Use this link to get your first 2 months of Skillshare for FREE! skl.sh/armchair2 Keep in mind that this video is just about the French military in 1940. The French did make massive contributions towards allied victory in 1944-1945 in several ways. The French resistance provided extremely valuable intel to the British and Americans on D-Day. Let us know if you want us to continue these kinds of videos! Griff

@phaultypmm

5 жыл бұрын

isnt skillshare a scam?

@markant9534

5 жыл бұрын

The nazi`s were actually shattered by D-Day by the resistance, they blew up loads of army supply lines, leaving the Germans completely defeated.

@skittlesenterprise4803

5 жыл бұрын

Via La France

@MRayner59

5 жыл бұрын

Hate to do it, but I’m compelled to point out that at 2:35 the word “chasm” should be pronounced kazəm. Otherwise, another excellent job!

@eatabagovdiks2056

5 жыл бұрын

Its Kazum not chazum.

I find it interesting that after centuries of being a feared and successful military power throughout the world, one war changed the French reputation to one of capitulation.

@feddyvonwigglestein3481

5 жыл бұрын

They suffered among the worst in the Great War, casualty wise and the fact that so many of the battles on the western front were fought in their territory. Many of the leaders didn't have the stomach for another modern war and, combined with the problems outlined in the video, led to the French soldier being ridiculed as awful. But as Napoleon said - there are no bad soldiers, only bad generals.

@MrSpAceMan1990

5 жыл бұрын

​@@feddyvonwigglestein3481 Russia lost 2 million soldiers in the Great War, and then another 10 million in the civil war, but russians fight for every russian city, and Great Britain too. French soldiers know how to fight, but french politicians really suck and generals too...

@VuHien2011

5 жыл бұрын

The difference is that the Bolshevik government does not give a damn how much people they lose, the French government cares for its people

@pierrecourtois5167

5 жыл бұрын

Among Americans. This reputation does not come from the WW2 itself, but by France's refusal to join the US in Irak. The WW2 surrender was then used as a propaganda tool

@meltedicecreamsandwich

5 жыл бұрын

That's exactly why it changed. How does a strong nation that is France lose in a matter of weeks. Mind blown.

They were really nerfed on the Great Depression update

@angelthetrueamericanwoman9006

5 жыл бұрын

your name makes my pp hard

@TheDJKILLIN

5 жыл бұрын

@Blabla Rech yo, im northern Italian of decent, some austrian i think.

@Novusod

5 жыл бұрын

Germany's greatest advantage was new tactics namely the "Blitzkrieg" which focused air power, armor, and infantry into a combined force that was more valuable than the sum of it's individual parts. In video game terms it would be a min / max strategy with tanks, DPS, and support. The Panzers are the tank, the Luftwaffe is the DPS, and the infantry is the support. The Germans also created elite special operations teams aka the Storm Troopers and SS Units that parachuted in behind the main French defensive lines.

@bunnyfreakz

5 жыл бұрын

Great depression hurting German much more than France. They need spend 1 billion mark to buy loaf.

@Three_Sevens

5 жыл бұрын

Blabla Rech why cause they don't want migrants ruining their country? Everywhere the arabs and Africans go they ruin the place.

“He’s the armchairs historian” His chair: No arms

@Singurarity88

2 жыл бұрын

Well... he is really a good speaker and the content is great compared to many other hyped ytubers. But yes. i get the joke :)

@blingwraith6951

2 жыл бұрын

He has bamboozled us

@user-fb9sm7nn2x

2 жыл бұрын

sad

@Frank074

2 жыл бұрын

We shall unsubcribe faster than the French can retreat and surrender (Just kidding of course. My respect goes out to all of the French people that defended Europe. RIP René Artois and monsieur LeClerc)

No one dared to attack Antartica, the penguins are a mighty force.

@Nexandr

3 жыл бұрын

wait a few years and they invade everyone

@mexicoball1434

3 жыл бұрын

There snow balls will freeze us all

@yolotheyeeted7825

2 жыл бұрын

@@Nexandr no one invades Antartica. If we did, we not only freeze to death, the penguins of Madagascar would troll us all.

@Nexandr

2 жыл бұрын

@@yolotheyeeted7825 i said Antarctica is coming to invade us

@christianalbert7082

2 жыл бұрын

Theres nothing there to Invade although the Germans did send a detachment there for god knows what

We all heard jokes at the expense of the french . However we also must honor the french soldiers who fought hard. It's not their fault their leadership was incompetent.

@michael7324

3 жыл бұрын

Can here to say exactly this.

@jmfa57

3 жыл бұрын

We should remember that, in WWI, nearly one in four young Frenchmen of military age died fighting. That left a mark. While no one has less use for the French than I do, I would never, ever underestimate them, nor would I disrespect them.

@marcbachelet2322

3 жыл бұрын

Sure, America lost in Korea in 1950s, then lost again in Cuba in 1960s and Vietnam in 1970s. It looks like it's going to lose to Afghan Taliban very soon. The French did not continuously lose so many wars.

@michael7324

3 жыл бұрын

@@marcbachelet2322 I get what you are saying. But their is a big difference between backing out of a limited conflict and surrendering your country to an enemy.

@marcbachelet2322

3 жыл бұрын

@@michael7324 Of course. America is protected by the two oceans after all.

Napoleon himself said that an army that stays in its forts has already lost

@shawn576

3 жыл бұрын

But they brought that idea to WW1 and found out very quickly that it was no longer the case. Trenches (fortifications) save lives and win wars, so every side dug in. If you look at the eastern front, you'll find that Soviets started to do much better in WW2 once they were properly dug in. They had tons of AA guns which are not very mobile, tons of artillery, lots of trenches and tank traps. Once that line of defense is created, it's much harder and costlier to make a breakthrough. Soviets did counterattack, but this was after Germans took heavy losses by attacking well fortified positions.

@andrewey2083

3 жыл бұрын

@@shawn576 forts are useless if you a leave flank open, because you can just go around. Which is just what the Germans did

@alangao4693

3 жыл бұрын

@@andrewey2083 I'm sure that's true, but pre Cold war, trenches/forts were a massive obstacle. Even today, you cant just blitz past an entrenched defender. You need massive artillery barrages, tanks, motorized vehicles, mobile TD's, SPG's, etc. Plus if what you said was true how did the allies win in world war 1. And on top of that, how did the Soviets win ww2? The soviets created trenches surrounding Moscow and bunkers and forts around Kursk, in every situation, they prevailed

@andrewey2083

3 жыл бұрын

@@alangao4693 nobody builts entrenchments anymore. Defence has to be flexible or you lose like the French in 1940

@alangao4693

3 жыл бұрын

@@andrewey2083 people do build entrenchments, but they don't fully rely on it like they did earlier. Most tactics consist of heavily fortified strong point with defence in depth lines between each strongpoint. Examples can be seen during the Iraq-Iran war. The french defenses during the second world war were outdated, but if they had defended spots like the Ardennes, the German push could have been blunted before it encircled major forces. You also have to consider doctrine at the time. Doctrine dictated that you assume a defensive posture, allow the enemy to spend resources trying to break through, and then counterattack and sweep them back (see Kursk). However it only worked if you could hold the line, which didn't work at the Ardennes. If you stop and think about it, French tactics were among the best defensive tactics of the time. But the German blitz doctrines were able to take advantage of the weaknesses.

I think blitzkrieg as a new concept took every country by surprise. Ussr held on because of its depth and manpower. If ussr was a country as small as any other European country, it would have succumbed like France, Yugoslavia or Greece.

@brandonwar9638

2 жыл бұрын

And British troops got whipped like the French troops. They were fighting along side them. Britain's main army barely escaped through Dunkirk. And Britain being an island saved them. Germany didnt want to fight the navy but had no fear of the army. That no fear led them to turn toward the soviet union.

@anandnairkollam

2 жыл бұрын

@@brandonwar9638 Agreed

@antosbielli158

2 жыл бұрын

Many war leaders at the time thought USSR was gonna be eaten in a week.. But the size of the country, and its climate..

@itamiyouji4057

2 жыл бұрын

The German army almost reached Moscow, and they would have if Hitler didn't insist that the northernmost army group travel south to assist the southernmost army group. The original German plan was to reach Moscow, eliminate the Soviet leadership, and dig in before winter, using the Soviet airstrips to resupply during the winter while whatever remained of the Soviet Army floundered without leadership. The Germans lost that opportunity when they did the aforementioned relocation of their northern army group, losing the momentum on the Eastern front.

@maxmavh3132

2 жыл бұрын

@@itamiyouji4057 if I remember right, they took a certain detour to a "nearby" city or something that had a lot of supplies, this was because of the incoming shortage in everything that they had and also their supply routes were kinda cut off but I'm not entirely sure

The French did also fight a valiant rear-guard action at Dunkirk which allowed many soldiers to be evacuated. Many brave men and women in the French resistance to.

@kanad.9397

3 жыл бұрын

well vinchy france also fought the allies in Africa too.

@marcmonnerat4850

3 жыл бұрын

@@kanad.9397 Allied bombing killed more French civilians by "mistake" than the Germans British during the "Blitz"

@kyendan

3 жыл бұрын

@Pete Pester 40 000 soldier * where fighting at dunkirk 35 000 french , 5000 british.

@mas9758

2 жыл бұрын

@@kanad.9397 Until they negotiated a surrender against the allies and got Case Anton’d

@ktvindicare

2 жыл бұрын

Yea it needs to be clarified, no one is saying the French people weren't brave, the effectiveness of the French Resistance proves that. The leaders of the French army were just incompetent stubborn old men that got their asses handed to them that's all.

"I prefer an army of sheep led by a lion than an army of lions led by a donkey." Maréchal Foch

@frenchman5760

3 жыл бұрын

@Tilen Matkovič thank u I was shearing for this quote but couldn't find it XD

@SK-kh8xq

3 жыл бұрын

@Tilen Matkovič wow. He even got the timing almost down to a T.

@cenajohn3205

3 жыл бұрын

what a joke.

@user-zs7xg5ov7o

3 жыл бұрын

What a stupid thing to say. Army of sheep will be slaughtered by an army of lions. Was Marechal Foch french?

@randomperson9404

3 жыл бұрын

@@frenchman5760 well lion's intelligence is much less than donkey so donkey can perform strategies lion can't and plus the donkey has more powerful army of lions they are at advantage on all sides. So anyone with common sense would prefer an army of lion led by a donkey.

Not all French: At Versailles Foch confided to Churchill "this isn't a Peace. It's a 20 year truce!" He was right nearly to the day.

@amarogos2023

3 жыл бұрын

Damn, son.

@Akranejames

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, the way I learned about WWI and WWII it was in fact a deeply ingrained idea in France compared to the rest of the Allies that this was but a truce. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's exactly why France was always on the side of dismantling their German rival as much as possible, and part of the reason they weren't as big into appeasement as the Brits when it comes to Hitler.

@Oli-Johnson

3 жыл бұрын

So France had twenty years to modernize and prepare and they still got overrran way too easy.

@selinane2Seli-zw3pz

3 жыл бұрын

@@Oli-Johnson Well, Germany had 20 years too, and IIIrd Reich had twice the population of France in 1939. I don't remember Brits being brillant in 1940 too. Or soviets in 1941. Or USA before 1944....

@Oli-Johnson

3 жыл бұрын

@@selinane2Seli-zw3pz people keep saying that FRANCE knew a massive war was coming compared to the rest of the allies. My point is, if France knew, why weren't they better prepared.

One of these bigger channels needs to cover the French defense of Dunkirk. So many people are ignorant of the French contribution. Your channel has great influence and reach, use it to honor our French heroes

@phlm9038

2 жыл бұрын

There is one which does that on KZread : Rearguard (Military Tactic) - Heroic sacrifice at Dunkirk, 1940 (by Simple History). Just watch the video to the end.

Its really important to emphasize how many French folks died in WW1, I think they proportionally lost the most population in fighting in the war.

@aalleexx1997

2 жыл бұрын

yeah they loosers

@hunterh1175

2 жыл бұрын

@@aalleexx1997 why ? Just why ? "They lost so many soldiers in *the most atrocious war of the century* that happened *on their territory* and that they actually *won*" "Yeah they losers" You just make no sense

@trunkill6694

2 жыл бұрын

@@hunterh1175 he got brainwashed by the "french: surrender" movement

@cotefabrice1801

2 жыл бұрын

It’s albania that lost most population proportionally but France lost more than germany proportionally yes

@cotefabrice1801

2 жыл бұрын

@UCFQbPR2kCb9R85rjI10Av0g albania didn’t even exist in ww2

**Why France Was So Bad** **Denmark Immediately Surrender After 6 Hrs** Denmark ; Just Chillin

@admiralburger

4 жыл бұрын

Stop making excuses.

@georgechn4326

4 жыл бұрын

FlameHead _ you obviously never heard of resistance and don't know anything about geopolitics and military situation of France at that time to talk about it like this

@sea_yung

4 жыл бұрын

ok but denmark is a tiny country that is not even close to the power of the germans

@SH4D0WdaN0V4

4 жыл бұрын

@FlameHead _ The French situation and military leadership’s incompetence was largely their downfall, but the French gave a strong and undeniable resistance to the Germans, as well as a Free French army from men that were left and colonials as a sort of professional army to help fight the Germans. Denying French contributions to the war is moronic. (They did kinda come in and take all of the glory for the liberation of Paris leaving the other allied countries who took part in Paris’ liberation in their dust, but that is one thing)

@elite-ll6tk

4 жыл бұрын

@@lynxyt_194 shut up bitch you dont know the battle of dinkirk where french army sacrified when the english run away in their homes

France should've used skillshare to know how to properly wall off a country

@_shivesh_12

5 жыл бұрын

Ikr. Coldnt they afford ten dollars

@simohayho8622

5 жыл бұрын

Yes

@simohayho8622

5 жыл бұрын

@@_shivesh_12 ...they dont use dollars!!!

@zacksima8333

5 жыл бұрын

When inflation is so bad your whole country can’t afford 10 dollars of skillshare

@TAMEREDUDESERT

4 жыл бұрын

Or asked trump

It is silly to criticise the French for spreading their forces while the Germans concentrated theirs. Obviously the Germans had local superiority for their attack, but the French had been in a defensive posture so had to spread forces because they didn't know where the attack would come. A thin defensive line is not expected to hold an attack for ever, it is a trip wire to slow the attack while you then bring other forces to the area. The Maginot line was a "super trip wire" and was a success in that the Germans did not want to attack it at all. It was a force "in being" like a nuclear deterrent or the British Navy's home fleet 1700-1945 - so powerful that no-one wamted to attack it. The French collapse in 1940 was because they were unprepared for mobile warfare.

@dustylover100

3 ай бұрын

I don't think many nations were.

France: Trees are impenetrable! Germany: ACHTUNG - PANZER!

@kooroshrostami27

3 жыл бұрын

@LOUIS BOURBON The French soldiers were brave, but their high command was foolish.

Basically, at the beginning of the war, everybody got smacked by the germans, the french, the brits, the danes, the polish, the yougoslavs and for six months the russians

@toms9864

3 жыл бұрын

The Germans were preparing for war for 6 years while the other countries did not expect one and did not prepare at the same level.

@ottersirotten4290

3 жыл бұрын

@@toms9864 it is even mentioned in this Video that the french had the Advantage Equipment wise

@WHITEOGR

3 жыл бұрын

Germans had amazing luck for good commanders in theirs army and some very top military morons as enemies. German strategy was bold and not political at this point ( so they were executing military plans base on theirs strategy against specific opponent and they had military objectives not political ones ) and theirs opponents were driven by political views ( like France protecting Belgium and its military being completely surrounded in process or Poland with brilliant plan to protect whole border and do not use land mines because they were considered dishonorable and do not prepare to war at all even when it was publicly known that war is imminent).

@danielmccoy8875

3 жыл бұрын

Germany smashed whole Armies,including the Russians,

@WHITEOGR

3 жыл бұрын

@Super Germans also suffer very badly and when compared to Britain or Germany - France vets were in very good position. France was just to beat up to fight another WWI - as if you think about that just 20 years before 1 327 000 life were spend to buy 21 years of peace. So ultimate sacrifice of human life was worth 20 seconds of peace ( counting casulities as 1 327 000 and dates of 11.11.1918 and 1.9.1939 ) . So this can make you think that another ultimate sacrifice against bad odds is pointless.

*Why french was so bad at ww2* **laughs in italian**

@affekinka7271

5 жыл бұрын

*looks at this commend* *laughs in Amharic*

@yusokrazee

5 жыл бұрын

@@affekinka7271 *Laughs at both of you in English, the language of winners*

@tomatobagel

5 жыл бұрын

You laugh in Italian... Yet another of his videos is literally called "Why Was Italy So Bad" So I laugh in English, the language of winners.

@georgebritten8208

5 жыл бұрын

@@tomatobagel think that's the joke mate....

@tomatobagel

5 жыл бұрын

@@georgebritten8208 Did I just r/wooosh myself???? Damn it....

I like how the lighting and the book made his desk a french flag pattern from his side.

There are several reasons to explain the French defeat in 1940 (essentially) : 1) Demography : since 1938 and the annexation of the Sudetenland, Germany has a population almost double that of France. It is not without consequence. 2) Political : The ambiguous positioning of some French elites on Hitler. To better understand, it's necessary to know French domestic politics, we see it with Petain, afterwards, yet a hero of the WW1 (The Popular Front since 1936 could frighten these elites. France was divided). France had, sometimes, a tradition of betrayal by its elites : - 1791, Louis XVI who fled to Germany to invade France ; - 1870-71, the Prussians helping A. Thiers to crush the Commune of Paris. 3) Geographic : The Paris region is easily accessible via the valleys of the east of the country, what we had already seen it during the WW 1. Then France was directly exposed to a guicly and heavily industrialized country since the end of the 19th. France industrialized before, but more slowly. But France in the end, managed to be among the winners, thanks to De Gaulle, signed the Germany's Acte of Capitulation, sits on the Security Council and is a nuclear weapon.

@XXXTENTAClON227

2 жыл бұрын

“And is a nuclear weapon” Time to fire France at Russia

@terryscott4746

2 жыл бұрын

Dr Gaulle hid in London the whole war. After the war he hated the british

French President: do you think the Germans can penetrate our defenses? French Defense Minister: I... Imaginot

@Alessandro-vl8bu

5 жыл бұрын

Matthew Lee haha this is great

@matthewlee8667

5 жыл бұрын

@@moddor7872 thank you. Hodor

@Raphael-eb3fg

5 жыл бұрын

Matthew Lee to be honest, i approve your joke as a french

@BoundInChains

5 жыл бұрын

😅😂😂

@darkgrievous423

5 жыл бұрын

For once an original joke god bless you

''do not leave a belgium sized hole in your frontline''

@maxberre

5 жыл бұрын

There had been Franco-Belgian alliance. France was to hold the Belgo-German border. But after the 1938 Munich Pact (allies appeased at the expense of Czechoslovakia), Belgium lost faith in France as an ally, and coordination broke down. Germany was ultimately able to exploit that.

@kerriwilson7732

5 жыл бұрын

Have to admit, that's clever!

@Auriel_Direnni

5 жыл бұрын

@@maxberre The Belgians also weren't really going to let France build defenses on their border. So France couldn't defend in Belgian land nor in the Belgian border. The plan was still to defend from Blitzkrieg, which they knew would happen. If you expect a lightning war, you expect them to come through the hard to defend flat-lands of northern Belgium, since that would allow Germany to advance much faster, so they defended there. The Ardennes attack was sub-optimal, which is why it worked. The Allies, so to speak, didn't expect the Germans to be... Inefficient.

@Auriel_Direnni

5 жыл бұрын

@10 OG No, generally people who think outside the box lose to more efficient and tested strategies, we just always remember when the unorthodox strategy actually pays off. There's a reason they're unorthodox. You can't defend a wide front from a concentrated attack, you have to respond with a concentrated force of your own. The allies couldn't know beforehand where the Germans would attack from, so they made a prediction, based on previous data. They ended up being wrong, but they could also have been right.

@pulsifyshorts9517

5 жыл бұрын

Half life XD bet game

I live in France and was born in 1949. When I was little I remember asking my grandma what happened to all of the men in our family because I had many many aunts, but only one uncle. She said that my grandpa, all 5 of her brothers, and several male cousins all died fighting in the trenches in WWI. So when WWII started my family sent all male children from 9 to 16 to live with our relatives in Southern Spain lest our family name be lost forever. Although she did not like to talk about the war, she told me many French families lost 2 GENERATIONS of male children because of WWI and WWII. When I ask my mom why she married an American soldier she said because Americans were kind and there were very few French boys in her village when the war ended. Before you criticize the French you need to look at things from the French perspective.

Read Charles De Gaulle's "Army Of The Future" which he wrote in 1933, and which it is said that the German's used as the blueprint for their mechanized warfare. He commanded troop in the Arras area and had some success against the Germans, but the rest of the front was too weak. Good presentation!

@pauljames9626

3 жыл бұрын

Except what was later termed "Blitzkrieg" by the Germans was actually developed by two British officers - JFC Fuller and B H Liddell-Hart. Heinz Guderian credits them with the concept in his book "Panzer Leader".

@smal750

11 ай бұрын

​@@pauljames9626very funny

@pauljames9626

11 ай бұрын

What's so funny about it? Try reading Guderian's book. Here are the links to Fuller and Liddell-Hart's Wikipedia pages: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._F._C._Fuller ; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._H._Liddell_Hart . Guderian even paid to have Fuller's book translated into German out of his own pocket.@@smal750

In 46 days of combat France had at least 85,000 killed and 120,000 wounded. Germany lost over 1,200 planes. Lots of reasons for the disaster of the fall of France but I would never say anything negative about the bravery of French pilots and those who stayed at their post and died. Without French bravery Dunkirk would not have been possible.

@brazil853

3 жыл бұрын

Germany lost about 15,000 men in the battle of France killing 5 times as many French as they lost and correct Germany lost 28% of its Air Force in the invasion but it was well worth it losing 1,400 planes for all of France is a fine deal

@Lucas61616

2 жыл бұрын

@@brazil853 it really wasn't though, their plan was always originally to pressure Britain to sue for peace by taking over France and scaring them into submission. Of course, they didn't surrender, so Germany was in a funny spot where neither their airforce nor their navy were strong enough to launch an invasion of Britain, those lost planes were just a devastation for the entire axis, they already pretty much never held any hope to gain superiority in the air, losing over a thousand in France was just another nail in the coffin for dreams of a dominant luftwaffe.

@avibhau3852

2 жыл бұрын

Also Indian soldiers fought valiantly at Dunkirk.

@salvatoreregalbuto5444

2 жыл бұрын

the same frenchmen who killed american, british and candian troops on d-day? or the ones who sent 500,000 jews to germany? were talking about these men right?

@vietcong2997

Жыл бұрын

Another great battle was the ones of the cadets of saumur, i suggest you check it out

As much fun as it is to poke fun at the French, I do think Brits should never forget the 40,000+ French involved in the rearguard action that allowed the BEF to escape at Dunkirk. Those rifles were definitely fired, and they were often only dropped when their owner died.

@timwaywell

5 жыл бұрын

so true ... and it must not be forgotten that the Brits also tried to evacuate as many French as possible from Dunkirk too

@simohayho8622

5 жыл бұрын

They still got humiliated and destroyed and annexed!

@tSp289

5 жыл бұрын

@@simohayho8622 Yeah, their country did, and that's where all the jokes come from, but those who didn't surrender fought like tigers and saved hundreds of thousands of British and French soldiers' lives, so they deserve some serious respect.

@zeramoke

5 жыл бұрын

I'm a Brit and with family members in the military through generations I have a huge amount of respect for how the French helped us at Dunkirk, I don't think us Brits forget about that

@cm-pr2ys

5 жыл бұрын

As well as Bir Hakim, Operation Dragoon, and the Battle of Paris.

I think the most important aspect is the combination of good officers with actual experience in fighting a war with hypermodern (at the time) weaponry, having been allowed the time to develop tactics and strategy well suited to it. Testing the equipment in Spain, and utilising it to full effect in Poland. The allies had a lot of great equipment as well, of course, but had either by incompetence or inexperience not been able to understand how to counter this new type of warfare. Probably a mix of both, as well as extreme stubbornness at the top-level. I fear not many countries, if any, would stand a chance against direct land assault by Germany in 1940.

I think the French attitude towards the WWII can only be understood within the context of France's total sacrifice in WWI where up to half of all men and boys were drafted and suffered 1.3million dead in a war largely fought on French soil. In the early part of WWI after the demise of the BEF (British Expeditionary Force - 400,000), France largely kept the Germans at bay by itself until the new British conscript army (Kitchener's Army) was ready, and by the end of the war the French were completely drained and were running on fumes. In the interwar years, a pervasive fear of war and conflict of any kind took hold right across French society from the elites to the populace which explains why the French Army did not respond to Hitler's provocative decision to send the vastly outnumbered Wehrmacht into the Ruhr Valley. This latter action told Hitler that the French were simply not going to put up a fight no matter how many red lines the Germans crossed and so went the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, The Anschluss...etc

Germans had Discord connection and French had only voice chat

@onceGoat

3 жыл бұрын

Walkie talky

@saivardhanchowdary7918

3 жыл бұрын

Not even that. Mere flag emojis...

@Ronnie-Jones

3 жыл бұрын

The most forbidden documentary in history: “Europa The Last Battle” at archive dot org

@adamtaylor766

3 жыл бұрын

France is using TeamSpeak SMH

@darkjak224

3 жыл бұрын

@@adamtaylor766 Lol or worse, Ventrillo. I remember trying to get WoW raids started and only half of the people would actually have a microphone. Then my guild made the rule, "No mic, no opinion.". Good times

Why does the Armchair Historian not have an Armchair?!

@ThomasTubeHD

4 жыл бұрын

Because armchairs are big and he might either remove the table he has his things on or put the table in front of the armchair which no one in the world ever seen

@mplsfarmer

4 жыл бұрын

@Mister Gunsen-i noticed the same thing😅. But to be fair it is the figurative use of the word as an adjective vs the literal one as a noun (e.g. “armchair quarterbacking.”)

@bravomike4734

4 жыл бұрын

I don't need sleep. I need answers.

@unitedstatesofamerica2417

3 жыл бұрын

Stole it had oil in it.

@unitedstatesofamerica2417

3 жыл бұрын

@General GTA What do you need.

If Napoleon was Emperor of France in the 40s the war would’ve been over before it even started.

@hunterh1175

2 жыл бұрын

He would’ve been the one invading the whole europe and failing to get russia, just as 150 years prior

@afau1non

2 жыл бұрын

@@hunterh1175 napoleon with a motorized army ? i doubt he would have failed russia ahah

@PA-1000

2 жыл бұрын

@@afau1non russia is impossible to invade.

@yaboichangkaishek3460

2 жыл бұрын

1940s Napoleon : “Run straight at the enemy and try not to die”

@gengis737

2 жыл бұрын

Sure, he would have attack in 1934, when nazis rearmed the Ruhr. The casus belli was clear, and French military force overwhelming.

So France was like Italy. They had really good soldiers, but their commanders either didint know what the war was like. Or refused to adapt.

The heroic French rearguard action at Dunkirk allowed Britain to rescue its army, without which they could not have continued the war. The French problem was that their Generals were inept.

@hairyneil

5 жыл бұрын

And the 51st Highland Division

@smelkok6509

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, but after they made so many mistakes.

@darkgrievous423

5 жыл бұрын

It was not only generals. The politicians kept cutting military budget and ignoring the German threat. General Weygand for example when he was handed command on the 20th of May when the battle was already going very badly tried his best.

@user-mj2jm7yl9x

5 жыл бұрын

Gaimlin was in his 60s and Weygand was 74. That's just to old to command a mobile war.

@user-mj2jm7yl9x

5 жыл бұрын

@@darkgrievous423 I personally believe that Weygand might have done better. Gaimlin is just inexcusable. His HQ had no communication with the outside world and he never gave orders but suggestions on what to do.

When the French chose to fight they did well. It was through their efforts that the British army escaped the Germans at Dunkirk. The French had lost a generation of young men during ww1 and didn't want a repeat of that situation.

@SH4D0WdaN0V4

4 жыл бұрын

@Flournoy mason When Philipe Pétain ended up becoming the French Premier he saw the situation of France, and negotiated with Germany because he did not want millions of French men and women to die, and he knew that in time the Americans would join the war and eventually liberate France. Unfortunately Pétain is always seen as a coward by most people even though he was just trying to do what he though would be best to save French lives. The Lion of Verdun had seen much bloodshed in The Great War (he arguably treated his men the best compared to the other generals as well as being a great general himself) and would obviously end up influencing his decision as well. Pétain does not deserve the hate he has gotten for his decisions. We are all human and make mistakes, but Pétain was only trying to do the best he could for France.

@freewal

4 жыл бұрын

@@SH4D0WdaN0V4 Pétain was a coward and still considered as a coward by French people. You will never find a Petain Avenue but you will find many De Gaulle Avenue in France. Refuse to fight against nazism and active collaboration was a shame for French people. Millions of deaths in the WWI were not an excuse. As a french, it's a great shame. On the other hand, if found polish much more braves than the French... Communist did a lot of bad things in France by doing their maximum to not prepare the country to war against an imminent danger.

@Dave-yz5db

4 жыл бұрын

It's real fun to let others fight your war and die for you. And then they got a nice occupation zone in Germany. The frogs fooled everybody then HAHA ))

@freewal

4 жыл бұрын

Dave Pupkin just don’t deny the fact that some people fought for the France Libre.

@owenjones7517

4 жыл бұрын

*Forced to fight, like the French units trapped at Lille were. The rearguard consisted of British & French units alternating with one another, although as the Dunkirk perimeter shrank they became mostly French.

French Soldiers salute with both arms straight upwards. Membership of the French Resistance trebled 3 days after the war ended.

@nicktecky55

3 жыл бұрын

That can't be true. The Spanish Republicans went home. Well, the lefties amongst them mounted a 3000 strong attack in the middle of the Pyrenees, but Franco just dug a tunnel and surrounded them. Longest tunnel in the world for a while; Tunel de Vielha. Even Guinness hadn't heard of it.

@jebgue3

3 жыл бұрын

Their backs were broke from carrying the Brits in WWI.

Awesome video - very informative

Roasting a country in the nicest calmest way ever

@believeorleave438

3 жыл бұрын

it's a fact

@lesheep3347

3 жыл бұрын

Remember who took berlin in 6 daus

@lesheep3347

3 жыл бұрын

@philippe klopfer no napoleon

@replayer1137

3 жыл бұрын

@@lesheep3347 remember who got caught by prussia?

@marthag1269

3 жыл бұрын

A deserved Roasting.

Italian and french soldiers are very brave, but they had a bad leadership and especially in Italy a poor industrial capacity.

@yugoslav8755

4 жыл бұрын

Still not a good enough justification for losing to Greece

@noobmaster2550

4 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure about the French

@rexus_officialchannel3594

4 жыл бұрын

@@yugoslav8755 Well when u have bad Leaders and bad equipment.. even outnumbering the enemy doesnt mean anymore.

@antaridae

4 жыл бұрын

Mihailo Despotovic Mussolini wanted the invasion a year early than he could and literally a few days after the war started it started raining and nobody could move, giving the greek time to organize the defense.

@removilmata5377

4 жыл бұрын

What about Ethiopia, they had way worst industry and even so Italy had their arse kicked.Africans saved France. After the surending, most of the soldiers were taken to Germany and as Trump said, they were already learning German. Marrocan, Senegalese, Guinean´s fought for them as Indians fought to save G. Britain and after the fight in África, Normandy was only a show so the americans could enter as heroes but they were fighting the wickest of the wermart since the capable one´s were dyeing in Russia.

Thanks for the video! If you haven't already done so, could you make a video about Sgt. Alvin York and his actions in WWI that won him the medal of honor? If you have, could you post the link? Thank you!

I remember an old TV program once that started like this "It's 1939 and France is again without a government". That's all you need to know about why they failed.

Simplistic view on the Maginot line. It was actually quite effective: it prevented a direct German attack on the industrial heartland of France, and bought time for the main French forces. The main causes for the French defeat were: Very poor military leadership, with complete failure in communication Weak counterattacks against the German spearhead, compounded by poor logistics, lack of training of tank crews, poor tank design (one-man turrets...) and as you mention lack of radio in tanks +Luck on the German side!

@Muljinn

3 жыл бұрын

Morale was a problem too. The rank & file weren’t exactly enthusiastic and about 1 in 5 were Communist fifth columnists advocating for surrender because the Germans were allied with the Soviets at the time.

@Mysteres78979

3 жыл бұрын

Well there is one problem with our tanks and that was the one man turret design, it was implemented due to our lack of metropolitan man power therefore we could only rely on this doctrine however I think that we could have easily used our colonial troops for that job, they could have easily filled in the gaps for the tank department but somehow, we didn't. But otherwise tank wise, germany had better crew layouts and the actual brain to actually use radio's in their tanks on a large scale (while our officers discouraged the use of these).

@johnrodriguez5277

3 жыл бұрын

I agree but I don't think it was luck for the Germans in so much as better tactics and equipment. The problem with the French is that they were still fighting with strategies of the last war and failed to think outside the box like the Germans did. Imho

@steffennilsen2132

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnrodriguez5277 Being the underdog forces you to think outside the box

@PersonalityMalfunction

3 жыл бұрын

@@Muljinn I was going to say the very same thing. The French have worked very hard in the post-war years to blame it on politics and a weak officer corps but even though it has some value, the French surrender was largely due to the normal folks being enamoured with socialism and communism. What actually irks me is the inflation of the number and actions of the so-called ‘resistance’. If all the French who claimed to have been part of it the resistance actually were, the Germans wouldn’t have very comfortably held France for the duration of the war.

They lost because their ENTIRE ARMY was surrounded and destroyed at Dunkirk, we aren’t fair to the French, the Germans described them accurately in the words of Erwin Rommel: “the French fought like lions”

@simohayho8622

5 жыл бұрын

Even their enemy respected them! But they still lost so fast! And they were stupid to leave the maginot line uncompleted! History could be different if they didnt leave it uncompleted

@charlesncharge6298

4 жыл бұрын

The luftwaffe would've broken the maginot line whether it was completed, or not. It was not a viable defense against the modernized German military.

@mariosmatzoros3553

4 жыл бұрын

@pork n beans Most successful military record of all time...

@Matt_History

4 жыл бұрын

@TheCrazyKid1381 he said their soldiers were on par with the Germans, but their supply and leadership was lacking

@Matt_History

4 жыл бұрын

@TheCrazyKid1381 the Ethiopians were never far behind because of their connections with the arabic world

What I got from this video: Germany: Wireless Radios France: Flags

@zaned.5036

3 жыл бұрын

What I got from this video: Bird noises...

Excellent short video, it points out aspects that a lot of us didn't know

Similarly, it is folly to assume that the UN can prevent war today.

@nqh4393

3 жыл бұрын

Especially since it's fucking communist China that's occupying one of the permanent seats on the UNSC.

@fredericksaxton3991

3 жыл бұрын

By pushing their 'Great Reset' they don't need a war to overcome civilization.

@dantheman3022

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah judging by past wars....... The USA will definitely start trouble some where in the world. Get ready for another WMD false flag !

@firemangan2731

3 жыл бұрын

The purpose of the UN was to prevent wars at the scale of WW2 or higher, not to prevent all wars entirely! Common misconception.

@freesk8

3 жыл бұрын

@@firemangan2731 Can you name a minor war that UN troops prevented? Seems to me the UN troops tend to retreat when confronted.

Well said, but the British were also badly defeated during this phase of the war. It's only because of their geography as an island isolated from the continent that saved them from capitulation.

@NanoLT

5 жыл бұрын

Are you saying the British plan to defend their coast with naval and air superiority wasn't a sound strategy?

@RomainM-rv5rw

5 жыл бұрын

@@NanoLT No but their plan to defend Belgium and Norway were total failure. It is a fact.

@TheECSH

5 жыл бұрын

In both world wars France had to endure the war being fought directly on its soil. The British always had the backup plan of retreating to their home islands and waiting for the US to come to their aid. Britain also had Churchill who was resolute in not surrendering. Before he came around, the morale in Britain was also at an all-time low with many suggesting an armistice with Germany.

@jpaul5575

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheECSH Maybe next time france should fight on their own

@rain-yg6lt

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheECSH I don't think you know what your saying, have you heard of the Battle of Britain? The British RAF decisively defeated the German Luftwaffe. Yes the UK is an island, which is good for defence, but it's also bad to go on the offensive. Also, do remember that from the 1800s to the end of WW2 Britain had the largest navy in the world, this meant the English channel could be guarded against a larger German army. Good day to you.

My deepest respect to the French peoples for all they have done towards advancing the world. Without France, who knows where we’d be. 🇫🇷

@davidearea242

3 жыл бұрын

Scott - I dunno...probably in a far better place...

@Scott-fj9uf

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidearea242 can you explain why you feel France had been a hindrance to humanity? (Said respectfully)

@JiafeiProducts6969

3 жыл бұрын

Without Italy, Greece and Egypt we would Not even exist

@kid_toucher

Жыл бұрын

@@JiafeiProducts6969 ever heard of africa?

@bigl3242

Жыл бұрын

@@kid_toucherEgyptians are Africans. The original ones anyway

0:08 lil' griffin at the right bottom corner

Respect to you our French brothers, from a British man.

@tywinlannister8015

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you. Respects from France ;)

@mercymessi7115

4 жыл бұрын

Sab saale tum log kayar ho

@andrewkelly8894

4 жыл бұрын

Just remember your 2 countries hatred of Germany (under wilhelm the 2nd) is what started that friendship

@beluwuga2573

4 жыл бұрын

Are you spanish?

@andrewkelly8894

4 жыл бұрын

@Cole deBeer yeah but most of that time was as enemies

Can't remember who, but some Journo said, "I spoke to a few of the British Commanders who returned from Dunkerque, all mid 40-s to mid 50's, who despite the retreat were still eager to continue the fight and displayed a zeal of a young infantryman. Every time I try to interview a 50yr old French General about the defeat, I can't find one - I seem to be introduced repeatedly to his 75yr old father, who rambles about nothing except WW1 or before with a haunted gaze, then I discover the old dudes really WERE in charge during the collapse". The vast majority of the French command were elderly men traumatised by prosecuting the slaughter in the trenches 3 decades earlier, and woefully tied to outdated methods of static warfare, hopelessly outmanoeuvred by Blitzkrieg tactics. The common soldiers, who were too young to see the horrors of war or had lost fathers to WW1, were for both reasons MORE than up for the fight, as they showed 4 years later when their numbers swelled from 100k to over 1.2m to became the 4th largest Allied Army in 6 months flat, but their commanders had lost heart. Truth is, in May 1940 French had all the material and manpower required to batter Nazi Germany to a pulp, but lacked the most important factor - self belief, and all the benefits that flow thereof.

When your generals are ready to refight the last war and your enemy is ready to start the next war you are in trouble!

Wow, Griff is extremely and remorselessly direct in his intros!

This video contain many mistakes. I've been a subscriber for a long time and you usually don't make major mistakes like this. I'd like to point out that the Maginot line actually DID its purpose during WW2. It's purpose wasn't to be impregnable, ofcourse the french knew that nothing in the world is impregnable. The purpose of the line was to avoid a war on french soil like in WW1 where France had suffered greatly due to this, especially because they had to constantly go to the offensive to retake the occupied land and due to a large part of french industry being in the north. The Maginot lines purpose was to make the Germans repeat the Schlieffen plan and attack through Belgium.. which we all know they did. The Allies, not only France, greatly underestimated the speed and capability of the German mechanized and armoured units and the Luftwaffe. Communication of the Allies was terrible, the command system was too centralised, and the lack of cooperation between the Allies, especially with Belgium was some of the causes to the major defeat.

@cody9450

5 жыл бұрын

Totally agree about the Maginot line being useful and serving its purpose, the whole point of it was to funnel German troops into Belgium (which it did) where coalition forces would halt the German advance and provide a defense in depth. This was made obsolete by numerous diplomatic failures from Britain, France, and Belgium alike and also the unlikely gamble of the breakthrough in Sedan and encirclement. I think a lot of the video had to be simplistic for the 6 minutes of content, there was a lot more that went in why France failed that was completely not mentioned (including mentioning the demographics that is mentioned in the top comment). I think this video is a great starting point and I learned from it but this topic deserves a lot more than 6 minutes content and should be expounded on.

@chefppy277

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah the Germans did have trouble impregnating the maginot line...

@arisukak

5 жыл бұрын

@@chefppy277 The Maginot Line wasn't designed to keep Germany out. It was designed to to funnel the Germans so they can be easily counter-attacked. The Maginot Line not only served it's purpose, but excelled at it.

@aviationfalcon

5 жыл бұрын

THE GERMANS SWEPT THE MAGINOT LINE KNOW YOUR WW2 FACTS

@justinkong9954

5 жыл бұрын

The germans had the same thinking when they made their Hindenburg line.

It is interesting to note, that post WWII the French rebuilt their military into a formidable machine. This can be seen in the continued use of Aircraft carriers, ICBM equipped submarines and advanced fighter aircraft. The French Foreign Legion are also sent as trouble shooters to France's former colonies, either rescuing European citizens or as a counter-terrorist force.

@idontcareanymore2754

3 жыл бұрын

The French use the Legion- as good as it is- so they don't have to risk losing French soldiers.

@noidea5984

2 жыл бұрын

@@idontcareanymore2754 Legion is composed of many french too

@grandferret4697

2 жыл бұрын

@@idontcareanymore2754 la majorité des soldats qui participent au opération sont dans la régulière et non pas des légionnaire.

@grandferret4697

2 жыл бұрын

C'est les forces spéciales (1er rpima, , commandos marine, cpa 10, etc... ) qui font principalement de la libération d'otages et des opérations antiterroriste a l'étranger, pas la légion.

@woodenseagull1899

2 жыл бұрын

Not too good in Indo China 1955...!

That opening statement was intensely hurtful in the best way possible

France lost for two basic reasons. Their reliance on a static defensive line and that their armour was distributed throughout the army and not used as a concentrated force. Blitzkrieg exploited these short comings.

Worst of all is they blame the Maginot Line, which did it's job!

@jacobtautges7371

5 жыл бұрын

I present to you, IRONY: French. Being defended by Kaiser Wilhelm. On the day WWI ended, 100 years ago.

@TheGmt717

5 жыл бұрын

where did you hear we blamed the maginot line --' ?? We blame our stupid generals who couldn't see what a 5 years old would nowadays Stop making assumptions

@matejcepel2912

5 жыл бұрын

nobody blame that line...it was very good defence...BUT everybody blame location of that line 😂

@bramvandenheuvel4049

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, the Maginot line did it's job. For the Germans. Just pay close attention, and you'll see how the Germans used the Maginot line to its advantage.

@jc-wd5bu

5 жыл бұрын

no, it didn't. the Maginot Line was static in an age of maneuver warfare,. The Maginot Line was basically a concrete trench with concrete pill boxes. WWI thinking. Blitzkrieg was WWII thinking, maneuver, flank attacks, break through and pursuit. French were WAY to slow to react.

The problem with this interpretation is that it wasn’t a surprise attack. They saw it coming from Germany’s repeated disrespect of the treaty.

The short answer is they thought trees would protect their flank

@ryanbrimson8238

3 жыл бұрын

Lol a bit more than trees my friend

@ShiftyClan

3 жыл бұрын

@@ryanbrimson8238 was a joke, but yes I know

@ryanbrimson8238

3 жыл бұрын

@@ShiftyClan ik 😂

A few quotes about the behavior of the french army at Dunkerque or Lille: General Georg von Küchler, commander of the XVIIIth army of the Wehrmacht, entirely engaged around Dunkirk, this is taken from his war diary: "Despite our overwhelming superiority in men and hardware numbers, the french troops are counter-attacking in several places. I can't understand how those soldiers, sometimes fighting at one versus ten (or even one versus thirty in some areas), can find enough strength to assault us: this is simply amazing ! I see in those french soldiers the same energy than with the veterans of Verdun in 1916. For several days now, hundreds of bombers and guns are pounding the french defence. But, it's always the same thing: our infantry and panzers can't break through, despite some local and ephemeral successes. The french high command has very smartly set up his troops and artillery. I fear that the Dunkirk operation could be a failure for all of us: almost all the BEC and the biggest part of the french 1st Army will escape, because a few thousands of braves block the path to the sea. That's distressing, but that's it ! Dunkirk brings the proof that the french soldier is one of the best in the world. The french artillery, already dreaded in 1914, demonstrates once more its efficiency. Our losses are terrifying: numerous battallions have lost 60% of their men, sometimes even more ! By resisting ten days or more to our much bigger forces, the french army has accomplished, in Dunkirk, a superb achievement that you must pay tribute to. They have certainly saved Great-Britain from the defeat, by allowing the british professional army to reach the british coast." General Franz Halder's diary, one of the chief of staff of the Wehrmacht: "May 18th 1940: the Führer still worries a lot about the southern flank. he's furious and claims that we take the best path to make the whole campaign fail ! The french troops never stops counter-attacking. May 21st 1940: that day starts in an extremely tense atmosphere: reports indicates a serious pressure on the northern flank of the IVth army. The VIth army faces a solid front. May 22nd 1940: our tanks, that are currently fighting in the south, have met a powerful enemy. Our panzerdivisionen suffer too many losses and attack without being required to. Stress is growing. May 23rd 1940: the losses for the tanks of our ten panzerdivisionen reach 50% ! The french resistance is fierce." Winston Churchill in his War Speeches, talking about the french resistance at Lille: "Those frenchs, under the brave command of general Molinié, have during four critical days contained not less than seven german divisions that, otherwise,would have participated to the attacks of the Dunkirk perimeter. Thoses troops thus brought a splendid contribution to the safety of their luckier comrades and of the BEC."

@nikitaananjevas1614

4 жыл бұрын

1 to 30? Wow, looks like post-war interview or evaluation without considering real ratio of front line troops in contact. In reality the density of defending troops increased, French and brits were ordered to shoot out as many artillery shells as possible because there was no way to evacuate war materiel together with men. No logistic capacity. Germans met increased numbers which were enough to defend as well as unprecedented intensity of British and French artillery barrages.

@Anekantavad

4 жыл бұрын

And the Germans were terrified of the French tanks. kzread.info/dash/bejne/pHaYsdJtctfMoso.html

@carthkaras6449

4 жыл бұрын

Interresying. Thank you!

@tomk3732

4 жыл бұрын

This is all meaningless and proves opposite of your point. French performance was pathetic. German comments of prize are for propaganda purposes. Same as constant accolades Italians got. Facts on the ground count. French despite numerical parity folded like deck of cards.

@Anekantavad

4 жыл бұрын

@@tomk3732 Just like the US Army folded like a pack of cards in the Philippines, the British at Singapore, and the US Army (again) in the replay of the Battle of France known as the Battle of the Bulge. The entire US Army was thrown into a state of panicked hysteria by *rumours* of German infiltrators.Generals were arrested by their own men! And in 1944, the US Army had *less* excuse than the French did in 1940. By 1944, the Wehrmacht was a spent force (having been smashed on the anvils of Stalingrad, Kursk, the Dniepr Crossing, etc.

Just a few issues i have with the video, though I do love the vid :) 4min mark, I thought the French philosophy was that they didnt have the manpower to fight a full front or attritional war against Germany, knowing they would swing via Belgium again, they build the Maginot line in order to FORCE this to happen a second time, the Maginot was then garrisonned with 2nd rate forces and equipment while the best trained and best equipment was marked to go to the mobile armies setup to fight in Belgium, allowing France to throw the best part of its strength in the way of the Germans wihle having secured the homeland and flank, however Belgium changed the plan, originally when war was all but certain, the French would be allowed in to defend the Belgian part of the line in the extremely hard conditions(dont forget, Belgium build a continued front on the Maginot too), but they changed this so the French could only enter when Germany had first. 4:40 again, thought the french technically were more motorised, however large portions were still being trained to even use the new equipment, as the French commander in chief iirc put it, they wouldnt have the men trained or materiel to do anything for at least 1-2 more years. Heck, they even sent men to the front in FT-17s while battalions worth of brand new tanks were unmanned, simply due to not having the time to retrain the men (the AMC35 for example, many whom got in them to use them were not trained to use tanks yet and were rushed into battle) and being disorganised due to being both in a mass expansion of the army and modernisation of equipment. A large portion of the army was undergoing modernisation, any army caught in a war while doing this is pretty screwed, especially a nation with limited military production as France. Lastly, it isnt so much a brain drain and unwillingness to learn, there were many low and medium level officers willing to learn and update the plan, but the as said unskilled high command/old guard blocked them, EG when the "cavalry" divisions wanted their own light tank, they were denied and told they would not be allowed tanks, they renamed the design to car and were allowed it(a tracked car), sadly the people whom had brains had to deal with idiots.

@silverpleb2128

5 жыл бұрын

Yep, totally true Strategicaly, france wanted to blockade the german economy, germany had to buy multiples strategic ressources like oil or some types of ore. The french strategy was to blockade the german by buying the potential ressources on the market that the germans needed, so with the british they started to buy oil to romania and ore to other countries. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact also completely destroyed the french strategy by allowing the germans to buy what they needed to USSR. Sorry for my bad english.

@VolumedMusicMan

5 жыл бұрын

mitch verr They were never the same in military since Napoleon....

@maxberre

5 жыл бұрын

There had been Franco-Belgian alliance. France was to hold the Belgo-German border. But after the 1938 Munich Pact (allies appeased at the expense of Czechoslovakia), Belgium lost faith in France as an ally, and coordination broke down. The Germans were ultimately able to exploit that.

@mitchverr9330

5 жыл бұрын

The belgians left the accord in 1936, 2 years prior, they ended it preffering to build their own fortifications and attempting to become a neutral nation akin to Switzerland, except without the mountains to use to make any invasion a hell for the attacker. So that is incorrect, they didnt abandon the treaty thinking France wouldnt protect them.

@prd6617

5 жыл бұрын

at 4:40 if im not mistaken, soviet have the same problem at the early year of ww2

It wasn't just WW2. Always late to show up, ineffective, and quick to surrender!

@arnaudmonvoisin5967

2 жыл бұрын

Nice joke :)

Imagine being France army. You were in trenches and thinking battle will be hard like old day their parents told. But German swoop in with massive tanks, army mobilization with air support and you faced a revolutionary war strategy you don't understand.

French high command and politicians were a disaster. What makes it so sad is that despite the bravery and sacrifice of tens of thousands of french soldiers, people choose to remember them as surrending cowards, when in fact, french infantrymen fought to the death, saving the british retreat at Dunkirk. What hurts today isn't the fact that France was defeated, it's the fact that nobody honours the sacrifice of those soldiers, and stigmatizes the french as cowardly people. Many french jokes are funny, but NOT the white flag ones. They are an insult to the thousands that died, and an insult to history.

@jackvac1918

4 жыл бұрын

The "cowardly French" myth actually comes from the US in modern times, where the neoconservative propaganda used the capitulation of 1940 to slander France after France refused to support the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

@hopatease1

4 жыл бұрын

@@jackvac1918 no as a kid ( born in 1943 ) we used to make fun of the french back then also

@paoloredondo7309

4 жыл бұрын

Very good speech 👍

@neoarmstrongcyclonejetarms9326

4 жыл бұрын

👍

@main8824

4 жыл бұрын

karate160 So true, I literally hate these internet trolls sayings thing like FrAnCe iS a CoWaRD even though thousands of soldier still fought off the Germans, also at the time the resistance was huge.

The French performed badly. Italy, hold my beer......

@tomw3886

5 жыл бұрын

This comment has 69 likes

@azrael7891

5 жыл бұрын

Holda ami vino

@sleepingkirbo2393

5 жыл бұрын

Hold my vine*

@EdoardoLusuardi

5 жыл бұрын

*Italy: hold my beer.

@sleepingkirbo2393

5 жыл бұрын

@@EdoardoLusuardi Italy didn't drink beer they drink vine

Hang in there Grif your doing a wonderful job. Fascinating.

@ElTheJono

3 жыл бұрын

you're*

@dcarman686

3 жыл бұрын

@@ElTheJono Sorry about that can we still be friends?

@ElTheJono

3 жыл бұрын

@@dcarman686 of course, buddy!

And dont forget that reconnaissance pilots literally reported german troops in a roadblock in the ardenne, and the generals just ignored it

"Fear not the competense of your enemies but in the incompetense of your forces" -Napoleon Probably

@markfox1545

3 жыл бұрын

You misspelled competence and incompetence. Ironic....

@angularsaxophone5820

3 жыл бұрын

@@markfox1545 I found the Grammar Nazi, guys.

@danwhowatches707

2 жыл бұрын

@@markfox1545 Don't even use ironic right

@genghiskhan.2265

2 жыл бұрын

@@markfox1545 we got one I repeat we got send in the helicopters with Napalm

@abrahamlincoln9758

2 жыл бұрын

@@genghiskhan.2265 yOU DIDNT USE PUCTUATION AND USED IMPROPER CAPITALISATION;

They didn't break the maginot line they just went around it, the line did its job

@crimsonstrykr

3 жыл бұрын

Yes. The line's point was to make the germans repeat ww1 plans and go through Belgium, which they did. Line did its job the French officers and generals didn't. French didn't defend what they assumed was a natural barrier at the Ardennes and then failed to act even when reports of Panzers in that area was seen. Combine that with the "infantry support" style placement of their main armour compared to the germans conentrating several armored division in a single place, they were bound to loose.

@enslinvanniekerk6564

3 жыл бұрын

LOL - That`s like saying there`s nothing wrong with your toilet even though your guests piss outside....

@jimthesoundman8641

3 жыл бұрын

@@enslinvanniekerk6564 France didn't have enough troops to defend it's entire border. So they built the Maginot Line to defend the part of the border closest to Germany and redistributed most of the troops elsewhere. But they left a weak spot near the Ardennes Forest because they considered that the least likely place for the Germans to attack. But the Germans decided to exploit that and attack exactly where the French were least expecting it, and their plan worked brilliantly. But the Maginot was not the problem, it did exactly what it was designed to do.

@thewirah1

3 жыл бұрын

My grandfather was on the Maginot line, and from what he told me it didn't do its job.

@jimthesoundman8641

3 жыл бұрын

@@thewirah1 Well, when you have German troops in front and behind it, it's not really doing it's job, but it's job was just to stop the Germans on the front side. So it did that part successfully, it was the rest of the French army that screwed everything up and let Germans get around to the back side. Once that happens your supplies are cut off and it's just a matter of starving you out or waiting until you run out of ammo.

France- thinking about peace Germany- REMEMBER ME?!?

“They didn’t want to attack the enemy, in a war.”

Being unprepared for madness is not the same as being bad. Don’t forget that the UK was also smashed in Europe only to be saved the French Army in Dunkirk‘s evacuation. What was left of the French Army actually contributed a lot afterwards, for their means, which got them to the table of victor nations. It’s such an annoying myth that the French army was crap. No one was ready; everyone learned from the battle of France.

@jpc7118

5 жыл бұрын

Totally right Jacob... And the casualties luftwaffe received, done by french air force during the six weeks of the campaign of france, permitted to RAF to resist better... British were very courageous, that's true, but so were french, belgians, polish and all occupied people... Blitzkrieg didn't find any efficient response from allies before end of 1942... the funny of the thing is that Russian strategy in 1944-1945 was not so far from the French wanted to apply in 1939 : le feu roulant de l'artillerie écrasant tout sur son passage ( outnumbering artillery crushing opponent defenses, permitting its troops to advance in a desert of blood, pain and crushed metal)

@mlgprussian7115

5 жыл бұрын

Well same for Italy. Everyone has good soldiers. It’s supplying them adequately and generals who aren’t stupid. Charles De Gaulle also wasn’t good until he took the backseat to the UK and US

@jpc7118

5 жыл бұрын

@@mlgprussian7115 unfortunately, you're wrong about De Gaulle... Before the war De Gaulle wrote an important book about strong and fast armoured unit breaking through slow heavy units or flanking static defense to break a defense line... this boook, Guderian and Manstein recognised having read it and having improved the idea which was for them "revolutionary"... Then At Montcornet, may 1940, De gaulle received the commandment of the 4° DCR, a very strong and heavy armoured division... but in fact, 4° DCr was totally incomplete, a "young" and late unit which hadn't had the time to perform and train porperly... with about 35% of the strength of the 4° DCR, he inflicted severe damages to 2 PzDiv... Breaking through the german defenses and took 14 km in few hours of fierce fight. De gaulle was a genius soldier and a genius politics in the same time, which was unfortunately his alone problem : french politics were doubtful because he was a good general with strong ambition (not for him only, but for France) and french higher generals were hating him because he was far more clever than them... You should read De gaulle memories and more, Churchill's ones... You'll understand what I meant by Genius and ambitious.

@mlgprussian7115

5 жыл бұрын

JP C ok well thanks for proving me wrong, I’ll look into it

@louiswallis8687

4 жыл бұрын

Jacob White don’t forget that it was French idiocy (of their leaders) that put the British in the predicament of having their forces split in two.

It should also be pointed out the French tended to use single-man turrets in their tanks, as opposed to other nations having two or three men in the turret to free the commander from having to deal with loading and firing the turret gun so he could focus on directing the tank crew. This had a definite effect on their effectiveness, despite having some superior technical characteristics to the german vehicles.

France hasn’t had an effective military campaign since the 1700s…

@noidea5984

2 жыл бұрын

Napoleonic war in the 1800s? Crimean War? WW1? Current army?

That’s the best example for the saying: “If you want peace, prepare for war”

3:39 Horrible, basic mistake. The German offensive through the Ardennes did NOT "breach the Maginot Line". The Maginot line did not extend into the Ardennes because for political reasons the French did not want the line to go through the Belgian border. The southern German thrust through the Maginot Line actually encountered fierce resistence. The Line held.

@vmone7678

5 жыл бұрын

I can't help but remember the WWI French Slogan. " Ils ne passeront pas !" "They shall not pass!"

@cyrille8693

5 жыл бұрын

@@vmone7678 It sounds like the quote "None shall pass" in a Monty Python movie now :)

@keinlieb3818

5 жыл бұрын

So.... they did breach the Maginot Line by going through a portion that was virtually unguarded. However they got around it, over it, under it, etc they still successfully crossed or breached it or entered in some form or fashion and conquered France.

@josephocampo2743

5 жыл бұрын

@@keinlieb3818 Nah, the way he talks about it makes it sound like breaching is literally cutting the lines defenses. They didn't though. They simply went around the line and encircled it. The line actually held mostly until the armistice and the French soldiers were forced to surrender by the French government.

@rogaldorn1405

5 жыл бұрын

​@@keinlieb3818 Nope they did'nt i'm french and both Joseph & Fabio are right. At this time frenchs did'nt think germans could do that! They went through Ardennes in Belgium: Belgium was neutral.

You have made decent arguments, but I think you missed an important big one made by military historian Lynn Montross: "But there was no balm for the wounds of fallen France in 1940. Civilians could only share the blame with professional soldiers... Still, it would be unfair to heap too much blame on poor Gamelin’s inept leadership. Joffre and Foch must also be held to stern account. For the class of 1914 had consisted of 750,000 Frenchmen, while in 1939, only 450,000 answered the call to arms. The gaps in the ranks of the nation’s defenders represented the 300,000 unborn sons of the ‘human grapeshot’ who had been sacrificed to the offensive doctrines of 1914 and 1915.” - Lynn Montross, War Through the Ages (3rd Ed., 1960), pp. 810-811.

One thing thats rarely mentioned is the fact that the French knew that the ardens could be breached by tanks due to an exercise they conducted in which masses of tanks came charging through but assumed the germans wouldn't know/do this boy were they wrong.

Imagine napoleon just looking down from above and be like: wtf has my once glorious military become.

@loconeko42

3 жыл бұрын

Napoleon lost the war, France won WWII, so who cares what he would think ?

@adankmeme651

3 жыл бұрын

@@loconeko42 ok

And a change in military strategies? Germany had radios in their tanks. France didn't. It made it quick for the Germans to call for air or artillery support.

@fantomasvsfantomas2288

3 жыл бұрын

True. I have been reading the war diary of a German soldier during the battle of France. At some point he was made prisoner of the French with his Kameraden and write that the intervention of the Luftwaffe saved them, once more.

@leomigateno473

3 жыл бұрын

France had radio and tanks Germany had si much airplane and thé France had not si Manu airplane

@kenzozo34

3 жыл бұрын

@@leomigateno473 france tank has radio but not many plus he explained that 2 german planes were down from 1 french plane

@ashleighelizabeth5916

3 жыл бұрын

Close air ground attack tactics just can not be overstated! The Stuka was unlike anything the French or the Brits had in 1940 and they had never dreamed of using it in the way the Germans did. Of course once the Brits got a good look at it they were able to deal with it rather easily but the Russians had a Hell of a time fighting it off as well on the Eastern Front when their air force was all chewed up.

@ey6713

3 жыл бұрын

German propaganda

League of Nations? More like League of Ineffectiveness

@Tsukiko.97

5 жыл бұрын

You are telling me

@joshuabaldwin4580

5 жыл бұрын

@@Tsukiko.97 The United Nations is just as Ineffective now just like The League of Ineffectiveness The United Dimwits are even more Ineffective.

@ethan9869

5 жыл бұрын

Emperor Baldwin the First of Alabama Sounds familiar.... UN... cough cough

@JeffersonSteelflexx

5 жыл бұрын

For real. France should have signed with the warriors

@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014

5 жыл бұрын

League of lazyness

You don't declare war then sit around doing nothing. Sooner or later, the enemy will attack. Sitting doing nothing allows the enemy to gather intelligence and pick and choose where and how to attack.

Maginot line didn’t fail it was always intended to push the Germans through Belgium 🇧🇪 it was the falling out of the king of Belgium and not allowing the french army to prepare fixed defences in Belgium which ultimately cost them the war. Well that and french incompetence in not attacking grid locked German armoured units.

The Maginot Line actually served its intended purposes. It forced the German to attack through Belgium, where presumably, France, Britain and Belgium could successfully stop them. What none of them expected, though, was that the main thrust of the attack would come through the Ardennes and not through the easier terrain of central Belgium.

basically, the accumulation of 3 blunders... -a diplomatic one: Belgium was allied with France and GB and France was, in case of war with Germany, supposed to go and fortify on the banks of a river in Belgium near the German border and counter attack from there. The Maginot line supposed to stop the Germans from crossing the Rhine. The king Leopold, who had in fact pro nazi opinion, decided to change to neutral in 38 (I think). The consequence being that French soldiers couldn't move and fortify on Belgium territory before the German move themselves. -a military one: Gamelin simply and criminally ignored the planes scouting report about German division crossing the Ardennes with tanks because he believed it wasn't possible... -a political one: when the situation was bad, they called Petain to form a new governement and lead the war, believing he would be as strong as in ww1... most of the politics and leaders were ready to keep fighting even from aboard, in Algeria if needed. Petain didn't take the helm with intention to keep fighting and instead asked for armistice... and ordered the French soldiers to stop firing all the while the German kept fighting... many of the losses (dead and captured) of battle of France happened in this cursed 10 days... you could also add some problems like the bad tactical use of the tank in French army (they didn't listen to DeGaulle, whose book about it sold twice as much in Germany than in France) or the fact there was no radio in those superior tanks, thus making it a bad weakness for coordination... then there is the fact that GB favored retreating on the other side of the Channel than piercing through the German encirclement... all the while leaving their post a few hours before even informing the French command who had to scramble and plug the holes... let's not forget that the Germans used bold tactics and were rewarded for it... not much was needed for it to evolve in a Uno reverse card...

@shuaguin5446

4 жыл бұрын

You nailed it but I would add one things. Huntziger (French commander) stupid orders at Sedan allowing Guderian to cross the Meuse and start it's flanking. The guy litteraly refused Air support to bombard German colones in the Ardennes, ordered a retreat when it's troops were actually well dug in, inflecting heavy loses and holding well. Slowing the German was the plan and they were actually faring well but he had to order a retreat leaving open a passage to the East. Pure incompetence versus bold tactics.

@edsun3470

3 жыл бұрын

Kolerick Bloodmoon Ahhh, Belgium's sudden departure from the Allies in 38. The Dyle Plan was formed just end of 36, this is a major reason that BEF are not prepared ti fight in Belgium since they are denied the ground studies

@edsun3470

3 жыл бұрын

Shuaguin Huntziger had little choice since his formations of B rank reserves severely lack mobility. If yo had a breakthrough that's it

@maxanderson9293

3 жыл бұрын

Hunziger called Air power but the Germans had superior anti aircraft artillery( Flak Canons) they destroyed majority of the French and British air assault.

@stephenlitten1789

3 жыл бұрын

You missed another factor - France had about half the population of Germany in 1939

Not surprised since they have the debuffs: Victor's of Great War, Disjointed government, and political violence

In France's defense, (pun intended) they had less time to prepare for World War Two. The French just didn't have enough time to effectively set up a defense. Also they couldn't mass produce many weapons before the Germans got there.

The men of France were brave and did their duty. The officer corp from field grade forward were simply awful and the political leadership even more so.

@alandeweld3059

4 жыл бұрын

Fully agree. I would add that at the tactical level, Germany had a war before all the other armies in Europe.

@stf5876

2 жыл бұрын

@Keith Garland Hi, Hitler revived the German Army which was forbidden by the Armistice in 1918. Politicallly : the head of the Popular Front (le Front Populaire) Léon Blum, socialist, French representative and Stateman stated at the National Assemblu that Hitler was a socialist, a pacifist, that Germany was not a threat and ask to lower the Army's budget in 1936. Two years after, in 1938, the French lost their right to possess and buy automatic weapons. In April 1939, French lost their right to carry pistols. In June 17th, France was fully invaded, defeated, and Occupied. Some years after, some people were taken to cattle wagons.

The French High Command was totally useless and sacrificed many brave french soldiers....sadly, at the end of the war, none stood trial for incompetence.

@barton2185

4 жыл бұрын

Qwecy wdym France has more supplies and divisions during the invasion of Poland, Germany only gained strength as the war continued

@freewal

4 жыл бұрын

Gamelin, the head of the French Army had a very bad strategy. A defensive one. He never anticipated the rapidity of the tanks and the Germans. Some historians think that he suffered of syphilis.

@cotefabrice1801

3 жыл бұрын

Barton21 you play to much HOI4

Another problem from a country who was historically an heroic land of soldiers and adventurers was that anyone who would fight (or was caught brawling) during WW1 was sent to the front. The losses to the population of their highly respected martial artists (savateurs) was worse than crippling. Running massed soldiers into interlocking German machineguns trying to 'swamp the guns' was tried many times. The men up front, those with great bravery and elan, were wiped out. When all your greatest champions are killed, who trains the next generation?

let's be fair, had Britain not been an island it would have propably also fallen as quick as France

Adolf hitler: Avoids the maginot line. France: impossible

I’m glad he mentioned German wireless technology as his played a major part in the defeat of the French who were still using WWI communication tactics.

I think you negate Britains role in not fully committing to defense like they planned. Britian offered just 5 divisions they were perfessional and not fully equipped toward the fight. They refused to use spitfire squadrons to Frances defense etc.

If a penguin walked into france with an armory the french would still surrender.

A great myth is that the Maginot Line was ineffective because the Germans just went around it. Actually it was very effective because of that. It was designed for that specific purpose because the French strategic plans then counted on being able to concentrate all their defense in the north. Which is exactly what they did. The fact that then their mobile defense tactics were out of date is what allowed the Germans to break through. Throughout the war the Maginot Line proper was never broken through.

I think calling an attack in WW2 that was basically identical to the strategy in WW1 a “surprise attack” is pretty generous.

@randomname5585

3 жыл бұрын

yeah it was basicaly the the schlieffen plan all over again.

@ashleighelizabeth5916

3 жыл бұрын

Well everybody was convinced the Ardennes were bad armor country on the Allied side. In fact they remained so convinced of that idea that they allowed the Bulge to happen in 1944. That's pretty damn stubborn if you ask me. What is the old saying? Fool me once shame on you, full me twice shame on me? Well full me three times and just damn how many different ways did Allied commanders have to learn the same damn lesson???

How can you be a victim of a surprise attack when you were already at war for a year?

To get all the details and circumstances of France's fall, you need a 60-80 minutes video! As an introduction, it's well done.