Weak and incompetent leadership can do more harm than the actual enemy.

@rikuvakevainen6157

2 ай бұрын

True and German soldiers show that in Eastern-Front when Hitler made all the orders.

@crazydaisy1334

Ай бұрын

Exactly how American leaders are! Weak…stupid..selfish fools willing to sell out to the highest bidders!….

@phillipp5538

Ай бұрын

To be fair the Germans did less damage to France than the British. France had a good chance to come out of WWII with little lost had they not signed that agreement with the British to not seek peace independently.

So brave of the Italians to declare war once Germany defeats France

@jonathanj.7344

Жыл бұрын

They wanted a share in the spoils

@tom-ke7lb

Жыл бұрын

did germany defeat france or did vichy france join forces to fight the allies

@MrPomdownunder

Жыл бұрын

@@tom-ke7lb I think in Morocco Vichy French fought US soldiers....

@MarkSmithhhh

10 ай бұрын

Right

@Fallout3131

9 ай бұрын

Italy has a history of that, they also like changing sides to whoever looks like they win=)

at that time, the French army was one of the best in the world in terms of training and equipment, BUT we had a staff of fossilized old-timers from 14-18 who were totally outdated in terms of "modern" warfare and a doctrine for the use of armor that was totally obsolete.

@Rowlph8888

11 ай бұрын

Yes, but that's not enough to explain the fallout. ultimately it boils down to the hangover from World War I on the nations involved and the fact that the Nazi regime had singularity of purpose and total conviction, and total control could enforce their will the population. Britain and Franch were democracies, where parties had to provide services, couldn't act unilaterally and the ruling party was always fearful of upsetting the public, because It would lead to them Being replaced and losing power. Ultimately, the Brits and the French wanted nothing to do with this War, and the politicians were cowards, not wanting to risk upsetting the public by saying they had to fight another world war (WW1 the worst war in British and French history in terms of military losses and disabilities) They were apathetic in planning - that's the only reason The Nazis got anywhere. If Nazis don't penetrate the Ardennes, This war would have been over within 2 years, with a Nazi loss, with Hitler in charge

@NguoiVietLaNguoiAryan

7 ай бұрын

If u guys lost. U guys dont need to explain... SKILL ISSUE...

@andrewcoons8060

7 ай бұрын

Actually Germany was a true democracy! Over 95% of civilians supported the actions of their Government unlike our democracy!

@theshield1613

5 ай бұрын

Yeah only the 19th century

@jrizzo3579

5 ай бұрын

I so agree ...and might add those fossilized generals were outdated in the first war

The French suffer 100.000 deaths in only 4 weeks. Not even in WW1 any army endured such ammount of dead in such short time. It was realy tragic to The French army.

@rayquaza1245

Жыл бұрын

At the beginning of WW1 the French suffered almost 30,000 deaths in one day.

@jpmtlhead39

Жыл бұрын

@@rayquaza1245 27.000 thousand,Battle of the frontiers. And the battle lasted for 2 months. In August the French suffered in total 75.000 deaths. August/ September In total the French had suffered 329.000 casualities,during August and September 1914.

@whoifwhat

4 ай бұрын

Russia

@devilthao5458

4 ай бұрын

Holy fuk

@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044

2 ай бұрын

Germany was also loosing far more men per day in 1940 at rates of Which it couldn't sustain as acknowledged by Hitler when taped in Finland in 1942 . Nevertheless as it was concluded with large territorial gains and the lands pacified save minor insurrection it was a good win for them

To me it boils down to one thing. The French were too slow. The German came in the back door with their forces concentrated and for many reasons the French were unable to assemble a force to stop them fast enough. They were always a dollar short and a day late. One can blame fossilized Generals and command structure or obsolete tactics or the poor moral of the troops (just some of them, who happened to be at the point of the attack), or above all to me, the lack of modern communication equipment. French Headquarters did not even have a phone much less a radio. They used runners or messengers. Can you believe it? Every time they tried to counterattack hardly any French units showed up on time making the attacks uncoordinated (or much more than they would normally be which isn't saying much) or else the Germans were long gone and miles away from where the French thought they were. To the French the speed of the German advance was simply unbelievable. It blew their minds and they could not cope.

@phlm9038

2 жыл бұрын

It didn't only blew the mind of the French, but also of the Poles, of the Danes, of the Norwegians, of the Dutch, of the Belgians, of the British.

@khylebaguingan8211

Жыл бұрын

it's also unbelievable that the german forces are outnumbered but still won

@nicksinger1705

Жыл бұрын

The Maginot line worked as planned. The Allies held firm in Belgium. The Allies lost because the Germans broke through at Sedan and the Allies simply could not destroy their bridge heads 14-16th May. The French knew the problem pretty quickly and scrambled all planes to try to destroy it and they sent reinforcements to close the gap. A combination of bad luck and a lack of high quality dive bombers caused this problem. Speed was part of it. The Germans got pretty lucky. kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4urrsWym8jKk9Y.html - great lecture here.

@McDago100

Жыл бұрын

@@khylebaguingan8211 Read what Manstein had to say about it. The Germans concentrated forces, and outnumbered the enemy at the point of attack. An enemy can out number you overall, but if forces are dispersed, it does no good. It is outnumbering your enemy where you take the fight to them.

@khylebaguingan8211

Жыл бұрын

@@McDago100 I'm talking about the overall forces... The french are just stuck in ww1.. while the germans are pretty advance... Not to mention there tank doctrines too

France: Do i look like a joke to you? Germany: Pretty much!

@phlm9038

Жыл бұрын

Really ? kzread.info/dash/bejne/nn-mm7l7eqW9ZJc.html

@Alhmaleonn

Жыл бұрын

Lol France still won the war alongside its allies, so the joke is on germany I think, getting beaten by a nation that has surrendered is quite something 😂.

@sabahanwarpath8634

Жыл бұрын

​@@Alhmaleonn nope,,u lose shut up😂

@perspectiveflip

Жыл бұрын

​@@Alhmaleonn Counting them in as a victor was a huge stretch and they weren't considered equal.

@perspectiveflip

Жыл бұрын

​@@Alhmaleonn the only reason they were counted is because of the alliance. Consolation prize so to say.

not just the french but also the BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE..

@cskelly3783

Жыл бұрын

The UK was never fully occupied at any point in WW2. The French failed to fight off a homeland invasion which is completely different from the British losing a couple of major battles in the early part of the war. I don’t think the “BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE” losing is a fair comparison to what happened in France. France quite literally rolled over in WW2.

@altair458

Жыл бұрын

@@cskelly3783 right you are mate. The uk wisely ran and cowered in the subway tunnels and prayed for AMERICA to save their sorry inbred tea drinking asses. France stood alone. England groveld. Now drink your tea and eat your spotted dick. AMERICA is here to protect you.

@camm8642

Жыл бұрын

@@cskelly3783 the channel islands were surrendered without a shot

@roysimmons3549

Жыл бұрын

Skelly ain't British. But for us Skelly you wouldn't be posting codswallop on here.

@bigwoody4704

Жыл бұрын

The Britsh left 80% of there military hardware on the beach there - a staggering amount - they were there in force

My brother bought a French military rifle. Great deal. Never fired and only dropped once.

@jorgeteixeira1922

Ай бұрын

Let's set the record straight. This is how long the European countries invaded by the Nazis resisted: Denmark: 6 Hours Luxembourg: 1 day Holland: 6 days Yugoslavia: 11 days Belgium: 18 days Greece: 24 days Poland: 27 days France: 1 month and 12 days Norway: 2 months and 1 day

Combination of many things; any single one of them would probably not have proved fatal, but synergistically, it caused a quick collapse of France's ability to defend Metropolitan soil. 1) Much of the French command and control was utterly obsolete. General Gamelin didn't even have a radio operation and/or telephones; he had riders dispatch daily orders and receive reports from his field army commands. The French Air Force (L'Armee d'Air) had no coordination at all with their army, so what support it could give, until it was wiped out by the Luftwaffe, was often mis-directed and ineffectual. The Germans, OTOH, had learned during the Spanish Civil War, and refined methods during "Case White" (the conquest of Poland) of having Luftwaffe officers, many of whom were also paratroops or airborne anyway, as "FAC" (Forward Air Controllers), working with front-line battalions to direct air strikes. It was the same with their DLM and DCM armored units; their radios didn't even use the same frequency as those of the infantry divisions, and only a company commander of a French tank unit had a two-way radio, with only the larger Char B1s and Somua S--35s having a receiver...which used a ticker-tape printer instead of speakers, due to engine noise! The rest of the French armor used SEMAPHORE flags. 2) The Maginot Line actually succeeded, at least temporarily, in its original purpose, that is, to deter a German attack on the common border with France. It also had the effect of incentivizing Germany to violate the neutrality of the Low Countries. Of course, once the defensive lines of the Somme and the Aisne were penetrated in June of 1940, the supplies to the troops manning the Maginot Line were cut off, and it was attacked on June 14th 1940 by Army Group C, which broke through in three days. Over 150K French troops did hold out in the Maginot forts until the negotiated surrender date of June 25th, 1940, but they were fairly much doomed anyway. 3) Belgium was anxious to stay out of this second war, but was no more able to keep out its enormous German neighbor in 1940 than it had been in 1914. Its King and Army High Command refused to work out joint plans and exercises with the French, particularly in support of their "Dyle Plan", so its coordination with the Allies was spotty. 4) The Luftwaffe quickly gained air superiority over the French L'Armee D'Air, which hampered French troop movements. Furthermore, w/o significant resistance from Allied air forces, the Luftwaffe functioned in the role it was best suited for, as "Flying Artillery" for the Heer. 5) Although the French had MORE tanks than the Germans, and never mind what the BEF added, and overall, their vehicles had better armor and firepower, they were typically ineffective, although the French armor did bloody the Panzers in two succeeding battles in NE Belgium in May 1940, at Hannut and Gembloux. Aside from over half the French tanks being light, two-man models, which were about equal or slightly better than the German Panzer I and Panzer II light tanks, the heavier models were equipped with the ONE-man AXP4 turret, worked by the overburdened tank commander. Like the Renault and Hotchkiss light tanks, this turret had an unusual feature in that the commander's hatch was in the rear of the turret, and it had a built-in seat, so he'd ride looking over the turret! Needless to say, the tactical efficiency of French armor, along with most of them not having a radio, meant that in tank battles their efforts were often wasted. However, Captain Pierre Bilotte, son of a high-ranking general, commanding a Char B1 bis named "Eure", at Stonne on May 16, 1940, utterly devastated a German armored column, wiping out two Panzer IVs and eleven Panzer IIIs, while taking 140 hits from them and anti-tank guns and still was able to fight! This episode did, in a way, backfire spectacularly, as the post-battle analysis served to convince the Germans they needed to develop heavy tanks like the Char B1. 6) As many have covered, the "Dyle Plan" had a fatal flaw as executed: It left the French frontier next to the southeastern part of Belgium, i.e., the Ardennes, "defended" by the least-capable of the reservist "Series B" divisions. Gamelin et al didn't believe that Germany would send tanks through the winding roads of the Ardennes at all, believing that it'd take ten days to get through; it took the lead elements of the seven panzer divisions ten HOURS. The timing of the break-through at Sedan couldn't have been more unfortunate, and more an accident than any planning with foresight; the cream of the French forces, engaged in what were then massive tank battles at Hannut and Gembloux, were surprised by the bulk of the Panzers crashing through their rear, and, once they'd broken through, had a clear path to either Paris and/or the Channel Coast. Many also believed that the Germans would instead bypass Paris to the SOUTH, going down the Loire valley, the reverse of how Patton's Third Army did it four years hence, and reach the Channel at Cherbourg, bagging the entirety of the French Army and still forcing the BEF to evacuate. 7) The breakthrough reveal another fatal flaw of the French Army: lack of MANPOWER. What had driven things like the Maginot Line was the utter paucity of available French young men for military service in 1939-1940; what would have been the reserve had perished in the testicles of their would-be fathers at Sedan and Verdun in the Great War. Many of what Americans would later term "Retreads" had to be pressed into service, i.e., older WWI vets that were less fit, and, memories of officers and generals indifferent to them, were less inclined to fight to the death AGAIN. There are still many myths that circulate: that the French were fighting the previous war (to some extent yes, but so did the British and the Germans likewise), that they relied on the Maginot Line solely to defend their frontier (untrue, there was no "Maginot-Line Mentality", indeed, Gamelin's desire to go on the offensive as soon as he felt he could is part of what led to France's crushing defeat), and, the worst, the "Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys" trope. Ninety-Two thousand "Mort pour la Patrie" belies that notion, and, indeed, the French resistance along the Somme and Aisne rivers, during the final German offensive, "Operation Red", when their overall position was hopeless, belies any notions of French cowardice.

@thanosmaster-abel559

Ай бұрын

All of that for 8 likes. Lmao. I ain’t reading that.

Maginot Line was... "Imagine, no line"

@ziib9883

4 ай бұрын

Maginot Line do his job very well. The real problem is explained in the video

@gotthelfschwab1272

3 ай бұрын

Ha ha ha ha....

@reyalcaraz6473

Күн бұрын

Nope​@@ziib9883

Complete agree with this analysis French and British defense were not with the times. Germany used fast moving panzer divisions with dive bombers providing close air support. The blitzkrieg tactics used by Germany were just quick and superior

@grahammcfadyenhill9555

2 ай бұрын

And it shouldn't have been such a surprise. The Axis had practiced in Spain during their civil war.

@jorgeteixeira1922

Ай бұрын

Let's set the record straight. This is how long the European countries invaded by the Nazis resisted: Denmark: 6 Hours Luxembourg: 1 day Holland: 6 days Yugoslavia: 11 days Belgium: 18 days Greece: 24 days Poland: 27 days France: 1 month and 12 days Norway: 2 months and 1 day

Very good pointing out that the French and British had the greater military force but lacked a plan so they basically refought WWI. The Germans used a very different approach. You neglected to mention that Britain and France actually declared war on Germany. That is what precipitated the invasion. Hitler wanted war but he wanted it in 1945.

@eduardomaldonado1647

Жыл бұрын

Germany invaded Poland because Poland was killing German civilians inside Poland. Then France and Britain declared war on the Germans. Makes sense to me the allied forces are the villains in the story.

@joelex7966

Жыл бұрын

@@eduardomaldonado1647 all true. A friend of mine had a book that documented the torture and murder of ethnic Germans by poles. Unfortunately the book was in German so I couldn't read it but the estimate was as high as 54,ooo Germans were killed. They were never sure what entity was actually responsible. The Germans had reasonable demands, access to Danzig via a rail line across former German territory. Britain guaranteed Polish sovereignty knowing they could do to back up the promise. When Poland was invaded they declared war on Germany and gave Russia a pass. The reason they wanted war was because Hitler ditched the Federal Reserve style banking system they were saddled with in favor of sovereign control of their currency.

@DawnOfTheDead991

Жыл бұрын

@@eduardomaldonado1647 Oh please spare us your lame Nazi BS. The Nazis murdered Poles and Jews by the millions

@jeffk464

Жыл бұрын

I've heard it had a lot to do with tactics and the fact that german tanks all had radios and so could really coordinate all of their attacks.

@DawnOfTheDead991

Жыл бұрын

@@jeffk464 The French tanks had 1 man turrets where the commander had to load and fire the gun too while Germans had 3 men to do the same jobs so the commander can concentrate on just running the tank

RAF and French air forces were good , but often lacked in cooperation with field troops.

@DawnOfTheDead991

Жыл бұрын

Neither allied airforce had any tactical ground troop support tactics, training or equipment while the Luftwaffe was created to assist the army.

@Don-mu2qh

Жыл бұрын

RAF withdrew much of their air force that they had committed to the French campaign to defend Britain.

@tackywhale5664

Жыл бұрын

Both of them were shit until the Battle of Britain, the hell are you talking about?

@ericgirardet1848

3 ай бұрын

@@tackywhale5664 The battle for France had cost the Luftwaffe 28% of its front line strength, some 1,428 aircraft destroyed (1,129 to enemy action, 299 in accidents).

Though I’ve gone over this campaign many times, I sill learned a few new things.

Operation Barbarossa should have been delayed years. Stalin would have sold Germany the oil.

@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044

2 ай бұрын

Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union using fuel from oil which they had been purchasing in record amounts from the the Soviet Union. All wars are banker's wars as the saying goes.

@JOEL00111

Ай бұрын

Soviets were planning to invade Germany, they struck first, just didn't focus on taking the oil fields and instead went after stalingrad, bad decision!

War is a matter of organisation and recognizing every chance and challenge and it doesn't just only start when a war begins.

When the military planners of France said the Ardennes was impassible to armor perhaps they were thinking CharB1s. Those slow behemoths would have gotten stuck for sure! Light to medium panzers didn’t share that problem.

@dargaard93

2 жыл бұрын

No. B1s can easily go through rough terrain, even Ardennes, as it has been tried in 1947. It's just the IDEA that prevailed but noone really tried it.

@Otokichi786

2 жыл бұрын

@@dargaard93 Another video about France's "Six Week War" revealed TWO weak areas on the Char B1. There's a DOOR on the right side and a RADIATOR on the left side. A German Anti-Tank gun commander found out about the latter in combat and knocked out at least one or two of three in combat. The former was commented upon it getting blown open by a German A-T round by a veteran French tank driver/gunner, which was mind-blowing!

@alexbowman7582

2 жыл бұрын

There was a massive German traffic jam in the Ardennes early on which the allies failed to bomb.

@dargaard93

2 жыл бұрын

@@alexbowman7582 The french High Command ignored even recon pics from german panzers. They knew but chose to ignore. Blind, deaf and stupid.

@Petal4822

Жыл бұрын

The French should have been grateful to the Canadians, British and the US for liberating their cowardly country.

Only a fraction of German forces were mechanized units, but their strategy to concentrate those in a specific area is the difference maker.

The French and British tanks, were never a match for an 88mm Flak 36. Then again, this weapon was destroying JS2 tanks in the final days.

@External2737

2 ай бұрын

Very few 88s in France. Rommel grabbed a bunch and used them to great advantage. However, if the French had: 1. Unity of command with aggressive intent. 2. Radios 3. Units trained for speed with more trucks. 4. More aggressive training 5. Some miracle of countering German air superiority They then could have counter-attacked.

I mean, sometimes ''luck'' is a real thing. The story I heard was that originally the Germans were going to attack along the same axis they had in 1914.. and the British and French were waiting for them. But the actual plan, with dates, maps, troop deployments etc fell into the hands of the Allies when a German plane flew of course and was shot down, the French recovered the plans and were relieved they had guessed correctly. Hitler forced his Generals to come up with a new plan on the spot.. which is why they went through the Ardennes... which WAS essentially unpassable.. the Germans had traffic jams that lasted for days and if the Allied air forces had of spotted them, well it was game over for Hitler before the ball has even been kicked. But once they had gotten through, well they were behind the allied forward defences and Guderian, Rommel et al caused havoc.

@phlm9038

5 ай бұрын

The Allied Air forces spotted them but they thought it was a trap. Just like AH thought for a few days that the landings in Normandy were a trap and that the real landings were going to take place in the Pas-de-Calais.

@kenoliver8913

2 ай бұрын

All true, except for the wrinkle that the Germans did not KNOW the original plans had been captured. Hitler demanded they come up with a new plan because he correctly thought that the original plans were doing just what the opposition expected and would not decide the war. The fall of France took a lot of bad luck as well as bad management; there were plenty of other things (notably the driest May for years) where the Allies lost the toss of the dice in May 1940.

@anirprasadd

Ай бұрын

Yup. But fun fact - An allied spy plan DID spot the German traffic jam on the other side of the Ardennes. It stretched for miles. But it was dismissed as a diversion and the attack from Belgium was thought to be the main one. Now imagine if they british and french high had taken that seriously.....

France sought to fight WW2 using WW1 tactics; Germany sought to fight WW2 by WW2 tactics.

@pig_sel6191

4 ай бұрын

And all the world was using WWI tactics

@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044

2 ай бұрын

The difference between a winner and a looser is the looser is more progressive than the winner hence the next encounter the hegemon cannot rely on the ways which worked then working again. Past performance is no guarantee of future success.

@kenoliver8913

2 ай бұрын

Not really true. May 1940 and may 1941 (Barbarossa) were the only times in WW2 where Guderian's vision came to fruition, and it took an unusual combination of circumstances for that to happen. In the rest of the war in Europe successful offensives on both sides were much closer in character to the Hundred Days one of 1918 than to the Ardennes one of May 1940. Motorised logistics, sure, but fewer light tanks and CAS and far more artillery and deep strike.

@cautarepvp2079

2 ай бұрын

was there a huge difference though? 20 years between them what really changed?

@sleeplessvirus

Ай бұрын

France was very poor and couldn't afford a ww2 army. France had to rebuild from ww1 Germany did not, this meant Germany was much richer than France in 1940. Also Germany was twice as big 80 million to 40 million.

Germany invaded Poland on September 1, not September 3.

The French get a bad rap for failing to fend off the Germans, but it's undeserved. Up until that point France was a major world power and all throughout history had been a feared military force. After WWI it was unthinkable that Germany would be able to launch a major offensive again. But when they did, they did so with modern tactics and industrial tech. They caught all of Europe with their pants down, not just the French. Even the British probably would have eventually fallen had it not been for American and (arguably moreso) Soviet intervention. Stopping Germany and the other Axis powers really took a worldwide effort and significant human cost.

@phlm9038

Жыл бұрын

Without the English Channel the British would have fallen earlier.

@hugh8090

Жыл бұрын

@phlm9038 but they didn't fall at all

@phlm9038

Жыл бұрын

@@hugh8090 Because they could evacuate back to UK.

@hugh8090

Жыл бұрын

I'm not even denying that. Your words were " fallen earlier" which just didn't make sense. That's all. And, more to the point, they returned and played a significant role in the liberation of France.

@phlm9038

Жыл бұрын

@@hugh8090 I know that they played a significant role in the liberation of France. I should have said "fallen as well" (my mistake).

there were too many generals left-over from ww1.

Albert Speer said that Hitler told him he had high opinion of French soldiers in WW1, but a low opinion of French leadership. There are probably a number of French that would agree with Hitler on that. When I look at any number of countries that fought the Germans early on, the French probably did the best. The Russians had more men to lose, and more territory to retreat in. The British did well against the Italians, but poorly against the Germans early on. In the Desert, it was often Australian and New Zealanders that did well. Taking France cost the Germans well over 150,000 casualties. This did not happen with the French being pushovers. How far had the Germans gone in the same amount of time in Russia?

@fintanmccann1128

7 ай бұрын

More Casualties at Pavlovs house, than in all of France

@jawadjawhar8036

7 ай бұрын

@@fintanmccann1128 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@brendan4917

7 ай бұрын

The polish killed about the same number of Germans as the French did.. even while being invaded from the east by the soviets and having far inferior tech.

@McDago100

6 ай бұрын

@@brendan4917 The figures I have seen for Poland was 16,000 dead/missing, 34,000 wounded. In France the figures I saw were 45,000 dead/missing, 110,00 wounded. As far as the Russians invading Poland in the east, I have often wondered if they Russians had not attacked how long could the Poles have lasted?

@McDago100

6 ай бұрын

@@fintanmccann1128 General Chuikov, you have had too much Vodka!

The two French army leaders didn’t like each other and wouldn’t communicate. One third of the French sat in the Maginot, one third wouldn’t fight and one third fought like lions eventually saving the British expeditionary force.

Napoleon: nous allons lutter à la mort. France 1940: yeah, no.

@backintimealwyn5736

Жыл бұрын

Napoleonic wars 19 the century : 1 100 000 french soldiers dead. , WW1 : 6 milion, soldiers and citizens . 1940: it's time to stop the genocide.

@lin4thewin

21 күн бұрын

😂😂😂

@lin4thewin

21 күн бұрын

Add 2024

Thank you very much KZread for uploading such historical stuff. We read a lot about it 'seeing is believing' totally different experience. Moreover, the comments under this vedio has given me great insight and comparison what actually happened in worldwar II. Prof Virginia University USA

The camera man never dies 💀💀💀💀

Nice synopsis. I appreciate your efforts and admire the credits you provide for music and images, but many sentences have been lifted directly from elsewhere. It's good text - I can see why one might be tempted to use it as is - but it leaves you vulnerable to calls of plagiarism or even lawsuits. Maybe try to paraphrase a bit more?

Im surprised that France collapsed in 6 weeks, i thought it was 6 hours😂.

@thierrydesu

Ай бұрын

You are so funny. From what country with a greatest military history than France are you btw?

@jorgeteixeira1922

Ай бұрын

Let's set the record straight. This is how long the European countries invaded by the Nazis resisted: Denmark: 6 Hours Luxembourg: 1 day Holland: 6 days Yugoslavia: 11 days Belgium: 18 days Greece: 24 days Poland: 27 days France: 1 month and 12 days Norway: 2 months and 1 day

@thierrydesu

Ай бұрын

@@jorgeteixeira1922 France is silver medalist.

@lin4thewin

21 күн бұрын

More like 6 seconds 😂

Good video.

@FactBytes

2 ай бұрын

Thanks!

Germany: We will attack you, France France: Oh well, if you must

Command and control!! The allies' communications were tuned to a battlefield moving at walking speed. The Germans were moving at 15-20 miles an hour. The orders of the allies never arrived in time.

In Dunkerque, the British fight ...until the last French soldier.

@sanya7187

Жыл бұрын

A third of those evacuated from Dunkirk were French. You also fail to mention that in the early stages of the German invasion, the brits were advancing to engage Germans in sectors that were meant to be held by the French. The brits met the French units running away from the very sectors they were supposed to be defending. Don't expect someone else to defend your country when you can't be bothered to do it yourself.

@phlm9038

Жыл бұрын

@@sanya7187 "The brits met the French units running away from the very sectors they were supposed to be defending." You should read a detailed book about the battle of Dunkirk and you will be surprised. There were witnesses who saw some Brits running away as well. "England will fight to the last Frenchman" : That was a German propaganda, a sentence among so many other things I won't enumerate because you won't like it.

@cpj93070

4 ай бұрын

You 🤡

@alan.imangue

Ай бұрын

That pretty much all 😂 britishs did during that war.

@cpj93070

Ай бұрын

@@alan.imangue All the French did was Surrender. 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Because France is much smaller than Russia, the “blitzkrieg” works very well in this situation. 2 million troops with lots of armor and aircraft attacking on a much smaller area is just simply overwhelming .

A better translation for "case yellow" is operation yellow

Thumbnail pic goes hard

Generals & military planners fighting the last war PLUS defense & defense planning by minimum budget committee.

General Mahnstein Genius........

My grandad was there when it all started and he had a very low opinion of the Frogs. He said that their equipment was ancient and that a lot of them were fifth columnists. His squadron left him behind and he eventually got out at St Nazaire after commandeering a tractor and traveling across northern France.

@phlm9038

2 жыл бұрын

What did he think of the French rearguard at Dunkirk ? Or of the French during the Battle of Bir Hakeim ?

@camm8642

Жыл бұрын

cowardly brits are one to talk quick to run as fast there cowardly legs would take them.........

@bigwoody4704

Жыл бұрын

@@phlm9038 Monty and Brooke were there if they had any command abilities it could have shown there. Actually jr officers like Lumsden established himself there and was noticed for his efforts and me ntioned in dispatches

@bouchacourtthierry8506

Жыл бұрын

M'y grand father french officer was KIA in 1940 ... for sure your father was not an héros !

@YEDxYED

11 ай бұрын

@@bouchacourtthierry8506skill issue

the underground railways in the maginot line were electric-why overlay the sound of a steam locomotive?

Rule n 1 : Never assume that a forest is impenetrable or a death trap

Britain always arms for peace time, right up until the start of war. They really dont like spending money on the army, until the last second.

@thevillaaston7811

Жыл бұрын

Not really...

@bigwoody4704

Жыл бұрын

oh little villa the fact they got run off the continent and produce a schmuck like monty is condeming evidence

@MrPomdownunder

Жыл бұрын

Yes the Sten gun would be a good example...

@briancrowther3272

11 ай бұрын

Not true, it had an overseas empire that it armed for. It was agressive in securing that empire best eg off the top of my head, the Boar War.

@realnapster1522

3 ай бұрын

Britain survived only because of the English Channel. Germany had a weaker navy and they made the mistake of pulling US into the war. Otherwise Germany was much stronger in WW2.

one factor is the attitude of french generals. They were not flexible or can not improvised planning on the spot. Much more their highest general at that time was arrogant that he does not heed suggestion. He did not have a reserve force because he was too assured that the Germans will not go through the low land countries. Until it is too late and he has no back up force to contain the germans coming from the low countries.

@georgeburns7251

3 ай бұрын

They were more interested in their wine and brandy for lunch. They often spent 2 hours eating lunch. Also, their troops didn’t want to obey orders and many were pro communists, supporting Stalin and not France.

How many French troops does it take to defend Paris? They dont know they have never done it.

Simple.The Brits and the French wanted nothing to do with this war, so they dragged their feet and were underprepared compared To a Nazi elite with singular focus and having mobilised with intention for at least another couple of years. By comparison. Ultimately,the French army was still pretty competitive on paper, so the Ultimate problem was that the French command were apathetic and made the catastrophic error that advancement in technology since the First World War made The Ardennes " very penetrable" *This crazy really… The Brits and French would have defeated the Nazis if they didn't make this silly error and how different the world would look today!

for me its the leadership and the heart of the people to fight and defend the homeland.

now Russia has begin the snails-war against Ukraine and we all will pay for it🥴

The hand that has raised the dagger has now plunged it in his neighbors back.

Not since Napolean have you seen this level of tactical dominance! Outnumbered and out gunned in every battle everyone fell before them; the poles the Brits and the French and the Russians. In the end when all that movement came to an end sheer number's won the war.

A complete and utter defeat that to this day has not been explained to me. Even not with this list of maybes

Incorect ! France ,Belgium ,Holland and british expeditionary force defeated in 6 weeks! 😂

@shawngilliland243

2 ай бұрын

The Netherlands surrendered in less than four days; Belgium after just 14 days. Some French units were still fighting even after the armistice with Germany had been signed, and only laid down their arms when higher ranking French generals ordered them to do so. The BEF withdrew from France, yes; though defeated, the vast majority of the British soldiers lived to fight "another day" against Nazi Germany.

@marcmonnerat4850

2 ай бұрын

Don't forget Luxembourg ;-)

@shawngilliland243

2 ай бұрын

​@@marcmonnerat4850 - the Grand Duchy was overrun on May 10th.

Historic info. Say no to war

On June 22, 1940 Stalin sent a telegram to Hitler, congratulating him on taking Paris.

@pamangober4072

25 күн бұрын

Source?

@KronStaro

24 күн бұрын

@@pamangober4072 google.

If Germany only focus on a single front instead of fighting two fronts, I guess we do have a different history

@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044

2 ай бұрын

Location location location

@pamangober4072

25 күн бұрын

I'm sure if Germany had not attacked the Soviet Union before taking England this would not have happened

Trying to defend your country with a cavalry against Panzer’s? Insane!

Biggest error France made was to decide to use the same strategy of WW1 and expect Germany to do the same. No one won WW1. How would of this ended?

@panzerknackerpaul2061

9 ай бұрын

The biggest error from Germany, Italy joined the war 10.06.1940.

It would make a brilliant war game to consider what would have happened if a young Napoleon had ruled France pre war. He wouldn’t have fell into the German traps.

@jonathanj.7344

Жыл бұрын

He wouldn't have had tanks or aircraft either.

@alexbowman7582

Жыл бұрын

@Jonathan J. he would have modern tanks the Char one was the best at that time, a French t34.

@tom-ke7lb

Жыл бұрын

napolean fell for russian traps.

@tom-ke7lb

Жыл бұрын

@@1Koisi waterloo

@tom-ke7lb

Жыл бұрын

@@1Koisi kulm, wachau, katzbach and leipzig

The French wanted to save their country (and their art) so they gave up quickly.

Nazi lost 50,000 soldiers and took France. Nazi lost 25,000 soldiers and took many other European countries. And in the battle of Singapore, Japan lost 1000 soldiers and took 100,000 POWs.

@thierrydesu

Ай бұрын

Exactly. Where are all the movies about British cowardice during WWII?

Remember pavlovs house lasted longer than the whole goddamn france

@matovicmmilan

4 ай бұрын

And then after five years of practically staying out of the fighting, the French for some reason got their occupational zone of Germany placing themself toe-to-toe with the three countries that really won the war!? Weren't they ashamed at all?

@PMC_Schicksal

3 ай бұрын

​@@matovicmmilanthey literally got the U.S to resupply them to attack Indochina by crying

@cm-kw6nq

3 ай бұрын

Because UK wanted a buffer to the USSR incase the soldiers attacked. The UK feared the USA would leave and be isolationist like after ww1.

@AngelGonzalez-pd4cn

2 ай бұрын

Pavlov's house was never conquered or occupied by the same Germans from the Sixth Army that took over France in 45 days.

They brought a maginot line to a tank battle

Fear

A retired french general told me why france and uk were crushed so quicly .. French/Uk commands did not understand the importance of the engine.. simple like that

@thierrydesu

Ай бұрын

Your general should've told you that no one remembers that the British fought in that war.

@gianpaolo1964

Ай бұрын

​@@thierrydesuinteresting .. are we talking about ww2 or what ? So the british were tourist ?

@thierrydesu

Ай бұрын

@@gianpaolo1964 Yes they were. To sum up WWII: The Germans move forward. The Brits leave their positions and run (in the opposite direction). The French cover them. The French are defeated. The French are called cowards. The Brits are called heroes.

@lin4thewin

21 күн бұрын

​@thierrydesu the french fries surrendered 😂😂 put that in there as well, even in 2024 the French fries are acting like cowards and the war isn't even at their doorstep yet.

@thierrydesu

21 күн бұрын

@@lin4thewin Still, tell me about the Brits who didn't fight? And avoid smileys not to look stupid.

There was no Axis air superiority...The French air force was so disorganized, that when France surendered, they had 1,700 plains that had never even taken off.

@Otokichi786

2 жыл бұрын

French Armee de l'Air veterans mentioned that the Luftwaffe suffered big losses during the Battle of France, which delayed the start of the Battle of Britain.

@mirkojorgovic

2 жыл бұрын

Not just inadequate, but no coordinate with field troops.

@Petal4822

Жыл бұрын

The French should have been grateful to the Canadians, British and the US for liberating their cowardly country.

@khylebaguingan8211

Жыл бұрын

even tanks....the germans just reuse the French tanks in other operation

@camm8642

Жыл бұрын

@@Petal4822 nation that won more battles then all mentioned is cowardly....they have been at war more then any other nation cowardly nations don't do that win or lose.

7:11 these mfs are welding without eye stuff, i would simply go blind

France, when 100k soldiers die : I surrender 🏳🏳 Soviet Union, when 27 million people die : Not a step back! 🗿🗿

@thierrydesu

Ай бұрын

On the 27 million Soviets killed, how many were killed by the Soviet authorities?

@begisss

Күн бұрын

​@@thierrydesuвсе 27 миллионов было зверски убито нацистскими оккупантами

@thierrydesu

Күн бұрын

@@begisss Combien n'ont eu que le choix entre les balles du NKVD et les balles des Allemands ? Arrêtez de dire n'importe quoi.

@begisss

Күн бұрын

​@@thierrydesuто есть ты хочешь сказать, что советские люди встали на защиту своей страны не потому, что на нее напали враги, а потому что их заставило НКВД? Интересная логика

Manstein and Gerhard Heinrici wrre jighly talented German Officers. L, alongside Erwin Rommel.

the germans planned to defeat france in 40 days in the first world war, and they came very close to achieving that, its not surprising that with advances in weapons and blitzkrieg tactics that they defeated france in 6 weeks 20 years later.

French Tank transmissions have 1 forward gear and 6 reverse!

@griffonmicrophones5941

7 күн бұрын

italian tank has a cannon in the front and back German tank has broken transmission

have not forgotten that the French army was reconstituted and liberated France from south to north with Operation Dragon and that the French army paraded in Berlin in 1945 Can a defeat end in victory!

If only people researched a subject with the conviction, that they want both sides of the story and all the facts and will process & come up with own opinion!

There was nobody who could kill dolf sire for he lived by his rules and died by he's rules

The orator never heard of the battle for Britain?

Lion soldiers led by Donkeys

0:29 Wrong, in 1938 the GDP of Germany was 351 billion $, the one of UK 285 billion $, and the one of France 186 billion $.

The Wehrmacht was also lucky. If the crossing of the Ardennes towards Sedan had been delayed by even one or two days, the story could have been very different.

Let's set the record straight. This is how long the European countries invaded by the Nazis resisted: Denmark: 6 Hours Luxembourg: 1 day Holland: 6 days Yugoslavia: 11 days Belgium: 18 days Greece: 24 days Poland: 27 days France: 1 month and 12 days Norway: 2 months and 1 day

Superior tactics, better communications, and a core of well trained officers and NCOs will carry the day 90% of the time against equal forces.

The breakthrough at Sedan was Germany’s undoing. They wrongly extrapolated an accidental synergy of force into an intentional assault on the Soviet Union. It failed miserably.

the best vidie

Because the women of Paris wanted men with balls for a change!!

#France placed the #British in the #Frontline

France lost the Second World War in 1918.

Non existent coordination between Infantry, Mechanized Brigade , and Air force led to the defeat of the French Army, which incidentally was bigger and stronger than that of the Germans.

They focussed on matching quantity/ strength and did not focus strategic and tactical synergy. They had an outdated war doctrine which was not even adapted to their time. Just like Persian King Darius II vs Grecian Alexander. (2 million well organised and logistically provisioned troops beaten by Alexander's 60000 ) History repeats themselves. You may have better weapons and soldiers but you need practised synergy and conviction to win a war.

Patton said that as fighters, the French were worth nothing.

@phlm9038

Ай бұрын

Patton was in command of a French division he appreciated a lot : the 2nd armored division of General Leclerc. He said once to General Leclerc, who threatened to resign if he didn't let him go to Paris, that he left him in the most dangerous place on the front.

Germany had spent almost all the since the end of WWI gearing for another war. It had the advantage of trying out tactics and weapons in Spain '36-39. There is only so much that can be done while waiting for an attack. It also meant that France used their tanks as (slightly) mobile pill boxes. As with Britain most of the regular soldiers were 'low grade' - as opposed to the German army which was highly motivated, and fired up with Perrotin. What was more noticeable was the thought that Germany could take on the troop numbers from Russia and the US, as well as US production. The view of Britain and France was the Germany would not be so stupid this time. They were.

@swagkachu3784

Жыл бұрын

Nothing excuses the embarassing defeat of france and its allies in 1940

@briancrowther3272

11 ай бұрын

@@swagkachu3784 So easy to say from ur armchairs. What is embarrassing about that kind of defeat, men died, women and children dies, on all sides. Soldiers on all sides were brothers, sons, fathers and nourned. Nothing embarrassing about it. What is embarrassing is to think the way you write, to reduce such a tragedy to one of mindless, jingoistic pride. We are better than that.

Just a quick question, Germany have less soldiers and their military equipment were a little bit inferior, but they were able to almost take over the world, so I just want to know if Germany went that far because they builded the army base on revenge and a conquer mentality and the others were just trained to be passive soldiers?

@thierrydesu

Ай бұрын

The French army was even weaker thanks to twenty years of socialism. The British didn't even fight during the Campaign of France. The Russians were on their side. The Germans were just lucky. Ten years before or ten years after, the situation would've been completely different.

One simple thing Radio communication. Germans could communicate in real time & I think French still had runners like in WW1 lol

You did not mention the unnecessary 3 times tank stop ordered by nervous Hitler giving time to the Brits to evacuate their army. Thus he lost his only chance to win the war.

@MagGeschichte

2 жыл бұрын

With very few victims on both sides and Nonne attack on Russisch…

@MagGeschichte

2 жыл бұрын

none

@crazygamer1566

2 жыл бұрын

Hitler was hoping britain would see this as a gesture of peace. If he had captured allied soldiers that would have been a great blow to British morale and he could have negotiated for peace

@phlm9038

Жыл бұрын

@@crazygamer1566 No, Hitler gave the order to annihilate the French, British and Belgian troops surrounded in the Flanders by the Luftwaffe, while he gave the halt order to his tanks so that his soldiers could rest and they could repair their equipment for the second phase of the battle of France. It just didn't work. Hitler would never have admitted that he made a mistake there and later pretended he let the British and the others flee on purpose. This is propaganda that people today still believe.

@sErgEantaEgis12

Жыл бұрын

The halt orders weren't a magnanimous gesture to the British but a strategic move so that the German armies weren't outrunning their supply lines and making themselves vulnerable to Allied counterattacks. Hitler was doing the British no favors by 1940, if he was there wouldn't have been U-boots in the English channel sinking allied ships, or Luftwaffe airstrikes on Allied positions. Hitler also knew very well that the British weren't going to make a peace treaty just because Hitler let British soldiers escape. Even if the entire Allied force had been killed or captured Hitler wouldn't have won the war. Around 338 000 soldiers were evacuated at Dunkirk, a non-negligible amount of them were French soldiers who returned to France soon after to try and salvage the situation. If those soldiers had been captured it would certainly have been a blow to British morale, but Britain still had a lot of cards up her sleeves - the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy made any German landings in Great Britain virtually impossible, so Great Britain wasn't going to be knocked out of the war easily. The 250 000 or so British soldiers lost could easily have been compensated by more US or Canadian soldiers. And this ignores just how big of an army the Soviet Union had. 250 000 or so British soldiers weren't going to make a big difference in the outcome of the war when the USSR had millions of soldiers.

And did anyone Notice how the French decided at the last minute to bomb (their former ally) Libya when Ghaddafi was on his last leg?

@phlm9038

2 ай бұрын

Nobody cares.

Defeated. Six weeks. It’s why the French built the Eiffel Tower. So Adolph could see the White Flag from his office window.

Much of the French, Brit, Belgium & Netherlands artillery was WW I vintage tho some was modernized. ZBritbwent ivervwith 18 & 18/25 pdr field guns. France still had 1000s of M1897 75 mm plus WW I vintage 155 mm.* Getmany still had 7.5 & 10.5 cm WW I leftovers (FK16 & FH16) but many of the "18" models if 7.5, 10, 10.5 and 15 cm cannon/howitzers (plus many booty WW I leftovers of Polish, Austrian & Czech origin plus some modern Czech builds). Germany probably had more modern AA because the Versailles treaty forced them to scrap most WW I designs. France had nothing like the 8.8 cm FlaK 18, 3.7 cm Flak or 2 cm Flak 30 &38 in quality or design. * Methodically the Germans cataloged the munitions for "booty" weapons captured. Brit booty included 18 pdr plus 2 pdr antitank. Ftench booty included 75 mm, 105 mm, 155 mm and 37 mm (for tank SA18 cannons) mush if which dated to WW I designs with model designations of 1897 (75 mm). 1913 (105), 1917 (155), GPF (155 mm WW I) and 18 (SA18 original gun in Renault FT). Except for the Brits, in 1940, most French & German artillery was horse drawn tho German "18" & later model year could be towed by vehicles.

@phlm9038

2 ай бұрын

I am extremely against dragging animals into a war : horses, dogs or pigeons.

The video emphasizes: Line 1. France can easily destroy german advance but because of weak communication they wasn't able to do so. Line 2. France could easily defeat german advance because they have great generals and tactics but weren't able to do so because of weak armaments. Wtf?

Why were they defeated so quickly? The number one reason - they had Britain as an ally!

@noelgenoway9360

Ай бұрын

The French did not have the will to defend their country!

The Germans just wanted it more😅

The Blitzkrieg tactics of Germany against France in 1940 The Lightning War! K

The sausage guzzlers were motivated. The French and Brits were not.

@MrRwk314

Жыл бұрын

Whats your sister and mom got to do with this?

@bigwoody4704

Жыл бұрын

Krafty snark he told the truth