The Phoney War: Actually Not Phoney
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 03. 2019
- If you enjoyed this video and want to see more made, consider supporting my efforts on Patreon: / historigraph
Check out my other WW2 Vids here: • The Second World War
#ThePhoneyWar #Historigraph
► Twitter: / historigraph
►Facebook: / historigraph
►Instagram: / historigraph
►Patreon: / historigraph
►Discord: / discord
►My Gaming Channel: / addaway
►My Twitch: / addaway - Zábava
Join us in #WarThunder for free using this link and get a premium tank or aircraft and three days of premium time as a bonus: v2.xyz/WarThunderWithHistorigraph
If you enjoyed this video and want to see more made, consider supporting my efforts on Patreon: www.patreon.com/historigraph
Check out my other WW2 Vids here: czcams.com/play/PLk2daSTx1RZv3JUm35TfOigCrkV6eMEBf.html
Great you are doing this!
I was hoping you'd go into a bit more detail on some of the decisions chamberlain took that were less peaceful. great videos by the way! keep it up! :)
I might do a video in future looking at Chamberlain in more detail
@@historigraph Would prefer it if you would do a video on Denmark in WW2 just one video.
I'd be very interested in seeing that :) this is quite a good point you made @@historigraph
HMS Courageous's mission to find U-boats was a success.
It found one alright.
The sinking of Royal Oak so close to home really galvanized the attitudes of the British public that it really wasn't just a war to be fought over in France.
Close to home?
It was practically in their bedroom
You talk about this from a very british perspective. I was always under the impression (from a very German perspective) that the "Phoney War" concept came up because of how the french Saar offensive went down. They gathered their forces and took some very limited offenses, but because germany beat poland so quickly and reinforced their front they just quietly left again, which left the impression that they werent even planning on doing anything.
Edit: Apparently German soldiers were even ordered to not engage the french as to avoid a two front war.
Each of the nations involved have their own conceptions of this time- I was focusing on the British memory of it in the second half of this video, yes
The Germans talked of a 'Sitzkrieg', and from what I understand you're correct
From the Polish perspective - According to defensive treaties Poland was to survive 2 weeks for France and Britain to mobilise their armies. Poland Survived 4 weeks before the Soviets invaded from the East.Allies did absolutely nothing to help the Poles.While luftwaffe were bombarding cities and shooting escaping civilians,British air force were dropping propaganda leaflets at German cities. French promised after 2 weeks to go on full offensive in Saar and the British were supposed blockade German ports by the sea.Nothing was done in that matter.Allies also did not declared war on Soviets after they inavded, so many poles see it as western betrayal and as ''phoney war''.
“If we did not collapse in the year 1939, that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, roughly 110 French and British divisions in the West were completely inactive as against the 23 German divisions”
-Wehrmacht General Alfred Jodl at the Nuremberg Trials, 1946
Also Polish version of phoney war literally translates as ''weird war''(dziwna wojna) which is interesting.
@@ecoper210 From a French perspective the offensive was abandonned as to save manpower after the catastrophic losses of WW1, the idea was that offensive or not the German would be defeated anyway, and so Poland liberated, because of the Allied blockade so better do it the less costly manner even if that meant Poland would suffer occupation for a time.
France did some limited offensives in Germany, meeting very little resistance.The thing is, they quickly went back home, expecting some huge counter-offensive to which they weren't prepared for. But also, French "doctrine" had already determined the strategy : hold the Maginot Line and fight the Germans in Benelux.
...and it would've worked too, if our goddamn Ardennes forest had done its job.
YOU HAD ONE JOB, TREES!
The phoney war not actually phoney? What’s next, you’re going to tell us the maginot line was actually a good idea?
Who would do such a thing???
Ironic
What's next is that he's going to tell us that Op. Sealion was actually a bad idea.
@@historigraph it was great the other parts of the plan failed.
Kay T czcams.com/video/-XVHYg6gvWU/video.html
Will you ever cover Polish defensive war (1939)? And maybe cover the theoretical plans of polish Marshall Józef Piłsudzki to attack Germany before it develops it's military?
That would be a superb topic!
I polecam nauczyć się szeregu przedsięwzięć jakie poczyniła Francja w odpowiedzi na niemiecką agresję.
@Benito Mussolini 1000000 mln german soldier
Raginis wasn't fight with 40000 german soldier. In the battle of Wizna was fighting 1-3k german soldier. Most Poles after the artillery fire escaped from the battlefield, and there is not even a certain version about the death of Raginis because there are different hypotheses.
Would like to see that
I was born after 1945, and had always heard of it as the Sitzkrieg, and that was only in France *while the Battle of the Atlantic raged.*
I feel like its because WW1 started with a bang and in weeks france and belgium were invaded and all that stuff
the public was probably expecting something like that to happen again but it didn't
The Y2K computer problem had some similarities. Lots of preparation led to less impact. And the population called it phoney because it succeeded.
What was most unfair to Chamberlain was he went into the Munich conference with the British army telling him they desperately need more time to prepare for war, so if buying time wasn't his top priority, it had to be close, and he did buy another year before the war started.
People also ignore the massive factory building plan he put into place.... the very reason the RAF was flying Hurricanes and Spitfires not Gloster Gladiators during the Battle of Britain was due to those factories. How well do people think the Battle of Britain would have gone if the RAF was flying Gladiators, obsolescent bi planes, against Me 109's? How well would the RAF have done had Britain gone to war in 1938... with the SAME situation? Gladiators vs 109's?
Idk about the airspace, but seeing as you would have czech's with their military and probably later Poland, Germany wouldn't be in a good position
Munich conference... More like Munich betrayal. Chamberlain sold out Czechoslovakia to Hitler for a false sense of safety. Even though the Czechslovak army had prepared strong fortifications along the border and was well equipped and supplied, ready to put up a fight. Chamberlain is and will always be seen as a cowardly appeaser who bent the knee to Hitler every time he demanded it.
Lukáš Szabó Did you even read the first comment? Chamberlain intended to use the Munich conference to buy time to rearm Britain, as Germany had had a head start, being the aggressor.
@@innosam123 Did you even... History? Churchill has been asking to start the rearmament since 34. Chamberlain laughed at him and did nothing. Instead he betrayed his allies to "buy time" and started rearming in 38. In short, he was a cowardly moron.
Also, with the state Czechoslovakian army was in and the fortifications it had at the borders, it could have held Germany for quite some time.
Instead the UK and France had been doing jack shit till 40 and let the eastern europe burn.
I believe that most of the critics directed towards Chamberlain stems not from from his performance during the war, but because of what he did (or rather didn't) earlier. Because of the lack of reaction to remiliarization of Germany, Anschluss of Austria, selling Czechoslovakia to Germans. Shortly - appeasement politics.
And I had always believed that "The Phoney War" term is related to the lack of any major activity on French - Germany border, unlike in WWI. Norway and Battle for Atlantic having nothing to do with it.
Yes he is side-stepping whole issue. "It was phony only on French front" - that was the only front that mattered, since Germany would collapse within weeks if some effort was given and there would be no WW2 and no holocaust.
His reaction was possibly perfectly appropriate. The fact people think all he did was appease Hitler is a huge compliment to his abilities. All while dealing with Germany, he was constantly rearming the British war machine. They get a lot of shit for using old equipment in the early war but that's because it was all built years prior in Chamberlain's rearmament efforts
Neville was actually very clever. He re armed Britain from 1936 after he saw what Germany was doing. The reason Churchill government did well was because Neville had built the foundation of the armaments ministry earlier.
@@alexcc8664 I thought it started rearming earlier, about 1933
@@tomirk4404 no not really. If you look at the spending on the military it was from 36 it began to rise . Most people in Britain liked Hitler until the late 30s
Just found this channel and instantly subbed. It is great to see someone dedicated to tackling the huge amount of bad history and popular myth surrounding WW2! I completely agree about Chamberlain's unfairly bad rep - the real man who should go down in history as the face of appeasement is Stanley Baldwin. Chamberlain, whilst following the appeasement policies of his predecessor, actually did a huge amount both as Chancellor and PM to ready Britain for war. He wasn't the bumbling idiot you see in film, TV and even a lot of history books.
Isn't it implied/understood that the phony war ONLY implies to the French, Germany border. Do to the low intensity of the conflict in that part of the world.
Even in France, their was the invasion of Germany in 1939 (Saar offensive), as well as air battles, and commandos fighting.
As far as I remember, the Saar offensive was very quiet and they withdrew within a week.
@@aloadofbollocks988 Indeed, but it was stil fighting
That's why it's considered phony you don't see a large scale push from France just a limited offensive then withdrawal with less than 3000 casualties on all sides
The British were the definitely the best at overestimating.
Better than underestimating and speaking German a few years later.
What else is new?
@InfiniteMushroom found the fascist
@InfiniteMushroom there is only the minuscule disadvantage of being part of a big nazi Reich, from Europe to India and probably China.
@InfiniteMushroom keep telling yourself that
I think the reason why they called it "The Phoney War" is because there wasn't any groundfighting in France, at the time.
But everywhere else it was a completely different story, as this video shows. And in May 1940, when the Whermacht WAS finally ready, it came like a dam burst.
I mean, why everyone says groundfigting in France? There should have been groundfighting in Germany in the first place. Anyway, now when we know how the things turned out we can be smarter and say that France/UK should have atttacked Germany and blocked their harbours, but at the time they thought that they are doing the right move. Again sadly, for Poland it resulted in attach from both sides and an occupation that really ended with the fall of Soviet Union.
Interesting. I have never associated the "phoney war" with the UK, only with France, at the border to Germany, until 1940. And I had never thougth anybody would.
When WW2 broke out in 1939 the Kreigsmarine had only 26 ocean going submarines, and they had a long hazardous route from ports in Germany to their operational areas. Indeed it was the Italian navy which had the much bigger submarine force when it joined the Axis in 1940, second only to the Soviet Union in numbers.
It wasn't until the fall of France and the construction of forward bases down its western seaboard that Doenitz was able to deploy his fast growing u-boat force against Atlantic convoys.
Love how they look behind as you start speaking.
Again, I’m so excited to see that you’re being sponsored, I know we’re all enjoying seeing your content more often! Thank you from all of us!
A interesting and very deep analysis of a chapter of WW2 that is often overlooked. Well done!
It's more than a little ironic to send a carrier U-boot hunting only for it to be sunk by a U-boot... Still that perspective on the fighting that was happening (just elsewhere) is a pretty good point
But Phoney is not Just a perspective of Churchill enthusiasts, I don't live in England and what I thought/percieved caused the idea was the allied response to the invasion of Poland; fighting and Norway and the Atlantic when you have a border with the enemy
Artificial Gravitas boot
Artificial Gravitas Blame the French Strategy of hiding behind the Maginot for not going on a mass offensive to the Rhine.
I mean it wasnt a bad idea, it was just totally new and in hindsight executed poorly. Carriers went on to be extremely useful ASW platforms in the battle of the Atlantic, but the fact was nobody had deployed a carrier in a campaign before and nobody really realised the escort group and tactics required.
You could say it was successful in finding one
thanc you for the upload historigraph love ur content
Another great video as usual thank you!
Thank you for educating us on this.
I love your videos! Thank you for creating such interesting content!
love you're videos so much :) one even saved me from a exam
I don't fault British planners for "over estimating" the bomber threat to their people prior to the outbreak of the war. Enough bombers usually get through to do some damage. British predictions of mass casualties and mass displacement of civilians due to air raids were repeatedly borne out later in the war...in both Germany and Japan. If Britain had been on the losing side British civilians would most likely have suffered even more than they did during the Blitz. So, its better to be over prepared than under prepared or to not be prepared at all.
England was bombed 50 times in the first year of ww1 but zeppelins and they are slow
Only one problem, I always thought and was told that the phones war ended with operation weserübrung, not with the German invasion of the Low Countries. Nice video though! Loved it as always
From the literature I have read its traditionally dated as ending in May
And yet the Battle of Norway began in early April.
Tanks rumbling across France woke people up to the direct threat I imagine, next thing you know....Dunkirk!
@@rob5944no we by by by
Wait, are you trying to imply that the simple and straightforward narrative I was told as a child was actually a simplified overview that used catchy terminology and broad-strokes outlines of the war and NOT a highly detailed and exhaustive account of one of the most complex and significant events in recent history?? HERESY!
Hey! I resent that remark!.... whatever it was. 😂😂
Histograph you are a legend.
A genuinely fascinating video
Excellent analysis.
Good job.Very good animations.See you in the next video :)
Another fine piece of work. Literate and understated in the best British fashion! "Steady, boys, steady!"
Victor Davis Hanson has some great videos on wwii. Worth a look.
In some ways it seems like it might be in Churchills best interest to keep up The Phony War myth, it makes him the man of action taking over for Chamberlain as well as keeps less heat on the defeat in Scandinavia. If what the ex French minister of defense in The World At War documentary said is true they also had plans to aid Finland and bomb Baku so trying to forget about those past plans could be vital for future peace.
No, if it hadn't been for Churchill we would have sued for peace after the fall of France, and become a puppet state, eventually occupied just as France was. The 'phoney' war' was a popular misconception among the media and public because after all the hype and build up, no one was bombing or gassing them at home, all that soon changed with the invasion of the low countries, things got 'real'.....Very quickly. My father was in South wales in the R.A.F. guarding the docks when news of the French capitulation came though on the telephone, withing minutes a German recon bomber flew over so low her could see the pilot look down at him, he fired and soon after the docks were bombed!
Interesting and informative video
This changed a lot of what I thought about the phoney war. Thanks because I did not know that the action was quite rough during the Phoney War.
I really think that this video explains nothing
Yes, there was "battles at sea", there was the whole business of "Germany vs Poland, Denmark, Norway"
But the video says *nothing* about what is considered "phoney" - total inactivity on Franco-German border, where all the action was/is expected
C'mon, everyone knows it is about lack of substantial action from French and British, not about Poland. Actually that's the biggest flaw Poles are emphasizing. Soldiers were also suffering lack of morale because of it. Some minor skirmishes don't make it serious. Leaflets WERE dropped from the planes instead bombs, so what "is not true" here?
The clip from the film where a civilian threatening to hit the other will be a Merchant Seaman, not Royal Navy. The Merchant Navy suffered worse than any one else at that time due to the Royal Navy's failure to protect the Merchant Ships. The Battle of the Atlantic started 9 hours into the war and went on past the official surrender,
The war was way more slow paced until the Danish/Norwegian invasion followed by The french campaign. It's offen called the phoney war Because France promised to help Poland by invading rheinland but never did. They wanted war out of their homeland. And Poland was betrayed.
"One man does not make a war effort."
Crassus: Hold my amphora.
Love the new thumbnail bud 👍
The phoney war is primarily phoney because France and Britain allowed Poland to get utterly shafted without even launching a relief offensive and giving the German armed forces the initiative on all fronts. So not quite convincing to argue it was not phoney because they had reasons for it.
Chamberlain oversaw and had approved the many fighter aircraft in production that were to be key in the Battle for Britain. In particular some 630 Hurricane fighters.
He was also there for the many tank programs, the Sten gun, and the air defence of England particularly CIvil defence and the Fire Watchers. No matter what you think of him some of the tools he gave the military enabled the fight to begin with.
On The fighters he signed at the very last minute Largely thanks to Churchill efforts in parliament (that Baldwin rebuffed and shat on all over for years, often with Chamberlain. While lying to Churchill's face) and made only fighters to save money (his words) so not really because he believed in their capabilities (again his words).
And Churchill begged for those things in opposition to the entire parliament for many years (since 1933-1934) being ridiculed and rebuffed by parliament and Baldwin and Chamberlain .
So yes excuse me that I am not immpresed that he and his predecessor did the minimum amount of military research and funding required, and put any real attempts to start rearmament in the trash bin till the munich crisis.
Why do so many people try to defend Chamberlain conduct with regards to the war I will never understand.
And btw what exactly does the sten gun have to do with Neville Chamberlain???
@@netz8439 There was significant rearmement after 1935 in the UK. Particularly after 1936, but not of the Army. The RAF and aircraft manufacturing was massively expanded ( the RAF was quadrupled in size). 7 Battleships were laid down, 21 cruisers, 33 Deatroyers, 24 sloops, 4 Aircraft carriers, 21 submarines etc. Chamberlain was a poor war leader but remember at Munich he was dissuaded from taking a hard line by the lack of support from Dominion governments, the military staff, and the French.
@@martinhughes2549 I agree 100% that the military staff and the rest of the government share a huge part of the blame.
But my point was that lately people act like Chamberlain acted like churchill would've (he didn't had a choice the poor bastard).
Now as to rearmament (which he opposed in his previous position as as the exchequer aswell) he didn't do all that he could from the moment he entered office, and that's for sure.
He only expanded the raf under pressure from everyone (and at the last minute), not in the least churchill, even the military staff that was against it changed it's tune at the time if the rearmament.
And he also try to save money on it by choosing to focus on fighters and not bombers (his words), which of course at the end saved Britain in the war, but it wasn't really intentional.
As for the navy the expansion is not something that he pushed for,
It was years in the making after being postponed for years.
We can't know what would've happened if France (which I agree 100% bear a huge part of the blame, for the failure to do so) and Britain took a stand from the start (when churchill pressured them).
But from what it looks like from what we know from the axis side after the war, it would've seemed that hitler would've backed off.
And my point was that Chamberlain was a weak leader, and that people should stop making excuses for him.
@@martinhughes2549 oh and the rearmament didn't start in earnest, until late 1937 at the very least.
@@netz8439 Perhaps but see my above comments, easy to be wise 80 years on.
Another banger
Good video. It's worth remembering that the Allies were not really ready for offensive war in 1939/40. Not something you can blame (mostly) on Chamberlin.
First let me say that this is by far my favourite video so far from your channel, which I watch regularly. Particularly in that you address a commonly held myth rather than just rehashing something that seems in vogue (we've all seen all the history channels magically coming up with the same topic magically one after the other). In general that is my favourite aspect of this channel: its originality.
A tiny, tiny note: at around 8:40 you say "... perpetuates itself through a weird kind of circular logic. The phony war was phony because chamberlain was in charge, and it was because chamberlain was in charge that the war was phony." These are actually the same statement though. I think you sort of lost the thrust of the statement which I assume was along the lines of "we know chamberlain was ineffective, as evidenced by the phony war, but the phony war was phony because chamberlain was in charge"?
The two elements mutually reinforce each other; the 'phoney war' is made to look more phoney by association with Chamberlain, and vice versa.
Phoney because nothing much seemed to happening close to home.
I swear, upon re-watching this video now: I can't help but think of COVID-19. How the actual "war" was immediate and drastic -- ICUs over capacity and families torn apart -- but a larger portion of the population was left confused and disoriented when the cataclysmic disaster never came for them specifically. People's opinions cloud the history recorded. There's no doubt about that.
A very fascinating analogy, something I can't help but agree with too.
COVID was far worse in October '21 for me in the UK, yet nothing was like the anxiety and paranoia of February -> April '20
Don’t forget that the British weren’t the only ones who viewed the period between the fall of Poland and the battle of France this way. The Germans call this period the Sitzkrieg and the French called it Drôle de guerre. Is it a perception centric the the western front? Yes. Is it a solely brush phenomenon? Certainly not.
It was not called the phony war because its few casualties were only pretending to be dead. It was called the phony war primarily because Britain and France promised to support Poland in the event of German hostilities, but did little more than issue declarations of war when Germany invaded.
Desperate attempts to stop short of actually fighting, understandable in light of WW1.
Fantastic!
Nice presentation.
I'm impressed of your work, I think I might have to subsrcibe :) I really like your animations, how do you make them?
I see a lot of comments that defend Chamberlain here (saying his appeasements were to buy time, for example. which may or may not be true to some extent (though I don't see any basis for it with regards to how he voted and what he did to increase and prepare the military before the munich crysis) but Britain needed that much time to prepare to war mainly because of him and his clique).
I suggest that you check what he (and his clique) did to prepare the nation before the war started (and I am talking about years here), and what Churchill did in the parliament before the war started (again I am talking about years).
I'll give you a tldr
Churchill repeatedly begging to start building the military up(with focus on armor and air) because he is seeing what hitler is doing, and Chamberlain and the parliament ridiculing and rebuffing him.
Churchill was not an infallible leader, nor was he ever portrayed as one.
But he knew to spot danger and how to rally and lead a nation in times of war.
I see too much people hating on him for completely partisan reasons, he was most definitely the leader Britain needed at the time.
It's certainly seem to be in style to be a contrarian to historians of days of old, just to be a contrarian with often no regards to why they were saying what they said.
Hm interesting can i see some sources to confirm?
@@BajanEnglishman51
There is the book appeasement and the road to war.
There is also a detailed description of how churchill tried to increase the military budget in historynet .com,
That also goes into detail about the mistakes of Chamberlain and some military higher ups.
@Julius Rock It was too late at that point, Britain had to give up everything in order to defeat Nazi Fascism near and the Japanese Imperialism afar. Churchill at least acknowledged it and was will to live with that consequence for the time being.
I'm never too hard on Chamberlain, he was an elected leader, answerable to parliament with public opinion to consider. He wanted to increase spending on health and housing, not get us into another bloodbath. All this while Britain was recovering from the depression. How and where were the funds going to come from to build up armaments while many children had no shoes and were living in slums? Can you imagine a politician selling that today? Hitler had the luxury of dictating, regardless of fatally damaging his economy and respecting borders, hell bent on domination.
Well done!
That’s the paradox of history. Competent prime minister trying to avoid unnecessary casualties and buying the British Army another year to prepare is remembered as useless. Bungling politician Churchill who messed up most things he had control over is remembered as a hero.
Partly true in both cases, but if Churchill hadn't of come along, what do you think would of happened?.....I'd love you to tell me please.
Well, the move clip for the start WAS true, as, in the ground, the war was somewhat of a phoney
That was interesting!!!
>Set out to find submarines.
>Sunk by submarine.
Mission accomplished?
The Battles of Narvik, in spring 1940, were, in my humble opinion, the turning point of the war. The Germans ended up with a significant number of capital ships sunk or put out of action and lost half of their fleet of destroyers. From that point in time, operation sea lion wasn’t a realistic option.
That's nonsense.
Even before Norway Sea lion wasn't a realistic option.
An interesting video although it did miss a couple of points. I've never heard anyone suggest the war at sea was phony. .The Battle of the River Plate December 1939 was Britain's first victory of the war and I think worthy of mention.
Britain was bombed during the First World War and the possibility of a gas attack was magnified into hysteria. In reality German bombers did not have the range to attack from Germany. It was only after French airfields had been captured that an extensive air campaign could be mounted.
I think it related to the general view and mood of the public that after all the hype over Munich, gas masks etc, 'nothing much' was happening close to home.
Oh hell yeah. Every time you release an episode it's like I've been waiting for it my whole life. This is one big example of the British contributions to the popular historiography, not unlike the agreed-upon start of the war in 1939, even though the Japanese and the Chinese had been going at it since 1931, the Nazis, Fascists, and Soviets (and to a lesser extent Poland and some elements of the French government) had been engaging in a proxy war in Spain that began in 1936 and ended just a few months before the "official" start of hostilities in Poland, and not to mention the localized, identity-related conflicts that had been simmering throughout the various borderlands of the recently-created European states since the end of the First World War.
The more I delve into this period, the more difficult it is for me to say where one conflict ends and the other begins. I'm dubious about older media like documentaries, but I heard it described in one that "World War II could really be described as a series of interconnected civil conflicts rather than one large singular conflict" and I think this is spot on.
I've taken to using Victor David Hansen's term, calling it The Second World WARS.
In a book I read, they had a newspaper headline that read "Sitzkrieg", which supports this notion of Phoney War.
I agree with principle that events are never as simple as they are remembered, but I'm not sure you are actually arguing that the Phoney was a myth. While the battle of the Atlantic began at the outbreak of war, the threat of starvation was much more remote with France and the French Navy still in the fight. I'd accept that the date the Phoney war ended should be remembered as when fighting began in Demark and Norway, I think the sentiment does illustrate how little action there was for Britain or France in the period, on land or in the skies over Britain and France, while the battle at sea was almost inconsequential before France fell and Italy entered the War.
So the Phoney war was like the Quasi War. Mostly dealing with intermittent sea fighting, and merchant sinking.
Still, you don't really discredit that the Phoney was the lull period compared to the rest of the war, which can best be summarized as France & Germany trying to see who blinks first at the border.
The 'Phony' War was anything but to the men who fought, were injured, and died in it or to their families.
@5.48. “The Battle of the Britain”? You also aircrafts carrier.
Also the French did an offensive into the Saarland during the 'phoney war' albeit with limited success.
@Espresso Depresso pretty much
The Germans barely had any forces at the front, the brunt of German units engaged in Poland. Had they wished, they could have pushed 50km at least in 2 weeks.
7:45 - 7:55
Not forgotten but rather deliberately overlooked. Churchill did more damage to this country than Hitler ever could have wished to do.
You ignore the Churchill was warning about Hitler long before Chamberlain worked tirelessly at appeasement. You should do an episode about the reasons why the UK had no weapons when things were really ramping up in Germany, too.
Excellent. Real facts and clear presentation.
I’m curious what the British people were expecting considering that aside from the Zeppelin raids, none of the fighting ever reached the British Isles.
I mean are we talking about rationing and the men being sent off because you’d think at least some of those measures would be done soon after.
“The war will be over by Christmas”
This is a qoute of the first World War not the second one...
best channel on youtube
0:42 "Sundee" is my new favorite word.
0:38
Actually, the term Phoney War applies to the period of comparative inaction at the beginning of the Second World War between the German invasions of Poland (September 1939) and of Norway (April 1940).
Oversimplified how could you do this to me!?!?!
you told me 'everyone sort of sat around not doing much'
Fun fact. The French actually pushed into Germany while they were invading Poland. But after some stiffer fighting and Poland collapsing they lost their nerve and withdrew to the Maginot Line.
"Appeasement" is also a bit of a myth. When Czechoslovakia was sold down the river in the autumn of 1938, the United States was strongly against helping Europe resist Hitler by supplying military aid. Britain and France were frantic to avoid war with the Axis because they expected the fight would be without U.S. assistance. The U.S.A. did not begin Lend-Lease until France had been occupied for a year.
Hannah Miyamoto yeah agreed, plus France was also for war when the Rhine was remilitarized but UK and US where not so fond of it and was shelved
Chamberlain couldn't get support from the Dominion governments ( Canada,Eire,Australia,South Africa,New Zealand,Newfoundland) for war. Remember that after the 1931 statute of Westminster these states were all fully Sovereign,including on foreign policy. Chamberlain needed a very clear causus belli to enable that support, even in 1939 Eire stayed neutral. What if Canada or South Africa had?
Actually it was phoney.
Nah
Historigraph Yeah
'the bomber will always get through' was a myth based on the fact that the performance of fighter aircraft at the inception of bombers was about the same, so given that bombers were more heavily armed they had a tendency to survive aerial engagements. However by the SWW fighter technology and performance made them a real threat to bombers; additionally in the interim period it had been realised that aerial bombardment was a real threat, and so anti-aircraft artillery [AAA] and other passive defences had grown in strength. Ultimately RAF Bomber Command suffered the highest percentage of losses of any uniformed allied force during the SWW, thus proving the bomber did /not/ always get through.
It is also often forgotten that in the FWW Churchill was the main architect of the disastrous Dardanelles campaign. Also Chamberlain wasn't alone in his appeasement strategy. In the leadership tussle and even later Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax wanted to make peace with Hitler. His desire was more aligned to Chamberlain's than Churchill's.
I have a distant relative that died on that battleship in scap flow
Should of played the clip on a little where Victor Madderns' character strongly objected to Mr Holden saying that......good old film, that!.....Ah, he did, sorry.
Can someone explain the Saar offensive to me please? Why didn't France at least attempt a full scale invasion when they had so many troops?
Now that’s counterintuitive!
wasnt the battle of narvik where the allied forces managed to for the first time to reclaim a lost city from the germans?
3:05 hang on, how did 800 ppl die on a ship that was right next to shore, with other ships nearby? Am I mis-reading the scale, was she much more isolated than it seems?
It capsised. Plus it was night time and in freezing cold water. Even if the sailors had abandoned ship a ship at anchor is still too far away to swim back to shore in freezing water
@@ilikelampshades6 what about all the other ships around? Another ship capsizing should surely be a cause for emergency? Did they not have radios? Could they not see the capsizing ships? No emergency flares, nothing?
@@jabloko992 It may seem strange but just imagine the confusion of being on board woken in the middle of the night and not knowing what's happening. They're big ships and getting to the deck isnt quick especially amid the confusion
@@jabloko992 There weren't other ships around. The nearest was a seaplane tender, which was out of sight, and a small drifter. Other than those, that part of the Flow was deserted.
I mean, it is true. It's really just referring to the front line that had no fighting really or major offensives when in comparison to WW1 it was.... weird. There was little fighting there in main Europe. I never really thought anyone took it to mean more than that.
Historigraph, I get what you're saying, that despite popular belief, there was, indeed, some fighting going on in the first months of WW 2; that's true. However, despite that, there wasn't any large scale fighting on the European continent - not between the western allies and Germany - and that's why it's called the Phoney war or Stizkrieg, as the Germans called it. The western allies had declared war against Germany at the beginning of the invasion of Poland and then for all intents and purposes, did nothing at all to help their Polish ally. The French took two steps into the Saar and then stopped while the British essentially took no steps at all. Now IMO, the important question isn't so much was there or wasn't there a Phoney war (yes there was), but why? Why did not much happen in the first 6-8 months? And the answer of course is that the Germans were involved in the East (with Poland and then with the post-Polish campaign re-fit) while the British and French didn't have the capacity to directly assist their Polish ally - not in a coordinated or meaningful way. By the time concerted action could be taken the Polish campaign was already over. It must be remembered that at the outbreak of war, Britain was an air and naval power, it didn't have a large standing land army. So undertaking an immediate invasion of Germany was simply out of the question for the British, while the French, who did have the capacity to act and possibly could have stopped Germany in it's tracks, made it perfectly clear that they weren't going it alone. So, hence the so-called Phoney war period.
*fighting occurs everywhere, but in europe*
Europe: Finally! No war! No more fighting!!!
Oh really? Not "Phoney"? How much German divisions were crushed? Zero? So it WAS "Phoney"
Ah, War Thumper celebrates "Sitzkrieg." While Hitler took a Winter break, everybody else got ready to fight The Enemy at the door.
Ok, ok i subscribe! 😁
Sorry, but the pub seen from "Dunkirk" doesn't show the difference in attitudes between the military and civilians, but is there to represent the difference between what was happening at sea (both the Royal Navy and Merchant Navy) and what was happening to most people in the UK at the time.
I disagree in that the UK had always expected France to fight the war for them and that the Western Allies collectively wanted to avoid a war on their own territory, as France had suffered in the first world war, by trying to divert the fighting to Scandinavia by threatening intervention in Finland through Norway.
While you point out that many naval engagements took place I think you're missing the point in that it is considered by many to be a phoney war due to the lack of actual confrontation between ground troops of the Western Allies and Germany in Western Europe.
Nobody is referring to events in Poland as a "phoney war" but that term is rather used to describe the fact that the Western Allies stood by and did next to nothing other than drop leaflets while Poland (and Finland) was being ravaged.
I do really enjoy your videos !
However I do sense a strong bias towards the UK and would be interested to hear your take on the notion of "Western Betrayal"
I rarely sense a UK bias in his videos, he frequently details the incompetence of pompous British officers in his other videos
The idea that France stood by and did nothing isn't really a fair perspective either.
Poland fell incredibly quickly. The Saar offensive was genuinely the best France could be expected to do at the time, with 40 divisions taking part.
It was a quickly thrown together operation, against a heavily fortified and easily defended position, by an army still in the middle of it's mobilization. Of course it didn't have immediate success.
But after only two weeks of fighting, the Polish position was untenable, and by the 20th, with the Soviets involved, it was over.
Not a single army in WW2, no matter how aggressively minded, saw large operational successes into enemy territory EXCEPT for when the Axis benefited from surprise attack.
Finland ain't an ally
Firstly, France was by far the bigger land power, the UK was stronger at sea....Norway was vital to Germany because of iron ore supplies, so the Allies wanted to cut it off, but were beaten to it. On one in France or the UK wanted another bloodbath on the same old battlefields, also this time mass bombings and gas attacks were being predicted. I wonder how a mother who may well of lost her husband in the trenches, perhaps brothers too, now facing the prospect of her son heading off to fight might of felt?
I have a question for military experts. Why didn't the U-boats go after the British military ships instead of going straight after the merchant ships? It took longer to replace a destroyer than it di to replace a freighter. Maybe it would have taken a different U-Boat , but why?
Because the loss of a few small warships would be barely noticed by the RN, which in September 1939 had almost 200 destroyers alone. The only serious contribution the u-boat arm could make was by waging a trade war and cutting off supplies to the UK, as had been attempted during WW1. Furthermore, u-boats tended to avoid attacks on small, fast vessels with ample depth charge resources and asdic/sonar, as there was significant danger of the hunter becoming the hunted. See '2nd Support Group, Captain Walker' for further information. Occasional u-boat successes against larger vessels (cruisers, battleships, & carriers) might have been high profile, but barely made a dent in allied naval supremacy, as the Germans didn't have a surface fleet to exploit any such successes.
You completely missed out the fighting front. During the phoney war the RAF could only attack German millitary harbours and they had to make sure that no civilian ships were damaged. After this time the RAF could strike anywhere. Chamberlain also bought us time to build up our forces, especially the Spitfires. If we had gone into immediate action we would have lost the Battle of Britain.