Frenchy reacts to Why was France so USELESS During WW2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 апр 2024
- A Frenchy reacts to Why was France so Useless During WW2
Let's break down this video about the supposed uselessness of France during WW2.
Original video:
• Why was France so Usel...
#ww2 #militaryhistory #secondworldwar
What do you think? Does the term "useless" go too far?
there is a line and this comes very close / even past it arguably
Any valid points the video creator may have been trying to make in this video are cheapened by the Franco-phobe tone. Human nature is that you do not take criticism from a source that is clearly hostile and partisan, to use another French word.
@@seniorslaphead8336 That's exactly the message I'm getting: with a little more nuance I could have totally agreed with him. But this is too much, and it automatically puts me in a position of contradiction.
@@ToonStory-fh4gn Can we maybe get a video on Charles de Gaulle? I'd be very interested to hear your opinions on him as a war leader and post war.
France was far from "Useless" people truly forget that France lost 90000 soldier's during the battle of France and the French soldier's were one of the main factor's that Dunkirk was possible. Also the French resistance helped the allies not only with information of troop movement's but also during D-Day they were creating distraction's to try and slow down the German reinforcement's something that would have them sent to a camp if caught. I truly can't believe people still found the whole "French surrender HAHA" thing still funny after almost a century later.
As a kid i was always told stories of the war by my grandfather and that free french forces were some of the toughest and meanest bastards hes ever fought beside, so everytime i hear the french were useless during the war it always rung hollow to me
Thank you very much, I am planning to do a video about the French Foreign Legion and their involvement at El Alamein
My grandfather was a Gordon Highlander attached to the French order of battle in 1940. They fought on after the rest of the British had evacuated at Dunkirk. My grandfather fought and died for France.
My grandfather was with the Royal Horse Artillery 7th Armoured Div ( Desert Rats) El Alamein 1942.
@@MrIaninuk Very good, but what of it?
They were for years and in fact, Hitler and the Nazis were scared to death of the French military when they expanded their military beyond 100,000 and they were scared of France when they went into the Rhineland because France had a superior army and then they would’ve had to deal with the great Britain’s navy and Air Force!! with Germany being right there beside France they didn’t want the French military coming after them and they were scared, but after they went into Austria and get by with it,
Yes, with the Rhineland, Britain and France realize that world war one I’ve been over for 20 years plus & the Versailles treaty was exceptionally hard on Germany, and they got all the blame for it, and it was not the entire blame of Germany but Germany was the country that committed the most atrocious war crimes!! Germany was the one that really started it because they backed Austria Hungary, if they invaded Serbia because of the archduke and his wife’s assassinations.
I'm so glad to hear a French person take on the historic misconceptions of WW2. Someone had to do this. I hope to see more French movies about WW2. I think their perspective is under-represented. France is a cautionary tale. Perhaps the most valuable to interpret accurately.
Misconceptions? He’s an overly proud man that can’t accept the truth. If it weren’t for foreign powers France would no longer exist. They were absolutely defeated.
Thank you very much, yes I deplore the fact that the French don't talk more. That's why I decided to launch my channel, to communicate and share our history and our way of experiencing the world.
There's a fine line between making jokes and banter, but when it becomes malicious that's when it's too far.
Thank you mate 🫡
Even the first ever modern tank produced in Sweden in 1935 had radios, and I think that says a lot about France and their supposed best military in Europe at the time.
Even if France did invest in equipping its tanks with radios from 1939 onwards, it was too little too late and showed just how outdated French military thinking was. Thanks for your comment!
The ordinary French soldiers were as brave as any in the war and it wasn't their fault that the Generals made poor decisions and couldn't communicate with the Air Force and didn't trust the Intelligence they were getting. I only have a superficial understanding of the fall of France. What surprises me is the absence of any contingency for dealing with an attack in the Ardennes and the lack of fight in the senior officers - especially when their soldiers were putting up a brave fight.
If you like reading, I recommend "The Strange Defeat" by Marc Bloch. Wartime signal officer, historian and Resistance fighter executed by the Germans in 1944. In it, he describes the causes of the defeat, both military and political, and the backward, defeatist state of mind. Thank you!
I was not aware of the situation [crimes] in vichy part of france. and i'm glad you corrected the parts of the video that needed it.
I'm going to make a whole video about it to talk about it in depth because it's an extremely important subject, thank you!
Thank you, that's a very important topic and I am preparing a full dedicated video about this.
Yes!!! it was really really sad because the Vichy French in south France we’re on friendly terms with a nazis, and rather than having German occupying forces come in the Vichy France we’re proud and told the Nazis they would round up and deliver the Jews to them!!! 😡🥹🥹 they did that to prevent or hopefully prevent German occupation but also it was French pride. When Great Britain landed in Africa, around November 1942, and the Americans in December 1942, the first group they met up with were the Vichy French!!! oh, they had hell to pay for what they did!!! it was ass whooping time, and from then on, it, took in the Western allies until the spring, or so, to kick Germany and Italy in to feed them out of North Africa, and then that summer they went into Sicily and Italy, all the way up to Northern Italy, where the allies were stopped & blockaded. The United States in Royal Air Force were already destroying German cities manufacturing tanks and airplanes and bullets, etc. etc. which was their way of helping the Soviets also in the eastern front because DON was bitching that they had not yet open a western front because in 42 they were going into Europe through the south, but Roosevelt always wanted to make an Atlantic invasion.. Stalin just expected Britttany to go in and invade in Europe like they had already done in Dunkirk & the year later and both times they got kicked back out because they’re forces weren’t strong enough. During world war 1, the Indian colonist of the UK helped by the Germans, etc., and so the other colonies was France and great Britain, but World War II was different and I don’t know that the Indians got involved in the war or not and if they did, I don’t hear anything about it but they were still a colony of Great Britain, but it was around 10 or 15 years after World War II, that India became its own separate state
There was a lot of uncertainty about what political angle France should go with at the time and that contributed to the crisis in their military response.
Yes, France is emerging from at least two major political crises, including an attempted far-right putsch. Very complicated situation thank you!
I enjoy your videos not only for the dry humour and historical knowledge, but to also hear the French perspective on world history. I found this video a little more tense that your other world war videos as in the face of the usual bias you also had emotive terms like "useless" and "pissing about" to deal with. The average Brit knows that at Dunkirk one Frenchman fought with the strength of 20, if it's any consolation (even the bias video you reacted to had to acknowledge that). Your original point about "useless" being over the line of usual banter is probably right.
Thank you for sharing this. I hesitated for a long time to publish this video because, as you say, there's a tense and negative energy (probably also from me). But nevertheless, to stay in line with my values and be true to myself, I thought it was important to do so.
Visit the French cemeteries of WW1 to see why its performance in WW2 wasn't up to much, "winning" such a disastrous war as WW1 led France to its decisions in WW2.
If often travel to Verdun and... Damned you're right
My grandfather was a doughboy in WWI, was severely wounded in the Argonne Forest. It was French doctors who saved his life. He certainly knew first hand the resilience of the Poilus. His great grandfather had been an officer with Napoleon in the campaign against Russia , and luckily made it home, effectively marching twice across Europe.
The French generals were very old compared with the German commanders. Most of the highest-ranking generals were in their 70s --not only were they too old for the job, their thinking was effectively that of the 19th century. I think they just could not comprehend using radios and coordination between planes, tanks and artillery. Too many hardened arteries.
An HQ full of mummies
@@ToonStory-fh4gn I don't think we're off on this, that those mummies were the greatest cause of failure in 1940. My ancestor was a capitán of the Genie who went with Napoleon all the way to Moscow and back, surviving (if he had not survived, I wouldn't be here). He was decorated with the Legion d'Honneur from the Emperor personally for helping to bridge the Beresina River. That was an army of young men.
My favourite : "It's a nice touch to include images of Chamberlain in a video where it talks about uselessness in World War II" 👍
Haha thank you
Always appreciate your clarity
Thank you 🙏
I think we should remember that most people were still recovering from the effects of WWI & then the Great Depression. There was a feeling amongst the Allies that the Treaty of Versailles had been too harsh. Once in power, Hitler found it relatively easy to avoid Treaty sanctions - re-militarization of the Rhineland, Anschluss, Czechoslovakia (Sudetenland) & Poland (Danzig Corridor). He was also able to rebuild Germany's Army, Navy & Air Force. Politically, France was unsettled during the 1930's - a long list of PM's from Laval, Boncour, Daladier, Sarraut, Flandin, Bouisson, Blum to Reynaud. France, like UK wanted to appease Germany. The only person who wanted War was Hitler. France and UK were pushed, reluctantly, into war. I think they were relying on Stalin & the Red Army to deter Hitler from further aggression. Once the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed in Aug 1939 it gave Hitler a green light for War. The Fall of France demonstrates that regardless of military kit and numbers of men, if you lack a clear will to fight, the results will be half-hearted & usually ending in failure. The Wehrmacht proved themselves a formidable enemy. It took millions of dead Red Army soldiers to defeat them, along with the US & the UK. In the UK we do, probably unfairly, take a superior attitude towards France. We stuck it out & survived the Blitz, the Battle of Britain & the Battle of the Atlantic. If we had been invaded, then things would have been very different (obviously); the war (at a global level) would have continued, but the UK Crown & Govt would have fled to Canada. Once a country is demoralized, it quickly caves in to pressure & crumbles. We only have to look at our present Govt to see what happens when it is weak & indecisive; the fight goes, quickly followed by a moral compass.
correct me if I'm wrong but was the B1 the french design that ended up with the driver being the main gun aimer, loader and firer?
Exactly! A lot to deal with for one guy
@@ToonStory-fh4gn yeah hence my surprise when they claimed it was possibly the best tank at the time, maybe on paper
I’m glad you mentioned the practical…and psychological…aspect. France physically bore the brunt of WWI. So much so, there are areas of France including entire villages that are STILL unoccupied more than a century after chemical warfare…used by both sides. They are designated Pour La France…they were sacrificed for France. All of Europe lost an entire generation killed….most of them in the fields and towns of France. I’m American. We entered the war in 1917 and US citizens were so horrified at the casualties that is why the US was largely anti war until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. And US casualties were a pale shadow of those France and other Allie’s bore in WWI.
This was an excellent in depth analysis of why France fell apart in months under modern blitzkrieg warfare. Which tactics were developed by a British general named Hobart. Just trivia. 🇺🇸🦅🇫🇷
In the Tower of London there is a museum of the Royal Fusiliers. I remember noticing that they seemed to have pretty mixed success in the displays at the museum. Their lowlights including being chased by women and clowns when they lost control of an american town. However, the final nail in the coffin was reading about their heavy defeat by Vichy forces in north africa - until then I hadn't realised that Vichy were militarily active abroad.
That’s how you know the museum is accurate and just propaganda….it showcases the units follies as well as heroics. I’m American and if I get to Britain the Tower is a must see for me.
@@jimreilly917 I haven't been there for years so I'm not sure if much has changed since then, although being a regimental museum I expect little will have changed. However, I would say that in general a lot of our museums/institutions have gone too far the other way over the last decade or so in terms of overly denigrating our past for ideological reasons.
@@AndrewCooper-oe3up My grandparents were all from Ireland, and not fans of the Crown. History is history….ignoring what happened doesn’t do anyone any good. Look what’s happening in the Middle East since October 7. We’ve been here before.🇺🇸🇮🇪🇬🇧
Thank you for your comment and sorry for the late answer. I did not know about these stories!
Great points well made; I learned alot from this....
Greetings from Coventry U.K.
Thank you very much, greetings from Lyon, France 😀
Damn, i think the FA cup semi messed me up, I saw Coventry and suddenly had an intense desire to bang my hear against my wall repeatedly 😅
Just a neat thing to note. German didn't fogure out tank combat they used an English man's battle tactics. England itself had political issues preventing them from adopting them itself.
Yes, I can't recall the name (Hobart?) but I see who you're talking about thanks!
A part of history of the worst conflict ever, the well known story of bold reckless Rommel, but thankyou for enlightning us, on the courageous French in other battles and resistance that continued for 5 more disastrous years.
As Clausewitz wrote: warfare is something understandable to average man, but warfare is difficult. Interesting video)
Very accurate man, thank you!
People often ignore that the french fought for 4 years against the germans in WW1 and were the main line of defense besides the Russians. The french were still high after there victory in WW1 and didnt want WW2 same as the British.
True, WW1 devastated our country on many levels: economics, materials, demographics, socials and so on...
The French First Army - part of General Devers's Sixth Army Group, advanced into Southern Germany in Mach 1945. So they had quite a big win at the end.
De Lattre de Tassigny, and we even manage to make a photobomb at the signing of the Peace Treaty! Thank you very much
I agree with your points Frenchy. Many of the seeds of defeat were deeply planted before the conflict. The weaker air assets and outdated communication means and ineffective coordination of the various branches of the French military...along with organizing cooperation with several different Allied nations meant a defeat was going to be very difficult to avoid. Also the use of harrowing civilian refugees as a war strategy was one of the many innovations of horror the Nazis brought to the world.
In addition you can level almost all of the criticisms against the French military at the feet of the British military as well. Their performance was not any more effective. The RAF staff vigourously argued against deploying more fighter units to France when they might have made a difference. In the end would anything have changed? Perhaps not. But for those of us who love history we should always strive to continue to learn even if the new information challenges our previously held understanding. Excellent and thoughtful analysis Frenchy.
General Percy Hobart developed much of the integrated tactics used against France. He was ignored by others in Britains high command. They should have listened…the Germans did.
The french weren't bad fighters they were trying to rebuild after the first world war the Germans caught them off guard and the french had bad generals the soldiers did their damn best
I love your love of history.
Thank you ❤️
I was laughing my ass off so hard when they were talking about the tanks.. your facial expressions were great 😂
hahaha I have an overly expressive face, which causes me a lot of problems in everyday life 😆
@@ToonStory-fh4gn🤣
The sad part about all of this is when Germany was building up their military beyond 100,000 and when they went into the Rhineland Germans, and then all things, Hitler always were fearful of the French army, and they were really really concerned that France would stop them because they knew France had a good army and Britain had a good navy and Air Force. Hitler was particularly fearful of France, and he just kept doing one thing after another, and appeasing them only made it worse, because after Hitler invaded Poland and France and Britain declare war on Germany, they didn’t do anything, and I think they didn’t do anything because they were concerned they would be at war with the Soviet union also. I don’t believe they would’ve been because at the time France and Britain have a military that was equal to or superior to Germans size at the time but I just needed the draft & train more soldiers..
The Soviets just signed a nonaggression pact for 10 years, but not an alliance and everybody new Germany & did the Soviets were not friends!! I think is France and Britain would have jumped on Germany for what they did. It’s quite possible is ruthless as Stalin was he could’ve actually joined the Western allies as well. Nine times out of 10, I think the Serbia union would’ve stayed out of it, and if they didn’t get pleas from Germany to help them, the British and French would’ve already been in communication with Stalin and told him they had no problems with him, but they were not going to let Germany continue to expand because they didn’t want another world war on their hands and it was a parent that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party were the modern day Napoleon and they could see it coming in and I had to be stop and then Stalin would’ve understood. They’re just was not really effective communication.
Thank you very much for this comment, very interesting and relevant. I wonder if a very big part of the problem is that the Franco-British took far too long to discern the real threat between Stalin and Hitler, as anti-communism was very strong and Germany could be a potential bulwark against the Red threat.
i will forever argue that britain didn't need saving in WW2.
it had everything it needed, the airforce was strong and the navy was the strongest in the world.
frankly even if nobody else got involved physically then britain would have carried on like it was the napoleonic wars as long as we could get food to keep us going.
but i am a firm believer that if the BEF didn't get off the beaches of france and were captured, moral in britain would have collapsed.
people say churchill was the only reason why the britain didn't end the war after france fell by persuading politicians to keep fighting.
but im part of the group who thinks the french troops saving our boys is what persuaded the british public to keep fighting.
there wouldn't have been a D-day if there wasn't a stalingrad.
there wouldn't have been a stalingrad if there wasn't a battle of britain.
there wouldnt have been a battle of britain if there wasn't a dunkirk.
a little oversimplified but i think you know what i mean, although the french politicians screwed us over, the french troops saved our ass.
The French government might have surrendered but the French people never did. Given the speed with which the Germans were entering France before the surrender, there is every indication France would have been defeated fairly swiftly in any case with not too much difference to German casualties in the end.
As an Anglophile myself who always promote Britain its effort and contribution in WWII , I am sorry but I disagree. Britain needed every help it could get between 1940-42 especially even after from various Commonwealth nations ( there was a British Empire back then) like Canada , India , Australia , New Zealand , South Africa etc , from US Lend Lease aid ( though that arrived very little and sprodically till 1941 summer) and resources of all goverments in exile like Poland , France , Belgium , Holland , Norway , Greece , Yugoslavia , Czechslovakia etc. British govermenmt were no shape to reject any aid to war effort.
@@merdiolu lend lease didn't start until 1941, the entire battle of britain was fought without it.
and after a little research i found 60% to 70% didn't arrive until after the war.
only around 1% to 2% was sent before 1943 and a lot of the remaining 28% to 38% was either rejected or given to exiled allies.
not to mention britain produced so much that it was able to give spare ships to exiled governments to use.
and frankly the empire and commonwealth doesn't mean much, if we never had them then we wouldn't have had to send our army, navy, and airforce out to defend them.
if we didn't have them then britain would have been 10x harder to invade than it already was.
Resistance vs vishi numbers?
The best of France moved to England in 1066.
My great uncles died on your land.
And Degaul never even mentioned this in the history speech that he never participated in.
It is "Vichy" and it is "De Gaulle", for the next time you want to express your anti-french opinions 😉
Irrespective of what happened on the continent it is unfortunate that the powerful Marine Nationale didn't switch en masse to the allied side. It would have shortened the war. Unfortunately we ended up with incidents like the standoff at Mers-el-Kébir, where 1300 French sailors died. It should never have been necessary, but it was.
Mers-el-Kébir is a tragedy, but I would never blame Churchill for taking that difficult decision. On the contrary, it was this kind of courage that made him such a great war leader.
IM ENGLISH AND FRANCE WASNT SO USELESS, IF BRITAIN HAD BEEN NEXT TO GERMANY WE WOULD HAVE FOLDED A LOT EARLIER,
Thank you sir
It was just 21 years since the end of WWI.
None of the allies were prepared for a second go at it.
Not sure how much investment there was in defence between the wars, but I'm guessing politicians sensed a 'peace dividend'.
Accident of history, geography and economics.
Now I am 38 and I imagine a life where I would have lived through WW1 as a teenager, probably losing some of my relatives, the in-between war multiple crisis as a young men and finally now having to face the exact same situation. Thank you for your comment.
@@ToonStory-fh4gn They should have listened to Marshal Foch when he signed the Treaty of Versailles :
"That's not peace. It is a 20 years armistice".
It makes no sense for anyone to try and judge today what happened then. You can report what happened legitimately but you can't understand the mindset of the era. My opinion is that the cream of French youth were wasted in trench warfare by arrogant leadership like all armies of the day had. This loss left a scar and some national PTSD. The Maginot Line was created at huge expense to preserve 'Never Again'. When the German Army emerged from the Ardennes Forest it was thought by everyone that it was a feint because common wisdom says you can't move an army through that forest. The expected main attack was expected from The Netherlands and Belgium as the German Army had made their true feint there. Not wanting to split their army, the decision was made to address the threat from the Low Countries. German mobility allowed that huge army to be cut off from re-supply making it impossible to support. At this point, all the BEF and French Army became useless as a serious threat because they could not be re-supplied. It was a strategic victory for the German Army because no one expected a main attack force coming through the Ardennes Forest nor did anyone expect such a fast advance; they did not realize that German mechanized forces could refuel at French fuel stations so the German armored columns were not taken as seriously. The word 'useless' can be taken several ways: The French had the superior army that was extremely usefull but made ineffective (useless) by the German tactics and a wrong choice by French General Staff. It was 'checkmate'.
The way I see it , French defeat and surrender in summer 1940 , had political roots that infested French Army and comprimised their ability to fight off German offensive efficiently. German offensive plan "Manstein Plan" was a bit of desperation really. German Army General Staff OKW had no contingency or another rerserve plan if Sedan brerakthrough did not work. There was German ammunition and fuel stocks were only available till August 1940. Unfortunetely for the rest of the world , it worked brilliantly , far exceeding the expectations of Hitler and OKW.
The political infighting , fragmentation in French Third Republic that went back dating 1920'ies or even before to 19th Century , also alienated a lot of officers especially high ranking generals in French Army that made up General Staff , French High Command and a lot of bad appointments to General Staff and High Command were made due to their political reliability to goverment or rather old and conservative officers whose military thinking was stuck twenty years ago and dismissive of mobile mechanised warfare concepts of younger officers , were appointed and left in charge of French Army and defence before and during war. Those older officers were lethergic and pessimistic , not looking to future with confidence , vary and distrustful of new ideas and new generation of younger brighter generals like De Gaulle , Phillip Leclerc etc because they were afraid that they would eventually be replaced by these younger officers eventually. Some of them were also members of Nazi Germany symphatic Far Right "Action France" like activist groups that saw no point of France fighting against Germany when they saw their common enemy as Bolshevism. So bad leadership of high ranking French generals who owed their positions due to political reasons , like Maurice Gamelin , Maxime Wegand , Gaston Billotte , Maurice Blanchard , Alphonse Georges ( who also had mental illness diognised and still left in command of French North West Frontier in 1940 ) I think they left the defense of France down.
At this time , France had a series of young , ambitious and brilliant officers like Charles De Gaulle , Jean de Latre Tassigny , Alphonse Juin , Phillipe Leclerc , Marie Pierre Koening. Unfortunetely their superiors were barring their advance ( especially De Gaulle's who was not very popular among his peers and superiors as I understand from his biography) and promotions and they were not in overall strategic charge in 1940.
I am not sure that anyone who really knows WWII blames the French soldiers for the defeat but the French leadership - both military and political.
I personally blame the n@zis
I think a lot of problems with Americans to the French Military was with (what came to be known as) the Vietnam War.
I hate how everyone dumps on the French Military.
But in French Indochina- we seem to be the bad guys.
Have you ever addressed this, and can you in the future.
This one is kind of a blindspot for the, so I am very intrigued... I'll consider it, thank you!
@@ToonStory-fh4gn
I’m always setting people straight about the French military.
But, I’ll call it like it is, and call out a country or a government that is in the wrong- it seems that we America and France were in the wrong.
Military disaster's happen. Look at the British Empire forces surrendering to the Empire of Japan at Singapore. A complete shambles that should never have happened and put us on the back foot in Asia.
Singapore was just a colony in one of many though. France , Metropolitan France was a soverign country and nation.
@@merdiolu Hopefully we are now preparing to defend Europe if things take a turn for the worst?.. An interesting note , the British passport with the Unicorn 🦄 and lion 🦁 on the front has writing on it, I assumed it was Latin, but it is French. British passports with French on them. Must have come from the Norman's.
While that was a disaster….the British general who surrendered Singapore didn’t offer much fight. The French mid level officers, NCOs and grunts fought like hell against the Nazi invasion.
Why are the streets of Paris lined with🎄trees??? To shade the Germans while they march😂
That one never gets old 😄
Additional point. In the Baltic countries once taken by the Germans the people were so enthusiastic about expelling and killing Jews that even the Nazi ethnic cleansing squads were shocked.
Yes, thank you. I thought ofthe percentages of Jewish populations exterminated by country but I didn't want to mention them here, it's a bit frightening and too sensitive.
If, If , If, If...so many ifs told in the original video at the end...for my taste way too many ifs to make an argument.
I will narrow it down to just one single "if" as conclusion of that whole original video:
"IF his aunt would have been a man she would have been his uncle" that is basically what that original video is trying to say.
The truth is that the Germans started the attack on May10th in the Nederlands + Belgium massively with their Heeresgruppe B + C + air-support so the Allies thought they are trying to break through there and therefore they concentrated their troops there obviously in order to stop them.... and 2 days later on May 12th the Germans started "to sneak" through the Ardennes with Heeresgruppe A including 5 Panzer Divisions + 40 thousend military vehicles...So the allies were now totally "caught flat footed at this point" so to say..
We say in France that "With IFS we could put Paris in a bottle". And I deleted the moment where I sayed "if my grandmother had wheels she would be bycicle" + a couple of other french words 😅
Thank you very much
@@ToonStory-fh4gn Nice to see that it wasn´t just me who noticed that this original video was all about "if"...too bad that you deleted your saying + "the other french words" (I guess just "nice words" 😇) it would have made my day...Greetings from Vienna/Autriche.
Useless? I dunno I think they were extremely active considering the size of France, it's exposure from the air, and the various battles taking place all over France, they were at times taken away from some of the main points of conflict and this is what allies are for, after all. After a win or defeat, to sit and calculate who did what is a dickhead move anyway imho.
In fact it's the lack of heart and empathy in the term that shocks me. To be a good historian you also have to be a compassionate person, because we're talking about human beings. Thank you very much!
I think it definitely goes too far. The French army was decently equipped and were tough fighters, but generally very poorly led at high levels. If you look at places where they had strong leadership, like in the fighting around Stonne, the French soldiers fought as well as anyone during the war. Germany learned hard lessons in Spain and used those lessons when they fought in France. Unfortunately, neither the French nor the British had that experience so it was tough going at first for them. It was the same way for the Americans with disasters like Bataan in the Pacific and poor showings at Kasserine in North Africa. Frenchmen fought hard in North Africa, Italy, and then finally in their homeland. That's not useless.
Thank you for your comment. You have to put that into perspective with the fact that the Wehrmarcht was beating the crap out of everyone until 1943. As for the term itself, it simply lacks heart, and unfortunately to be a good historian you need a minimum of heart, because we are talking about human beings after all.
That title makes me cringe.. Without even watching there are simply too many reasons outside of Frances control that contributed to its loss in the Battle of France from the brutality of WW1 to its politicians during the interwar and war periods leading up to the loss. France wasnt useless, it was still 'bloodied' by WW1 and had a number of politicians that wouldnt let it truly build up its defenses to a point that could repel the Germans.
WW1 was a pyrrhic victory in many respects, and the period between the wars saw intense social and political crises. Thank you for your comment!
@@ToonStory-fh4gn It really was. I do wonder what would have happened if the US didnt start sending fresh bodies. Everyone was close to collapse end of 17 into 18 iirc.
Individually I'm sure there were plenty of French men that fought there a*** off and gave it there all.. I have never thought that the French were cowards or anything like that never believed any of that.. maybe at the leadership level yeah.. things just got out of hand and escalated from there.. but I never thought that on an individual level or anything like that if that even makes sense.
Thank you very much 🙏
I am reviewing as a non French or a non Briton. The langauage and esp. the term "useless" is nothing but to provoke for click baiting. And this clip is using Julian Jackson's book "Strange Victory" written in 2002 a lot as a resource. Jackson in his book , gives a lot of emphasis on French intelligence failures to detect focus point of German offensive and not about how French could and should do to react once German attack started in May 1940. Fatal mistakes and almost criminal neglect before the war and after war was declared in September 1939 , had been done by French politicians , generals , General Staff and various Defence Ministries ( unfortunetely also made worse due to political fragmentation and instability of Third Republic before the war. The goverment in power always changed and there was rarely a stable French strategic defence policy other than holding Maginot Line)
That said : French soldiers , officers on frontline and even most of mid level generals like division and corps commanders performed as well as under those circumstances and fullfilled their duty and honour to best of their capabilities and available means. The failures of their military and political superiors before the war and after German attack started should not shadow their courage and sacrifice. I believe on the body of one French general commanding a division , killed in combat in May 1940 , as final note written by that general was found that addressed directly to Paul Reynaud , French Prime Minister: "I am killing myself Mr President to let you know that all my men were brave, but one cannot send men to fight tanks with rifles."
As this clip mentioned French Army had a lot of tanks. Unfortunetely due to bad leadership and neglect from French High Command and General Staff , all those tanks were at wrong places to face German attack in May 1940. This brave French officer paid the cost of these errors of judgement and bad leadership from top.
I for one love the French and I’m British
And I'm french and can tell the same about the Brits :)
look i am an American who served in the Army in non combat times. We joke about the French retreating, but it has nothing to do with WW2. It has everything to do with WW1 when the USA Military started to show up, and the French wanted to fall back to a better position. The Americans were brand new and didn't have the war wariness the French did. We joke about it, but the French have backed the USA for the most part for the whole of our Country. They helped make the USA a nation by putting pressure on the British.
This guy doesn't get it at all. He has never served and it shows. Air was more important in WW2 then artilleries. France lacked air force and anti air guns. No amount of Artilleries was going to change that. So you last another month?
He misses so much and makes bad takes. Cherry picking certain ideas that he thinks offset each other, but don't. The French Resistance is legendary. They did so much for the war. It would take a whole book to talk about the victories they did, so i will just talk about 1 thing. they ruined railroads and communication lines on the days before D-Day. That hampered the Germans ability to get troops into position in enough time to set up a defense.
I just want to say, thank you to France for allowing our Black Troops to fight for you in WW1, when they couldn't here. I know they were well taken care of. Harlem Hellfighters, if you could do a French perspective on these troops, it would make me happy.
Thank you very much. Yeah I'll talk about Harlem Hellfighters, we owe so much to these brave men.
All my friendship from France, mate!
A lot of it is based in British Guilt.
Thank you (I'm slow to answer these days). Perhaps, in that case, it's surprising that we find it hard to distance ourselves emotionally from all this.
That was a hard watch to be fair. The term 'useless,' is definitely inappropriate and in my view inaccurate. The French resistance, the ordinary folk and their heroics, have legendary status even in the UK. I imagine most Brits couldn't imagine being overun by a foreign force hell bent on empire building. Add to that, the victor writes the history. Fair play for taking this subject on monsieur. Keep it rolling eh. 👍 👏
Thanks, I waited and hesitated a few days before publishing it because I can imagine that it's not the most fun or pleasant to look at. But I decided to publish it to be true to myself and my values
mais tout le monde est alle aider La France ! Garde votre tete haut ! ( be proud )
Always!!!! Thank you sir
Not when it counted. And France and the Allies should have upheld the terms of Versailles in the 30s when Hitler busily rearmed Germany with the most modern aviation and armor technology.
Intelligence seem's faulty here, you would think that all approaches to the French border would have been heavily watched, not just the borders themselves, a in depth intelligence network the Allies had month's to set this up. To be caught making a massive erroneous movement into Belgium and Holland, without knowing the real location and movement of the German army was suicidal. It's true that this was brought about by a unwillingness to fight a static war on French soil. Truth is the German's were motivated by revenge, the Allies not motivated to fight at all. The feeling of the Allies was havn't we been here before. The revenge aspect of the German psyche was a direct result of the punitive nature of the terms of the armistice, reality was there were no winners and losers at the end of the 1st World War only losers, and to avoid it happening again treat all parties as the victim's, a lesson only learned at the end of the 2nd World War.
The "Historian" who made this video really isn't very good - please don't take this to be the attitude of British people who know anything about WWII.
Merci :) I always thought that in order to be a good Historian you need a minimum of empathy in order to understand human nature because after all we're talking about human beings. Compassion helps too.
A very interesting video,but insulting people who are actually fighting an being killed is shameful.
I thought whoever ruled the sky's rules the war.
IRS the start of the war the Germans had defeated Poland,an I imagine there saw it working,an were up for the next battle.
Can I just say Churchill is hated,called a drunk,who didn't even write his own speeches,didn't think Dunkirk was worth risking men an machinery,to get the troops of the beeches,ordinary fisherman an people with boats saved the men on the beaches.
Also he let the people of Coventry get bombs,kept the raf out of there to let the Germans think,the British hadn't broken there codes.the British threw out Churchill in the first election after the war,it always surprises me ,when I hear people talking about him,like he was a great man,no he was hated by a great number of British people.
Like I say I hated history as a kid,an I love it now,but people should check out history for themselves,it's too easy to go by what someone else said.
Thank you very much. One day I really must study more about how Churchill was perceived in Britain. I have the impression that he was a man made for war, not for peace.
Could ask the same question about the French for any period really
Thanks for the comment 😃
I mean that's just factually untrue. France has had plenty of military successes. Just not so much against UK/England 😉
@@seniorslaphead8336sure…
Except that whole Hundred Years’ War thing…or that time a French duke sized the English throne….actually if we list things before 1600 French success against England isn’t too bad.
This was certainly a lazy Sunday surprise, the title threw me off, I seriously thought it was going to be a tongue in cheek story, but no, it wasn't. I think you were right on about looking at history eighty years later, we call it being an "armchair general" or hindsight is 20/20, I cannot grasp what the soldiers went through, they were being attacked by a rabid, deranged dog! I don't know but I was taught so many stories of the resistance I grew up not being able to understand how they could be so strong. As we yet again approach the anniversary of d day, I honor all allied soldiers for their bravery and sacrifice so this American woman can live in a free country. And again like the t shirt says allied army" undefeated, back to back world war champs". Thank you as always for the video and thoughtful commentary
@@chain3213 *Viking Duke... and it wasn't really "the whole" Hundred Years War thing, was it? We were winning for most of it until that medieval Greta Thunberg turned up.
Macron sending troops...sorry, ' mercenaries ' and companies of the Foreign Legion to Ukraine is not working out very well.
Sorry mate I don't understand the link with this video?
I was surprised that so little was said about the role of deep political divisions within France as a possible explanation for its limited political and military resilience in the face of Nazi military success. It might also have been pointed out, although admittedly this would have been off-topic, that the Luftwaffe’s losses in the battles for France contributed to its failure in the Battle of Britain. The jibes against Chamberlain aren’t so telling if one remembers that the policy of appeasement was not merely negative but also intended to buy time for rearmament (as perhaps also for convincing the British public that war, when it eventually came, was necessary). The point about the huge number of French civilian refugees, their plight, and their vulnerability to German attack as a contributory factor in the diminution of the French will to resist was well made.
I'm preparing a video on France's lack of action in 1936 during the reoccupation of the Rhineland. It really resonates with what you're saying, thank you for your comment.
I know this video must have pissed you off but unfortunately the last great thing the French are known for is their bravery at Dunkirk, unfortunately after that you basically ran away and helped the Enemy. The French are now universally known as the army that runs....
I was more thinking of the world cup 2018 with Mbappe running very fast indeed 🚀🚀🚀
@@ToonStory-fh4gn , Lol,...touché, it was a great run....
“The prolonged defense of the French garrison played an important role in the reestablishment of British troops in Egypt. From the outset, the Free French seriously disrupted Rommel's offensive. The supply of supplies to the Afrikakorps was severely affected. The increasing concentration of the Axis to pierce this abscess saved the British 8th Army from disaster. The delays brought by the resolute resistance of the French increased the chances of the British to recover and facilitated the preparation of a counterattack. In the longer term, the slowdown in Rommel's maneuver enabled British forces to escape the planned Axis annihilation. This is how we can say, without exaggeration, that Bir Hakeim facilitated El-Alamein's defensive success. "
_ British historian Ian Playfair, on the Battle of Bir-Hakeim in 1942.
@@tibsky1396 , ummm.... im sure Rommel wasn't defeated by the French mate, all of the war we could of said that wouldn't of happened if we didn't do this....
@@jezlanejl Not defeated, they were too numerous, but they gave the British 8th Army enough time to fall back, and fortify themselves at El-Alamein.
america did not defeat germany
america did not defeat japan
america did not defeat stalin
and for perspective:
ukraine has lost more soldiers in the first year of the war alone, then american troops were even deployed during ww2.
parler n'est pas cher