“In war, as in prostitution, amateurs are often better than professionals."-Napoleon Bonaparte
@reen69042 ай бұрын
He really said that shit?
@CongressSux17762 ай бұрын
@@reen6904 Why do you think Benny Franklin went to France to sample their whores?
@Kingx902 ай бұрын
@@reen6904right?? 😳
@ivywoodxrecords2 ай бұрын
Pornhub
@useruser62402 ай бұрын
I smell french Fries!
@markhunter95242 ай бұрын
One of Guderian's great tactical insights in battle was not to use his reinforcements in the parts of the front line where the Germans were struggling, but instead apply them to where they were succeeding. This was a new concept which was perfectly suited to this type of tank warfare. Exploit the enemy's weakness rather than combat his strength.
@treetrunk87942 ай бұрын
“I didn’t even know he was sick.” -Norm McDonald.
@BillMcGirr2 ай бұрын
Classic.🤣🤣🤣👍🥃
@JohnnyDouchbag-nr5yf2 ай бұрын
Do you know who reclaimed France after the war???.........you guessed it.......Frank Stallone
@carn5haun3432 ай бұрын
Something about his eyes. Hypnotic
@jacobhollback2879Ай бұрын
"What a jerk"
@tato4612Ай бұрын
@@JohnnyDouchbag-nr5yf .....I thought t was Jorhan Van Der Sloot?
@csgXIII2 ай бұрын
0:37 the French army was good,the doctrine was bad, WW1 doctrine
@MikeyMike-fb5hx2 ай бұрын
Odd. The Brits were already there. They already had recon plans out there. How did they not see how the German offensive was developing?
@regencyrow18672 ай бұрын
The French had better tanks than the Germans during the initial invasion, but their generals had no idea how to use them.
@csgXIII2 ай бұрын
@MikeyMike-fb5hx They totally underestimated the German Army and ,as per WW1,they didn't expect an offensive through the Ardennes
@csgXIII2 ай бұрын
@regencyrow1867 Exactly, WW1 doctrine, they used their tank defensively, while the Germans used them to fight the blietzkrieg, the French were calculating distances in infantry paces while the Germans were moving with tanks
@Alderak1Ай бұрын
@@MikeyMike-fb5hx Their reconnaissance didn’t see much, they disregarded existing reports because it didn’t conform to their ideas about what Germany would/could do, the Germans moved much faster than the French expected or though possible, faster even than German time-tables, when they did identify the breakthrough there were significant communication errors, they misidentified the German objectives, many units were already committed to Belgium, the Rhine, or the defense of Paris, and thus were slow to disengage and react, among other things.
@robwark75542 ай бұрын
It was Mansteins plan. Guederian was a big proponent of armored warfare, and Rommel led a Panzer Division during the assault on France, but the plan belongs to Manstein.
@StoddardianАй бұрын
Manstein was the greatest strategist since Napoleon.
@robwark7554Ай бұрын
@@Stoddardian his withdrawing battles from Stalingrad during 1943 were masterpieces.
@severusfloki577824 күн бұрын
@@robwark7554 How so
@patriot28052 ай бұрын
All of the French generals at the top were, almost to a man, totally unprepared for the new style of warfare about to be unleashed. There were a few younger generals, De Gaulle especially, who wanted the French army organized on similar lines to the German. It's a common misperception that German tanks were better than anything else. The French actually had more and better tanks than the Germans, but instead of organizing them into independent armored divisions grouped together in corps, they were spread out among the infantry. The Fall of France took from May 10th 1940 to the end of June, but the French were irretrievably beaten within a week. I would argue the Germans had them beat in 1917, it just took until 1940 for them to realize it.
@AlainNavasDrama2 ай бұрын
French tanks were superior, but lacked Radio communication…The radio was key to the success of the Panzer divisions…
@patriot28052 ай бұрын
@@AlainNavasDrama True, but it didn't matter since they were dispersed among the infantry divisions
@jordanwilliams80402 ай бұрын
Pervatin won the early stages of the war and hitlers drug fog lost it after 1941
@Rowlph88882 ай бұрын
That's misleading.It's true that the French (and the British) were underprepared and had been more focused on improving business in their umpires, as democracies do with so many competing interests within their countries and the inability for any individual or even small group to unilaterally railroad anything in a time of crisis until it is completely upon them. But the fact still remains that even with Hitler having mobilised better and having dominated the Germans to prepare their military machine far better, both psychologically and tactically, if the Nazis had tried ANY OTHER TACTICS except go through the Ardennes, or the Brits and the French had attacked Germany 1st, The Germans best hope would have been a two-year war of attrition, where they eventually would collapse, with occupied regions public rising up as they had to commit more and more men to the west, due to the British committing increasing numbers to fortify the already formidable numbers of the French army.There also would have been the probability of Stalin attacking from the east, as it became clear that the Nazis were struggling
@sztypettto2 ай бұрын
@@patriot2805 the importance of radio communication cannot be overstated. A tank is actually a very big, blind target in any terrain, including open terrain. It needs to be told where to direct its fire, where to move, and where to anticipate attacks. The Germans excelled because they had recon and command vehicles. The Sdkfz series of vehicles is not credited enough for its instrumental role. Providing radio communication, fast recon, scouting, command and coordination. Furthermore, the radio communication of the ground troops was directly linked with the close air support provided by stukas. Hence the term Blitzkrieg was very aptly suited for the German method of warfare between 1939 to 1941.
@kennyb55372 ай бұрын
France had the worst tacticians ... that is how! The French will tell you that themselves
@domgauthier26122 ай бұрын
military victory of France in their history....1115
@GangnamStyle332 ай бұрын
The French army actually counter attacked into Germany and were turned around by 1 machine gun nest...
@captainnutsack81512 ай бұрын
@@GangnamStyle33 Bunch of crap. Never ceases to amaze me how ignorant Rogan listeners are.
@dimitriospolymeros14972 ай бұрын
Well, time and time again they stunned the allies with their ingratitude.😊😊😊😊
@ToddBacon2 ай бұрын
Have you heard about the new tank the French army developed? It has 9 gears... ...1 goes forward the other 8 go in reverse
@carthy292 ай бұрын
Germany was at war with 27 countries by the end of the war, and they still gave everyone a hard time - split in two, 15m pows and country destroyed , by 1957 west germany was the fastest growing economy in europe
@Santeria782 ай бұрын
Not anmyore, it´s going dooooown here...
@jordanwilliams80402 ай бұрын
Hitlers drug inducement plus the top generals blew it
@Ironbird-q4f2 ай бұрын
They are putting plastic valve covers on BMWs. Can't be doing that good.
@secretname41902 ай бұрын
@@Santeria78 That's american hegemony for you.
@bengaljam45502 ай бұрын
27 weak countries. The countries it invaded still used WWI tactics and machinery and had no answer for Blitzkrieg war tactics. They couldn't beat Britain or Russia.
@amirblessedofficial2 ай бұрын
Franco-Prussian War was 1870/71 Austria vs Prussia was 1866
@sphtpfhorbrains35922 ай бұрын
1866 was Austro-Prussian War. 1864 was Danish-Prussian war. You and Ohler are ignorant and too lazy to google stuff.
@brianwarden72502 ай бұрын
This is simply incorrect.
@XZumex2 ай бұрын
Whats crazy is there was actually scouts who found the german advance, but it was dismissed cause no one believed it was possible.
@rramos1172 ай бұрын
Wrong, the French has no significant forces posted in the Ardennes
@XZumex2 ай бұрын
@@rramos117 when did i write that?
@DarraghQuinn-d8o2 ай бұрын
@@rramos117 He is correct, two pilots found the column. This is well known.
@Bumbaclartios2 ай бұрын
The stubborness is amazing, like why wouldn’t you at least check it out. Why have scouts if you’re gonna brush them off when they do exactly their job lmao
@jordanwilliams80402 ай бұрын
That's what happens when every troop gets a liter of wine a day instead of crystal meth 😅
@undergroundphilly31182 ай бұрын
It wasn’t just the Armoured formations, they made their Infantry formations mobile too to avoid a trench warfare stalemate. The overall strategy was mobile warfare by all their military formations that the western Armies were not prepared for.
@robwark75542 ай бұрын
They also added radios between tank commanders and Close Air Support, giving them the capability to call in tactical air strikes to support the assaults.
@Slim-Clips2 ай бұрын
“History is written by the victors.” - Winston Churchill
@OlympicLeprechaun2 ай бұрын
"History will be very kind to me, for I intend to write it." Winston Churchill
@alans989892 ай бұрын
Except it isn't. If you take a long enough timeline, everyone ends up a loser. Most of the great empires no longer exist, including the British Empire.
@23940982345092 ай бұрын
Interesting quote to apply to WWII lmao
@MikeyMike-fb5hx2 ай бұрын
Hitler stopped at Dunkirk. Maybe one of his biggest mistakes of the war. Well, that, and Stalingrad was foolish.
@projektgrudge2 ай бұрын
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - written by William Shirer, German. History not always written by the winners. Just one example
@nickpeloquin55942 ай бұрын
Franco prussian war wasnt 1865. Ardenne forst not ardenne mountains. Who tf is the joker? Just shows how with enough confidence you can sound efucated and convincing while still not know anything about what your talking about
@Theartistinyou12 ай бұрын
This guy talked alot of nonsense during the podcast, pro bullshitter.
@Mugen-c5h2 ай бұрын
Its funny also he says grande armée which waz the name of the french army during the napoleonic war
@alexkat82972 ай бұрын
There are Ardennes mountains but not where the Germans crossed. He made a few mistakes indeed.
@Waterboarder252 ай бұрын
Yeah and y is Joe Rogan interviewing a guy talking about things u can easily find on Wikipedia or any ww2 documentary about the battle of France 😂😂😂😂😂
@fredriknord23882 ай бұрын
@@Waterboarder25 This is kind of what Joe's podcast has turned into the past few years. Everytime I return hoping for something original, it's just some idiot he found who fooled him into believing they're some sort of expert.
@Britton_Thompson2 ай бұрын
The #1 determinant was that the Allies spent 21 years assuming everyone wanted to avoid fighting another world war, while Germany spent that time fantasizing about the rematch
@FamiliarAnomaly2 ай бұрын
thanks for the netflix take
@strangelove7702 ай бұрын
@@FamiliarAnomaly It's true though, and it was reported on extensively by journalists living in Germany in the 1930s who were watching the run-up to WW2 in person. The public, especially vast swaths of disenfranchised WW1 veterans, were extremely pissed at the way Germany mismanaged the war, and were also extremely bitter about all the reparations the Allies jammed into the Treaty of Versailles, which wrecked Germany's post-war economy. While there was definitely widespread trepidation about another war, the idea of revenge against France and England for WW1 was also a very popular sentiment that Hitler harnessed to great effect as part of his power grab.
@DoubleDoubleWithOnions2 ай бұрын
The Germans marched in backwards and the French thought they were leaving.
@Britton_Thompson2 ай бұрын
@@FamiliarAnomaly Disprove my statement. Find me evidence from both Weimar & Nazi Germany where the population wasn't highly motivated to recoup the losses France and England imposed upon a defeated Imperial Germany. Everyone was outraged over losing Alsace-Lorraine; having the Rhineland occupied; having the Ruhr industrial area seized by France to pay back it's defaulted debts during the Depression. Find me evidence that the Germans weren't just as infuriated with the British for dividing Prussia to create Poland out of thin air, and having the Danzig corridor taken away. Same with the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. These were all regions that had historically been German since the Holy Roman Empire, and now they were gone. I ask again.... Prove to me why my initial statement is wrong. Show me where Germans weren't extremely motivated to reclaim their lost dignity and manifest destiny within central Europe in light of the humiliating dictate known as the Versailles Treaty. I'll wait.
@camselle2 ай бұрын
that and the fact that the Allies were expecting Trench Warfare and got Blitzkrieg instead
@ArnoWalter2 ай бұрын
I listened to better WW2 experts in pubs at 3 am in the morning.
@bloodcurdling35812 ай бұрын
What???
@lucas822 ай бұрын
@@bloodcurdling3581 He means that Rogan invites just about any nutcase on his podcast because this guest doesn't know shit.
@michaelthespikel56852 ай бұрын
I agree who is this clown?
@antivaxjew7484Ай бұрын
3 in the morning…. In the morning
@grahamharris8906Ай бұрын
Spot on 👍🏻
@ukman81922 ай бұрын
For anyone interested in a deeper dive into this, I would recommend watching the "France Falls" episode of the excellent series "The World at War" made in 1973. It's on KZbin (although unfortunately I assume due to copyright reasons it's been edited in parts). It includes interviews with very senior political and military figures on both sides - still alive in 1973 - and gives a very good overview. Enjoy !
@Dartagnan882 ай бұрын
The war took place in 1871 not 1865. That was the brother war between Prussia and Austria. Also the first time I ever heard that Rommel and Guderian were also responsible for the Ardennes offensive plan. Only ever heard Von Manstein associated with this genius strategy
@MarkusWaine-u3k2 ай бұрын
The Ardennes offensive was led by von Rundstedt, Model and Manteuffel
@secretname41902 ай бұрын
Von Manstein made the intial plan, yes. But Rommel and Guderian became a part of it and actually led their units into battle.
@rnklv82812 ай бұрын
What he said was similar to what I was taught/read about the battle for France during WW II, a soft spot in the Maginot Line (the French line of defense) was thru the Ardennes, and German armored divisions took advantage of this opportunity.
@csgXIII2 ай бұрын
There was no soft spot,the Maginot Line stopped there because the Belgians were neutral and didn't allow the French to build defensive lines
@Zopf-international2 ай бұрын
Is this an official Joe Rogan channel? I mean the copyright watermark in the middle of the film. You got some balls fella.
@pwk222 ай бұрын
Great interview by Joe.
@marvinshenk2 ай бұрын
In 1996 I drove my 1980 Subaru wagon across the entire US in 52 hours straight with no sleep. I just had cigarettes and coffee. A massive snowstorm was following me, and if I stopped for an hour, I'd be stuck under 3 feet of snow. I don't think I could have done 72 hours though, unless I had some coke or meth.
@cocobearnoski2 ай бұрын
Born in the wrong country at the wrong time
@holeindanssock1562 ай бұрын
Or Adderall, hopefully non generic
@jkranites2 ай бұрын
Well the Germans were on meth
@mohammedkotah55982 ай бұрын
Sid you pee in the car?
@marvinshenk2 ай бұрын
@@mohammedkotah5598 No, I got out to pee when I got gas.
@Chris-xv7wd2 ай бұрын
Remember Napolean after Jena. “Hats off gentleman. If this man were around today we would not be here now.” Speaking of Frederick the Great
@daaichommie7082 ай бұрын
Ironically it was also Napolean that was part of the events that set in motion the unification of Germany.
@bigjorge8632 ай бұрын
Japan, Germany and italy had big balls
@hrs64802 ай бұрын
Italy not
@jinz02 ай бұрын
italy meatballs
@georgeprchal39242 ай бұрын
And bad ships and tanks.
@dominicjohnson84272 ай бұрын
Japan was crazy, Germany great but deluded and Italians were just cowards
@hrs64802 ай бұрын
@@dominicjohnson8427 Adolfo made foolish choices later could’ve massacred like half the english army of the belgian coast but had mercy only for them to destroy the great victorian German cities.
@91Animeguy2 ай бұрын
Stopped listening when he said the german tanks where not as good as the british tanks.. you fucking what bro..?
@Rowlph88882 ай бұрын
He obviously meant the French tanks
@thelistener02 ай бұрын
So the most numerous tank in 1940 Panzer II was better than what british tank?
@BirgerJarl-it5lzАй бұрын
The german tanks in 1940 were very light, and the brits had heavy tanks. Germany had much better tanks one year later
@renardfox3282 ай бұрын
I'd like to add a few addendums to this guy's comment. 1. It is far too reductive to simplify Hitler's motives for the Battle of France as "revenge" for WW1. France and England had declared war on Germany during the Polish campaign, against Hitler's wishes. England sent the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) to France, and both militaries began to mobilize. Hitler NEVER wanted conflict with the West, let alone a protracted war. However, when two nations declare war on you, begin to mobilize and refuse negotiations, you must act as if it is wartime. Hitler knew Germany would almost certainly lose if France attacked first. He KNEW that Germany had to attack first and attack fast to win. 2. Hitler and Mannstein independently came up with the idea of attacking through the Ardennes Forest. They essentially had to meet in secret to draw up the the initial blueprints for the Sickle Cut plan because the other generals wanted to push forward with a plan which would have certainly failed. 3. Every military in the world takes stimulants. Even during WW2 American soldiers took stimulants.
@renimaruuu92202 ай бұрын
If you genuinely think that hitler would just stop after invading poland then you are one of the dumbest people in the world. By 1939 germany was so buried in debt because of amount of military spendings they had to revive their miltaey. It was necessary for them to invade and loot countries to keep their economy alive
@cmajaa12 ай бұрын
Yeah this presentation of events is misleading and leaves out a lot of relevant information, not good history.
@bretonneux33892 ай бұрын
1. False. It is true Hitler desperately hoped to get a long-term alliance....with Britain, not with France or the whole "West" (whatever that means). Hitler considered the british as natual allies since being "aryan" germanic cousins, and always dreamed of a London-Berlin pact : Europe to Germany, Ocean to Britain. In this way, he always offered generous terms to Britain, and he never really took serious action to try to stir up revolts in the british empire, because he considered it as an expression of natural race order. But he had betray too often the trust of the Brits during the 1930's, renouncing his word to claim new lands after the munich agreements meant nobody on international stage could trust him again. Plus, the brits knew they would be vassalized by the germans anyway if they left them hegemony over Europe, they always opposed to the nation aspiring to dominate continental western Europe for this reason : Spain with Charles the Vth, France with Louis the XIVth and Napoleon, Germany with Wilhelm the IInd and Hitler. But as for France, as he explicitly said in Mein Kampf (Hitler was one of few policians in history to be honest in his political writings), he considered France as the hereditary ennemy of Germany for the domination of western europe (which is partially true) and that for one of the two nations to prosper, the other one had to be taken down. He also wrote that Germany would never be entirely reunited, as long as France hold Alsace-Lorraine and Strasburg. (fun fact : when Hitler took power, an alarmed french far right managed to cofund with french jewish organisations (their traditional enemies, but enemy of my enemy is my friend) and diffuse a translation of Mein Kampf in French, to warn and wake up the deeply pacifist french public opinion on who was the new master of Germany and what his intentions were towards France, prestigious french marshal Liautey writing in preamble of the book "every frenchman must read this book". Hitler sued them, as they had published and translated his book without buying the rights, and according to international treaties, french editors were forced to withdraw this translation. Hitler presented then his own translation of Mein Kampf in french, where he had erased all the anti-french chapters, saying Alsace-Lorraine belonged forever to France, that reconcilation had to be the priority, and France and Germany had common ennemies above all. 2. True. The plan was from Mannstein mind. But it was incredibly risky. It would have taken the french aircraft to track the tanks columns advancing through the Ardennes and the french headquarters to react in time, and Germany would have lost most of his tanks and the war with it. 3. True. But germans were quite the champions of stimulants in WW2.
@CreepBoot2 ай бұрын
He was a gambler, and he gambled right that France wasn't ready for war when he attacked Poland. He ABSOLUTLY wanted war with France, just not a war on two front and everybody knew that war with France meant war with the British Empire. if he didn't wanted war he wouldn't have started it... i hate the revisionism that we see lately.. poor Germany had to defend itself from the West.
@blankeon66132 ай бұрын
100% correct. Hitler wanted an alliance with Britain more than anything and he absolutely did not want to fight a two-fronts war. This is why he made Joachim von Ribbentrop the foreign minister, he was well-versed in English and had many contacts in the Anglosphere. Ribbentrop's number 1 priority was securing the alliance with Britain, but he failed largely because he was unpopular among the British who found him quite snobbish.
@DaScoobyDoo2 ай бұрын
Carlos Lehder tells Escobar in Narcos, "Hitler said that a politician should never take a pic in a bathing suit."😅
@turquoise38512 ай бұрын
Missing the part where the French declared war in Germany after the War in Poland, then the Germans invaded.
@bretonneux33892 ай бұрын
well, yep, but in the meantime, the french had finally stopped to, read the rewrote french translation of Mein Kampf allowed by Hitler and had read the original version, where Hitler's intent for France were explicitly written. It's not like if this declaration of war was not 100 % legitimate. France had a defense pact with Poland to respect.
@atomic46502 ай бұрын
?
@davecopp93562 ай бұрын
Most propaganda by the Alllies miss this part were France and England declared war on germany.
@bretonneux33892 ай бұрын
@@davecopp9356 most revisionnist propaganda miss the part where France and Britain just respected their defense agreement with Poland.
@iroscoe2 ай бұрын
@@davecopp9356 Most Axis propaganda miss the part that the Franco-British comitment to Poland was not a secret , so invading Poland was therefore a de facto declaration of War by Germany .
@rebornsmith7542Ай бұрын
This guy sounds like he's making it up as he goes along, after watching a Netflix series.
@michaelwong94112 ай бұрын
The Nazis took some BIG RISKS in the invasion of France, and it paid off so everyone just remembers them kicking ass. But there were certain key points where things could have gone very differently, and if the Allies had reacted differently, people would say today that the high-risk high-reward plan was a stupid gamble.
@Rowlph8888Ай бұрын
Well done for the only sensible comment in this section, which is full of pedantic, small-minded people focus on detail instead of the bigger picture. Any other tactics except going through the Ardennes, using meth to do it more speedily and getting lucky that the Brits and the French were so reluctant to engage(Democracies political elites fearful of re-mobilising or telling the population anything, lest they be replaced) that they didn't do a rigourous evaluation of vulnerabilities, would have led to a gradual Nazi defeat within 2 years.The Nazis occupied regions, would be gradually pushed back onto the Soviets
@nonyobussiness3440Ай бұрын
Germany was shocked they succeeded like they did.
@michaelwong9411Ай бұрын
@@nonyobussiness3440 It was the military equivalent of a Hail Mary pass.
@nonyobussiness3440Ай бұрын
@@michaelwong9411they also did not want to hold France or conquer the uk because they didn’t have a big enough population to do it and there was no way the populace would allow them to rule for long.
@Conn30MtenorАй бұрын
France had the world's best equipped army. They had, however, the worst government and military high command in Europe. Hitler wasn't stubborn though. He was persistent but he stole Guderian's plan and made it work.
@EAFM2 ай бұрын
No mention of the Maginot line
@DarksjeikАй бұрын
That, and the Ardennes have hills, not mountains.
@joe18750Ай бұрын
I noticed that too. But it so routed, so easily defeated, I figured he didn't see it worth mentioning.
@EAFMАй бұрын
@@joe18750 I mean it only lasted 500 years.
@joe18750Ай бұрын
@@EAFM What? The Maginot line was built after WW1. So, it was only a couple decades old. SMH!
@EAFMАй бұрын
@@joe18750 the line of castles and fortresses along that line are quite old. The term maginot line is more recent, but the actual barrier deterred the Huns for quite some time.
@iliciman3Ай бұрын
This is a bar talk level of history discussion
@Jason-si8iu2 ай бұрын
Like Patton said we fought the wrong enemy
@knottsscary2 ай бұрын
Shut up man
@thomass18912 ай бұрын
Incel energy
@BR-re7oz2 ай бұрын
During ww1 the us government and numerous newspapers reported that German soldiers were throwing babies up in the air and catching them with bayonets. During the Gulf War, a congressional inquiry released testimony that Iraqi soldiers were going into hospitals, pulling premature babies out of incubators and smashing them on the ground (also reported in numerous newspaper). Do u believe those things actually happened, or do u know what war propaganda is? If u know what war propaganda is, why suddenly believe 100% all the war propaganda around ww2, particularly when to this.day it provides the political.justification for the existence of a certain small country in the middle east that definitely doesn't have an outsized influence on American politics and foreign policy.
@jakeschwartz25142 ай бұрын
@@thomass1891communist. Youre so dumb, name one successful communist nation
@kochiyama2 ай бұрын
@@thomass1891 Says the dude watching Joe Rogan clips lmao
@Makavellii1002 ай бұрын
Two interesting facts to add. The french commander who was responsable for their defensive admit the germany was not better than them but they we‘re much much more faster. Secondly after WW1 germany has to sign there capitulation in a train waggon on a desk. When french surrended Hitler forced them to the exact same desk in the same waggon to sign their capitulation and later presented this waggon in front of the Brandenburger Tor.
@MarKac90902 ай бұрын
missing the part where he mentions that the Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany, which divided Poland between them. The Soviets occupied the eastern part of Poland and helped secure victory for Hitler
@worlddd77772 ай бұрын
Everyone looked for their interests, Britain is no different. Always remember, Brits are only nation that made Lebensraum actually work in North America
@nonyobussiness3440Ай бұрын
@@worlddd7777 Nazi Germany modeled a lot of their ideas and goals after things the US and UK had done to become world powers. Slavery, living space, genocide, racial hierarchy, industrialization etc were all modeled after the US and UK. Prussia and Nazi Germany was supported by a decent amount of UK and US industrial leaders and politicians that liked fascism and German ancestry. Its very weird. I heard one fringe thinker state, Nazism/fascism was something Prussian sympathizers in the US and UK outsourced, off shored, developed, tested...then exported to the world and imported to the UK and US.
@nonyobussiness3440Ай бұрын
@@worlddd7777 Germans thought it was hilarious and bizarre when they caught a native american soldier after Dday, they could not believe it and laughed and asked him wtf he was doing there. they let him go and return safely.
@saschadxbАй бұрын
Interesting that a guy like him gets the dates wrong. Germany and France were not at war in 1865 but in 1870/71
@pbegley992 ай бұрын
Also elements on the French left demoralised and subverted the French military. There was a strong pacifist movement in the 30s. It was easy for this to gain traction given their national experience of being bled dry in WW1.
@RichardSchiffman-jn1ds2 ай бұрын
What war happened in 1865? The Franco-Prussian war was from 1870-71. There was a war in 1864 between Prussia and Denmark though
@dob5tep5442 ай бұрын
This guy had me screaming...his history of ww2 is so shockingly poor I nearly punched my monitor
@cestogram2 ай бұрын
Plus he forgotten to mention that apx one third of Germany's weaponry when attacking France was actually stolen from Czechoslovakia 🥴
@labradorretriever-mix35742 ай бұрын
Your understanding of the war may be flawed as well, as you only know the version which was written by the winners.
@wheel17752 ай бұрын
Can you give some examples of why he is wrong?
@RonGoodman-jz8jv2 ай бұрын
ROGAN A CLOSET COMMUNIST - WHAT A POS
@stardrifter28722 ай бұрын
I was pulling my hair out as well.
@legumesretminc7822 ай бұрын
First war was in 1870, not 1865
@TonyBongo8692 ай бұрын
Fun fact, when Czechoslovakia was invaded in 1938, Poland took a slice as well. Yup.
@dantemagalhaes94622 ай бұрын
I don't know about that
@RudyRude-wp8ep2 ай бұрын
@@TonyBongo869 fun fact: czechosolvakia allied with the nazis.
@hellaslayin71752 ай бұрын
@@RudyRude-wp8epNot a fact at all. The Czechs had no choice but to surrender and sign off the country over to Hitler. Most of their men counts fought the Germans on the Western fronts. They also continued to uprise from within the state by commiting and conspiring attentats and assassinations of various high ranking nazi officers during the protectorate era.
@RudyRude-wp8ep2 ай бұрын
You always have a choice. They chose to fight with the nazis.
@hellaslayin71752 ай бұрын
@@RudyRude-wp8ep They didn't fight with the nazis tho lol They didn't join Germany the way Italy did.
@scotttild2 ай бұрын
French though it was 1914 again and they had a bunch of old generals that knew nothing about modern warfare. At the time France was still dealing with WW1 and had not even re built their army much.
@marvinthemartian95842 ай бұрын
I think after Joe saw the video of Hitler at the Olympics, he wanted to talk to this guy about the German meth use. The fact that the guy knew so little about WWII history was a distant second to what Joe cared about.
@dabears5770Ай бұрын
The french army was of great quality. Their tanks and fighter were as good if not better then the germans and they had a larger force. The real problem is the french military leadership had no idea how to use these weapons. They assumed ww2 would be a static war like ww1. The germans had the military leadership with foresight who anticipated a war of movement. That is why they did things like concentrate their armour as opposed to using it piece mail as infantry support. If the military leadership was even france would have wrecked them. Unfortunately for the world that was not the case.
@dimitriospolymeros14972 ай бұрын
Btw , Bismarck, who wanted to unite German, so he thought "what does every German hate? " Answer: the french. So for the first time, France faced the united German forces which turned out to be massively superior than the french, so they won . He didn't (the quest) mention that.
@hrs64802 ай бұрын
He didn’t want to unite Germany he just wanted a bigger piece of land for Prussia. Because of him Bavaria is still annexed till today 😢
@Rowlph88882 ай бұрын
The forces were not superior, Germany had a lot more people in both World War I and World War II the German army and the German population was 1/3 larger than either the British or the French population and army.Only combined did these countries have more people, and because the Brits never kept a standing army due to the superiority of the Navy, The Germans had the advantage in land numbers in the initial stages of both wars anyway
@jds.3135 күн бұрын
The Big Army (la Grande Armée) wasn’t the name of the army in 1930, but Napoleon’s army during the 19th century.
@dimitriospolymeros14972 ай бұрын
They expanded violently but they were poor countries, relatively. Italy's performance was abysmal. When the Nazis won the battle of France, they learned the wrong lesson: that they were very powerful, when the truth was that France was not as powerful as people assumed. And so they went on with barbarosa. Blietzkrieg needs fast wars and you can't win Russia fast enough. The distances where inconceivable. That's what is the big advantage of Russia- space. What did Hitler expect from his wermacht to do? March from Poland to Vladivostok in a summer? the whole thing was fueled by hubris.
@odinsbrother14782 ай бұрын
and meth, that's the point haha
@AlainNavasDrama2 ай бұрын
France had a larger army and more hardware, tanks, planes, etc…Just. Very poor tactics …And it wasn’t just France …Germany took over Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, and a very impressive blitzkreig in Greece to secure there southern flank…Plus they reinforced the Italians in N.Africa and were able to drive back the British …It took a bit for the allies to learn the new German tactics and counter it .
@googull47782 ай бұрын
The German plan also was chaotic. Instead if a knockout punch to Moscow they wasted time and resources on Leningrad and Stalingrad, losing their best Army. The Germans could just glimpse the skyline but never entered the city. Taking Moscow doesn’t mean game over, but it would have given Germans secured aerial dominance over most supply routes and manufacturing hubs. It also would have been a morale crusher and a communication breaker. Funny how about three years later the Russians were in their Capital city.
@Shad0wack2 ай бұрын
@@googull4778 Germany was desperate for food and oil. The goal was to take the fertile soil of Ukraine and the oil in the caucasus.
@googull47782 ай бұрын
@@Shad0wack absolutely. But the mainland Russia campaign was dismal. If they bifurcated it through Moscow it would have effectively punched out the government control over most of the population. No supplies would go north and it would have been mopped up by the Finns and a smaller northern army group. With the main road and rail network, which webs out from Moscow, in German control, the Russians would be constantly on the defensive until something gave.
@SamLesGo2 ай бұрын
When side effect is the desired effects. Absolutely mental
@yoholmes2732 ай бұрын
And now the French President is married to an old dude! 🇫🇷
@russellash87552 ай бұрын
Basically not much changed
@edminster12 ай бұрын
Is he maried to your mom?
@BillMcGirr2 ай бұрын
Oddly enough old French dudes shave their pits.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@edminster12 ай бұрын
@@BillMcGirr unlike your mom
@tavish46992 ай бұрын
Old women
@xpat732 ай бұрын
Watch the World At War Episode - France Falls. It explains it. The French had the largest and best standing army in the world. But as a French General says in the documentary, when talking about WW1: "Victory is a very dangerous opportunity."
@richardwillett64242 ай бұрын
German tanks much more advanced than british
@Rowlph88882 ай бұрын
Except that the British invented them.But I take your point, because Britain wasnt interested in land warfare innovation, because it had the best and most advanced Navy and didn't have to worry about invasion. He clearly miss communicated, or missremembered that the French tanks were superior, which they were, except for the lack of radios, which was 1 of the deciding factors in the German tank divisions having ascendancy even though technologically less capable in other ways
@Orcawhale12 ай бұрын
That's a myth. If anything they were less advanced than the Brits. The Matilda II is so heavily armored that Rommel has to use the Flak 8.8's to destroy them, when his facing them in Africa. Because the Panzer III and IV's arn't getting it done.
@MrThumbs632 ай бұрын
That's not true. The majority of Rommel's tanks were Panzer 38s, which were Czech. The French command was a joke. That was the difference.
@koraene32282 ай бұрын
Thé artillery let down thé Maginot Line. Without cover thé soldiers had to retreat. It was Bad. Also WE had heavy tanks which were equiped without heavy canons. But they were not well designed, many survived engagement only to be sobotaged by crew because stranded with mechanical failures and no support. Look for the b1bis Eure.
@lucas822 ай бұрын
Not really. Especially not at first. Even their famous late-war heavy tanks, the Panther and the Tiger, were troublesome vehicles in terms of reliablity and useability. In hindsight, Germany would have been beter off if they had produced simpler, cheaper and more practical combat vehicles.
@drdickqueso2 ай бұрын
Rommel and the tank commanders were the smartest commanders but no matter how good the short term strategy the long term outweighs it all.
@manueldeabreu19802 ай бұрын
Norman didn't really do his homework. He has the wrong year for the Franco-Prussian war. It started in 1871. The Germans knew they couldn't use the same invasion route as that war because France did a better job defending that area so they developed the Schlieffen Plan for WWI. The Prussian military was considered the best but that plan was not realistic. They had to take Belgium rapidly and use their railroads to move up the army quick and drive a wedge between the French and British. It took much longer to conquer Belgium and they destroyed the rail lines. Blitzkrieg was developed in Poland. It was combined arms, tank divisions and air forces working in conjunction to rapidly encircle and bypass static strong points and get into the rear area. The infantry would come in and mop up these cut off spots by surrounding and taking them out. The old guard wanted another Schlieffen Plan. It was the innovators, like Gudarian that wanted to attack through the Ardennes.
@TommyGlint2 ай бұрын
LOL, the Franco-Prussian War started in July 1870 and ended in January 1871. The term Blitzkrieg might come from the Polish campaign, but it was not “developed” in Poland by Germany. Combined arms goes back as far as 1918, and just about every nation in Europe dabbled with the idea in the Interwar period.
@Shinobi332 ай бұрын
You know I just found out France did fight in WWII. But it was very brief and they were easily routed by Germany
@bretonneux33892 ай бұрын
well, they were at 1 vs 2. Germany had 80 millions people, France 40 millions. Britain just provided a small expeditionnary force, Belgium and the Netherlands had no tanks nor aircraft.
@placebojesus56522 ай бұрын
Then what happened
@MrRodzilla2 ай бұрын
the ardennes is not a mountain by the way, its a forest
@mark6809mm2 ай бұрын
In a hilly area!
@ianarchibald14232 ай бұрын
B.S.. All Germans wanted revenge against France as well as international finance for the Treaty of Versailles. However, no country in Europe - not one - wanted another war after the first world war. France had lost a generation of men, and did NOT want to lose another generation. When Hitler's armies invaded, the French fought not to win the battle, but to not lose men, that is why France capitulated so quickly. Also, the French government was very balkanized, rife with factionalism. He's right though about many Germans' apprehension about taking on the British Empire, and possibly the U.S., this would account for Hess' flight to England. When speaking of materiel, yes it is true that German tanks were inferior, not just to British tanks, but also both French and Russian.
@ToddBacon2 ай бұрын
@@ianarchibald1423 France sucks and ur very geh
@kozakgaming20782 ай бұрын
@@ToddBacon mad that ur country got fucked in 2 holes
@MikeyMike-fb5hx2 ай бұрын
Germany and Russia BOTH invaded Poland in 39, invaded Poland, and yet the Allies only declared war on Germany? Odd!
@zalosnasova7502 ай бұрын
No russia back than.that was ussr.after the octobar revolution russian elites escaped from the country.many of them were fihgting in German army against communists.like kozaks,"belogardejci"...
@1dustbranch1112 ай бұрын
the soviets were even part of the Nuremberg Trials. So they not only recruited from the SS that they had captured but even went on to judge some of those they didn't get. It's crazy but we legit judged Germans for attacking polish cities, when part of the judges had attacked the next town over at the same time.
@blitzy3244Ай бұрын
Let's say both the Allies and USSR were run by a certain group of people
@MikeyMike-fb5hxАй бұрын
@@blitzy3244 outch
@rupertsmith5815Ай бұрын
Because the allies were in a defence treaty against Germany not against the Soviet Union and they didn't have the capability to go to war with both.
@kennethkilleen87582 ай бұрын
1870-1871 was the Franco- Prussian war not 1865
@r3d5ive872 ай бұрын
Decent explanation but lots of errors.
@wwallace00712 ай бұрын
It was Mansteins plan! Rommel and Guderian simply followed the plan as Manstein was not on the field of war at this stage but an office.
@chadrathbone2 ай бұрын
France just handed to Germany. It took 6 weeks to Capture France. 3 years later they were freed.
@scarecrowman77892 ай бұрын
They didn’t have a chance vs the most powerful army in the world (Germany)
@secretname41902 ай бұрын
Freed? More like under new management.
@Rowlph88882 ай бұрын
@@scarecrowman7789 silly comment.Germany got lucky with our the Ardennes tactics.Retrospective analysis shows that defence of the Ardennes by the allies, or any other tactics by the Germans would have led to eventual German defeat without the USA even becoming involved
@daaichommie7082 ай бұрын
@@scarecrowman7789 They weren't though. France alone had more tanks, men and artillery. France and the UK combined outnumbered the Germans at least 2:1 in every category. The Germans had the best trained military at the time and their military leaders were a lot more on the ball than the French or the UK. A combination of that, and some luck, is why they steamed rolled the French. Similar thing happened in the Franco-Prussian war.
@lq427525 күн бұрын
the french army was actually one of the best in the 30s. he said 'it was not good'. they had teh best tank of the 30s and they were much more mechanized than the germans, which were still using a lot horses, at the onset of war.
@MrLegendra2 ай бұрын
They walked in. The French people protested for a few days and then put up their white flags like they do every protest without accomplishing anything. 🏳🏳🏳🏳
@Derrymcg2 ай бұрын
Germans marched in backwards and the French thought they were leaving
@K.K0002 ай бұрын
Italy never fought in ww2 they walked everywhere with there hands up in the air 😂 all they knew was how to say I surrender in multiple languages 😂😂
@pdog1092 ай бұрын
incel comment
@Explorer9822 ай бұрын
Shocking lack of coordination between the French and the British
@chrisgriffin73572 ай бұрын
France and England declared war on Germany.
@jodu6262 ай бұрын
yeh in the same way the US declared war on Japan
@RogueCylon2 ай бұрын
Nope. Nothing like that. By Germany invading Poland, the British and French had a pact with Poland to ensure they would be defended. Hitler once he had the Soviet pact, basically led Britain on that they would not invade, they just wanted Danzig back. Poland refused, got invaded and pulled Britain and France back into a World War they didn’t want. This was all part of them being a League of Nations, not dissimilar to NATO. History repeats.
@chrisgriffin73572 ай бұрын
@@jodu626 Yes, we all learned in 2nd grade history class on when Germany sneak attack bombed England and France's naval ports, killing 3000 people, and they rightfully declared war on them the next day. Just like when the US declared war on Japan on December 8th 1941. Also, are you mentally re+arded?
@chrisgriffin73572 ай бұрын
@@RogueCylon France and England declared war on Germany... your response: "Nope. Nothing like that."... They literally did declare war on Germany. My God, are you a dimwit. lol
@jodu6262 ай бұрын
@@chrisgriffin7357 i didn’t say why they declared war. shouldn’t be jumping to conclusions my pedigree chum
@kennethneveski18922 ай бұрын
Rommel was the most famous because he would go against the British and Americans in N Africa. But the true genius of blitzkrieg of Guderian. Before the war, he wrote a prophetic book called "Achtung Panzer," which laid the theoretical underpinning of Blitzkrieg, armed thrusts in coordination with air and ground forces. (And he could practice what he wrote about. He was highly popular with the corps he lead in the field, France and Russia, so much so that his troops would paint "G" on their tanks signifying who was under their command.) It's doubtful that any British or French general studied Guderian's book. Allied generals still focused on the tactics of 1914, not 1940. Their stubborness mistake would prove fatal. Took the Wermacht only 5 weeks to reach Paris.
@hrs64802 ай бұрын
In most of East Europe they were glad that Germans came. In East Prussia & Ukraine for example
@TonyBongo8692 ай бұрын
And then the death squads showed up
@stcroixatlast2 ай бұрын
Apparently, they just had to put their shoes on and walk right over there.
@joe18750Ай бұрын
It was France. you expected more?
@bobbyruest2 ай бұрын
france and britain declared war on germany....
@knottsscary2 ай бұрын
Lets use some brain power here, why did they declare war
@MJC-he3zt2 ай бұрын
Cool story. Too stupid to elaborate?
@mitchelcohn54642 ай бұрын
@@knottsscary Because they guaranteed Poland's borders.
@darthnihilus5112 ай бұрын
@@mitchelcohn5464😂
@alanmartin64362 ай бұрын
Hitler had no desire to fight France and Britain. No upside. Occupying France was a drain on resources. He always knew the real threat to Europe was Stalin.
@NicholasBarr-h7f2 ай бұрын
1865 ? 1870 is he a expert my grandson now more
@andrewdavis76202 ай бұрын
In what fantasy world does any historian claim the British had better tanks than the Germans 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@leefr762 ай бұрын
Probably because the British destroyed Rommel in North Africa.
@Rendell0012 ай бұрын
Lot of over simplifiction going on here... Remember that this is Spring 1940, Tigers and Panthers don't exist. The Germans have Panzer I's, II's and III's, some MKIV's as support plus Czech PZ38 and 35T's - That's it. Britain has things like the Matilda which is actually really good for the period with a good balance of armour, mobility and armament. The French have tanks like the excellent Souma S.35 and Char 1B Heavy, both of which the Panzers can't really handle. Luckily the Germans can use Flak 88's, artillery or even Stuka strikes but in a 1-on-1 engagement, the German's are going to be in trouble if they can't use mobility to get shots in at weak points.
@secretname41902 ай бұрын
@@leefr76 The british outnumbered Rommel 2 to 1 in North Africa and he beat them handily. It was only when the Royal Navy blockaded German supplies that Rommel had to surrender. Germans outperformed their enemies pound-for-pound in almost every battle.
@jared17502 ай бұрын
The part not mentioned here is the lack of aggression from the French and British. They did not fight when they could have fought and worse, they gave up when they were attacked. This is why they lost in the early going.
@Rowlph88882 ай бұрын
The Brits did not give up, they fell back, which is a legitimate military strategy and then handed the Nazis ass to them in the Battle of Britain, crashing the German air force
@jared17502 ай бұрын
@@Rowlph8888 They didn’t hand them their ass but they won. But this only after they sat on their asses when they should have attacked Germany. They’d never have had to fall back to England is France and England attacked while German forces were concentrated in the East.
@bobbygoesbig2 ай бұрын
I saw an ad for a French rifle from WW2 on eBay the other day. It said "never fired, only dropped once."
@joe18750Ай бұрын
you mangled the joke. any weapon is likely to be dropped. but when you surrender, you throw it down. So the joke goes, " barely fired, thrown down only once".
@PEIPERtjАй бұрын
This guy forgot to mention the Maginot line
@paulipeltola2789Ай бұрын
And when the Nazis realized the meth thing was actually kinda counterproductive in the long run, they dumped their stash here in Finland.
@Rowlph8888Ай бұрын
So Finland was the place to be post-war
@shanemcconnell17362 ай бұрын
I’ll answer in two words, the French
@hinmatow2 ай бұрын
I'll qualify you in two syllables : ass-hole.
@mattymatt19792 ай бұрын
The Zeigfried line he was talkin about
@frankishempire23222 ай бұрын
close...ish Maginot
@LetsFlyThere2 ай бұрын
Ohhh. He just wants to mock the Germans
@wzbum2 ай бұрын
oohh the thick accent ..luv it
@frankishempire23222 ай бұрын
Some comments give hope. This guest does not...
@Dr.Huzeyfe2 ай бұрын
Desired side effect😂
@georgeprchal39242 ай бұрын
The Germans got very lucky on almost every facet and the British and French were entirely incompetent on every facet. Also the Germans were all on meth so kind if an asterisk there.
@MrRodzilla2 ай бұрын
they should have been drug tested and banned from war for 3 years, PED's is cheating
@scarecrowman77892 ай бұрын
How were us brits incompetent? Won the Battle of Britain and fought hard in the North African campaign. Not to mention protected our interests and the biggest empire overseas.
@georgeprchal39242 ай бұрын
@@scarecrowman7789 in the early war? It was called the Phoney War for a reason. They as well as the French had reconnaissance of the German columns in the Ardens and did nothing with it.
@ohdee9702 ай бұрын
They walked in backwards and said they were leaving...
@Jeje-rb1vu2 ай бұрын
France had the strongest military in the World in 1939 but horrible leadership and tacticians.. Ultimately that led to its downfall. This shows that you can have the best armies, if you have poor leaders you are fucked.
@huntingsynthАй бұрын
France has always had the best army…………………………………………….in their eyes
@RodmanTackleAdvisor2 ай бұрын
This guy is a fraud. My father has successfully sued him twice for plagiarism.
@dylanowens79022 ай бұрын
I bet pal. And my dad is the ceo of google and is gonna get you banned!
@BlackWhiteEagle2 ай бұрын
😮meth would rather make German soldiers ineffective on the battlefield. So this story sounds bogus.
@PoGrajTV26 күн бұрын
Poland was beaten. Please we do not beg for freedom we fight for it . Poland 4ever
@BATTERIESc2 ай бұрын
"Their tanks were not as good as the British tanks"....is this "expert" for real
@e.p.shepperthbeats3872 ай бұрын
39-40 the majority of the German tank army consisted of light tanks. The heaviest tanks the Germans had were the PZ III and PZ IV and only in small numbers. In contrast, the British and especially the French had the better tanks. more heavily armored and more firepower.
@cwinowich2 ай бұрын
German tanks at that point in the war were very weak and easily overpowered by allied tanks.
@shaneoneill19492 ай бұрын
Maybe go and do some research before criticizing someone.
@carlossuarez34452 ай бұрын
French tanks were better than the German ones in 1940, but the speed of Guderian(even Von Manstein ordered him to halt his advance) scared the crap out of the French/British.
@TapTwoCounterspell2 ай бұрын
"I know the word Panzer therefore IM the expert on this topic"
@TheRowerosАй бұрын
Why the fuck he saying this with a big smile... like he love this!!!
@davidjackson26902 ай бұрын
It was defended by Frenchmen. Now you know.
@Balt21RavenАй бұрын
0:12 .....IMMEDIATE DISTRUST
@bornconfused1947Ай бұрын
What you mean?
@bmart42081Ай бұрын
If hitler wasn’t so into himself and could of shred power with the Soviet Union. The Allies would of lost. Russian lost the most troops in WW2.
@ledzeppy75072 ай бұрын
The Germans were badass.
@Rowlph88882 ай бұрын
No, just initially effective because they were railroaded by a tyranny giving them single-mindedness and tunnel vision necessary and they got lucky with the only tactic which would have worked than any other tactic that they chose would have led to eventual defeat and the dismantling of Germany, with the French hellbent on that Once this initial advantage of mindset was gone, the Nazis unravelled as expected
@ledzeppy75072 ай бұрын
@@Rowlph8888 No, they were badass.
@joe18750Ай бұрын
lol, for a minute.
@ledzeppy7507Ай бұрын
@@joe18750 Lol, for years!
@joe18750Ай бұрын
@@ledzeppy7507 They were on defense much longer than they were on offense. From the winter of '41,'42 to the end of the war Germany was on defense.They had already failed in Africa. If your definition of badass is playing catch-up, then it's quite different than mine.
@daniellyra90082 ай бұрын
Belgian mountains????
@philiphoffman4617Ай бұрын
The Germans had superior tanks in WW2 at least in the beginning
@mannih2430Ай бұрын
Which model of Rolex is that?
@connerdavis16502 ай бұрын
If America got split in two by another country and my people on the other side were getting slaughtered by the 10's of thousands a week who wouldn't come to their rescue?