed themselves, keep the Russians in the war, keep the reinforcements flowing to the Middle East and Asia, and pander to a panicked Australian government. For most of 1942 the British Commonwealth held the line, kept back the combined efforts of Germany and Italy and Japan (with fairly minimal imput from the United States compared to her potential power), and kept the Atlantic and Indian oceans open and suppliers flowing to the vital armies in the Middle East and Asia, and to the Soviets. No other empire in the history of the world has been capable of such a sustained multi-continent and multi-ocean operation. The British Empire and Commonwealth was fighting a three continent, 4 ocean campaign, against three major powers and incidentally trying to keep the Russians supplied and in the war, providing thousands of tanks and aircraft that would have saved Singapore. Nonetheless the total British losses of territory and people were - one third of the territory the Soviets lost, and one half of the people the Americans ( Philippines) even though those nations were fighting only on one front and only against one of the three powers. Throughout 1942 British Comonwealth troops were fighting, or seriously expecting to be attacked, in French North Africa, Libya, Egypt, Cyprus, Syria (torn between expecting airborne assault, and preparing to reinforce Turkey if that country was attacked), Iraq and Iran (German invasion from the north was attracting more British troop deployment until after Stalingrad than those facing Japan and Rommel combined), Madagascar (fighting the Vichy French to prevent them from inviting the Japanese in as they had done in Indochina), Ceylon (at the time of the Japanese naval raid that looked like it might prefigure and invasion), India, Burma, outposts of the East Indies, New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, and other Pacific Islands. For the next two years the British Commonwealth and Empire had far more ground troops in action against the Japanese than the Americans (and again the British were supposed to maintain sea control over the North and South Atlantic's, the Mediterranean and Indian Oceans - and provided aircraft carriers and cruisers to help in the Pacific - while the Americans concentrated on just one of those powers).
@@adventussaxonum448 "We did take a lot of French troops with us and came back in 1944 to help liberate them, so....." The british just flee, letting behind them all their equipments like trucks, guns, tanks. The british had no more real army after 1940and had to reequip. The british capacity to continue the war was based on its navy. Even its airforce wasnt strong enough. Only pure defensive until the americans came, gave equipments, and landed. The british were only followers. No hnor doing that. Like you liberated France, literally no. Great Britain followed its own interrests, and France was part of it to contain the germans. During the fall of France, GB just left, knowing the french failed to make the job for the whole allies. GB didnt sent enough troops, enough planes to fight the germans, GB expected france to do the job. And what about Mers El Kebir? There is no honor in what GB did during ww2. Its colonies made the job, India, South africa, Canada, NZ, Australia; but not GB.
General Gamler had VD. France lost the war when they retreated from the Saar, when the Germans were Poland. France was a different country in both WW1 the Franco Prussian war where they fought very bravely on both occasions.
True, but the French officer corps had been purged by the socialist government, which preferred a politicized armed forces to an effective one. Coupled with the fact that while French tanks were well armored they lacked three man turrets and radios this made them less effective in action.
France could not launch a massive unprepared offensive in germany, Saar was small because France wasn't totally mobilized in 1939. While Germany reinforced its borders in the west 2 weeks after the beginning of Poland campaign, having already crushed main polish armies.
at couchcamper: Germany clearly suffered less of ww1 than France (not even mentionning that its country (and infrastructure, and factories, mines, etc...) was left intact). 1914 : France: 41,630,000 (~1,4 M dead - & 25% of men aged 18-30) Germany: 65,860,000 (~2 M dead) BTW: 1940 : France: 40,690,000 , Germany: 69,838,000 BTW Germany had a much better demographic dynamism back then. France relied a lot on immigration since the 1870s (and still do)
My grandpa was in the 2nd Armor division of General leclerc and I can tell you one thing, France never stopped to fight against germany, even though it meant to have a bounty on your head by the Vichy Regim. When the germans took Paris, another government was formed in Bordeaux then went to london. General De Gaulle was France, and french people don't recognize Petin and his Vichi regime as France.
If only the French would ask the Finnish farmers, how to destroy an enemy in the forest, the German columns of tanks and vehicles in Ardennes could have been stopped there by "motti" tactics
"The start of the French decline into surrender is generally agreed to have been the German invasion into France." Uh, yes.
Haha. That video line deserved a 'Captain Obvious' award.
"Generally agreed" hahaha
Al Bundy at Speakers Corner: 'Am I alone in hating the French?'👍🤣
That is pretty brutal
Dunno, sometimes it actually has to be clarified the French just don’t instantly surrender.
I bet there was that one guy that said "what if they come through the woods?" and they all laughed at him and said he was stupid... And then they died.
I honestly wouldn't doubt it.
That’s kind of what happened. The troops that were stationed there knew that the Germans would break through the woods and sent a message to the higher-ups, they laughed and said that it was impossible. Shortly after the Germans broke through.
Actually the British pointed out that the French had deployed their forces too far forward and were vulnerable if the Germans punched through the line.
General Gamelin who was in charge of the allied forces disagreed.
The betrayal to the Germans of the fact that the allies had captured the German plan of battle (by the former king of England who had abdicated and was serving as a staff officer in France) prompted Hitler to change from the current plan to the Von Manstein plan and an armored thrust through Belgium, this worked, and as the British rapidly withdrew without engaging the Germans much the former king went AWOL and with his wife went to Spain where they lived in comfort along their National Socialist friends, until shipped off to the Bahamas by the British Royals in order to keep them as far away from the war as possible.
There are many reasons in terms of equipment an tactics as to why the Germans were so effective but the strategic factors are listed above.
One thing that should not be forgotten is that the French Socialist government had purged the French officer Corps of officers who were not loyal to socialist political aims, this is a major factor in the failure of the French army also.
Interestingly Biden has started the same process in the U.S.
@@peterjones4180 I find your whole account very interesting but even more to the point I find it interesting how you managed to swiftly turn the whole thing into something about US politics of which I could not care less. Thank you for the account though
@@chrisrosenkreuz23 Well when ANY country purges its officer corps to establish a political focus it always weakens their capability in the field.
As the U.S is our strongest ally , and as we are facing the threat of an expansionist China the politicization of the U.S armed forces is important to us as it weakens our defense.
Important reasons not mentioned in this video:
1) *Lack of reserves* Once the Germans had cut off the bulk of the French and British armies in Belgium and broken through the center, there was nothing in their way as they raced toward Paris. There were no available French reserves, nothing the French could use to halt the German advance. This is perhaps the most important factor, bigger than any of the issues related to morale and psychology discussed below. The physical facts simply were that there was no way for the French to keep fighting for the bulk of French territory.
2) *French society was deeply divided.* Like many European countries in the wake of WW1 and the Great Depression, the moderate or centrist forces in French culture and politics were increasingly weakened in the face of growing strength in both the far right and far left. The far left looked to the Soviet Union and the most extreme phases of the French Revolution for inspiration while the far right looked toward Germany and Italy, or to France's previous illiberal monarchical regimes, especially absolute monarchies. It's crucial to remember that at this point, no only the far right but ALSO the far left was soft on Nazi Germany and unenthusiastic about war with Germany, because of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939 and the German-Soviet joint invasion of Poland. Thus, the French government and constitutional system did not command the widespread, deep and passionate loyalty necessary for the public, military and politicians to fight on despite setbacks, and significant elements of French society looked down so much on their own system that they were at least seriously tempted by the prospect of foreign takeover if it resulted in radical change.
3) *Extreme fear of aerial bombing.* Between the world wars, a consensus increasingly arose that any future war would involve massive aerial bombing of cities with effects basically the same as what, later, would be anticipated as the results of all-out nuclear war. In comparison to the actual, much more modest capabilities of air forces and bombers in the 1930s and in the early years of WW2, this fear was wildly overblown. But the fear was so great that it played a big role not only in pre war pacifism and appeasement (Hitler threatened mass bombing to help get his way in Austria and Czechoslovakia), but also in demoralizing the French, especially when news of German terror bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam got out. Although those bombings were minor compared to the mid- and late-war allied massive bombing campaigns, they were shocking in their day and fed into French fears that their beautiful cities would be made into ruins.
4) *Psychological shock.* World War 1 in the West had, for the most part, been a war of methodical slowness and rigid precision. France had won the war that way but their decision-making process was much too slow to cope with the much faster pace of WW2. Not only did this result in repeated battlefield defeats, it resulted in constant huge shocks as each new development of German breakthroughs, rapid movements, and large-scale battlefield encirclements and surrenders, which were such a huge contrast to WW1, rattled and demoralized the French.
5) *Legitimacy fears* France had a long history of overthrown governments fleeing the nation's territory into exile. Kings, republics, emperors, all followed one another into flight and thereby not only lost practical power but also perceived legitimacy. This was why, although the French government considered fleeing into exile into France's colonies in North Africa and carrying on the fight somehow from there, it decided to stay on French soil. Because if it had fled, it feared that some other government would be installed and it would become irrelevant and unable to make a difference. And indeed, the French Parliament remained in existence after the Armistice, and arguably on paper acted legally when it handed all its powers to the WW1 hero Marshal Petain. The French government remained legally continuous and was recognized as legitimate by not only the neutral USA, Switzerland etc but even, for a significant time, by their former British allies. Charles de Gaulle's "Free French" in Britain were seen at first as just a ragtag bunch of refugees with no domestic support or power base or legitimacy, just as the French politicians had feared becoming had they followed him into exile.
6) *Underestimating what giving up really meant* At the end of WW1, the Armistice that ended the war had many negative consequences for Germany such as losing colonies and some disputed border areas, owing heavy reparations, putting up with strict limits on its military, etc., But it did not result in Germany losing its independence, having its capital and the bulk of its territory occupied by foreign armies, a subservient government having to operate in a minor city far from the actual capital, etc., let alone the end of free elections, free speech, etc (quite the contrary, elections and freedoms were made freer than ever). Similarly, when France had lost to the Germans back in 1871, they lost a couple of culturally mixed border provinces, had to recognize German unification and the new German emperor, and pay an "indemnity", but were otherwise left alone. And while Nazi Germany was controversial and feared before the war, it was not universally seen at the time the way we see it now, as the uniquely extreme notorious evil that it is today, especially because the Holocaust as we know it had not yet begun. So while it can be hard to put ourselves in the perspective of people in 1940, we have to remember that, for many of the French of that time, asking for an armistice to end the fighting was, while painfully humiliating, not the end of the country, not the end of the world, not the shameful enabling of a monster's effort at world conquest and endless nightmare that made the devastation and death of fighting to the last man preferable.
Agreed
Thanks for the info I've visited many parts of France and enjoy the culture and studied European history but a couple of your point I hadn't considered before. I had family at Dunkirk, North Africa and Yugoslavia so have researched those areas. Would love a second home in France some day
Only one reason with one word : "pussies"
thanks, this was more informative then the video itself 😅
About the third one, they got bombed anyway lol, but by the Allies
I'm french, and i just wanted to say if you guys want to know how deeply affected France was after WW1, just walk into every little village, and you will see. Every village has its own deaths monument.
And it's kinda impressive how WW1 deleted a whole generation of men.
In my opinion, that's the main explanation of what happened at the beginning of WW2.
You may forgive them for being ig orant of the facts. The Fench soldiers fought bravely, but their generals where fighting the wrong war.
Simply put, they where outmanouvered because of their generalsn incompetence.
If it was not for the brave Fench fighting man the BEF would not have been evacuated. To the French soldier.
Thank you
I don't think this explanation is useful, especially since the Germans suffered no less losses than the French. And those war memorials even in the tiniest village are a very French thing and do not exactly correspond with military losses. Furthermore, the French army wasn't inferior to the Germany army, especially with respect to tanks like the French Somua S-35. It was the superior German conduct of war against very static French warfare that made the difference.
Same in the UK, and I'm sure in all small villages from those who participated throughout the world.
Always lay a wreath, and ensure my 2 girls 👭 at least understand the sacrifice those young men made 🙏
@@higamato3811 may be, i don't know if that explains everything.
But Germans remained with a feeling of revenge after Ww1 (i'm not judging). They never suffered any looses or destruction on their territories. I feel like they lost the war with a strong feeling of injustice. So they developped that fighting spirit of revenge.
France ended the war being completely traumatized.
ya i completely agree, the british were reluctant to fight as well after the devastation of ww1, just they had the advantage of being an island and having a strong navy
Um, actually.. When France was building the Maginot line Belgium was cooperating, and the plan was for Belgium to continue the forts on the German border to the North sea. Shortly before the shooting started Belgium stopped cooperating with France and Britain, not allowing them to pre position troops on the German border. None of which was mentioned in the video.
True, the Belgians were hoping that Germany won't invade them if they are neutral.
My dad was in the Grenadier Guards. When they marched to face the Germans the Belgians hung Union Jacks from their Windows, until the BEF withdrew to avoid encirclement. As soon as they left the Belgians took in the Union Jacks and put out Swastikas. The British troops didn't think much of the Belgians after that. It has to be said that Flanders had been an invasion route for many armies over many centuries.
I do not think you can truly blame us for that. We are a small country. We do not have the means to hold off bigger countries. With france waivering and their strategy effectively being keep the war in belgium it is only natural belgium tries to find a way out of the mess.
Yeah glad you brought it up since they didn't
@@koopalibrary The issue is that there was no way out.
France couldn't pierce throught its frontier with germany because of the siegfrid line (equivalent of the maginot line). Hence France couldn't invade Germany in any close future. Anyway, France and UK were playing time, they needed it to convert their superior industries to war. At the very least, plans of Germany invasions planned for late 41.
Germany on the other hand HAD to conclude the war as fast as possible, as the allies would get stronger and stronger while germany blockaded by the franco-british navies would have supplies issues. But Germany couldn't neither invade France throught the german-french border because of the maginot line, but as germany was a dictature, it had no issue to invade neutral lands to go to france, which left 3 options:
1/ Going throught the alps through Italy, but at that point Italy wasn't part of the war. Anyway, an invasion passing through a mountain would have been a nightmare.
2/ Invading Switzerland, same problem, invasion through moutains, it isn't even sure germany could have invaded switzerland.
3/ The only real option, invading through belgium, a perfect road to france with its flat lands.
Really, Belgium shot itself in the head by trying to play neutral.
The Germans had captured their supply of baguettes, snails, and frogs, without which, the French would have surely starved.
their supply was in their colonies so no they had plenty of resources at 1st I didn't think u were the real Z
yes hello mr z
@@nikomylnikov4540 Helli to you too, pal.
@@hadtrio6629 it's a fucking joke
Don't forget the total loss of Champagne!
Let us never forget what the French had to sacrifice to support the British and its empire to escape the impossible of Dunkirk. As a Brit myself I want to personally thank you for what you did to support the most darkest of dire of days. We’ve had our moments but you were there when it truly counted! 👊🏼
Plonker
We don't forget that you came back four years later. 👊🏼
bro deadass the two most superpower in europe lost to some mustache guys in 1 month at least put some good fight plz😂
Actually it's German's fault xd.
@@raa8202 why don't you fight to the front?
Further evidence of what I've always said... soldiers don't lose wars, generals and politicians do. As a career military man from a NATO country, I've worked many times with soldiers from all over the alliance and I can tell you this... I've never really had any concerns about the individual French soldier. Their political leaders however, are another matter entirely.
If you have low morale or/and no ideological basis yeah no,soldiers can still lose war. Especially world war, and especially a second one. Also knowing theres not much on the line which it tied to morale and ideology can do that.
One of the (if not the main) reasons why eastern countries and USSR fought way harder than western ones.
@@vermilion6966 If there's low morale, whose fault is that? And if there's nothing on the line or no basis for the fighting, why are they there? Who ordered them into battle?
I've yet to meet the private, sergeant or lieutenant who ordered an army into battle or the invasion of another country.
Responsibility rests at the top my friend, not the bottom but I have met plenty of people who believe differently.
@@hughjass1044 and if there's nothing on the line or no basis for the fighting, why are they there? - I mean you can ask any nato soldier in iraq or afghanistan why, most wont answer anything coherent, yet theryre still fighting.
youre saying it like its uncommon.
And morale can be low for reasons other than you sergant being an idiot. Or your president. Or whoever.
Nothing wrong with the French soldiers. Everything wrong with French "leadership."
true on this.
In comparison, the chinese- ravaged by 30 years of civil war, wracked by opium forced on them by the British, divided politically between communists and nationalists and warlords fought on from 1933 all the way toll 1945 - never surrendering despite 30 million dead and the massacre of their populations by the Japanese.
They fought on with makeshift weapons and mere cheap rifles against tanks, artillery and aircraft/bombers - tying up over 1 million japanese troops on the Chinese front and inflicting the majority of casualties (albeit at huge costs) on the mainland.
The French, when they heard that they had to receive British war rations as food immediately decided to suffer the ignominy of surrender
@@slslbbn4096 Not really there are many other reasons they surrendered your just nitpicking
1 The risk of paris getting bombed or the Eiffel tower getting destroyed
2 They pretty much couldn’t fight the entire army was in shambles or it would’ve taken weeks or even months to reorganize the army.
3 Couldn’t fund the war effort
4 No military support from Britain
@@spiritorange8325 the Chinese fought in Shanghai till it was razed. They then burnt Changsha rather than let it fall in the hands of the Japanese.
Despite Chongqing (the 3rd capital) being amongst the most bombed cities in WW2, the Chinese fought on till the end.
As to lacking treasury, this is China which was much much poorer than France was then
They had worse logistics, shifting weapons from across the Burma highway across the Himalayas to China.
What they never lacked was a will to fight. The French capitulated in a sign of weakness. Their inability to bear losses or stomach the necessary loss of millions of lives relegated France to a minor power ever since.
one in the same. 🤣
The greatest British general of WW2 (and most of British wars) : The Channel.
You mean the Royal Navy. But keep on shifting the blame...it suits you.
I mean you can build the most powerful navy in Europe, when you dont have neighbours like Russia or Germany or even France.
@@Juan-wx5xz In which case you build the most powerful army: Horses for courses.
In war time, most were jealous of britain geographic.position
@@Juan-wx5xz And even more of it's navy.
The first Tour de France.
The first Tour de France was made by Julius Caesar
@abdennour O prussia never took over the entirety of france
@abdennour O I don't think so
More like 4th or 5th.
Best comment hahaha and if you jump on being literal, you need a life lol
I watched as far as when he said that the Maginot Line went as far as Belgium and the intention was for the best French units to stop the Germans there. This isn't correct the Line stopped at the Belgium boarder because the French Government didn't want Belgium to be on the wrong side of the Line of defence and thought that if it was this would be like saying to Germany you can have Belgium. They encouraged the Belgium's to make there own defensive line that would attach to the French line.
The Belgium's where actually doing this but had left it to late to complete.
This is not correct either. The Maginot Line ceased to a priority for the French government in 1935, one year before Belgium declared its neutrality.
The diplomatic argument has been invoked countless times, but there is a technical reason for the Maginot Line to "stop" at the Belgian border: the area there is mainly flatland and heavily urbanised, which makes fixed fortifications virtually useless.
By 1936, the French government had, at last, yet too late, started to focus on modernising the army's equipment,and the Maginot Line was no longer a primary objective.
then what is correct? I've read both version in any history. damn feels like they really altered this
@@Senzawa69 No one really knows.
@@Mustang1984 as far as I know. Belgium government don't want french to extent the line. because they promise once it done they continue it on their border but it didn't happen because the war is already started
Thinking a line of fortifications might have stopped the inevitable in 1940 in the West? What saddens me is that some people genuinely think so, even today.
Consarn it, that was already partially outdated during the 1st WW! What on God's Green Earth made them think this would have been better more than 20 years later, with all the improvements in signals, air power and armoured power?? Not to forget the parachute troops, whose use had been pionnieered at least since 1930 by the Soviet Union??
One half of My family came from France to America after the Versailles treaty and America quitting the League of Nations . The writing was on the wall, Germany was going back to war and the allies expected France to hold the line like it did in WWI. And France simply wasn’t capable of doing that again.
Had the British lived up to their end of the deal and sent an actual army to France after it pushed the French into the War, things would've been different.
The French were appalled by the small force the British sent to France by May 1940. We're talking 350 thousand troops at the most. Compared to the much larger force Britain had put into Europe in WW1.
It's kind of pathetic that the British wanted that War but expected the rest of the War to fight it for them.
The same happened to my family except instead of going to America my family went to Cuba and then America to escape Fidels regime
@@shanejones6955 "It's kind of pathetic that the British wanted that War but expected the rest of the War to fight it for them." An interesting comment and a British tactic you see at other points in history too. Britain essentially rose to great power status through its position (island) and sea control. Look at the 7 Years War for instance.....the bulk of the heavy fighting in Europe (the main theatre) was done by Prussians, Austrians, Russians, French etc. Britain while certainly present was able to pick and choose its battles and focused on taking exposed French colonies (Canada, Pondicherry, West Africa). Similar during the Napoleonic Wars - mass financing of Austrians etc to keep the French busy, then selective landings by the Royal Navy (Spain/ Portugal 1808/09)
@@michealohaodha9351 _"and focused on taking exposed French colonies (Canada (...)"_ and somehow France was winning at the beginning in north America, despite being totally outnumbered (e.g. battle of the Monongahela (1755), battle of Carillon (1758), batle of Sainte-Foy (1760), etc...).
@@krips22 Sure, they were never going to just roll over and did have some advantages, natives allies (key at the Monogahela) and initial British incompetence (Carillon/ Fort William Henry). But Québec was dependent on France for resupply and reinforcement. Cut off by the Royal Navy and outnumbered (80k French colonists vs 1 million British in the 13 colonies) Canada was untenable.
There is something that everyone seems to forget : WW1. WW1 was still a fresh traumatism, France and UK wanted to avoid at any price to fight another WW. Losing hundreds of thousand men just to gain several miles or just to defend a city like they did during WW1 was surely a bad memory and it led to strong pacifist mindset in these two countries. In France we sometimes refer to WW1 as "la der des der" (the last of last). While Germany being on the losing side felt humiliated and wanted a revenge especially their leader : Adolph Hitler. The mindset is important in wars !
About 90% of the WW I dead were men age 17 to 27.
Very costly to a narrow demographic.
I fully agree with Shakya
yeah ww2 was just a continuation of ww1
The naivete that another war could not happen left most of Europe completely unprepared. A lesson for today's fools
. It can happen.
they lost the moment they couldn't muster the heart to defend their capital city. they wanted to preserve the beauty of Paris. but what's the point of national symbols if they are not used to rally the nation. The soviets did the exact opposite. they defended Stalingrad inch by inch. as a result, they emerged out of WWII as a superpower, unlike France.
I really like the documentary between the advertisements
Then you have awful taste and care little for reliable sources.
@@nathanielpea5819 You didn't get my comment....
@@xXArnOdu974Xx nah! I did. Your just a prop in my sh?t post. Hang in there bruh
I really like the advertisements only occasionally interrupted by a good documentary
Lol
1:13 The Maginot line was never intended to stop an ennemy, the french knew it was not possible, it was intended to slow down the ennemy's advance to give time for France to fully mobilize.
And if the Belgians had actually let the French move in before the Germans invaded they would have been more capable defensively
Right you are, Anton 1860, and the forts of the Maginot Line performed that role admirably.
@@kayzeaza The Breakthrough was through the Ardennes... more French troops in Belgium, would have just more French cut off once the cut through Sedan was made. I think you overestimate the difference more French in the diversion front would have made... the German push into central Belgium was always a feint to the real push.
@@wolfshanze5980 the ardennes is also partially in Belgium, they needed to breach the albert line to reach it. Belgium allowing French troops in before hand would have certainly helped greatly.
Exactly and it already starts with a false statement France never surrendered the French government, on the contrary of the French army, signed an armistice witch meant they still had an Army and territorial integrity and that's how Free France still fought till the end of ww2 and won the war being the main contributor in the North African campaign saving the british army twice at Dunkirk and Bir Hakeim and fought with soviets in the eastern front being the only ally Nation to actually help and sent soldiers to fight with USSR, and it was all the way after 1940 just like the obvious inner fights of resistance in France.
The video isnt bad, but it does have some flaws. For example the video say the allied units evacuated from dunkirk, and then the germans attacked through the ardennes. This is not the case, it was AFTER the germans had attacked through the ardennes and encircled the allies at Dunkirk, that the allies evacuated from the port city. The French had originally hoped to set up a defensive line at the Meuse river, giving Belgium maximum assistance. However, because of the rapid german advance, the French decided to set up a defensive line further west at another river. It was while this was hapening that the Germans advanced through the Ardennes, eventually encircling the allies at Dunkirk where they had to be evacuated.
🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷☦⚓👋👑👋
I think french value life and good food than glory
That's good for them
Support life instead pointless glory
🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷👑👋👋👋👋
Because their army had been surrounded in Belgium/northern France, was out of supply and the British had retreated back to Britain. They had no army left and the Italians had just invaded from the south as well and they weren't 100% sure Franco-ist Spain wouldn't jump in too, you'd be a fool not to surrender considering those odds unless you just like your civilian population being slaughtered,
True,unless you're Stalin of course
@@lepepe well fortunately his 'Italian' Front was much further away, seperated by thousands of kilometres of ice without infrastructure from his heartland. And yeah I'm not saying he liked his civilian population being slaughtered but lets just say his own actions demonstrate that he wasn't as averse to it as others were.
Yeah,I mean we all saw what happened to Germany when it faced a tree front war.They also got to keep their empire,though not as important as the Marshall plan,it was also important in the post war rebuild
Bullshit. If they had half the heart of the Poles, they could of held out much longer. Moreover, the French "Resistance" was pathetic compared to Poland's.
@@ThugShakers4Christ I mean we're having a civil discussion,let's try not to trash the history of a proud people and it's struggles.It is unfair to place a nation over another since we didn't get to live trough those conditions and mindsets.We to judge now that we know the outcome but the sequence of facts and traumas back them led to unfortunate misconseptions most if none at all could have predicted
Once the Germans had broken the line of the Somme in early June, there was practically no chance of the French being able to stop them anyway. Continued fighting would have led to further casualties for no actual gain.
p.s. The withdrawal from Dunkirk was after (and in consequence of) the German breakthrough in the Ardennes and the advance to the coast. The Belgians had already surrendered by that stage.
There was also some implications that some in French leadership were sympathetic to German racial and economic policies.
That was true for the usa and britain too
"I'd rather have a german division in front of me than a French division behind me." - Patton.
We fought on the wrong side Patton? He knew who the real *enemy* was!
@@dantobarbarian4842 who ??
@@dantobarbarian4842 That's not what he meant.
@@DB-er-Handle2019 what did he mean then?
@@theeternalflowstate261 he meant he'd rather face a german division than lead a french one.
They thought the Germans wouldn't go through the Ardennes forest, boy were they wrong.
Well they did expect that they would pass through the Ardennes but they underestimated how fast the tanks would be able to travel through the Ardennes. They thought they would have enough time to reinforce the place once their scouts spotted the Germans passing through, which they did, but they were too late by the time they got there.
@Vlad Tepes The Americans helped win the war at the battle of the Bulge.
In their defense, Bradley and Eisenhower made the same mistake in late 1944.
In fact, it's not totally true... You have to know that the german plan was very very risky like a gamble and the French generals had put the 2nd and the 9th french army in front of the ardennes, it was truly unsufficient and they were poor troops. BUT to avoid a possible attack from there, they had put in reserve behind these poor armies, the 7th armoured army, one of the 3 best french armies equipped with hundreds of heavy and medium tanks to pin any mechanised offensive by the ardennes, then the superior french artillery (in 1940 french army has 3 times more heavy and medium artillery with excellent 155 mm and 105 mm), this artillery would have then crushed the mechanised units in ardennes unable to move easily. Why German offensive succeeded then ? The offensive of the Germans in Netherlands wasn't predicted, and the Dutch Queen which was of the Family of the English King asked him to influence French to send some troops in Netherlands to save as much of territory that they can. French best armies and BEF were involved in Belgium, with the plan Dyle in action, all the units had already a misison and were engaged in fight. French Generals which truly thought Germans generals would not be as fools to risk their best mechanised troops in the ardennes gave orders to the 7th army to leave her position behind the 2nd and 9th army. The Dyle plan became the Dyle-Breda plan... The breda variant was the 7th army running to Breda, a city of the extreme south west of Netherlands. This french elite army ran so fast that they arrived in time, they easily pushed back the advanced reconoissance german troops... But the junction with Dutch troops never truly happened. Allies (I say allies and not french only) were wrong when they thought that the unprepared and weak dutch army would resist enough time to join the 7th army. When the 7th army arrived there, they crossed a totally disbanded army, with very low morale, the Dutch were broken (as French and British will be in end of may june) ... It's pity that we sent the 7th army there for no true reason. The french Generals wouldn't have followed the orders of the civilian french and british gov, the germans would have been pinned and destroyed in the ardennes. After the breakthrough of Sedan, the german armies didn't have a nice and quiet promenade, it was a fierce fight, but desperate one as french generals were not very reactive : French so called cowards managed to destroy 40% of the luftwaffe strength and half of her mechanised troops. French lost also more KIA soldiers in 6 weeks of 1940 fight than in 3 months of Verdun 1916 (the bloodiest battle of WWI), proving they fought honourably. The blitzkrieg of 1940 is a MYTH, German made many many mistakes, but the Allies were unreactive and were so stunned, also British and Belgians played their own partition without informing their allies. French have surely a big responsibility in the failur of 1940, but not 100%... British generals had worked on the "ALLIES" plan. Belgium only began to work with French and British after the invasion of the 10th may because of their neutrality... The British left their position in Belgium to run away to the coast without warning french and exposing french flanks to german attacks etc... British refused the french last chance to cut the german pz div too much advanced in france without any link with their infantry and with their communication and ammunitions lines too much streched... French generals wanted to attack straight south and straight North with all the last reserves. British had already decided to abandon France (and we can't blame them truly, but the single chance to reestablish the position was the french counter attack, German would have lost 7 or 8 pz div in a round : a tank without fuel nor ammunitions is like an iron grave).
My job is not to blame British... but to tell the truth, French aren't the ALONE guilty in a COLLECTIVE failure. And yes, Germans were VERY VERY LUCKY.
The true Blitzkrieg was done in 1941 : against balkans then against red army... It worked perfectly at the beginning, but Russians had a vast space to defend, giving them a strategical profoundness and also Russians were numerically outnumbering the germans, France hadn't that strategical space nor the superiority in mne (40M of french against 70-75M of Germans... BEF was a professional but little army. in 1914-1918, British sent 4 times more troops in France).
@@madensmith7014 Stop spreading bullshit.
For the high french command the Ardenne was impossible to go through.
they put a regiment there but that's it.
My understanding based on another channel (week by week) and things I think:
1) Biggest issue was, that "the plan" just did not work. France was sure they will be able to stop the attack before it moves to France. Slow it down, destroy enemies on bunkers, with artilery on the borders, with strongpoits to work with. Germany found way around it.
2) With best, experienced, proffesional units destroyed/cut off in Belgium/Dunkirk, France lost core of its army.
3) While Germany had clear idea how to run the offensive (just go forward and destroy anything in front of you), French plan failed "day one" - their idea of having Maginot line protecting them to concentrate and not allow offensive crumbled immediately. Without it fighting in open field, with front too wide and unstable to be defended, it was just question of time to crumble.
French army was outnumbered, without proper plan, without defenses, without organisation after first offensive (ended with Dunkirk) and most importantly, with no time. Few decades before, they would dig in and it would work out. 2nd world war, it doesnt - tanks, planes, it was just moving too quicky.
Yes, there were few inspiring military geniouses in history (like Caesar, Napoleon or people of similar calibre), who might have figured out the way to win, but there was so little time, so much pressure only few people in history managed to figure out the way out.
You watch spartacus and indy as well? The host of week by week
I'd say the will to fight on wasn't there either as to this day in the north of France there are still areas unaccesible due to ww1 and back then ww1 was still fresh
@@AwoudeX la France n'avait pas la volonté de se battre ? A bon . vous pensez que les allemands sont arrivés en France " la fleur au fusil " ? les incapables étaient des états- majors britanniques , Français ainsi que les politiques ! mais certainement pas des soldats français . l'Allemagne a commencé a se réarmer a partir de 1933 avec l'arrivée d'Hitler au pouvoir . les allemands ont eu 7 ans pour s'entraîner ; l'Angleterre et la France ont commencé a prendre au sérieux une éventuelle guerre vers 1938 . lors de l'invasion de la Pologne l'Angleterre déclare la guerre a l'allemagne suivie de la France . en France la mobilisation générale commence en 1939 . L'Angleterre qui pourtant a déclarée la guerre envoient un corps expéditionnaire de 450 000 hommes environs . en mai et juin 1940 l'Allemagne passe à l'attaque par les Ardennes endroit hautement improbable par les états majors anglais et français . en un mois 175 000 soldats français sont tués , 220 000 blessés , coté Allemands 168 000 soldats allemands sont tués et 195 000 blessés , côté anglais 4 600 morts 25 000 blessés . le 27 mai 1940 au 4 juin l'opération dynamo permet d'évacuer 338 000 britanniques et canadiens les français appel cela débandade anglaise encore une traîtrise anglaise car : ni Churchill , ni Ramsay , ni Gort , ne préviennent l'état major militaire français ni sont gouvernement .outre les 338 000 évacuer les britannique abandonnent 2500 pièces d'artilleries , 65 000 véhicules blindés , 450 000 tonnes de munitions et approvisionnement divers , 150 000 tonnes de carburants . ce que les anglais appels le miracle de dunkerque est un véritable désastre la grande bretagne n'a plus d'armée digne de ce non . le général allemands , commandant avec Rommel l'armée allemande dit : malgré notre écrasante supériorité numérique et matériel les troupes françaises contre attaquent a plusieurs endroit . je n'arrive pas a comprendre comme d'aussi valeureux soldats , luttants a divers endroit a 1 contre 10 'et parfois même trentes 20 parvennentent encore a trouver encore suffisamment de force pour passer a l'assaut : c'est tout simplement stupéfiants ! je crains que dunkerque soit un échec pour nous : la quasi totalité du corp expéditionnaire britannique vont nous échapper ; car quelques milliers de braves nous barres l'accès a la mer . dunkerque m'apporte encore la preuve que le soldats français est le meilleurs du monde . je rappelle que l'armée française eu les honneurs militaires par les généraux et l'armée allemande . ce qui n'est pas le cas des britannique en France ne ditons pas : partir à l'anglaise .
Dunkerque une victoire britannique ? je ne crois pas il n'y a pas a Londre : Dunkerque Square , Dunkerque Street ! tout comme : Isandlwna !
les Anglo-saxons ont le chic de transformer des défaites et désastres en victoires
@@ybreton6593 Not gonna try and translate everything, my understanding of French is too limited and i can't be bothered on an English main platform. My guess from the first parts is that i triggered you and probably because you misunderstood.
What i meant with 'the will to fight' was that France was still weary of ww1, planned to hold out defensively for the most part. Just to clarify, i did not meant any disrespect to the French soldiers. I think they did the best with what they had at the given situation. I also think that it made sense to not continue the fight because that would only serve to delay the nazi's for a few moments at the cost of how many lives and how much destruction. They bombed the hell out of Rotterdam because we the Dutch gave them too much of a fight. I can imagine not wanting that to happen to Paris or other cities.
@@AwoudeX you can do an english translation by clicking on the french text .
8:25 During ww1 the harchest combat took place on the Western Front yet 90% of the Western Front was in France. Germany on the other hand or the UK saw no combat on their own soil.
The British Commonwealth & Empire suffered over 2.7 million casualties (killed, wounded, & captured) on the Western Front. Is where these men fought really more relevant to you than that fact?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 France on the other hand suffered 5.9 millions casualties (without colonies and killed and wounded only) and the french territory was left irremediably damaged to the point that there is a huge area today known as "zone rouge", spreading from Lille to Nancy, which is still considered as impossible to clean and impossible for human life. Due to the significant human and structural damage caused by the First World War, France still had not fully recovered when the Second World War broke out. Yet when Germany invaded France in 1940 for the second time in less than 30 years, about 100,000 french soldiers and 21,000 french civilians were killed in less than a month and half and the french territory was ravaged once again. To put that in perspective, the british army for example lost a total of about 300,000 men, but for the integrality of the second world war which lasted six years.
@@Anton-kp3mi None of which explains why an army which had resisted so gallantly in 1914-1918 collapsed in a few weeks in 1940.
The French did not want their country to be destroyed and were not willing to Sacrifice like the Soviets.
They were willing, their leaders weren't. Just like Germany after getting occupied after WW2 to this day.
Diferent kinds of war. In 1940 Feance wasnt fighting a genocide war and thought It would be just a occupation and then peace (Just like many Wars in the 19th century). In 1941 the soviets were fighting a existential war, there would be no occupation, but destruction of the State and genocide for the populations.
Also, remember when you are talking about war to fall on the trap of hindsight and illusion of inevitability.
In a way,they were surrounded.Their only ally was a channel away,fighting to the end would turn the country into a wasteland,kill it's economic future and making it a secondary power in the post cold war "colonialism"
@@luisfernandosantosn Yeah we also have to remember that in the beginning of the war german atrocities were not flashed out as in 42-45
@Nuclear Alex true. Also Stalin forced them to and had ruthless tactics to prevent soviets from defecting in the beginning when they thought germans were liberators from communist oppression. The soviet propaganda machine also kept morale high after it became clear that the germans weren't liberators at all.
Dunkirk is one of the most misunderstood factors of ww2 the germans could have captured or decimated the retreating troops there but high command were negotiating with the British for a cease fire one of hitlers main mistakes was not understanding why they wanted to continue fighting
This isn't true at all. The German army halted but this wasn't because they were altruistic, it was because their supply lines were seriously overstretched and they could have been vulnerable to allied counterattacks and they wanted to regroup and consolidate their forces before finishing the Allies. Hitler wasn't making the British any favors (if he was there wouldn't have been Luftwaffe airstrikes on British positions or U-boots sinking vessels in the English channel).
@@sErgEantaEgis12 when hitler ordered the armies to halt his generals who were the best in the world were flabbergasted because they had the British where they wanted them but hitler still wanted to believe he could get British cooperation against the communists. People forget he didn't want war with Britain or France they declared war on Germany. They could have continued beating on the French as they were done for but didn't. He also knew that the German navy was never going to be powerful enough to invade England and that the Russians were just biding there time for an invasion of Germany. Even before understanding how useless the Italian military was they knew they didn't have the manpower or fuel to fight a two front war.
The Germans could not take Dunkirk
@@merleshand2442 Hitler totally wanted war with the French and even used it as an argument during the whole 30s, beating the Germans with anti-French propaganda. The ambassador of France in Berlin described less than 5 years before the conflict how it was dangerous to be a French in Berlin. Mein Kampf also describes the French as "hereditary ennemies" and the British as "Germanic brothers" but also as the biggest threat to the unification of Europe. Hitler was clearly taking notes on the case of Napoléon. Besides, the Germans stopping their advance willingly at Dunkirk is a total myth. The Germans were fighting hard to get through but couldn't. The French army and also British elements put up a heroic resistance. Some accounts by German officers describe how they considered Dunkirk as a strategical failure, because the aim was to capture the British Expeditionnary Force and have the advantage in peace talks.
france cut military spending and lived by obsolete tactics. Superior weapons or numbers didn't shield from disgrace.
@Phrnch Mdl get a clue.
@Phrnch Mdl political instability lead to this. ww1 killed french civilization
@Phrnch Mdl Yeah French tanks were probably better...without radio ? And French airplanes were probably better...although few of them were modern enough to fight seriously in 1940 ? Dude do u even history ?
@Phrnch Mdl Tanks are useless if not used properly, as French and Soviets losses proved it in 1940 and 1941, respectively. Are you 12yo ? Tanks do not operate alone.
@Phrnch Mdl the Germans were preparing for ww2 for quite some time and turned their economy into a war economy they where very well prepared
As an aside, the Americans were similarly convinced in December of 1944 that the Ardennes were impassable and suffered a rude awakening during the Battle of the Bulge. It was the costliest battle for the US during the war and almost turned into a total debacle. So much for learning lessons.
True.
No, the Americans thought an attack through the Ardennes would be unsuccessful (and therefore a mistake) in winter. They were correct.
what about en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_H%C3%BCrtgen_Forest
🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷☦⚓👋👑👋
I think french value life and good food than glory
That's good for them
Support life instead pointless glory
🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷👑👋👋👋👋
@@eliascommentonly4652 well first your sentence makes no sens. and second, we value our freedom more. and we value also cooperation a lot. that's why we protected the fleeing british. and that isn't called pointless glory. your mindset is the same as the one that most collaborators had during the occupation.
The attack on Holland and Belgium was diversion meant to lure the British and French troops into Belgium. The bulk of the German Army was concentrated in the Ardennes and attacked when the deception worked. The Germans then attacked Sedan which was very weakly defended and pushed on to the French Coast trapping the allied armies in Belgium. Hitler then made a strategic blunder by stopping his Panzers from attacking Dunkirk. Instead he opted to let the Luftwaffe finish the allied armies. This allowed the rescue at Dunkirk to happen. The rest is history!
The attack had almost run out of steam, and Guderian came very close to being surrounded. It is very possible that they were simply unable to finish us at Dunkirk
You’re American so obviously know nothing of the rest of the world but FYI the Ardennes are in Belgium and Dunkirk is in France.
@@annoyingbstard9407 what can one say but 'ab' when reading such an insipid post!
I am french and learned this history at school but your question is a good one. I never found a convincing answer. The question is often avoided. you should know that one part of the government was ready to continue. it was therefore probably possible.
France played the long game. They knew Germany would in the end be defeated. To continue the fight would have left Paris looking like Stalingrad. Better to pull back and prepare for later. There wasn’t a good reason to continue a fight they weren’t(yet) equipped to win.
@Phrnch Mdl Wow, that is a very interesting thought. It's quite an enormous gamble. I wonder if they actually thought that way at the time though. It would require both incredible foresight and good luck. There were so many possibilities which would result in France not getting their freedom. Is the idea that they intentionally chose to be captured to defeat Germany possibly just an attempt to save face from the disgrace of defeat and then virtual collaboration by the Vichy government?
As an aside, why is it always called the Vichy government and not the French government? They represent the entirety of France. Calling it anything else is most likely a psychological method of denying France's accountability.
In addition why did France never divorce herself from her colonies so that they could assist liberate France at a later date? That lack of action has always puzzled me. Even when invaded and facing certain defeat France would not assist Britain and instead blamed Britain for France's defeat. It's as if despite WW1 a Napoleonic anti-British mindset still remained. I suppose that not taking any blame is a proven political tactic, but 70 years after the fact you would think that they would have some insight.
I actually believe that France was psychologically defeated before the German invasion and I suspect that the Germans knew this. Stalin was assisting Germany by the use of 5th columnists communists in France well before the invasion through sabotage of French equipment.
The French appear to have an incredible capacity to self deceive about their history which was probably fostered by the US post war inclusion of France as one of the victors of WW2 rather than their exclusion (due to the looming Soviet treat and the desire of the US to break up the rival British Empire).
I would however love to be proven wrong in my views. Do you have any information that would substantiate the idea that the surrender of France was a tactic to hasten a war between Germany and Russia?
It's an interesting subject. All the best.
@Phrnch Mdl Yes, I am aware that Germany had huge problems with oil supply, with the only significant fields being in Romania. Oil had a huge part to play in the invasion of the Soviet Union, though there were also inevitable idealogical reasons too (though that didn't stop a pact between Russia and the USSR before). And you are right about Standard Oil (am I right?) for a while shipping huge amount to Spain which ended up in Germany. Ploieşti was bombed in operation Tidal Wave, which though extremely costly to the USAAF who considered it a failure, disrupted oil supply significantly.
Not one thing that you have stated is wrong. I just find it hard to believe that it was planned from the fall of France to go that way. It did work out like that, but it could so easily have been different.
Germany could have secured Baku oil. There could have been another revolution in the ranks of the Soviets. The US could have sat the war out. There are simply too many permutations.
I am sure that a lot of very powerful people probably thought as you have stated and engineered a lot of it though.
It's really making me think now since you brought it up. I had never thought that Standard Oil's actions could have been anything but greed.
I shall have to ponder this further.
Do you have any more insight?
@Phrnch Mdl I'm very curious now.
Do you know any books which talk of what we are discussing? Globalists is a term which I am not familiar with.
Many years ago I read an article on Operations Bernhard and Andrew by the Germans and how they may have moved the vast SS funds via Switzerland and Sweden to the US to capitalise on the US economy, which didn't surprise me. It also claimed that we'll connected US bankers involved revealed the British Ultra codebreaking to the SS. I doubted that. Very shortly afterwards the entire SS, but no one else, stopped using Enigma and reverted to couriers for unstated reasons. This was why the 9th and 10th Panzer Divisions evaded detection at Arnhem apparently. There was also speculation that large quantities of US Dollars were forged though this was emphatically denied by the US. I wondered about this. The Pound was more difficult to forge than the Dollar, yet they were able to forge the Pound and not the Dollar? Strange. Of course everything was captured by the Americans. Still I gave them the benefit of the doubt as the Germans started forging British currency first.
Coincidentally, it was in that article that I first heard of Standard Oil's supply to Germany.
At the time of reading I thought it interesting, though probably a fanciful conspiracy theory. As I grow older and wiser (I hope) and I realize how much was and still is hidden from the public, I am less inclined to dismiss that article. It makes sound economic sense.
@@ivancho5854
Dude you say amazingly st(upid things. Have you an IQ of 50 ?
"why is it always called the Vichy government and not the French government? They represent the entirety of France."
Woah, you have clearly no idea how WWII went lol.
"Why didnt France fight to the END" ? Well To not reach the end wtf
I like that comment Pierre Navazo
@@bernardotorres2532 Thanks
They would have probably been obliterated no fancy paris as we know it
Having the German Luftwaffe destroy Paris like Warsaw, St. Petersburg & Moscow would have served no military purpose! By the way Paris was only saved by the refusal of the German Kommandant Dietrich_von_Choltitz to set it ablaze. de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_von_Choltitz
@@michaelwackers6475 yeah
I'm reading Shirer's "Fall of the Third Republic". In it, he gives a graphic cost of WW I to the French. To wit: They lost 30% of their young men aged 18 to 25 in the conflict. This, he calculated, added up to some 2.5 millions of citizens that they would not have by the 1930s.
Even getting Alsace-Lorraine back from the Germans after the war did not negate the population loss in the war. They also welcomed laborers from eastern Europe into France to help get industry moving again, without whom that would not have happened at all.
In WW I, they lost "the flower of French manhood", and were determined to not ever let that happen again. Not to mention that General Weygand just was not equal to the task of this 1940 onslaught, which left Germany in an even better manpower position than in 1914.
The numbers of casualties are the most astonishing here in my opinion. France lost about 100.000 men before asking for an armistice. In World War 1, both sides lost more than a million men and both sides were still hoping for victory.
The addition of tanks just uppended the entire strategy of fortresses and trench warfare. You could literally just roll over your enemy and make stark advancements into the back of their line, attack their lines of communication, supply and reinforcement and, most importantly, flank the enemy. Quite similar to the Cavalry charges of the napoleonic wars, only that not every foot soldier could kill a horse with one bullet. Tanks could make up the distance from the French border to the French capitol within one day, not even needing roads. That made the movement of troops way faster and the world way smaller. Saying they are two days from Paris meant that they are still sitting in Cologne. It just cuts down the time for your own organization tremendously.
Already starts with a false statement France never surrendered the French government, on the contrary of the French army, signed an armistice witch meant they still had an Army and territorial integrity and that's how Free France still fought till the end of ww2 and won the war being the main contributor in the North African campaign saving the british army twice at Dunkirk and Bir Hakeim and fought with soviets in the eastern front being the only ally Nation to actually help and sent soldiers to fight with USSR, and it was all the way after 1940 just like the obvious inner fights of resistance in France.
@@ommsterlitz1805 How exactly did the French army save the british at Dunkirk?
@@danielk5780 Well i guess it's not your fault you never went to school or something. France allowed the coward brits to escape at Dunkirk as the german where trying to enter the city and capture the entire french and british army. The French army did an heroic hold of the city with a 1:5 ratio while brits where escaping on boats.
@@danielk5780 The Ukraine war is still utilizing trenches and fortifications, and both sides have much better tanks than WW2.
French army has saved british forces in Dunkerke :
“Despite our overwhelming numerical superiority, the French counterattacked at several points. I cannot understand how these soldiers, sometimes fighting 1 against 20, find the strength to attack. It's astonishing. I find in these soldiers the same enthusiasm as those of Verdun in 1916. We are not breaking through anywhere and we are suffering terrifying losses. […] Dunkirk brings me proof that the French soldier is one of the best in the world. The French artillery, so feared already in 14-18, once again demonstrated its formidable efficiency. Our losses are terrifying: many battalions have lost 60% of their troops, sometimes even more! "
general Von Küchler
The duration of the 1940 campain in France was 45 days only but the german losses were
50,000 dead and 150,000 injured , the equipment losses 1,400 planes and 1,000 Tanks and
thanks to the french troops sacrifice many english soldiers could escape from the Dunkirk trap ...
In the interest of balance, many of the troops fighting rear guard actions were British (not all were English). Sometimes fighting until out of ammo knowing they had no chance of rescue.
Also, one third of the troops evacuated were French. So you could argue British troops sacrificed to allow French troops to escape. The fact is that they were allies. Although the British army was professional and fully mechanised by continental standards, it was tiny. The main contribution the British could bring was their navy and air force. As well as the French effort often not being acknowledged I think the RAF efforts also get forgotten. The Battle for Norway and the hunting down of the large German ships meant that the Germans had also pretty much lost their surface fleet early in the war. The French put up one hell of a fight which they don't get credit for (although it's more widely know now than a few years back). Much of that was after Dunkirk. Many of the French troops evacuated from Dunkirk returned to France. British troops were also still being sent to France after Dunkirk. The fall of Dunkirk wasn't the fall of France. The German air force losses cost them dearly when it came to the Battle Of Britain. As well as British and French troops there were also small numbers of Indian, Cypriot, Senegalese and Moroccans evacuated from Dunkirk. Although 80% of the vessels involved were British there were also Belgian, Dutch, Canadian, Polish and French vessels. About 28% were sunk.
A point not to forget is that Germany actually prepared for war with the Spanish civil war in 1937, test new technologies and so on, while 'Allies' were thinking that nothing like WW1 would happen again, and therefore no such preparations were engaged.
Both sides experimented with weaponry in the Spanish Civil War.
That's right France and Britain were not fully mobilized. That's why they were reluctant to invade Germany cause in their minds they were not ready.
Not quite true. Britain had been gearing up for a possible war for some time. The radar, observer corps, Spitfires and Hurricanes didn't appear overnight. Neither did the Maginot line.
I think it's just a pattern in German-French history. After Napoleon, the French became arrogant and overestimated their potential. After Franco Prussian war, the Germans became arrogant and overestimated their possibilities...
Lol good for the French for not trusting the British promise of bringing the US to the war. We were not ready at all to face Germany at that time. Nobody was.
There was never a British promise to bring the Americans into the war, how could there be, when America was so isolationest. Pearl harbour did that. And a little know fact is that Britain warned America weeks before the attack what was coming, and gave them newly developed radar. Unfortunately they did not trust it or were fully conversed with it.
@@michaelothen3744 Actually America was not isolationist at all, if we are talking in the strict sense of the term, in that period. We have been sending loads of supplies and materials to especially Britain since before the fall of France. Hell, we were even engaged in naval shootout with German U boats on the Atlantic with a specific order from FDR to attack german submarines on sight and occupied Iceland and the surrounding isles to prevent the Germans landing there controlling the route. So we were just in a state of undeclared war and was just bidding our time to get fully prepared before facing the german war machine. And yes the attack on pearl harbor by Japan was a bit of a surprise but not in the sense of how did it happen but when and at what scale. The intelligence agencies already predicted an attack but since the negotiations have been still ongoing, so much so that it kept going on till just a few hours before the morning of the attack, they didn't expected an immediate turnaround.
America And British were not completely isolationists. America was helping the french by giving them food water medical supplies and other help. The French along with other countries however were still recovering from the aftermath of world war 1 including low Army Reserves, lack of weapons or using ones that are obsolete or barely useable,many leaving France to other countries, disease and injury,bad management and other economic issues. When Japan invaded pearl harbor this provoked the Americans to go into war attacking Japanese Germans Italians Romanians and other big and small members in the Axis. This also encouraged Americans to do more in the war espcially helping the french get secret training to formation of the free French to murder German troops and to help liberate france and others
facts. until battle of the bulge us never beat germans when numbers were close and by then it was a lot of 15 n 16yolds fighting for germany
@@kheindl100 Wrong.
France was once the most powerful country in europe even greater than germany but after the latter was unified, france power declined.
France declined as Germany had its Coal and Steel STOLEN by the French until Hitler. NO HINT THERE?
Along with its birthrate
When Prussia unified Germany and took Germany as the new name of the unified state world power shifted. HRE Napoleon ended. Prussia/Germany Franco returned the favor by a series of wars in the 1800s. Even prior to the Great War.
@@trevorhart545 Nope.
Britain: "hold the door!!"
France: nah lol
Nice escape in Dunkirk for the rosbeef
One example of French contribution for the Operation Dynamo (the Dunkirk evacuation): The French defense at the siege of Lille (~40,000 French (w/ 50 tanks) VS ~160,000 Germans (w/ 800 Panzer tanks)) allowed to add 2 or 3 days for the Soldiers trying to leave Dunkirk - and save at least 100,000 more troops in Dunkirk (source: W. Shirer).
France hold the door dumbass.
More like "England be respectful and honest"
No lol
@@quentindumon9039 I presume you are referring to all The French Troops that Britain SAVED? Yes we probably treated the tens of thousands of French Troops to Roast Beef. Of course after saving your lives you double crossed us by stopping the UK, Since we would stop your illegal control of the EEC, from joining = TWO Vetoes! Then you tried to veto our leaving. France JUST A PROBLEM FOR ALL OF EUROPE, a TAKER NEVER a GIVER! Well except taking North African Land! South East Asia, then REFUSING to defend it. Fighting on behalf of the NAZIS at Operation Torch! TRAITORS and French Military are a linked words?
@@quentindumon9039 I love the way that French call fries SHIPS, can't even spell Chips. Something to do with a very poor level of EDUCATION and IGNORANCE of TRUTH and HISTORY?
Battle of France was the most brutal period of WW2 relative to its duration, for both sides, French and German. It was more brutal than Stalingrad, or than the D-Day in Normandy.
If Charles De Gaulle had more power over the nation/military. I genuinely believe the French army would have been able to hold back the Nazi attack, countering the blitzkrieg. He predicted exactly what Nazi ambitions were yet was completely ignored. He wanted to modernize the French military by making it more mobile and improve logistics. Battle of France was won purely by German logistics.
Plus, Britain wasn’t backing the French to push on. The French made many requests for the British to send more ade to pursue the fight for France. Yet all requests were turned down. Literally abandoning France.
he was a colonel at the time. not a general. in fact he only really became an official general after the liberation of france.
I mean, France was treated better as Ally by Britain than Poland
France and Britain could do more in 1939
France: they are not able to go though the ardennes!
Germany: haha blitzkrieg go brrrrrrr
You have to understand France situation at this time. The reluctance of USA to declare itself as an ally, The German-Soviet pact ongoing, UK refusal to fight back at Dunkirk, french army containing italians in the alps, Spain out of the game... Also the government of Petain legitimacy is disputed at this time, unfortunatly Roosevelt supported him until 1942 with disastrous consequences on the french army.
The pact between ussr and germany only meant that ussr wont attack germany. it meant nothing for france and changed nothing. its not like they expected help or that ussr would attack france instead
France and Britain refused to sign anything for cooperation purposes with the ussr themselves, partly because they wussed out partly because they hated the ussr.
Like always, everyone hated each other trying to save their skin. Its such a clusterfk
If all 3 m-r-ns actually combined forces and did their part, this war prolly wouldnt have lasted even 2 years and wouldnt have led to the deaths of millions
British history of that time says some French units sacrificed themselves to allow most British and a few French troops to have time to escape at Dunkirk. They realized fighting on they would not win, yet they did. No, I'm not French. I just like to see the whole truth told.
'a few French troops' Actually over 120,000.
Possibly true - although the thing with revisionist history is it rarely gets aired until the people who know the facts are dead and buried. I’d be very wary of any “history” that suddenly appears around sixty years after the event.
@@annoyingbstard9407 I strongly feel you believe the revisionist history. That you bring it up suggests that strongly to me. I was alive during World War II. I could be wrong about you, so at least I leave that open.
The reason the French surrendered except for the few French units that sacrificed themselves was an extremely complex thing not given to being learned on a single video, imho.
Bastien below touches upon an important one. Another is the French were prepared to fight World War I again. The French Generals during World War I, in fact all nations involved, believed that brave, frontal charges like in warfare before was how to win a battle. Not doing a frontal charge in the face of a dug in enemy was considered cowardice by most at the time.
As the English Army retreated to England rather than surrender en masse meant France was alone against the Germans.. Many German tank units were behind the main French Army stuck in the World War I defense line. The French Generals knew most of their army was cut off by German Panzer units and could not be resupplied with food and ammo and transport to support a large army. The French Generals realized with the withdrawal of the British troops there wasn't enough French Army left to defend Paris as the bulk was cut off in the Maginot Line. They were mostly infantry and the more mobile German Panzer units could starve the bulk of the French Army. This was what I was taught in European history in college.
Of course, people argue we never went to the moon, that the earth is in fact flat. I can't stop people from saying the French could have done this or that. It's like arguing with Monday Morning Quarterbacks. Hindsight is always better than being in the actual moment. You know not only history but the meaning of words are being changed to suit today's politics. Socialism once meant only paid for by taxpayers, or society at large instead of being paid for buy a private individual or a group of private individuals. For many today, they use the word Socialism to mean Communism or that Society owns everything. That's a huge change in the meaning to suit today's politics. I can't change that.
Oh, for those who believe an armed militia can defeat a modern Army there is this to consider. The French could own personal weapons during World War II. Just like in America today. So why didn't the French people take up their personal arms and defeat the German Army the combined English and French Army couldn't if a militia can do that.
Probably many reasons. But one is the Germans told the French people if they used their private weapons to fight against the German Army, then the Germans would pick out 10 innocent civilians and shoot them. If the French still used private weapons, then the Germans would pick out 50 innocent civilians and shoot them. Next came a 100 innocent civilians to be shot until the French laid down their private weapons.
I don't know if that ever occurred. But the important factor here is the Germans did not try to fight against the armed French civilians and shoot them. They shot innocent people on purpose. This caused innocent French to tell their friends not to use their private weapons against the German Army. That was effective.
@@sscalercourtney5486 TL:DR
@@annoyingbstard9407 Yep, I can't hush once I get going. Thanks for the feedback.
The French government surrendered, the French people didn't.
People elect the government. Thus, the government represents the people.
Didn't that idiot Degaulle shoot at the Americans in Africa when they arrived to assist them in their weakened dilemma?
If I were commanding the American forces, I'd have left immediately and let them stew in their own juice!
funny i never saw many French fighting to kick the Germans out in 1940
@@PimpDaddyStyles You were born back then? There are accounts of Resistants being executed by the Germans since the very first days of occupation
@@niksarass yes there was some resistance, the vast majority of the French just rolled over and accepted it
Just think about it : if only Luxemburg (the country) had decided to join the French alliance in the 30's, and the Maginot line had been extended to the border between Germany and Luxemburg, then the 1940 breakthrough would have been harder by far (for the Germans).
Not really.. they just could have gone trough Switzerland and even join with Italian forces on the way. Besides, the longer the defence line, the more you have to scatter your troops to hold it.
It would have been more effective if those soldiers stationed at the Maginot line would have been mobile to join with the army trying to stop the Germans in Belgium instead.
Have you met my friend? The shaped charge? German Pioneers would probably have been used in similar ways (not gliders, obv) as at Fort Eben Emael (spelling?). I agree to your point that it could have taken longer, but based on how history actually unfolded, I have to believe that it would have been the same outcome. In a mobile war, the side who can rush forces to a breach more quickly will win, and the Germans, while not as mechanized as other nations, did have enough panzer forces organized as such to exploit these opportunities. In fact, it is possible that the lessons learned from a German assault with pioneers and armored forces could have been the lesson they needed in later siege warfare: Leningrad, Odessa, Sevastopol, Stalingrad, Kursk, etc
@@donalain69 just gone through switzerland, as if that is just a cakewalk and suitable terrain for tanks. Not to mention not the same options for encirclements
Nah, Switzerland saw more money holding and keeping the money of corrupt politicians, narcos, arm dealers and nazis. morally i don't know but economically was a good move
Poor France. They were willing to fight. But they were outmaneuvered. That's what got them. Because the French and British had the better tanks. It was just that the Germans knew how to use theirs better. That also didn't help the French. What a defeat they suffered. Nice video.
@Nobby Nobbs---I was aware if the lack of radio's in allied tanks. And I still say the Germans used their tanks better. Which really helped in this battle.
@Nobby Nobbs---True
@Nobby Nobbs there were veery fiew panzer 3 and 4 during the battle of france, mosts of the german tanks were panze 1 and 2
Politician had pacifist mentality (1) and prefer collaboration to carnage (2) understandable
@Nobby Nobbs even in france 75 %of the tank were either panzer 1,2 or czech capture/czech produce tank
Short answer: frances army was shredded, lost 60% of its land, its best army (or whats left if it) was stranded in the UK, and if france did not surrender when it did, it was likely that the army was going to desintegrate and completely begin to disobay orders as the writing was already on the wall. No wonder they didnt fight till the end.
If Napoleon Bonaparte is still Alive, he'll definitely in shocked😲...
Napoleon: You only had ONE job.
oui
By your grammar?
Fix your sentences bro I almost died trying to read it.
@Jeff Guse Wrong. Corsica became part of France in 1786. Napoleon was born in 1796. I didnt bother to read the rest of your post seeing as your first sentence was incorrect.
people like to say the Maginot didn't work but it still forced the Germans to pass through the low countries. If anything, they probably would have fared better with a longer line, the expectation was that the Belgians would also construct fortifications so the French army could defend on a shorter front.
As Captain Mainwaring said, on being told that the Germans went around the Maginot Line, "Typical, shabby Nazi trick!"
If French didn't want to fight, they wouldn't have declared war on Germany when it occupied Poland .
They wouldn't have helped Belgium war.
So probably French had confidence and we're ready. They also made all arrangements and protections.
The allies might have realised French preperations were enough.
So what went wrong ?
Its the German strategy. Its fast war was shock to French.
They didn't expect this much damage within just few weeks of war.
France and England declared was on them 2 days after poland
It was more of French incompetence than the German Blitzkrieg.
@@alejandromaldonado6159 belgian incompetence, for betraying us, but yes the germans were better equipped
first, it was the decision of the army hq. second, it's called helping your allies or at least attempting to avenge them, thing that the US never did. third, neutrality doesn't stop the germans. we would have still been attacked as the UK had also declared war on germany.
Im late but, do you genually think that Hitler would actually give a flying fuck about france's neutrality? France had to fight because wheter they liked it or not they knew germany was coming for them after, cause germans were filled with revenge lol
France's domestic politics played a much, much larger role than people think. Some on the right were really happy to see the country fail if it meant they could get to power. And with the first defeats in May 40, they seized this opportunity and got influence in the war cabinets (Petain)
On the left side, communists' role in internal sabotages is also underestimated. Since the non-aggression pact of August 39, french communists were ordered to "help" Germany.
True. Post-war "pacific" policies - which mean no plan policy- has totally separated the right wing nationalist realpolitik of strength and remembrance from the left forgetful disdainers moralist pacifist which is responsible for the mess of the post-war.
Lesson learned: NEVER BE IN THE CENTER.
You have your enemy concentrate his forces on a different front? Pull back your armies and give him 8 months to consolidate and reorganise. Phoney War was a galaxy brain move
The French really should have pushed their Saar offensive.
Yea the French dropped the ball big time
@@borninjordan7448 well and what about the brittish then? they stayed carefully away at that time and didn't push either for an attack. what you are doing is called french bashing. and the US aren't any better since they never helped their allies.
I just started learning about the Franco-German war of 1870. Fucking amazing how well prepared the German were to war that they were able to be-siege Paris and tool over much of Northern France. Germany was pretty much in charge of the new French Republic after the fall of the third French Empire and Napoleon the 3rd went into exile.
What is amazing exactly ? The Germans provoked the war with Ems Dispatch, of course they were prepared.
@@selinane2Seli-zw3pz That they fought a modern war through movement and supplies. They were able to field 2 to 3x their enemy numbers and continue bring supplies while the French struggles throughout the war. Logistics was the key to the French defeat. They had 130k armies surrendered because there was no ammunition to continue fighting.
@@discover854 Yeah they were fully prepared with a better logistic, while French relied on average generals. But it can be easily explained : Prussians did have experience of modern war with their recent fight against Austria.
Then germans were ready to fight, they set a trap with Ems dispatch, french fell on that lol.
It's clever, but not that amazing.
whats amazing is a medium sized land locked country fought the world 3 times in 70 years. only reason germany didnt beat french ass sooner was the were not a country. as soon as they became one they were like.." c'mere my lil bitch"..
@@kheindl100 medium sized ? Germany had a population of 60 millions in 1914, it was considered a big country. Moreover, look at a map of Germany in 1914 or even 1939, it's bigger than today...
3 times ? When was the third time ? Germany had plenty of allies ie all other continental empires in 1914...
Landlocked? Hum clearly you never saw any map of Germany
Actually, I don't understand this surrendering reputation. In fact, England left the fight many days before the french surrendered. And if the front line massively collapses, then what else do you want to do...
The French did not easily give up in WW1 but showed great resolve and even resilience.
Hard times, hard decisions, hard consequences.
After defeat in 1870 Fwance paid an indemnity and got on with it - the Germans eventually left. So i could see the 'logic' of surrender rather than ravaging the country in combat a la 1914 - 1918.
Exactly what i thought, never noticed before
@m n Really?
@m n But it was french culpability too, if they never declared war on germany in 1939, Germans would had never launch an invasion of the country.
Hahah, French could had easily annuled his declaration of war during the Phoney war but they didn't. Why?
I mean Poland and Czecholosvakia had ceased to exist. (The two main reasons allies declare war on germany)
So why they had to mantained their declaration of war.
@m n so poland and czecholosvakia were french colonies or something?
The command and control of the French military, especially the upper echelons, was extremely poor and slow to react. Every time they had gathered themselves and were ready to respond to German moves the situation at the front had changed and their response would not have worked. They also dispersed their armor (which outnumbered the Germans) across the whole front in an attempt to be equally strong everywhere, but ended up being equally weak everywhere. They also failed to set up effective reserves to stage counter-attacks and the few times they did so they either lacked sufficient armored support or was too late to arrive to make a difference. Simply put, they were expecting to fight the last war against the same strategy that failed Germany and didn't take into account new tactics and technology and were slow to respond to rapidly changing circumstances.
Had France truly committed itself to help us (Poland) in September, the WW2 would have been an insignificant footnote in history books... However, they decided they wont "die for Gdansk", so they had to die for Paris, as simple as that. I would also like to remind people of a note send to the gov of France from Poland stating that if France decides for a preventing intervention in Germany in 30's as a response to breaking of the Versailles agreement by Germany, Poland will help. WW2 could have been prevented at so many points in time.
Actually, after the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936, the French government wanted to occupy the Rhineland. But you know who prevented them from doing so ? The UK and US.
@@xXArnOdu974Xx Well, Albion has always been obsessed with the "balance of power" on the continent no matter the consequences.
@@xXArnOdu974Xx Actually, that simply isn't true. France had absolutely no intention of ordering a general mobilisation. The Deuxieme Bureau had wrongly informed Gamelin that Germany had sent over 200,000 troops into the Rhineland, when the correct number was around 5,000.
Still, if it comforts you to blame the Brits. and the Yanks for French failures, feel free.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Dude I'm not taking about 1940 but 1936... When Germany was remilitarising the Rhineland
@@xXArnOdu974Xx So am I. You might perhaps consider buying a book on the subject.
Try 'In Command of France; French Foreign Policy and Military Planning, 1933-1940' by Robert Young, for a start. A much better idea than simply making things up.
They are like the Dutch if you threaten their capital city rather than having it damaged it's surrender time.
@@georgewashington4032 Precisely, and if I recall correctly they threatened to attack the other major dutch cities if they didn't surrender.
The French during the Franco Prussian war fought after many of their major cities fell. They had pride in their country then. These French were different.
Yeah, take into account the Dutch have been neutral during WWI and had no reason believing involvement in this war as well. So without any proper mobilization, and depending on a defence system centuries old (by flooding certain areas) were completely outrun by the German paratroopers.
Invasion began May 10th, the city center of Rotterdam was levelled by bombings on 14th, and capitulation came 15th when threats of basically bombing each noticeable city were made. We'd probably would've lost Amsterdam, the Hague, Utrecht and Haarlem if capitulation wasn't signed.
The Germans overrun our army outnumbered 3 to 1.
Pretty sure the French and Belgium situation wasn't that much better.
@@Snaakie83 we werent overrun by their paratroopers next to krete their airborn operations failed misserably, also we kinda holded them at "De Grebbelinie" and the "Stelling of Kornwedderzand" hence why they also bombed Rotterdam since they thought they would take The Netherlands in 24 hours, also the reason why the germans where so fond of our forces and whith lots of respect to (note not all germans thought soo)
@@alanle1471 With the HUGE difference that in 1870 the French surrendered after their Emperor was captured at Sedan which is only a few kilometers away from the Franco-German border sooooo they were not different. (not bringing that in the 1st and 2nd WW France lost more cities than in the war of 1870)
The French and British Forces wanted to move into Belgium, to set up defensive lines although the Belgium parliament did not allow this.The worst thing about the French collapse is that the French had a bigger army than the Germans, and more Aircraft in reserve than we had in the entire RAF. And the French government were requesting more and more support from the RAF
When performed well, an enveloping maneuver can destroy a larger army. In the First World War, the enveloping maneuver was disrupted by British arrival and so it failed. But at the Second World War, the maneuver was performed at the other side from where the British and France forces gathered, because they thought the German would did the same old play.
The question is: Why didn't Britain fight to the end (on the continent) in 1940?
The British chose to flee across the Channel rather than help France with all their might, but demanded that France continue fighting and suffer the destruction of their country.
At the end of WW1:
France: Ok we finally defeated Germany, to prevent a future war we need to form an autonomous Rhineland to keep the Germans away from the borders of western Europe.
UK: nah that's too harsh, drop that demand and we will form an alliance with you so you wont need the Rhineland.
US: yeah UK is right, beside with the League of Nations you will be safe.
*Versailles is signed and US refuses to join the League, the UK proceeds to refuse to make an Alliance with France and to try and undermine every attempt they do to enforce the Versailles treaty from the Ruhr occupation to the remilitirisation of the Rhineland.*
*WW2 starts, the US is still twiddling it's thumbs. The UK proceeds to flee to it's island and takes the time to bomb the french fleet and invade their colonies, supporting Vichy propaganda in the process.*
*US finally joins, collaborates with Vichy on multiple occasions and plans to occupy France, even after D-Day.*
Today:
US & UK: and that's why the French are ungrateful cowards.
Can't tell if this is historical or a comment with no effort put into it
@ceo of tech the great It's roughly a generalized explanation for France's cautious approach towards cooperating with the U.S. and U.K. to this very day.
@@chaoticposting4591 Absolutely true.
@@chaoticposting4591 Oh yes ! That is true. The British remembered what a mighty France was and were afraid about us. We wanted to invade Germany and stop Htiler earlier but they did not support us.
This is exactly why one of my ancestors sacrificed all his wealth in France to leave and bring his family to America. He was not the only smart wealthy person in France who saw the writing on the wall after WWI. France was going to have to bare the brunt of fascism again or descend into itself
Imagine France would have just held the event lmao
The evacuation at Dunkirk did not begin until 27 May, so why is it mentioned well ahead of time?
Gort had already made the decision to evacuate the BEF by May 23rd; it was a matter of getting to Dunkirk w/o being cut off and to do so in "good order". Kinda helped that the French First Army held out in Lille until Dunkirk was finally taken, holding that town really hampered the German's ability to move up men and supplies; likely another factor why they didn't expend more effort to capture the BEF.
they had the "disjointed government" modifier
Most of the commentators here clearly know very little of French military history. Yes, the French lost- very quickly- in 1940. The British lost in 1781 to a bunch of "upstart colonials", and the Americans lost in Vietnam to a bunch of "villagers". In all three cases, the defeated greatly underestimated the fighting prowess and determination of their opponents. Every major nation in military history has had it's share of high and low points.
The French also lost in Vietnam in 1954.
All the wars you listed had no long term impact on those nations. France just didn't lose a War, it lost it's entire county and a huge chunk of it's population was subjected to the horrors of the holocaust under the Nazis. Without the U.S and British liberating it, France would have ended up as either a puppet of greater Germany or the Soviet Union.
The countries you listed never had to be liberated from the complete domination of another.
Losing a colonial war that has no long term affect and losing a War that cosy your country it's independence and parts of it's population to end up in extermination camps and gas chambers are totally two different types of "losses."
Fun fact. The U.S military didn't lose Vietnam. The popular will and political support for it "lost" the War. The U.S could've simply destroyed North Vietnam but held back out of humanitarian concerns and world opinion.
The U.S lost 47 thousand combat troops in Vietnam over 10 years. The Vietnamese lost 2 to 2.5 million people and about 20% of it's total population. U.S forces never lost a single engagement over a platoon size.
The Americans killed millions in Vietnam. I would hardly call that a loss. Not to mention they weren't fighting villagers they were fighting the Chinese and the Russians.
@@adrianbrown7586 You're simply wrong. The number of Russians and Chinese actively assisting the Vietnamese was minimal. We weren't "fighting" the Russians, or the Chinese, or even the NVA; we were fighting an entire people- and we underestimated them the entire time. Kissinger even said in 1972 that he refused to see how a fourth-rate little country didn't have a breaking point.
@@shanejones6955 Defeat, and the consequences of defeat, are two entirely different things. Prussia was defeated and occupied by the French in the early 19th century even more rapidly that the French collapsed in 1940- and Napoleon's army lacked mechanization-, but no one has ever questioned the military prowess of the Prussians.
And your "fun fact" is false. We lost in Vietnam. We lost because we failed to achieve the strategic objectives which we engaged the North Vietnamese over. Your comments regarding U.S. casualties compared to the Vietnamese, and U.S. forces not losing any engagement over platoon size are all true; they're also irrelevant. They're irrelevant because we didn't make war on the Vietnamese to avoid losing any battle of platoon size or larger, and we didn't make war on the Vietnamese for the purpose of inflicting a larger kill ratio.
We made war on the North Vietnamese in order to maintain the South Vietnamese government and prevent the spread of communism in Vietnam. We failed on both counts. That we could have destroyed Vietnam is also irrelevant, because we lacked the will to do so.
Every major nation in military history has been defeated at one time or the other. Unfortunately, we Americans like to judge the French based on one campaign- that of 1940. We ignore the fact that all the world's major powers- even the Germans- were astounded by the Germans' accomplishment.
@@adrianbrown7586 when you invade a country to suppress a certain organisation and you leave decades later with that organisation still not suppressed that is a loss
If the French leadership had fought a necessary war in 1940 (WWII), instead of having fought an insane and ultimately unnecessary one (1914-18, WWI)- essentially throwing away the lives of a generation of brave young Frenchman due to incredibly stupid and life wasting tactics - we wouldn't be discussing this now. Also worth remembering: in those brief six weeks of war in 1940 more than 100,000 (not 92,000 as stated) Frenchmen died along with thousands of British. Essentially France had been bled white in the First World War and simply could not fight a Second one.
Ww2 was just as unnecessary as ww1
wrong because war would have still arrived onto french territory. and pointless? that's also a war that many other country have fought in. us fighting was us being loyal to our promises and helping the countries that we are allied with. all wars are meaningless taken like this.
Denmark lasted 6 hours.
Yea they were cowards, the Swedes were profiteering speculators, and Norway despite being the smallest weakest country fought the hardest for good
They didn't have the largest W.Europe's army, plus they didn't collaborate with the invaders, as,sadly, a lot french traitors.
Denmark was a little country that was invaded by surprise, without any declaration of war, they Simply couldn't have resisted to the Wermacht, in spite of everything they saved a lot of lives, either Jews or political oppositors, yes there were collaborators, but surely more less than in France!
@@voiceofreason2674 you call people who stood up to someone they didn't like a cowsrd bruh
@@lastprussian71 they didnt stand up though, the norwegians, or even the belgians were in similar positions and they fought. the swedes like i said always play both sides to make money which is arguably more shameful.
@@voiceofreason2674 how were they cowards?? They are a tiny nation lol
the refusal and inability of France to fight Germany when she invaded was down to 90% leadership failure, ineptitude, 5% communication and lack of coordination when going into battle, and 5% equipment France had more of everything but Germans had better of it. the french army could have done better with better generals.
Belgium be like: Oh shit here we go again
I don't know why Belgium gets such a free pass for basically putting up zero resistance.
@Nobby Nobbs They were helped by the English and British of course, Denmark and the Netherlands got almost no help. The germans got so annoyed with the delays in the Netherlands (6 days instead of 1 planned) that they leveled the city centre of Rotterdam by bombing, to get the Dutch to surrender. but apart from that, the Belgians did put on a very good fight with very old equipment, the Germans spoke of "tough opposition" and "extraordinary bravery" in their reports.
Yes
@Nobby Nobbs no before, it was a defence developed in the 18th century. It was supposed to stop artillery, big cannons would get stuck in the mud. It was already outdated in WW2. They did use it, but it could not stop airplanes or tanks of course. The germans used a lot of paratroopers to capture the goverment city The Hague, but could take the entire city, so the government and queen managed to escape to england. But the germans would have taken all of the Netherlands in like 10 days if they hadn't surrendered after Day 6, we didn't have a Channel to stop the german tanks
Germany during that time already planned this invasion since WW1, they already know what to do. WW1 never became over as Germany was never destroyed. WW1 was just suspended, Hitler didn't do sh@t about war strategy, his Generals already knows how to beat the allies.
France did right. They didn't allow their country to be ruined while the Brits and Americas sat across the war in their homes comfortable.
And then we see the stupid people who call Pétain as a traitor
There were some historical rumors that the French didn't want to end up like the destruction of Poland. Still though French kings and emperors wept and tossed in their graves.
Just didnt want another ww1. France lost the most proportionnaly of that war
And these days France would like to create EU Army to protect Europe against Russia instead of US. Poland learnt at 1st of September 1939 what such a protection from France means as it was left completely alone. If France would attack Germany at the same time it would be extremely tricky for Germans to fight on both ends. If Poland would accept a peace treaty with Germany in 1939, Germans would attack France instead. Poland did not do it because it was loyal to France and it was a big mistake.
Interesting I had never considered that the decision to surrender was, from the view of present times, a good one. They avoided further loss of life and protected their infrastructure (to a degree). Now, had the war ended differently, we'd have a different point of view. But as things turned out, could have been much worse for them had they not surrendered. Lot of speculation in this but it can be considered.
Tell that to the French Jews killed in the Holocaust.
Ironic that the French, along with other European countries, are encouraging the Ukrainians to battle on.....
@@timothyhouse1622 we couldn't have stopped the nazi. I don't justify the deportation, but yeah surrendering at that moment saved hundreds of thousands of lives of french soldiers and ccitizen. and the deportation was fully organized by vichy.
@@gauth7313 and actually helped by French citizens
France was a good place for German troops to be stationed there
Americans seem to forget that the French helped the 13 colonies gained their independence from the British. Without their aid, the US would never have existed!
Oh, c'mon. Just because French "help" once means US has to repay it indefinitely? The debt had been paid in 1917-1918. Had the American didn't interfere, the victorious German eastern armies would already occupied France in 1918, not 1940.
@@boulderbash19700209The US entering the war in 1917 helped to end the war faster. France and the UK were not losing the war nor were they on the verge of collapse by that time. Paris nearly fell at the start of the war but it was saved at the battle of La Marne. It was essentially a stalemate on the western front till the US came in. The US forces arrived in time, after the russians pulled out of the war, to stop a last ditch effort by the germans to achieve victory.
@@alainw77 Really? British and France couldn't won while German had to divide their attention to Russia. With Russia out, the victorious eastern armies were ready to overwhelmed British and France trenches. Indeed, that was what German did, but the Americans arrived while the offensive was half way through. That's the reason of German surrender.
Britain won the Seven Years War and protected the 13 Colonies..... How did you repay that one? 😄
@@boulderbash19700209
It was the threat of potential greater US involvement which unsettled the Germans. The actual military effect of US forces was minimal.
The awesome advance of the British and Empire troops in 1918 was the clincher. That and the always-overlooked stranglehold of the Royal Navy over German supplies. Germany was starving - the Allies weren't.
A LOT of errors in this video. Here, let's me correct the points your are making:
- Underestimation of the german army
Nothing points to that at the leadership level. On the contrary, the french were worried, with reason, with the size of the german army and particularly its overwhelming airforce.
- Unwillingness to go to another war
Meh... France had been the strongest proponent of acting against germany in 36 then 38. Sure the mindset was very different form 1914, but the french commoners overall were buying into the french propaganda of superiority and incoming victory.
- Focusing too much on the maginot line
This is ignoring the realities of France demographics in the 30s. France was half the population of greater germany, but only 1/4 of its men in age of conscription. To field an army to a size close to the german one, France had to rely on older and less fit men. Have those men in forts, where they wouldn't have to march, would free younger men on the hotspot of the coming war, the belgian front.
Furthermore, Paris itself is less than 200 miles from the frontier, and north eastern France was where the industries were (because that is were the iron and coal deposit are). The maginot line was supposed to resist a surprise attack for 2 weeks, giving time for the french to mobilize, and avoid a repeat of 1914 (the immediate loss of industrialy important territories during the initial assault).
The entire point of the maginot line was to force the germans to attack north, along a much shorter front, where the diffential in population between france and germany would matter much less.
-Focusing to much on ww1 defence plans
Once more, that is incorrect. The french plan was to advance into belgium, not stay in defence. What is correct however is that, as the french had won ww1, they had kept their old generals (there was on full generation difference between the french and german generals, THAT is in my mind the main reason of the french defeat), and said generals were slow to act, as indeed they were used to in ww1.
- Ignoring the ardenne
Indeed, this one was the main reason from an operational point of view of the defeat. Gamelin was so convinced the germans would attack through northern belgium that he threw everything he had there, including the reserves, which ended up being encircled when the germans pierced throught southern belgium.
Just a few remarks:
1/ The french didn't think the ardenne were not crossable, they had planned that the germans would take 60 hours to do so, it actually took them 54 hours, so the estimate was about right. The downsides of attacking through the ardenne were so important logistically speaking that Gamelin couldn't believe the germans would be mad enought to do it.
2/ He was nearly correct, the germans plan of attack were going through northern belgium, until January 40, the last time they planned, and cancelled last minute their attack (bad weather). Had they not cancelled their attack, they would have done exactly what Gamelin had prepared for. But following the cancellation, the germans made a war game instead, and an officer plane crashed by accident into belgium (because once more of the bad weather), and as the plane contained the invasion plans (that the officer didn't burn well enought) the germans understood their plan was known to the allies, and Hitler chose instead the crazy plan of Von Manchtein (going throught the ardennes).
3/ Von Manchtein had been militing for an invasion through southern belgium because he was in charge of army group B, the southern one, and wanted to be in charge of the main force (hence the southern force would have to be the bigger). He has been such a nuisance to german high command that they "promoted" him as police chief of poland. But Hitler met him on his departure party to poland, where he had the time to explain him his idea, that hitler loved instantly. All that to say that there had been a lot of luck playing there, and leading to the germans having the perfect counter to the french strategy.
-Not taking immediate action after germany invaded poland
This one is wrong too. When germany invaded poland, it took 3 weeks.
First France had to mobilize. In peace time, france had 22 full strenght divisions, the rest being obtained through mobilization, which took 2 weeks, the plan logically starting with defensive units.
France then advanced in front of the siegrid line into germany, but by then it was already too late and Poland was falling appart. The issue then was that if France tried to pierce throught the siegfried line, it would have ammunition issues (we are in 39 then, and france wasn't ready purely on the material side). For example, artillery pieces had order to fire at maximum 3 rounds per day, in order to avoid emptying the stockpile. Had the french forced their way through the siegfried, the germans would then turn back their forces on exhausted french forces and won the war by october 39.
- Reluctance to fight once the front was broken.
Wrong too, the french in May 40 had 110 divisions. After the encirclement and dunkirk and taking paris (after 3 weeks), they had 60 division left (and nearly no motorized). The germans had then 140 divisions, and the frontline was huge at that point. During the second phase of the invasion, case red, the french simply didn't have enough forces to prevent encirclements after encirclements by the fast german motorized divisions. 3 more weeks later, the germans were in bordeaux and in front of lyon (look on a map to understand that not much of france was remaining), and france had 22 divisions left.
- Avoiding the destruction of the nation
This is partly true.
First, the french govt took a boat to algeria to continue the fight from there, but while they were travelling, at vichy, pro Petain politicians had the parliement vote him full powers (it looked a bit like a coup actually), so when the govt arrived at algers, they were arrested for treason.
Then as much as spitting on vichy france is easy, once has to understand their mindset. The USSR had made a pact with germany, the US didn't want to join the war, and the UK had run away with usain bolt speed. Now nobody believed the UK alone could beat germany (rightfully so), so considering the previous UK diplomatic actions under Chamberlain administration in the previous years, it stood to reason that the UK would recognize it couldn't beat germany by itself, and negociate of itself first, throwing its weak french ally under the bus in the process. Fighiting a loosing fight in which french cities would be levelled on after the other made no sense then, and the best course of action was to conclude a peace right away while france still had some cards under its sleave (like its fleet and colonial empire which still could be an annoyance to the germans if the french didn't quit the fight).
Interrestingly, De Gaulle, who would found the free french, was then in London, and he was in contact with Churchill. He did recognize that Churchill wouldn't stop the fight. From then, in his mind it was a matter of time before the USSR or the US join, and remaining into the fight made sense.
At the end, it is correct to say that as thing happened the outcome was the best france could hope for. Had the catastrophy of the ardenne not happened, the front would have formed and french and germans would have butchered each other by millions. Or had the french refused to surrender, the germans would have blasted their cities and civilian casualties would have been enormous. One could imagine a better outcome maybe (like france not entering the war, and waiting for germany and the USSR to destroy each other), but that is really stretching the alternate histories
German army lost 1/2 of their planes and 2/3 of their tanks during Battle of France. Without those losses, battle of England or Barbarossa would not have been the same.
The French were still recovering from WW1. Infact France didn't have the population to fight another war. So many young men were killed in WW1 and not at home making babies that France had a huge decline in population.
No country soon after WW1 was ready to fight another war. Germany beat up on a bunch of countries that were scaling down their armies and not rebuilding like Germany.
France did have a smaller population, but Germany lost many young men in WW1 too. As did many nations. Number of deaths military and civilian in millions (rounded)...
Germany 2.7, Türkiye 2.3, Russia 2.3, France 1.9, Austria-Hungary 1.8, UK (including Ireland) 1.3, Italy 1.1, Serbia 0.6, Romania 0.5, Bulgaria 0.4, British Colonies 0.2, USA 0.1
Another thing--you have to look at France's surrender in the context of what they'd been through in WWI. France had suffered horribly in the Great War, especially since most of the fighting on the Western Front had been on French soil. The French had hardly forgotten those years, and when it became obvious that Germany had dramatically improved their performance it's not a surprise that they lost heart. Psychology is a huge aspect of warfare, and the mental effect of the blitzkrieg on the French was simply devastating.
This is not an excuse!
Not an excuse, Germany lost like 1.8 Million, 1 Million at the Western Front yet they still have the will to victory.
@@dominiquebeaulieu france is the country that suffered the most or maybe the second most through WW1. so yes. and if you say that it's not an excuse, then what about the americans that still for many refuse to talk about vietnam? yeah a war were you lose so much of your youth is traumatising. and yes there was also a strong pacifist movement in france at the time.
British Field Marshall Douglass Haig said of the French that "The French are very good soldiers before Lunch & very unreliable after Lunch"...
My co-worker is french and it's true. He also hates taking showers. Plus his name is xavier, which supposed to be the name of a X men character, not a real human name.
Similar to bribing the Vikings who traveled up the Seine...They didnt want their cities desrroyed. However; they were lucky that German officers disobeyed orders to destroy Paris when the Germans withdrew.
Fance did not surrender. As soon as Germany stepped foot in France. The French army went on strike. Because they wanted a one hour working day. With 45 minute lunch break. And a 15 minute smoke break...
Main elements are present in the video, but some elements are a bit misleading or missing.
Due to a limited British corps, despite 8 months of respite, the Allies were outnumbered by the Germans. All-out offensive was not possible, all the more after the surprinsigly quick fall of Poland, and was against the defensive strategy of strangling Germany by a bockade.
The whole operational doctrine of the Allies was a linear defence of all their territory. Meaning that, once pierced in one point, the front would crumble if not reestablished by quick counter-attack.
The reserve for counter-attack, initially in the Centre near Ardennes, was sentby French CinC to the extreme North when Netherland was attacked. So Ardennes offensive could not be contained.
After Lille and Dunkirk, new French CinC organised a creditable resistance on a linear front North or Paris, on Somme river. But with nearly all the armoured force lost in Belgium, it fall also.
It's not the fall of Paris that decided the government to surrender. The fight kept on in the depth of France : in Brittany, south of Loire, in East behind Maginot Line, and in Rhone Valley. But French were totally outgunned and desorganised by the speed of the German offensive.
Not all the government wanted to surrender, but Marshal Petain, the most respected general of WW1, put all his influence to back it. With disastrous effect, whereas resistance in North Africa and from London was still possible as De Gaulle proved it.
The French ordered they soldiers to stop fighting when then signed the surrender, but the German kept on advancing until the official time of ceasefire, making one million prisoners AFTER the end of combat. This image of mass of prisoners was used by German propaganda to change the French multisecular reputation of great bravery celebrated after WW1, with lasting effect.
The French fought bravely and lost heavily to the combination of tanks and assault airplanes that nobody knew to stop until the Soviets in 1941. UK was protected by the Channel but kept on losing battles in Greece and North Africa until Barbarossa.
Afer the war, American army asked key German generals to give explanation of their early success. The Germans were dismissive of the quality of French and Soviet armies, insisting on the professional and morale quality of German army, when the difference was rather that Germany was the only nation who fully prepared a war of aggression after the disaster of WW1.
07:19
Henri Pétain? No, no. His first name was Philippe, as mentioned on-screen here.
The French government did not go through their focus tree fast enough to remove the "Disjointed Government" Modiefier. Question answered.
A French historian friend of mine told me that half of the French population was completely in agreement with Hitler's policies, during the Nazi regime.
I can believe that, but I think the percentage was a lot higher in the upper classes.
So were British royals (German-by-birth royals actually).
@@goofygrandlouis6296 but was the British people
What’s the name of your french Historian friend? It is absolutely wrong just a very small minority of French people support Hitler’s regime. French SS volunteers were very few, compared to many other occupied countries.
I wouldn't say half the population but a good amount for sure. You need to take into account the colossal rise of fascism and authoritarianism in the entirety of Europe at the time though.
Good video, especially since anglo british propaganda about France and Italy during WW2 has been disgusting
when the germans launched the invasion the french general staff did nothing until they had finised theur 7 course luncheon, this is a fact.
I love your channel keep up the great stuff
3:47 Why did the Brits flee in the midst of the battle !? ... Why does popular culture says French 'easily gave up' (sure, 92k deads in 2 months), but never mentions the Brits fleeing so early ?
I'll tell you why. Because we kindly sent an army to France to help, but the French army did not put up enough resistance so we had to flee our army to save us from losing them before. We also liberated France in D DAY. So france made us nearly lose our entire expeditionary force.
Didn't see the point of losing our army when the French had failed so badly. Their country..... their responsibility to defend it.
We did take a lot of French troops with us and came back in 1944 to help liberate them, so.....
The french weren't prepared to fight for their country, so why should the British.
As well as achieving the first victories against the ‘unstoppable’ German military war machine, Britain achieved that which no other nation in the world could even possibly dream of accomplishing in the early 1940s - namely fighting, at any one time, a global war in the Middle East, the Far East, the Indian subcontinent, the Pacific, North Africa, West Africa, East Africa, the North Atlantic, the South Atlantic, the North Sea, the Barents and Arctic seas, the Mediterranean, the Adriatic and of course mainland Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia too.
They were the only military power in human history to achieve this.Germany’s war was regional by comparison. Japan’s and Italy’s war the same.In 1941 the British were fighting in all theatres of war, concurrently, in all corners of the globe and against better prepared forces of vastly superior numbers.
Not only was Britain, for the third year running, trying to prop up a blitzkrieged ally - France, then Russia, then the United States - but the incapacity of the U.S. Navy to provide any convoy protection on its east coast almost lost the allies the Battle of the Atlantic. Even after the British hastily deployed 60 escort vessels to cover the US coast, shipping losses climbed to a level that undermined British ability to feed themselves, keep the Russians in the war, keep the reinforcements flowing to the Middle East and Asia, and pander to a panicked Australian government.
For most of 1942 the British Commonwealth held the line, kept back the combined efforts of Germany and Italy and Japan (with fairly minimal imput from the United States compared to her potential power), and kept the Atlantic and Indian oceans open and suppliers flowing to the vital armies in the Middle East and Asia, and to the Soviets.
No other empire in the history of the world has been capable of such a sustained multi-continent and multi-ocean operation. The British Empire and Commonwealth was fighting a three continent, 4 ocean campaign, against three major powers and incidentally trying to keep the Russians supplied and in the war, providing thousands of tanks and aircraft that would have saved Singapore.
Nonetheless the total British losses of territory and people were - one third of the territory the Soviets lost, and one half of the people the Americans ( Philippines) even though those nations were fighting only on one front and only against one of the three powers.
Throughout 1942 British Comonwealth troops were fighting, or seriously expecting to be attacked, in French North Africa, Libya, Egypt, Cyprus, Syria (torn between expecting airborne assault, and preparing to reinforce Turkey if that country was attacked), Iraq and Iran (German invasion from the north was attracting more British troop deployment until after Stalingrad than those facing Japan and Rommel combined), Madagascar (fighting the Vichy French to prevent them from inviting the Japanese in as they had done in Indochina), Ceylon (at the time of the Japanese naval raid that looked like it might prefigure and invasion), India, Burma, outposts of the East Indies, New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, and other Pacific Islands.
For the next two years the British Commonwealth and Empire had far more ground troops in action against the Japanese than the Americans (and again the British were supposed to maintain sea control over the North and South Atlantic's, the Mediterranean and Indian Oceans - and provided aircraft carriers and cruisers to help in the Pacific - while the Americans concentrated on just one of those powers).
@@adventussaxonum448 "We did take a lot of French troops with us and came back in 1944 to help liberate them, so....."
The british just flee, letting behind them all their equipments like trucks, guns, tanks. The british had no more real army after 1940and had to reequip. The british capacity to continue the war was based on its navy. Even its airforce wasnt strong enough. Only pure defensive until the americans came, gave equipments, and landed. The british were only followers. No hnor doing that. Like you liberated France, literally no. Great Britain followed its own interrests, and France was part of it to contain the germans. During the fall of France, GB just left, knowing the french failed to make the job for the whole allies. GB didnt sent enough troops, enough planes to fight the germans, GB expected france to do the job.
And what about Mers El Kebir?
There is no honor in what GB did during ww2. Its colonies made the job, India, South africa, Canada, NZ, Australia; but not GB.
General Gamler had VD. France lost the war when they retreated from the Saar, when the Germans were Poland. France was a different country in both WW1 the Franco Prussian war where they fought very bravely on both occasions.
True, but the French officer corps had been purged by the socialist government, which preferred a politicized armed forces to an effective one.
Coupled with the fact that while French tanks were well armored they lacked three man turrets and radios this made them less effective in action.
France could not launch a massive unprepared offensive in germany, Saar was small because France wasn't totally mobilized in 1939. While Germany reinforced its borders in the west 2 weeks after the beginning of Poland campaign, having already crushed main polish armies.
France was bleed white in the Great War this too had a lot to do with the lack of fight.
as if Germans had not lost a generation in WW1^^
at couchcamper: Germany clearly suffered less of ww1 than France (not even mentionning that its country (and infrastructure, and factories, mines, etc...) was left intact).
1914 :
France: 41,630,000 (~1,4 M dead - & 25% of men aged 18-30)
Germany: 65,860,000 (~2 M dead)
BTW: 1940 : France: 40,690,000 , Germany: 69,838,000
BTW Germany had a much better demographic dynamism back then. France relied a lot on immigration since the 1870s (and still do)
9:26 whats the song anyone know that please tell me
My grandpa was in the 2nd Armor division of General leclerc and I can tell you one thing, France never stopped to fight against germany, even though it meant to have a bounty on your head by the Vichy Regim.
When the germans took Paris, another government was formed in Bordeaux then went to london. General De Gaulle was France, and french people don't recognize Petin and his Vichi regime as France.
Bonjour Bertrand, Bon commentaire. mon grand-père était aussi à la deuxième DB. Fier de lui. Salutations
French Football is rubbish
@@ericgirardet1848 yeah afrikanistan now 2023
Did anyone else notice he said Henry instead of Philippe
If only the French would ask the Finnish farmers, how to destroy an enemy in the forest, the German columns of tanks and vehicles in Ardennes could have been stopped there by "motti" tactics
It's irrelevant... the Allies weren't even looking at the Ardennes, let alone defending them.
@typo pit could you imagine if the Finnish had proper equipment, the death ratio wouldn't be 20 Soviets to 1 Finnish but more likely 1000:1
The French didn't know about Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe Meth Chocolates... If they knew, they might wait until the withdrawal kicked in.
They were busy at the cafe smoking a cigarette