Why was France so Ineffective in WWII? (1940) | Animated History

[@TheArmchairHistorian]

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

[@phaultypmm]

isnt skillshare a scam?

[@markant9534]

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

[@skittlesenterprise4803]

Via La France

[@MRayner59]

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

[@eatabagovdiks2056]

Its Kazum not chazum.

[@stephenbenner4353]

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

[@feddyvonwigglestein3481]

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

[@MrSpAceMan1990]

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

[@VuHien2011]

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

[@pierrecourtois5167]

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

[@meltedicecreamsandwich]

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

[@Dylan-go1ku]

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

[@Singurarity88]

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

[@blingwraith6951]

He has bamboozled us

[@CrèmeTropBrûlée]

sad

[@Frank074]

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

[@frenchman5760]

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

[@frenchman5760]

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

[@SK-kh8xq]

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

[@cenajohn3205]

what a joke.

[@ДмитрийГодына-ь9к]

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

[@randomperson9404]

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

[@ateoforever7434]

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

[@Nexandr]

wait a few years and they invade everyone

[@mexicoball1434]

There snow balls will freeze us all

[@yolotheyeeted7825]

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

[@Nexandr]

@@yolotheyeeted7825 i said Antarctica is coming to invade us

[@christianalbert7082]

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

[@andrewey2083]

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

[@shawn576]

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

[@andrewey2083]

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

[@alangao4693]

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

[@andrewey2083]

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

[@alangao4693]

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

[@TroglodyteDiner]

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

[@amarogos2023]

Damn, son.

[@Akranejames]

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

[@Oli-Johnson]

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

[@selinane2Seli-zw3pz]

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

[@Oli-Johnson]

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

[@lutgardonabo319]

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

[@Ashwath117]

Stop making excuses.

[@georgechn4326]

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

[@sea_yung]

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

[@SH4D0WdaN0V4]

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

[@elite-ll6tk]

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

[@anandnairkollam]

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

[@brandonwar9638]

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

[@anandnairkollam]

@@brandonwar9638 Agreed

[@antosbielli158]

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

[@itamiyouji4057]

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

[@maxmavh3132]

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

[@korprikall9000]

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

[@_shivesh_12]

Ikr. Coldnt they afford ten dollars

[@simohayho8622]

Yes

[@simohayho8622]

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

[@zacksima8333]

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

[@TAMEREDUDESERT]

Or asked trump

[@matthewlee8667]

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

[@Alessandro-vl8bu]

Matthew Lee haha this is great

[@matthewlee8667]

@@moddor7872 thank you. Hodor

[@Raphael-eb3fg]

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

[@BoundInChains]

😅😂😂

[@darkgrievous423]

For once an original joke god bless you

[@mattdonikowski7905]

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

[@michael7324]

Can here to say exactly this.

[@jmfa57]

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

[@marcbachelet2322]

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

[@michael7324]

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

[@marcbachelet2322]

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

[@jonh9561]

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

[@kanad.9397]

well vinchy france also fought the allies in Africa too.

[@marcmonnerat4850]

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

[@kyendan]

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

[@mas9758]

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

[@ktvindicare]

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

[@cultri6659]

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

[@maxberre]

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

[@kerriwilson7732]

Have to admit, that's clever!

[@Auriel_Direnni]

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

[@Auriel_Direnni]

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

[@pulsifyshorts9517]

Half life XD bet game

[@jackwmith8445]

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

[@brazil853]

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

[@Lucas61616]

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

[@avibhau3852]

Also Indian soldiers fought valiantly at Dunkirk.

[@salvatoreregalbuto5444]

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

[@vietcong2997]

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

[@tSp289]

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

[@timwaywell]

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

[@simohayho8622]

They still got humiliated and destroyed and annexed!

[@tSp289]

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

[@zeramoke]

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

[@cm-pr2ys]

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

[@ComradeHistorian]

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

[@phlm9038]

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

[@Mohammed8778]

Why does the Armchair Historian not have an Armchair?!

[@ThomasTubeHD]

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

[@mplsfarmer]

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

[@bravomike4734]

I don't need sleep. I need answers.

[@unitedstatesofamerica2417]

Stole it had oil in it.

[@unitedstatesofamerica2417]

@General GTA What do you need.

[@vahki]

Germans had Discord connection and French had only voice chat

[@onceGoat]

Walkie talky

[@saivardhanchowdary7918]

Not even that. Mere flag emojis...

[@adamtaylor766]

France is using TeamSpeak SMH

[@darkjak224]

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

[@agereneshayalew593]

klaus

[@flournoymason8961]

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

[@SH4D0WdaN0V4]

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

[@freewal]

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

[@Dave-yz5db]

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

[@freewal]

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

[@owenjones7517]

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

[@dukenukem5768]

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

[@dustylover100]

I don't think many nations were.

[@goldenturtle111]

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

[@toms9864]

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

[@ottersirotten4290]

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

[@WHITEOGR]

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

[@danielmccoy8875]

Germany smashed whole Armies,including the Russians,

[@WHITEOGR]

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

[@petergeorge2716]

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

[@hairyneil]

And the 51st Highland Division

[@smelkok6509]

Yes, but after they made so many mistakes.

[@darkgrievous423]

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

[@Wes-g2l]

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

[@Wes-g2l]

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

[@_manzo_0287]

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

[@yugoslav8755]

Still not a good enough justification for losing to Greece

[@noobmaster2550]

I'm not sure about the French

[@rexus_officialchannel3594]

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

[@antaridae]

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

[@removilmata5377]

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

[@scoutobrien3406]

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

[@FentfwI]

Roasting a country in the nicest calmest way ever

[@believeorleave438]

it's a fact

[@lesheep3347]

Remember who took berlin in 6 daus

[@lesheep3347]

@philippe klopfer no napoleon

[@replayer1137]

@@lesheep3347 remember who got caught by prussia?

[@marthag1269]

A deserved Roasting.

[@gillesmeura3416]

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

[@Muljinn]

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

[@Mysteres78979]

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

[@johnrodriguez5277]

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

[@steffennilsen2132]

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

[@PersonalityMalfunction]

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

[@noorkhalidsumagka4797]

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

[@affekinka7271]

*looks at this commend* *laughs in Amharic*

[@yusokrazee]

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

[@tomatobagel]

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

[@georgebritten8208]

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

[@tomatobagel]

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

[@tristantully1592]

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

[@aalleexx1997]

yeah they loosers

[@hunterh1175]

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

[@trunkill6694]

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

[@cotefabrice1801]

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

[@cotefabrice1801]

@UCFQbPR2kCb9R85rjI10Av0g albania didn’t even exist in ww2

[@freesk8]

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

[@nqh4393]

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

[@fredericksaxton3991]

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

[@dantheman3022]

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

[@firemangan2731]

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

[@freesk8]

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

[@aaeve5676]

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

[@markfox1545]

You misspelled competence and incompetence. Ironic....

[@angularsaxophone5820]

@@markfox1545 I found the Grammar Nazi, guys.

[@danwhowatches707]

@@markfox1545 Don't even use ironic right

[@genghiskhan.2265]

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

[@abrahamlincoln9758]

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

[@jaybeebee9288]

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

[@rolandzarka5191]

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

[@XXXTENTAClON227]

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

[@terryscott4746]

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

[@stephenmartin6995]

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

[@idontcareanymore2754]

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

[@noidea5984]

@@idontcareanymore2754 Legion is composed of many french too

[@grandferret4697]

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

[@grandferret4697]

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

[@woodenseagull1899]

Not too good in Indo China 1955...!

[@TheECSH]

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

[@NanoLT]

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

[@RomainM-rv5rw]

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

[@TheECSH]

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

[@jpaul5575]

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

[@rain-yg6lt]

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

[@zackfreeland6420]

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

[@simohayho8622]

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

[@charlesncharge6298]

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

[@mariosmatzoros3553]

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

[@Matt_History]

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

[@Matt_History]

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

[@kooroshrostami27]

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

[@kooroshrostami27]

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

[@CaptainHaddocck]

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

[@cody9450]

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

[@chefppy277]

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

[@arisukak]

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

[@aviationfalcon]

THE GERMANS SWEPT THE MAGINOT LINE KNOW YOUR WW2 FACTS

[@justinkong9954]

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

[@kaiserwilhelm3933]

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

[@AmazingNeubaufahrzeug]

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

[@TheGmt717]

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

[@Biotech789]

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

[@bramvandenheuvel4049]

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

[@jc-wd5bu]

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

[@Jmf1190]

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

[@tywinlannister8015]

Thank you. Respects from France ;)

[@mercymessi7115]

Sab saale tum log kayar ho

[@andrewkelly8894]

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

[@beluwuga2573]

Are you spanish?

[@andrewkelly8894]

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

[@Scott-fj9uf]

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

[@davidearea242]

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

[@Scott-fj9uf]

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

[@JiafeiProducts6969]

Without Italy, Greece and Egypt we would Not even exist

[@kid_toucher]

@@JiafeiProducts6969 ever heard of africa?

[@bigl3242]

@@kid_toucherEgyptians are Africans. The original ones anyway

[@mitchverr9330]

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

[@silverpleb2128]

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

[@VolumedMusicMan]

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

[@maxberre]

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

[@mitchverr9330]

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

[@prd6617]

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

[@dubstepXpower]

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

[@crimsonstrykr]

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

[@enslinvanniekerk6564]

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

[@jimthesoundman8641]

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

[@thewirah1]

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

[@jimthesoundman8641]

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

[@BDNeon]

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

[@fyivid]

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

[@bazd884]

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

[@tomw3886]

This comment has 69 likes

[@azrael7891]

Holda ami vino

[@sleepingkirbo2393]

Hold my vine*

[@EdoardoLusuardi]

*Italy: hold my beer.

[@sleepingkirbo2393]

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

[@bibouba6661]

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

[@nikitaananjevas1614]

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

[@Anekantavad]

And the Germans were terrified of the French tanks. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qHPHgKNqd9mZqMk

[@carthkaras6449]

Interresying. Thank you!

[@tomk3732]

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

[@Anekantavad]

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

[@edtrine8692]

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

[@fantomasvsfantomas2288]

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

[@leomigateno473]

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

[@kenzozo34]

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

[@ashleighelizabeth5916]

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

[@ey6713]

German propaganda

[@twofarg0ne763]

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

[@mspokegaming932]

You are still alive

[@jacobwhite9006]

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

[@jpc7118]

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

[@mlgprussian7115]

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

[@jpc7118]

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

[@mlgprussian7115]

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

[@louiswallis8687]

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

[@captainamerica6525]

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

[@alandeweld3059]

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

[@stf5876]

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

[@fabiogaucho77]

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

[@vmone7678]

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

[@cyrille8693]

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

[@keinlieb3818]

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

[@obsidianowl-n5z]

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

[@rogaldorn1405]

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

[@propman3523]

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

[@pauljames9626]

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

[@smal750]

​@@pauljames9626very funny

[@pauljames9626]

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

[@SpikeyKactus]

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

[@jackvac1918]

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

[@hopatease1]

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

[@paoloredondo7309]

Very good speech 👍

[@neoarmstrongcyclonejetarms9326]

👍

[@main8824]

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

[@whyareyougay4630]

France: **Creates Maginot line** Germany: **goes around Maginot line** France: **surprised pikachu face**

[@MrRemicas]

The French did expect the German would try to bypass the Maginot Line through Belgium. The issue is they were waiting them in the wrong part of Belgium, not expecting them to go through the Ardennes forest.

[@localredbird621]

France: They can’t do that, shoot them or something

[@jacksondice5435]

What I never understood is why didnt the french just realise yeh the german tank column has entered their country from behind and though their infantry is still largely within germany why not just push forward anyway start taking food from the towns you enter, or why not just turn around feign a surrender and then take the completely cut off tanks back in france?

[@localredbird621]

Jackson Dice bruh idk time travel back to 1942

[@whydoihave16subs65]

@@KaiserOfKnowledge surrender jokes how original

[@joshuabaldwin4580]

League of Nations? More like League of Ineffectiveness

[@Tsukiko.97]

You are telling me

[@joshuabaldwin4580]

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

[@ethan9869]

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

[@JeffersonSteelflexx]

For real. France should have signed with the warriors

[@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014]

League of lazyness

[@rainchild-711]

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

[@charlesphillips1468]

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

[@kolerick]

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

[@shuaguin5446]

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

[@edsun3470]

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

[@edsun3470]

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

[@maxanderson9293]

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

[@stephenlitten1789]

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

[@Kamfrenchie]

Honestly, I feel this video omits key elements, like the effect the losses and devastation of WW1, and it misrepresents the strategy of the high command, which, while flawed, wasn't nearly as stupid as you make it sound. I'm also skeptical of the claim that France had more troops. Germany was much more populated and had suffered less through WW1. I dont think you can be fair to the situation by dismissing the maginot and defensive mentality without really explaining how it was caused for a good part by WW1

[@Kamfrenchie]

@@nickhill934 It really depends. French troops were lacking radio, and IIRC a lot of units were comprised of old or second rate soldiers. But yes the German had experience.

[@Rzo139]

This video also forgot another key part. The Germans were prohibited from entering the Rhineland. When the German soldiers marched into the Rhineland, the French stepped up to stop them, but Germany's propaganda caused other Nations to sympathize with the Germans so the French had their actions condemned and so the French withdrew from the Rhineland.

[@mr.meeseeks3074]

@@nickhill934 Honestly the British didn't provide much troops. The Belgium provided twice as much as them for example. Although they did have better equipment than the Belgium, they ran away very early.

[@scottgrey3337]

Agreed. Rather than looking objectively at the scenario to explain what happened, it feels like they just found talking points to justify an arguably disingenous stereotype.

[@TukozAki]

To add on @Kamfrenchie and @Scott Grey points, not mentionning a single of the actions taken by French general Charles Huntziger is a big, if not much worse error. E.g. this general commanding the army around Sedan 1) Failed to build half the fortifications he was ordered to build. 2) on May 12th he 100% dismissed the offer RAF made him to support them from the air. 3) His men had rather succesfully delayed the panzers on May 13th, so Huntziger ordered them to retreat into some forests to the south, where the brave "fortification soldiers" (no vehicules nor horses available) would then stand in the cold with most of their equipement still in bunkers. Oh and guess who became Vichy France's Ministre de la Guerre? Yup, good boy Charles Huntziger. In short, putting together all the cliches brings very little light on historical events.

[@quid435]

That opening statement was intensely hurtful in the best way possible

[@Truthseeker1515]

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

[@barton2185]

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

[@freewal]

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

[@cotefabrice1801]

Barton21 you play to much HOI4

[@machinegunjackmcgurn804]

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

[@robertfindlay2325]

The French lost simply because they had incompetent leaders who were hangovers from WW1 and extremely ineffective communications systems together with a complete separation of arms, unlike the Germans who were competent, well led, had excellent communications systems and a unified system of working tanks, artillery, infantry and aircraft together during attack.. Read "Blitzkreig" by Len Deighton who produces as excellent analysis.

[@ethelburga]

Read anything written by a reputable historian. It's not all wrong but don't take your WW2 history from someone who hasn't learned how to pronounce 'chasm'. This is an excellent account. www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=the+fall+of+france&index=stripbooks&tag=googhydr-21&ref=pd_sl_4jmjvtvbf7_e&adgrpid=56945057241&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=259163335171&hvpos=1t1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=4439710613763264368&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9046727&hvtargid=aud-615159460541:kwd-296667809490

[@nizla7322]

it's kinda true but I will add one Information more : The French & The British lost the battle of France.

[@maryjeanjones1940]

Robert Findlay- It did not help any that french citizens were co-siding with the Germans. Example: Bezen Perrot- was a Breton collaborationist which was a separatist militia. Also, the Vichy government was a puppet to Germany. France also had a history of antisemitism and sided with the Germans in their genocide against the Jews. They could not be trusted by either side!

[@stephen10.]

this excellent german system has fallen in russia because of lack of providing ( weapons, food, fuel, pieces). If you take off one piece , the whole system falls

[@Matt_History]

It's also fair to point out the Arden's offensive did only fight with reserve grade B troops until well into their push into France, when they ran into Regular and Reserve Grade A troops with actually modern equipment. At that point the only thing the Germans had was a small amount of suprise and numbers of armor

[@floycewhite6991]

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

[@terrywhelan6651]

Not only the French, also the British Army was defeated at this time. You must remember WW1 & WW2 were in actuality the same war with a 21 year hiatus, basically a new generation was needed to be msde to continue.

[@XXXTENTAClON227]

*BEF Britain had such a small army because they had such a strong navy, because ya know; it’s an island. The soldiers Britain sent were semi trained young men. But France was meant to have the best army in the world, yet within 40 days was conquered. That’s the difference. People compare the two, but if Britain were so incapable, they would’ve been invaded. But they weren’t. Because they couldn’t be. They act like Britain being an island meant Germany had to swim. The “island” part means absolutely nothing if you don’t have a good airforce/navy.

[@condelevante4]

@@XXXTENTAClON227 Britain were very effective on the western front 20 years before. I think they were in many ways just as unimaginative/backward thinking ( choose your adjective) as the French in 1940. Germany were very surprised at how fast the western front had fallen. As a result when it came to Britain they had no serious plans to conquer it. If they had they would have had aircraft carriers and a bigger navy.

[@XXXTENTAClON227]

@@condelevante4 don’t get me wrong, it was a complete blunder. However Britain we’re not the changing factor of the fall of France. The USA for example can tip the balance of a war due to their huge numbers, but Britain has a small population. It should’ve ideally been enough for France, Netherlands and Belgium alone to repel Nazi Germany, with defenders advantage and such, but instead all of these + Britain were forced into retreat. I also want to point out that in WW1, Britain made sacrifices it could not make in WW2. Ireland had also left the United Kingdom, so their numbers dropped even more. WW1 hit the UK extremely hard. It didn’t help that Dunkirk did not evacuate every British soldier. There were British regiments scattered throughout France. Over 40k were captured at Dunkirk alone. What I’m trying to say is, Britains “defeat” is ironically one of their most successful losses ever, with 180k Brits rescued. Compare that to the Crimean War where they were scavenging rats for food and dropping dead due to disease every second, to the point where modern hygiene itself was changed due to the sheer incompetence of the army (Florence Nightingale). I would like to emphasise that both France and Britain were at a severe disadvantage when you consider the German army was on methamphetamine. I hope you’ve never tried it, but it makes you feel like god. It does not surprise me they started off strong on the western front then collapsed in the east; tolerance and withdrawal is one hell of a disadvantage.

[@heidi_bavarian1725]

@@XXXTENTAClON227 is true und I as german hate wehraboos

[@woodenseagull1899]

For the British at Dunkirk, it was a Strategic withdrawal.

[@rservajean]

My great-grand-father was with the french army when it sacrifices at Dunkirk, but of course, in every movies, you don't see any French. I am truly tired of Anglo-Saxon soft power. The Battle of Bir Hakeim in 1942 is a glimpse of what French did an do. I am amazed of how Americans/British has been brainwashed by the bashing communication campaign ignitiated in 2003 when France didn't follow your madness in 2003. Incredible. When you check every conflicts, in past and modern days, you realize that French military history is incredible. Note that France is the most involved country in the world in number of conflicts, at least after USA, with Mali, centre-Afrique, Liban, etc.

[@franckr6159]

Very true. Internet allows ignorant people to proudly voice their prejudices, while in real life they are certainly much more quiet, conscious of their own nonentity....

[@nischalofchrist]

Truth can only be taught if enough people speak up. If you have enough data than please upload some videos to KZbin so people may know. I didn't until I read these comments. I too fell into the trap of thinking that French armies were always weak and quick to surrender.

[@franckr6159]

@@nischalofchrist Thanks for your interest. I am too busy (and not skilled enough in IT) to create videos myself, but there are some: 100 Most Powerful Militaries of All Time kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpivfImXf9yjjrs 100 Greatest Generals in History kzbin.info/www/bejne/ip62gqWfppWtisU

[@franckr6159]

Also FYI, a text extracted from a British newspaper (!), not a French one: From Daily Telegraph - UK (2010) Which country is the most successful military power in European history? France. According to the historian Niall Ferguson, of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in 50 - more than Austria (47) and England (43). Out of 168 battles fought since 387BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10. The British tend to be rather selective about the battles they remember. Every English schoolboy was once able to recite the roll call of our glorious wins at Crécy (1346), Poitiers (1356) and Agincourt (1415), but no one’s ever heard of the French victories at Patay (1429) and (especially) at Castillon (1453), where French cannons tore the English apart, winning the Hundred Years War and confirming France as the most powerful military nation in Europe. And what about the Duke of Enghien thrashing the Spanish at Rocroi late on in the Thirty Years War in 1643, ending a century of Spanish dominance? Or the siege of Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781, when General Comte de Rochambeau and American forces prevailed? The British always prided themselves on superiority at sea, but knew they could never win a land war on the Continent. France’s achievements help to explain another French “military victory”. Whether it is ranks (general, captain, corporal, lieutenant); equipment (lance, mine, bayonet, epaulette, trench); organisation (volunteer, regiment, soldier, barracks) or strategy (army, camouflage, combat, esprit de corps, reconnaissance), the language of warfare is French.

[@roms4154]

@@nischalofchrist you can see this too : kzbin.info/www/bejne/rWemZoNjdr56mrs

[@rwd76]

The French were well aware of the vulnerability of the Ardennes. In 1936 the French army conducted exercises that was almost the route as that used by the Germany army in 1940. The results were so catastrophic that they were covered up. An excellent book is 'To lose a battle: France 1940' by Alister Horne. Throughout the battle, the centre for distribution of French aircraft was open normal working hours, closed in evenings, weekends etc. The French lost because they simply didn't want to win and looked at it like at 18th century war, were you fight, win or lose, have a negotiation, and then continue as normal, so it didn't really matter.

[@bramvandenheuvel4049]

Yes, we used another book by Horne where he mentioned similar things. But there is a difference between being aware of a weakness, or assuming your enemy won't make use of your weakness (and hence it wouldn't be a real weakness). As for the French only working office hours, LOL! I don't remember that detail, but having lived in France for 2 years, that rings very, very true :P

[@rwd76]

@@bramvandenheuvel4049 Having been in the British army for over 15 years, the idea of basing your strategy on hope, that the enemy will not recognise your weakness, is insanity, and they deserved to lose. When battles are planned, there are always at least two enemy Course of Action (CoAs) planned, the most likely Course of Action, and the most dangerous Course of Action, and these are planned against. The fact that the French military command knew the most dangerous enemy Course of Action and simply refused to even contemplate it or plan for it, is an unbelievable folly.

[@bramvandenheuvel4049]

@@rwd76 Absolutely. The fact that the French, after discovering the German war plans in January 1940, which back then did not include a breakthrough at Sedan, simply could not imagine an alternative plan of attack (what you would call the "most dangerous CoA"), was a real problem. Though, there was serious danger invloved indeed, and the Germans did depend on (and sadly had) quite a bit of luck too.

[@rwd76]

@@bramvandenheuvel4049 The real scandal is that two professional armies (British and French) had twenty years to prepare for the war (As Foch said 'This is not a peace, but an armistice for twenty years') where as the Germans made up on a plan on the fly, nearly on the back of cigarette packet, and won. The real reason is that the German army had a far superior doctrine of 'mission command', and therefore, is some ways, 'deserved' their luck.

[@OneAngrehCat]

Sorry but almost every british historian on WW2 is a massive joke. Your comment ending with "eh, they just wanted to not win" cements it. You have not the slightest idea about what you think you're giving lectures about. The only serious historian on France in WW2 that writes in English is Robert Allan Doughty. The Seeds of Disaster and Pyrrhic Victory are actual researched books with sources. Not some moronic and judgemental assertion that "they lost because they wanted to".

[@myozawhtwe863]

0:08 lil' griffin at the right bottom corner

[@moneysilver5458]

Because Hitler used Napoleon tactic. Offensive,fast or surprise,mobility,fire power,cavary arty infantry, To destroy centre of gravity in a fast way.

[@raymondt1270]

Money Silver true a more modern Napoleon with planes and tanks

[@edgehodl4832]

You could have said just one word instead: blitzkreig

[@shillhuntingseason9707]

erich von manstein was the nazi general in charge of taking on France. erich von manstein Did not agree with the blitzkrieg warfare. And it was not used in the battle with France. He baited the French people out of their territory by abusing the Germans long range guns. Like the mp40 machine gun that could shoot as far as the common rifle at the time. And once the French were baited far enough from their supply lines that's when the German tanks cut them off from getting recourses and that's basically when France surrendered. erich von manstein Wanted to focus this tactic in every battle but hitler disagreed. erich von manstein and other generals planned an attack to assassinate hitler and over throw him but this ultimately back fired and erich von manstein and other generals were executed. Many people think erich von manstein Would have carried nazi germany a little further through ww2 if he was alive to fight the Russians and British. And it's not hard to see why this bad ass took down all of France in 7 days

[@Cha-Cha_7]

Exactly. The German army had lighter and less tanks than the Allies.. but the blitzkrieg was so well organized and effective that it destabilized the Allies. Germans used that to win the battle of Sedan in 2-3 days. Then, bonjour la France!

[@marc9324]

Comparing Hitler to Napoleon would not be apt.

[@Jfe-bj5jw]

Adolf hitler: Avoids the maginot line. France: impossible

[@82dorrin]

Their soldiers were, according to some German Generals, among the best in the world. Their leadership was atrocious.

[@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs]

French soldiers were brave and excellent. Their tactics eg communication didn’t work. In some cases equipment hadn’t been upgraded.

[@Polymath973]

Italian Fascist/Nationalist 14 So fun coming from an Italian... Lol

[@disasterpiece16]

@@hecatombhenbaneharuspex6303 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardeatine_massacre Remember this?

[@user-wh8mb7tm2g]

Lol Napoleon is not Italian

[@chairmanlmao4482]

Italian Fascist/Nationalist 14 lol Italy switched sides in both World Wars, was completely incompetent (you guys needed 12 attempts to cross the fucking Isonzo river lmao) and always had to rely on Germany to bail you guys out. What a joke

[@titanplatoon]

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

[@pop5678eye]

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

[@eurodoc6343]

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

[@lucofparis4819]

I agree on all of your points except one: the Maginot Line didn't have 'weakspots'. It was just not finished, period. Due to various reasons, sure, but it wasn't finished nonetheless. Anywhere it was actually built as intended, it held. Besides, french and allied forces did anticipate the German attack through Benelux. They even sent their best troops there. Problem was: the Ardennes. The Allies were unaware of the advancements the Germans made to their tank's mobility, and thus, didn't place any armoured troops in the Ardennes, only Infantry. This wasn't a strategic "lack of imagination", or a "tactical mistake". It was a lack of Intel and a gamble made by the Allies: moving towards Netherlands to secure as far from the border as possible, rather than staying closer, and hold the line. The German attack through the Ardennes was also a gamble. They didn't really tested their plan elsewhere. They weren't 100% sure their panzer divisions would make it, and they feared the allied mechanized forces as well. The gamble paid off, and the Allies ended up being encircled. In other words, while what you said was true... Ultimately, it was... luck. Anything else wouldn't have produce the same result. The war would have significantly longer, costier, and Stalin might have decided to cut German supply in oil at this point, thus ending Hitler's dream right there.

[@Sphere723]

Even the German accounts came to basically the same conclusion. They used a very risky strategy and were lucky to pull it off. Not even the ever optimistic Hitler thought that the German military of 1940 could have defeated the allied armies in any sort of prolonged fight. This whole "the defeat of France was inevitable" thesis doesn't square with any of the data or the historical accounts. It's all just hindsight history used as fodder for a right-vs-left political debate. The reality on the ground in 1940 was such that if the allies shift a few divisions around, the German invasion probably fails, and fails catastrophically.

[@lucofparis4819]

@William Loudermilk You don't even know what you're talking about. You are ignoring 80% of the informations. Let me give you the rest: The bulk of WW1 was fought inside France's and Russia's territories. Russia still had many miles before reaching its populated centres. France, did not. WW1 ended being a demographic catastrophe. By the time of WW2, there was 39 million french people, for 59 millions of Germans, highly militarized by Nazi war doctrine. Absolutely NO country in the world was able to match the Third Reich strength at this point, even Russia or USA. What was protecting them, however, was an ocean, for the USA, and the ability to perform scorch earth tactics for Russia. For the UK, it was a set of islands, surrounded by water. These place are all far easier to defend against Germany. France, on the other hand, didn't have any natural cover, given modern technology, and didn't had no way near the demography necessary to stop Hitler. The Maginot Line was the only available strategy that was remotely valuable. And anywhere the Line was, it *held the enemy.* If anything, France's error was to not build more of it. And it wasn't some outdated equipment. It was an impressive line of advanced bunkers and artillery platforms, with state of the art equipment and infrastructure, that still impress engineers to this day. It took only five years and 7 billion franks to build it. Had they extended it to the Ardennes section, and forced the population there to evacuate the minute the Germans make the move, the shape of WW2 would have been much different.The failure of the allied command wasn't strategic, it was tactical. They thought that if Panzers tried to cross the Ardennes, it would take them at least more than one day, thus giving them enough time to dispatch tank divisions to close the front if Germans ever tried such risky gambit. And here is the final nail in the coffin of your revisionism of history: the German command itself was completely surprised by the speed their own panzers advanced, and had a hard time to keep up, often relying on division and squad leaders to lead themselves (guys like Rommel). And the Germans weren't expecting 'blitzkrieg' either. This was named after the fact. Hitler himself was expecting to submit France under little less than a year. Your lack of knowledge of one of the most well known events of history speaks volumes.

[@lucofparis4819]

@William Loudermilk In regards to the Maginot Line itself. It had its own train line, proving that the proponents of the Maginot Line understood what you were talking about earlier. And, in regards to the lack of technology advancements in guns, it has nothing to do with the Maginot Line. And everything to do with the Third French Republic being anti war and money shy, as well as basically all allied nations being behind Germany in gun tech. But, go ahead. Continue to revise history through the lens of your narrow tunnel vision. Ignore all the rest of the informations, as I am going to ignore you by now, until you actually care to *learn history* rather than focusing on a very narrow historical niche which happens to be your passion, I presume (guns).

[@koc988]

you mean when Hitler repeatedly announced that Germany was gonna expand it's military and in the same nazi rally planes flew over which were forbidden in the German army

[@joshuat6124]

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

[@zaned.5036]

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

[@ericmcconnaughey2782]

Potential History has a really good video on his channel about French armor that also has really good background on why France fell so quickly.

[@jaketaylor3901]

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

[@randomname5585]

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

[@ashleighelizabeth5916]

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

[@ffarkasm]

Son: "Tell me a joke!" Father: "3:10"

[@rickysck719]

So youre saying the maginot line was a bad idea?

[@Nietabs]

So you're saying that the Maginot line was a joke?

[@Helperbot-2000]

@@Nietabs kinda is when you can walk around it! Yes the ardennes were seen as inpenetrable and therefore not expected to be pierced so hard by germany. The maginot line was a smart move, but should have been longer

[@Roketsune]

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

[@kevins1114]

Both of my grandfathers participated in the invasion of France, and both said the same things about the French Army. Both said the average French soldier fought bravely and with honor. It was the lack of communication that defeated the French because they couldn't coordinate their defenses in time to even slow the German advances. Both of my grandfathers also said the relatively quick conclusion of the invasion/battle was, in a way, better for both sides because it actually prevented far greater loss of lives.

[@moddor7872]

France had to deal on 2 fronts with a tiny population, they stoped an italian army of 300 000 soldiers with the maginot line of south. France 40M citizens vs 125M germans-austrians-italians. They fought alone the same coalition which needed some years of wars, some large countries involving, some millions of deaths for be beaten..

[@kriegshammer2161]

Not realy 2 fronts.Italy declare war in the last days , at this time France was long ago defeated. And was not allone.Belgium,Holland,Britain. France,Belgium,Holland,Britain had more soldiers,many more tanks,and mutch better tanks than germany. Italy was no help,only a joke, and a vulture in the last days.

[@PatwasPolska]

If France had moved into Germany in 1939 to help Poland, then Germany would be fighting on 2 fronts

[@MrAnticlimate]

The Axis was not of the same strength as in WW1. Austria-Hungary didn't exist (Austria was 1/5 of earlier AH), and Germany an Austria had been burdened by Allied sanctions and military restrictions for decades.

[@roms4154]

@@PatwasPolska they tried to move into germany in 1939 !! but generals were realy incompetent and not ready to invade germany ! make a research on " offensive of the saar" !

[@Lucas_07-PL]

Soviet union ?

[@rascallyrabbit717]

The French army's best battle of WWII was the rear guard action at Dunkerque which saved almost 300,000 from certain captivity

[@timbenbrown5716]

rascally rabbit ye but the British rear graud as well

[@goojedooje660]

Hitler let them go he wanted a peace deal with England this is still secret

[@Akaneblaze1345]

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

[@pocket_historian1807]

Earlier in ww2 the allies thought it would be a trench war again so there weren’t ready for blitzkreg

[@JerryP7a]

shouldve been paying attention to what was happening in poland

[@pocket_historian1807]

@@JerryP7a yey

[@selinane2Seli-zw3pz]

@@JerryP7a USSR had 2 years to prepare and didn't adapt too...

[@JerryP7a]

@@selinane2Seli-zw3pz yes but the ussr was hoping for an alliance and non aggression pact

[@selinane2Seli-zw3pz]

@@JerryP7a Are you serious ? This is the worst excuse in the world.

[@mariosvourliotakis]

The maginot line did its job, yes it did stop the french from thinking of aggresive french battleplans and development of strategies, but that wasn't the plan. Belgium wasn't supposed to be neutral, the French would move up earlier before the Germans and hold the Meuse in Belgium(which would already have belgian forces with prepared defenses)But when the germans remilitarized the rhineland and france did completely nothing, belgium left the alliance and left the maginot line's plans obselete.

[@bramvandenheuvel4049]

Yes, there was some geopolitics involved and that was very important. But the reoccupation of the Rhyneland was also the wake-up call for France to start rebuilding its military. But still assuming the Belgian's aid in the flank, which was the problem.

[@jc-wd5bu]

Battle of Fort Eben-Emael prove d the Maginot Line was ineffective from day one and was ALWAYS going to ineffective. it a static concrete trench base on WWI thinking.

[@georgechn4326]

*Laughs in 45.000 french soldiers sacrified to save british army's ass in Dunkerque*

[@MagikarpMan]

U mean 45,000

[@tbuxt3992]

@@MagikarpMan You'll be delighted to find out that unlike us Americans, most of the world has the use of the decimal and coma swapped. So 45.000 or 45,000 are fine depending on where you're from.

[@lutscher7979]

@Slavery was just renamed employment lmao the UK was only on support, not on offensive or defensive

[@owenjones7517]

1. Every formation in the BEF also fought in the rear-guard protecting the channel ports. 2. Over 100,000 French troops were saved in _British ships_ 3. Gort organised the evacuation of 1st Army Group after the French high command had all but left them for dead. You've got nothing to gloat about.

[@angloirishcad]

@@owenjones7517 It's tragic how Vichy French types have their two examples of French bravery in WW2 to trot out each time Dunkirk, al Hakeim) for a attempt at a fig leaf to cover the shame of capitulation and collaboration

[@regnotx66]

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

[@sstritmatter2158]

Great video - particularly French equipment actually being good - the B-1 gave Germany nightmares. It was tank strategy that hurt France - they used WWI tactics. Guderian and other German generals used better tank tactics and speed. I will say France took a final stand at Dunkirk to halt Germany long enough for Britain to save itself. France us owed that much in helping win the war for another day

[@idontcareanymore2754]

THANK YOU. France actually had more tanks than Germany, most of them as good as the German tanks in 1940. The French used theirs distributed as Infantry support weapons, while the Germanx kept them as massed formations.

[@joecook5689]

Maginot line outflanked. They didnt want the luftwaffe bombing all that priceless art.

[@PeterKooimanNL]

I miss the role of Belgium declaring neutrality short before WWII: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium_in_World_War_II#Neutrality The Maginot line was supposed to continue through Belgium. As a Dutch citizen, I can assure you that also the very quick fall of the Netherlands aided in the fall of France.

[@TANKTREAD]

France was using the "WWI playbook", while Hitler was already beyond that concept.

[@JuanGonzales-zq2fh]

The blizkrieg thru the Ardennes was von Manstein plan to ovoid Maginot lone.The French soldiers fought bravery 100.000 died.

[@simohayho8622]

And all of France was annexed! Maginot Line fell to the Germans and Europe was now completely in Nazis control😃

[@arulshankarum2512]

I like how everything except the word France has the French flag in it in the thumbnail.. good job mate

[@trustnugget280]

Made my day xD

[@rain-yg6lt]

What's the need to point that out lol, I actually thought you meant to say something meaningful.

[@nathantop8561]

@@rain-yg6lt ever heard of a joke?

[@rain-yg6lt]

@@nathantop8561 I didn't see this as a joke at all haha, guess it wasn't funny to me. Good day to you.

[@themagacat8239]

It took me a minute haha

[@shawn576]

I would say the maginot line worked exceptionally well. The Germans realized it would be too costly to attack, so they had to go around it. This forced the Germans to attack over a much smaller front, and that can make it easaier to defend because you have some idea of where the attack will be.

[@MrSniperfox29]

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

[@douglapointe6810]

Im not French despite my name, but why was France so bad in WW2, because they had 1.3 million military deaths in WW1. Americans by comparison lost 116000. There were only 21 years between the wars.

[@ichbinsleude3652]

Lmao Germany had more than 2 million deaths in ww1

[@douglapointe6810]

@@ichbinsleude3652 whats your point? Germany lost WW2 in a big part because they were outnumbered especially by Russians. They could not fight another war based on attrition.

[@magniwalterbutnotwaltermag1479]

@@douglapointe6810 he is talking about ww1, not ww2, and in ww1 hermany did have a chance to win the atteition war if america never joined since they knocked out russia and almost every battle saw less german death by a few thousand, especially in the opening battles.

[@lunchingtangpua2415]

@@magniwalterbutnotwaltermag1479 germany has twice the population also germany is not really strong as you think in ww2 most of their troop were cavalry unit and blizkrieg was use to quickly defeat your enemy before they could do anything but soviet uno blizkrieg them

[@magniwalterbutnotwaltermag1479]

@@lunchingtangpua2415 again nobody was not talking about ww2, i was talking sbout ww1 considering populations and deaths in battles, yes they used cavalry and were generally weaker, the air superiority and communications is almost always why they win battles and why they never landed in britain, second reason is enemy incompetence since they expected a repeat of ww1, especially france and italy conscerning tank/weapon designs and planned tactics

[@justinbutcher2183]

It's amazing how the radio changes combat

[@rasisdegreat7747]

bruh you need to watch Dr. Stone

[@DerBurner1709]

France wasnt bad, Germany was just much better

[@molleymabean]

It’s not that Germany was much stronger than them, they still could’ve went down with a fight except they just took a big L

[@maxanderson9293]

In Africa the British and French outnumbered Germany 3 to 1, it was because Rommel was an excellent General that Germany was able to fight there.

[@maxanderson9293]

Exactly Rommel fought the British, French and Americans in Africa he was massively outnumbered but still he pushed them as far as Alexandria.

[@Us3r_2005]

@@maxanderson9293 rommel was truely amazing, dessert Fox. The Italians also helped us too

[@lunchingtangpua2415]

@Jordan Fuifui under charles de gaule they were very capable