American Reacts The Real Reason France Collapsed So Quickly In World War Two
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 05. 2024
- 👉Original Video: • Why Did France Collaps...
👉Discord: / discord
👉 Patreon: / mcjibbin
☕Buy me a coffee!: www.buymeacoffee.com/Mcjibbin
📦P.O. Box info (NOT accepting ANY perishable items)
For any clothing: l'm a Men's size large
McJibbin
P.O. Box 447
Bristol, Rhode Island 02809
USA
Hi everyone! I'm an American from the Northeast (New England). I want to create a watering hole for people who want to discuss, learn and teach about history through CZcams videos which you guys recommend to me through the comment section or over on Discord. Let's be respectful but, just as importantly, not be afraid to question any and everything about historical records in order to give us the most accurate representation of the history of our species and of our planet!
Having a diverse perspective is crucial to what I want to achieve here so please don't hold back! I want to learn about all I can! Keep recommending and PLEAESE join my Discord :) ( / discord )
#american
#mcjibbin
#americanreacts
#reaction
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
French army was commanded by very old generals not ready for this war. There was a lack of young officers who died 20 years earlier during ww1.
Not true, they had the officers and even the theories of modern warfare, de Gaulle's 'vers l'armée de métier' was published im 1934 and was more read in Germany than in france and heavily influenced guderian's 'achtung panzer!'. The problem is that they won the previous war so the generals kept their posts longer than they should and military innovation was stopped. When de gaulle had tanks under his command and used them as he wanted he won every fights even against tanks, so his theory worked but put in action to late.
@@nicoadada6160 indeed, the issue was the percentage of those young, smart ones. France/UK are at that time an old Empires. Both needed to be reformed and was reformed by the need to be able to respond.
As a french point of view after the slaughter of WWI, nobody want's to see another war, nobody want's to think it could happen again, the country was just in jeopardy, millions of young men have died.... The WWI was referred for many citizens at this time as "La Der des Der (la Dernière des Dernières)" THE LAST OF THE LAST....that why french governement, army or citizen were underprepared and ultimately they couldn't believe it at the start of WW2....
Hi Connor - regarding your question about Chamberlain, that is a great question. One of the reasons i watch your videos is because you listen, you learn, and you ask questions that really show you are thinking about things - which is how i was (in most subjects) when i was at school many many years ago.
When I was taught about the history of WW2 at school, Chamberlain was portrayed as a weak leader, who went to Munich to appease Hitler, and avoid war with Germany at all costs, while the heroic bulldog Churchill held the opposite view - that Herr Hitler had to be stopped at all costs
Years later, as I read more, i have learned that history has been very unkind to his memory. In actual fact, Churchill and Chamberlain both held similar views about Hitler and the rise of facism in Europe, and they were both appalled that the majority of the government did not agree with them.
Since Hitlers rise to power in 1933, a minority of politicians and military leaders realised that another European war was almost inevitable, and that if so, Britain had to start preparing and rearming after the huge reductions (the so-called 'peace dividend') in the size of the armed forces after 1918 and the rise of pacifism as a rejection of the slaughter of an entire generation of young men only 15 years ago
One year later, In 1934 the specifications for a fast (300mph), 8 gun monoplane fighter for the RAF was issued, which resulted in the Hawker Hurricane (1st prototype flew in 1935), and the Supermarine Spitfire (1st flew in 1936) - but in peacetime these two private companies did not unlimited budgets, and so it would 4 or 5 years before these new concepts were ready to replace the biplanes still in use by the RAF and most other air forces.
Also in 1936, a search for an early warning system to detect enemy bombers flying across the sea from Europe led to the beginnings of the development of the radar system which become so crucial to the Battle of Britain - but it took until 1938 for the first working Chain Home radar stations to come online, and it was not until September of 1939 that the South and Eastern coasts of Britain were fully covered by the first network of very crude radio direction finding stations.
The first 50 Hurricanes were delivered to the RAF by around July/August 1938, And the first Spitfires (handbuilt by a small workforce in Southampton) were being delivered at the rate of one aircraft each week - This was just one month before Chamberlain chose to meet Hitler and Mussolini at the Munich conference to forestall a war breaking out, because Britains defences were woefully inadequate compared to the huge Luftwaffe which Hitler had recently announce to the world
Prime Minister at that time, Chamberlain had no choice but to play for time, or run the risk of the nation becoming involved in a war that we would simply lose.
Churchill and Chamberlain were close friends, and both agreed that Britain absolutely must resist Hitlers ambitions for Europe, whereas many other politicians, such as Lord Halifax, and in fact the majority of Conservative MPs in the House of Commons, would have favoured an alliance with Hitler, simply to avoid Britain becoming involved in another war so soon after the last one - there was no appetite for conflict, and a generation of old men in charge of the country, perhaps fearful of further bloodshed in a foreign land
By 1939, Britain had modernised much of its air force, and was at least able to offer more than token resistance to resurgent military threat posed by Hitlers Germany
He did what needed to be done, to allow time for rearmament and preparation - and he and Churchill remained friends right up until the Chamberlain died of cancer in late 1940, only weeks after the RAF had survived the Battle of Britain and the threat of invasion from Germany had melted away.
He was a leader who took some difficult political decisions, but at the same time he had ensuring that Britains armed forces were being requipped, and the nations best minds were being employed to explore the new scientific discoveries and technologies of the age in preparation
This is what Churchill had to say at Chamberlains funeral (courtesy of wikipedia) -
" Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned "
We were out manoevered. I don't think enough emphasis is put on communication in this video. German tanks were equipped with radio and the French were communicating by telephone. Big advantage. Once the lines were cut they screwed.The French had the best tanks at the time and the biggest army but the Germans were well organised,trained and battle hardened.
That IS a very good point.
England and France didn't have radio. They used couriers.
And!
WW1 was devastating to a level Americans never encountered.
In both world wars, not ONE bomb was dropped on US soil.
@@Be-Es---___ I think you ment Britain and not England. When will these people ever learn?
@PhilTough-hn8qj
I fully agree with you except for one point. What is the "best" tank? This depends on what function this tank has!
French tanks had good armour and well guns BUT they was mostly slower and (for me the most important point) had a one man turret! The commanders were overloaded with too many tasks!
Can't argue with that.
In 193
My paternal grandfather, Germain, was captured by the german army in Dunkerque after protecting the beaches. He came from the Pyrénées to the north of France, the first time he left the south, to be captured almost right away. To answer your question about the prisonners of war, he did spent 5 years in prisoners camp in Germany, had to work on the german roads near Berlin like to take away the snow or other silly jobs, it wasn't as hard as death camps, a lot of them came back, but still they were malnurished and diseases were there too. In Poland where my maternal great grand father was, also captured at Dunkerque, they had to steal food from the kitchen to eat enough. Anyway Germain came back so skinny, he was 30 years old, his parents had passed away during the war. Before the war he was supposed to be a farmer, but since he left, the land was given to his brother and he had to work as a policeman instead, it was ok but every holiday he came back to his hometown to help the famers voluntarily and loved nothing more than his vegetable garden. War changed everything for him.
He spoke to me only once about the camps but he had some pictures of him inside the camps, skinny with a shovel. You got it right, the main thing they were thinking, to my knowledge, is "what the hell has happened?" even 50 years after the war.
They were abandonned by their leadership from the beginning, the strategy taken by the German army was good but it was our pride, our sense of superiority, that made us think we would win, that made us declare war and lose. That and bad training.
A lot of the stuff History Hit puts out is quite good...but this one is not one of those.
There is absolutely no mention that the original German plan for the invasion was much more traditional and did not involve sending most of the armor through the Ardennes, and that the Western Allies most likely would have defeated that original plan. And probably even more important, absolutely no mention of the Mechelen Incident that caused the Germans to change their plans.
Hope he reads this.
@@melkor3496 Good to see you...hope life is peaceful for you.
@@iKvetch558 Thanks and you too tho my life currently is the opposite of peaceful lol. A lot of stressful things going on at once that are all really important to get solved. :/
@@melkor3496 Darn...sorry to hear it...I hope things improve for your stress level ASAP.
Excellent points. I also think there could have been more said about the opportunity lost to have severely damaged the German columns backed up for tens of miles in the forest/hills with no chance to go forward or backwards and no realistic place to turn around and get out. The French had intelligence - they knew of the situation and for whatever reason they just left the German Army alone as if it were of no consequence. A HUGE mistake.
Churchill kept warning in Parliament that Germany was preparing for war and nobody in the government took it seriously.
26:50 hmmm I wonder why the French didn't have enough young men to spread out 20 years after the great war...
it makes sense. France lost 1.4 million solidiers during WWI, among which 27% of the 18-27 year old guys died. That was pretty traumatic for the french people.
And.. Have great Britain for ally, when they go to Dunkirk without preventing France.. French save the English army with help of many Belgian Guy!
@@antoinegsf-ep358 'prevent' ca ve dire empecher pas prévenir donc la tu les accusent de ne pas empécher les Francais
@@AlexC-ou4ju "to prevent" c'est empecher il me semble
@@antoinegsf-ep358 en effet, Tu as dit 'when they go to Dunkirk without preventing France' tu voulais dire que les anglos saxons sont allés a Dunkerque sans prevenir ou sans empecher les Francais?
Ligne maginot was planned to go from Alps to Channel in first minds. The decision not to extend the Maginot Line all the way to the English Channel was based on various factors, including financial, logistical, and geographical constraints. Additionally, France relied on Belgium to cooperate in the mutual defense of their borders, which influenced the French defense strategy. The Belgians tried to persuade the French to stop the extension
It's a bit of a read but W. L. Shirer's book The Collapse of the Third Republic answers a lot of France's issues in regards to the fall of France in 1940.
history hit is pretty underrated sometimes with its quality man,great vid! would love to see more from them.
To understand the fall of France in 1940 we must go back to February 6, 1934. That day, the Republic could have been overthrown, the veterans, the royalist right and its king's peddlers, the fascists massed in the place of the Concord towards the national assembly. That evening the mobile guards fired normally there were 19 dead and 1435 injured. France was entering a latent civil war. Then the Popular Front in 1936 with its strikes and demands made the bosses, the business community and the army choose their side. At that time it was said in France "Rather Hitler than Stalin". When in 1939 France declared war on Hitler's Germany the state of mind was different from that of 1914. The worm was in the fruit. The betrayal came from within. Marshal Pétain and Pierre Laval suppressed the third republic and collaborated with the Nazis. This story has left lasting traces in our country until today.
I think the French were so fixated on the strength of the Maginot Line, they were uncomfortable in advancing too far away from it in the early months of the war, and their morale was broken when the Germans just bypassed it.
From the Dad's Army film (1971):
Captain Mainwaring:
"Aha, I knew they'd never get through the Maginot Line."
Sgt Wilson:
"They didn't. They went round the side of it."
Captain Mainwaring:
"They what?!!"
Sgt Wilson:
"They went round the side!!"
Captain Mainwaring:
"That's a typical shabby Nazi trick. You see the kind of people we are up against Wilson?!"
Sgt Wilson:
"Most unreliable, sir."
From the Dad's Army film (1971):
Captain Mainwaring:
"I knew they'd never get through the Maginot Line."
Sgt Wilson:
"They didn't. They went round the side of it."
Captain Mainwaring:
"They what?!!"
Sgt Wilson:
"They went round the side!!"
Captain Mainwaring:
"That's a typical shabby Nazi trick. You see the kind of people we are up against Wilson?!"
Sgt Wilson:
"Most unreliable, sir."
Charles de Gaulle was one of the only officers of the French Army to alarm on the re armement of Germany, he wasn't listen to, everybody was delusional and fed up of war. 😢
De Gaulle had a big mouth and did not see a day of fighting himself. He hid in England and pretended to be "la voix de la liberation". A coward who did nothing good for our country during and after the war, including giving Algeria back to the arabs.
French soldiers in 1940 fought like lions.
Read about the fight to the last bullet of the men defending Lille, and read about the french soldiers who defended the rear at Dunkirk.
Astute remark on it only being a little over 2 decades since the end of WW1. Its huge butcher's bill was indeed still very much in the minds of many in 1940. Not least as another great war had been foreseen by those who criticised the Versailles Peace even at the time. A very famous 1919 cartoon on that point always sends a shiver down my spine whenever I see it again.
Look up "Peace and Future Cannon Fodder", which depicts a small boy, prophetically identified as one of the "1940 class" distraught at the fate to which the treaty has condemned him, as the "big four" leave the palace. "Curious?" observes France's then PM, Georges Clemenceau. "I seem to hear a child weeping."
One of my grand father was in Dunkirk in the french navy, he was sunk twice in a day by the stuka ...
Re the Dunkirk evacuation, a large number of passenger vessels of all types played an important part and the ship responsible for successfully evacuating the single biggest number of troops over several dangerous trips, was actually an Isle of Man ferry. The "Lady Of Mann" (built in my home town around 1930). She remained in service until c1970 and I remember, as a young lad going on a day trip to Douglas, IoM, aboard her just before she finally paid off and was sold to be scrapped.
As for "what happened" in the broader sense, beyond just the German attack through the Ardennes, it's a very long and complex story but to summarise, France's history of continual political strife all through the 1930s with a succession of transient r/w and l/w regimes and a growing fear of a new war. Plus marked domestic defeatism, PLUS the sheer extent of the pessimism represented by, inter alia, the Maginot strategy. This all contributed profoundly to France's fall in 1940. Unlike in Britain, there was absolutely no confidence or willingness to confront Germany at all in 1939. The French were very much just supinely dragged into war behind a British ally that'd made a casus belli of Poland due to public outrage at the Hitler regime's actions in suppressing the Czech rump state despite the Munich deal.
18:02 What’s really crazy is that the Maginot Line had FIXED gun emplacements…had they been able to turn those guns…they’d have been able to fire on the invading Germans.
A military disaster that should not have happened. It would be very interesting to have a French view of the defeat and their perspective on how, why it occurred.🇬🇧🇲🇫
They had an Armored strategic reserves but by the time Churchill visited, they had already been send to the wrong side of the Meuse river
Dear McJibbin, related to the question from min 22, is good to search where the Germans train their army - hint, was the same country that attack and occupy the Poland with the Germany. So the dilemma of the allies was how to engage into a war but not against BOTH of the Germany AND URSS. By bating and waiting they manage to split that initial alliance -> the URSS and Germany start planning to attack each other (look how the Russian army was organized before the Germans attack in 41). From 38 (Austria, Czechoslovakia) the URSS was allied with Germany. The real war was from 38 to 90, until URSS collapsed. The decisions of France/UK make more sense as you look to the bigger picture.
27:30 watch this and now think about how isolated yet important it was that Britain never backed down
I personally think Chamberlain is somewhat hard done by, he tried to get long term peace but he also bought a little more time to re-arm, therefore he probably "Hedged his bets" in 1938? Many, including British people, don't realise that the threat had by this time, been recognised and that initially, from 1935, the re-arming the RAF had begun when Chamberlain was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
If you get the chance, read the novel "Munich" by Robert Harris or watch the film "Munich, the edge of war", based on the book. These delve into this possibility. Harris also wrote "Fatherland" and "Enigma", both brilliant books made into films.
True. And the rest of Europe and the world didnt do any more. What was the League Of Nations doing?
I have heard another view on Chamberlain but I'm not sure what I think about it: It has been suggested that Chamberlain suspected that Hitler could not be trusted but by giving the impression to Hitler that he would be taken at his word the UK bought time to prepare for war. 'Munich: The Edge Of War', a film based on a book by Robert Harris, posits this theory.
One crucial factor is demography. In the early 20th century France had the lowest birthrate in Europe, so they never really recovered from their human losses during WW1 (not even mentioning that those losses had been a bigger share of their total population to begin with, as Germany was vastly more populated). Recognizing that weakness and remembering that WW1 trauma, the French tactics were influenced by the need to preserve the lives of their soldiers, that's why there was so much emphasis on artillery for example. They didn't really do this because they thought it was the most effective strategy.
The result is that in 1939, Germany (with its very high birthrate) had totally recovered and the Germans were bolder than ever. France aimed for defense above anything else.
Many elements :
1. The ones warning against Germany were mainly on the far right and were discarded
2. In an heavily agitated France, the Socialist government was afraid of a coup by the army, and weakened it to keep power
3. Unions sabotaged ammunition & arms factories, the main union, the CGT (Confédération Générale du Travail), getting its orders from the PCF (French Communist Party), under the influence of the USSR; allied with Germany at that time (Communist will enter the resistance in 1941, after Germany declared war to the USSR)
4.Extremely strong pacifism, which led to get Germany free reign (France did not dare crush Germany in 1936 when the german army entered demilitarize Rheinland, at a time the German army could not face the allies / Allies caved to Hitler about the Suddenten for the same reason)
5. old fashioned way to see war, while Germany had to innovate after its defeat (no radio, no interarm operations etc...)
Before WW1, war was all about honor, swords, canoons in our mind, many young french people wanted to go...
After WW1, war was all about, mud, cold, pests and gaz... no more honor, nothing you could do...
it changed the french people deeply...
No one wanted to go back....
I didn't know this happened to France I feel so sorry for them
As I see it, because France had a border with Germany, the French had one chance to get the defence strategy right. Once the Germans poured over the border the clock was ticking.
The USSR could retreat into their vastness and make mistake after mistake until they had the right plan .
The British spent three years moving back and forth in North Africa learning before d Day in Normandy. Not much different from fighting Napoleon's armies in Spain until they had the right army and the right leadership to face Napoleon directly at Waterloo.
12:21 we 🇬🇧 fought them alone for years. So they could have at least tried. That’s why the French are “jokingly” called cowards by British people…because they didn’t fight for their country, we did.
32:45: Wrong! All the major forts of the Maginot Line (who were defended) were never taken by the Germans. Even after the armistice they refused to surrender. All attacks against these fortress failed.
It was only when the French government asked them to do so that they surrendered
This Blitzkrieg in France was not planned like this! It arose out of the situation because generals saw an opportunity for a quick advance and disobeyed orders from their superiors.
It was a very risky game!
In addition, the motorization of the Wehrmacht is greatly exaggerated. The soldiers had to cover forced marches all the time, day and night, in order to keep up with the advancing tanks.
11:30 i think you're giving belgium way too much credit 1. Neutrality did nothing for belgium in 1914 and 2. in january a german plane literally crashed in belgium carrying invasion plans (the Mechelen incident) at that point there was no excuse for not inviting the british and french to mov in and dig into the dyle river.
Well, this whole sequence of events was bad for all western allies. Equally bad for all of them. Britain could have also moved millions of soldiers to France in advance, not just 316k. There was enough time to do it and to better prepare for it. France mobilized a giant army, but focused entirely on a repeat of the already well known WW1 scenario. They also should have aggressively invaded Germany, when they invaded Poland, in order to create a real two-front situation for Germany. This would have changed things around a lot.
@@dnocturn84 Sadly, there was a massive failure in French command and control, because the French refused to adopt radio for communications, and relied instead on using the telephone system, or laying their own lines, and also using despatch riders carrying written orders and reports, taking sometimes days instead of minutes to relay information
The French Generals were using the same command techniques from the Great War, while the German forces were using huge radio sets to transmit coded messages from Enigma machines carried in each units radio vehicles - so they could advance as as they were able without losing contact with the rest of their division, and respond to events far faster than the British or French armies were able to
@@dnocturn84 Britain did not have millions of soldiers or enough equipment for them all to have been able to send anywhere near that many after the declaration of war.
One of the biggest blows dealth was the Belgian King surrendering without informing his allies. This left the flank being manne by the Belgian forces void of any defences. The French could not respond in time and Britian had little spare to respond with.
@dnocturn84
Britain had millions of soldiers? In 1939/40?
The BEF was near enough ALL of their trained professional army. More soldiers and units were being raised and trained after war was declared in September 1939 but they were not ready to be thrown into a war. Britain had a small army at the start of the war. Britain was a sea power more than a land power.
@@Scaleyback317 Well, Camberlains diplomacy intermezzo took long enough to be able to raise some significant numbers in preparation in Britain and the additional stillmate phase of the "Phony War" (before Germany started its invasion of France) also added quite a bit of extra time to do something.
the king has returned 😄👑
The allied and german themselves were roughly equal but the tactics were not. The italians got slaughtered trying to cross the alps into the mini-maginot.
The british and French wanted to hold Germany until 1941 when they had mobilized their empires and built up their industry whilst bombing and blockading germany.
I don't think Chamberlain gets enough criticism although every other British politician, except Churchill, would have behaved the same. The reason France fell was due to the weakness and division of its ruling class. The Third Republic was on its last legs and many establishment figures in Britain, France and the US supported Hitler. The French army was led by men who were stuck in 1914 and who believed the Germans to be much more powerful than they actually were. Hitler was very good at bluffing when his hand was weak. De Gaulle warned the top brass about having proper mechanised divisions but he was too low down the pecking order and his high handed manner alienated him. The ordinary French soldier was brave but their commanders were terrible.
Chamberlain was an optimistic idiot but really there wasn’t much else he could’ve done. Britain wasn’t ready for war before we joined, and the British public really didn’t want another one.
There are many reasons France gave in to the German Army in WW2. The main factor was the Vichi French and other forces living in France believed in a german dominated homeland. And England not stepping up, when it should have before Germany invaded Poland, (then began to threaten France) was another reason. Besides the US having a very minimal army at the time of Hitler's rise to dominance, many here were against the US getting involved in any military action, again. Many were still scarred by the 1st World War and the US had just begun to fight itself out of a depression that left half our country in poverty. Thus, many in the US congress thought helping the European continent was not a priority. Even when France was invaded, many here thought it was not a problem of the US ... until Pearl Harbor. Then the US decided direct military action on both the Pacific and Atlantic was necessary.
Before the war, the French Communist Party was very powerful, with over 15% of the vote. The German-Soviet Pact was signed in 1939, and many Communists refused to fight and called for desertion. The first of these, Maurice Thorez, deserted and took refuge in Moscow.
There were also a large number of Nazi sympathisers in France (see later behaviour of the Vichy regime) who saw Germany as a vital buffer against the spread of Communism. French politics was a mess in the '30s (I forget how many governments they had), a large percentage of the population feared a Communist revolution more than they feared Hitler.
Le grand father was French communist and fight in the French resistance … my grand father uncle was communist too and forced to resist in a Gaullist unit too … if you study a bit … French Resistance is 70%+ communist … that is why after the war France became a socialist countries with a lot good things for workers because at the end of the wars (resistance and French people look at the boss and right wing collaborations « you destroyed France to tame workers you collaborate to kill the social struggle. Now we keep the power » and that is why after 1945 France became a Beautiful socialist country with healthcare and a lot lot good things for the people … thanks to right wing collaboration + massive communist resistance..
True. Both repugnant set of extremist ideologues, ultra-right and ultra-left alike, ran riot in 1930s France and with the advent of the cynical Nazi Soviet Pact, both, in classic absolutist fashion immediately adopted vehement anti-war agendas and did all possible to undermine the national war effort right from September 1939 on. Only Hitler's betrayal of his regime's similarly loathsome former Soviet collaborators served to induce an immediate communist volte-face in by then partly occupied France. One that, interestingly, was also replicated from exactly June22nd 1941 onward in the other former allied and still unconquered belligerent power, Britain.*
* Something my mother explained to me well over two decades later, including via her (still enraged) account of a heated 1941 public exchange with a local communist T.U. official. A man who'd assiduously tried to oppose and disrupt EVERY measure instituted to help wartime production RIGHT up to June 1941. Yet who just a few days later attempted to deliver a saccharine, hypocritical homily to a big assembly of UK shipyard and engineering workers, who by that date included huge numbers of women. Telling them how it was their "duty" to uncomplainingly accept wartime privations at work for the sake of our "glorious Russian allies and THEIR fight against Nazism".
As many of the ladies concerned ('Ma' included) were at the time still very young wives/fiancees/girlfriends whose own men were by then serving overseas and wouldn't return (if they ever did at all) until the war was won, this saccharine encomium re the still only very recently PRO-Nazi Soviets, was greeted with less than total equanimity. Until it was cut suddenly short by one such angry worker (no prizes for guessing which🤣) who informed the man of these facts and went on to leave him in no doubt as to exactly for who's sake it was that those women present were really working. Before adding in conclusion that in future, he and his ilk might best restrict their worries just to their own obviously unmatched level of "productivity" at washing Comrade Stalin's glorious nether orifice clean with their tongues!
@@user-bx1mf3zb8y They were no-communist resistants before 1941, when Hitler invades USSR. Between 39 and 41, only nationalists where resistant
@@user-bx1mf3zb8y They were absolutely no communist resistance before 1941, when The Nazi and USSR were allied. It is true that after the invasion of USSR by Hitler a lot of resistants were communists.
and it's the low of war, if you have only one strategie you will loose, and the "ligne maginot" was at that time an expensive bad choice, like russia at the begening of the ukrenian war, or germany now (whis no more army). Those situations in WWII are in de DNA of the french, and it's why we want to have our nuclear misile power.
Check out the'Twentieth Centry Battlefields' series of war docs by Dan and his late father Peter Snow. They are amazing trust me i know you'll love em
Who can say somebody else may have done it differently? Nobody could read somebody elses mind and crystal balls have always been in short supply.
Two schools - Chamberlain the appeaser and he helped cause the problems as a result.
Chamberlain the canny leader who was willing to take it on the chin to buy his country 12 valuable months to prepare for a war we were clealry not prepared for. Had he not had that 12 monnths would we have had anything left in this country to fight with once the dust had settled on Dunkirk. As it was most munitions were replaced, there was equipment in reservie to be used and negiotiations had been held to buy half a million rifles and 80 small calibre artillery peices which would have prove invaluable had Hitler gone ahead with amphibious/airborne invasion ambitions.
Add to that mix the man had terminal cancer and knew no matter what he was not going to be alive to be see the outcome.
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say his actions probably bought us the time which made the difference to the opening sequences of the war.
Only he, however, could know his true intentions.
8:20 Question 1: Yes, timing wasn't unimportant. But they got enough intel through spies.
Also question 1, but more question 2: All sides at this point in time expected a WW1-like war to occur here. Heavily fortified trenches, massive artillery bombardment, etc. This is how they thought this war would look like. This was the only immaginable situation for them. How else would the Germans dare to attack? Every alternative solution sounded unlikely, as a minor attack in the Ardennes would have not resulted in success. This wasn't a terrain to face each other, no positions for heavy artillery. More like mountain hunters fighting each others in the cover of the forests. All trails unsuitable to bring supplies and also most likely destroyed very early on by artillery. A convoy of tanks? Nah, convoy formations suck. Destroy the leading tank and everything behind it gets stuck. They immagined infantry to attack there, if at all. Then fortify there, due to heavy counter fire. And then artillery would be required to open up space to move forward. Only very limited space to place artillery and almost no intel where the army positions are for scouts and recon planes. Not suitable to work with that, really. Also the attack in Belgium would require large German divisions. So propably not enough manpower to create a massive-enough attack line in the Ardennes. Being weak in Belgium means, that the allies could march through Belgium into German territory easily. So they had to bring everything to Belgium, in theory. They ignored the option for a rush attack in the Ardennes, as it was unimmaginable for them. And they ignored the dangers such a pincer movement could create in their backs, as it was believed, that such an army could not make it through the Ardennes and even if, they would not be able to bring in supplies, to make this happen.
Question 3: The Germans developed this "new" way to wage war and trained for this. They also "simulated" this (in theory and though battle tests in similar terrain) and calculated their chances. If your infantry (that was previously marching on foot - not with this strategy though) can keep up with the speed of faster tanks (which was also a "new" idea), you could overwhelm enemy soldiers guarding the hill and forest trails pretty easily. Speed was key here too, in general. No time to fortify positions, no time to build any counter position, not time to warn others + chaos + confusion.
Guderiann learned his blitzkrieg doctrine from a British officer. See the Fat Electrician, "The Real Tank Genius of WW2, Major General Percy Hobart."
interesting i had always heard it was de gaulle 'While the military establishment were putting all their bets on the defensive Maginot Line, de Gaulle insisted on a war of movement. His 1934 book, Vers l’Armee de Metier, calls for a professional and fully mechanized army of some 100,000 men in addition to its conscript army. The book died in France, but in Germany it was studied with great interest by Rommel and Guderian.'
@@AlexC-ou4ju Hobarts many papers were more about methods of attack, rather than the makeup of the army, apparently Guderian had them all translated into German, and carried them with him.
connor the reason there was a shortage of men WW1 FFS!!!
3:48 I think he’s treated unfairly…should he have started the WW before Hitler did?
At that time, Stalin and Hitler were allies. Half the French supported Hitler and half of France supported Stalin. So, their will to fight was paralyzed. The French resistance were mostly communists, who didn't start fighting until a year later when Germany invaded Russia ;-)
Please react to port of toulon by slice experts
Britain I'll never give into Germany I feel so sorry for the poor French people what they have to do surrender
I do think Chaimberlain was treated unfairly. I feel a bit sorry for him.
True, towards the end of his tenure, he must also have realised he was dying?
Yeah no one wanted another war. Who would? He lost his son in WW1. Not many people at the time agreed with Churchill. It's only in hindsight that Chaimberlain gets the blame. He bought us time to re arm if nothing else but it was time to go.
Churchill was the right man at the right time. If WW2 didn't happen I think he'd only be remembered for Gallipoli.
It took Germany a couple of months to invade Norway. Norway was relatively poorly defended back then, but think of the mountainous terrain, the foreign fighters (many of them French), the toughh as nails Norwegian woodsmen that scared the pants off 18 year old German soldiers just out of their mom's kitchen, still Norway had zero chance. More than Denmark, but not much. This whole "cheese eating surrender monkey" thing is getting pretty old and stale by now. The French had it pretty damned tough. I''d like to see any other tought talking country put up a better figght in hindsight.
20:40 The Interwar-Period: well, a downside of winning WW1: Proud, old veteran officiers in France and Great Britain. Waaay too proud to have won this war and to be refered to as heroes. They mostly ignored new ideas and rejected modern doctrines. Also the cost for these new things was huge, so they expected Germany to not have this available to them either. There were younger, innovative people fighting to be heard as well. But unsuccessful. Germany instead opted out for such modern ideas.
Right after WW1, new tech was immediately available. All victorious nations started to invest money in upgrades. Germany didn't, due to the Treaty of Versailles. And newer tech became available. So they spend more money and started to scale back a bit, to keep the costs as low as possible. Then even newer tech became available, and so on. Germany jumped in many years later. They build the most modern stuff, while France and others became slow and too careful in this area. They counted each dollar dozens of times, before spending, if at all. And then it was too late for them.
Instead of old war heroes in charge, the allied nations needed young, innovative new heroes. Forget the outdated lessons learned in WW1 and go newer routes. And yes, facing a dictatorship, that is arming itself up, required an immediate ermergency-solution to arm up themselves. One that makes decissions much faster. A lesson Europeans should look into right now...
Yes, France, with her allies defeated Germany in the First World War. But the effort bled France white. It had to rebuild its male population, and it's armed forces. With the luxury of having won, and the German military machine crushed, her manpower likewise seriously lessened, France could take its time to do this. Or so they thought. While the French were basking in their victory, Germans were enraged. They were a vanquished nation, and a humiliated one. They were waiting for a Hitler, they just didn't know it. The German military minds studied the mistakes of the pass and saw the future of warfare -- combined arms & speed. The Germany armed forces moved forward with time, France's was stuck in it. Traditional roles and outdated -- and flat-out wrong --tactics. and an overpowering belief ion "they wouldn't dare" doomed her.
let's learn bro
As a french the video you reacted to is litteraly the worst Ive ever seen on that subject
it was a lot political bad choises, some of the french generals want continue the figth in the south and with the colonies, le the socialist governement surender
Laughable "Britain and it's Empire stood alone" Empire!!
Great War bankrutcy and broke spirit of French & British Empires. They victory was only really Pyrrhic victory and world financial capital transformed from London & Paris to New York City.
Old Europe died because WW1.
I think the main reason france lost so easily was that the army command was super incompetent
One thing Dan did not raise was the French "Maginot mentality". They created the Maginot Line, at vast expanse - and manned it with 36 Divisions - they had 99 Divisions in total. Since Luxemburg and Belgium were allies, they stopped at their borders. France totally believed the Maginot Line would keep them safe - and the devastating Armoured Blitzkrieg attack through Ardennes caught them totally off guard and out of place and they just saw defeat, knew they had been defeated once the "breakout" occurred. For the BEF, the had 6 best trained Divisions - one being sent to the Maginot Line. 8 Territorial Division reinforced them - but three of them were "Labour" Divisions and not equipped or trained for combat. Those 10 Fighting Divisions of the BEF was the bulk of Britain's Army and their loss would have probably ended the war.
Lazy original videos nothing to learn from that "history " video .
staline is your answer . the cooperation between nazi & USSR before war
be curious the video was so simplistic it was border insulting
2:20 No, the Germans were not defeated in an enormous war in WW1. They surrendered. Without being defeated on the battlefield. Without allied forces even touching German territory at all. Because their nation collapsed on the inside, due to the war.
The Spring Offensive was their last chance to break through, but the Allies held firm. After the Second Battle of the Marne, the Germans lost the initiative in the Offensive, and it was only a matter of time before they fell back further. Especially with the mass motorization of the allied forces, in particular the French who still maintained the majority of the Front pour l'Entente.
It would have taken longer, perhaps in 1919, or even 1920, but the Allies could have returned to Germany at least if the Germans had not signed the Armistice.
lol they were defeated on the battlefield.
@@tibsky1396 Yes, they would have eventually lost on the battlefield. No doubt about it. But they didn't. Their society at home collapsed before that happened. This should have been taken into account in the Treaty of Versailles. Because treating this, like the Allies made it all the way to Berlin, while they did not, made WW2 possible.
@@Thunderworks The German army was not defeated by the end of WW1. They lost battles and were in retreat. But they were not beaten.
@@dnocturn84 Yes, but the Treaty of Versailles was not so harsh, quite the contrary, it was precisely because it was too inconsistent that the Second World War was possible. Over time, the treaty was not respected.
German militarism was still intact, still a potential threat that would tip the scales of Europe.
Not to mention the stock market crash which indirectly allowed the Nazi party to emerge and begin its rearmament, all because of 15 years of complacency from the "pacifist" allies.
Chamberlaiñ was a weak man.
What did he have to do with the French giving up.
He wasn't even prime minister when the French surrendered
@@paultaylor9498 The American asked what is our opinion of Chamberlain. That is why I replied.
Because the cowardly French didn't have the stomach for a fight just like the Belgiums
What an educated comment. Congratulations, you're the idiot of the day.
Lol I assure you, neither did the Brits. Coming with only 12 Divisions is not what you call wanting to fight.
Educated comment! Congratulations, you're the i..ot of the day.
@@tibsky1396 Thats all they had at the time both did better than the Yanks who never did declare war on Germany.
Countries that have recently won wars tend to lapse into complacency after a period of peace. I think the West has done that since 1991. They tend to rest on their laurels, whereas those who have lost look at why that was and sometimes emerge a stronger enemy in the next war. I would add that some allied reconnaissance saw what the Germans were doing in the Ardennes, but the French High Command dismissed it. On paratroopers, the Germans used them in the capture of Crete too, but afterwards Hitler more or less banned their use because of very high casualties in Crete. I think 1940 could easily happen again except this time with Russia rather than Germany (which is now a democracy). Russian influence in German and US politics though worries me, with some parallels with German influence on the French Right in 1940.