Ironically , Charles De Gaulle wrote books years before WW2 about uses of tanks in a similar way than Blitzkrieg , it was kind of a best seller among militaries , specially in Germany...
"if all the people who say France surrender were rassemble in one army , they would loss in 1 second " (Me , 2020 , not colorised because it's a text lololol )
Lol those cowards. Idiots decided to "spare the lives and heritage of millions" at the expense of surrendering a month earlier. Its not like it would have just ended with the same result.
@@hamburger2726 This number is Soldiers and civilians combined. The Soviets lost about 10 Million men. Well the official number by the Russian military is 8.7 Million.
5:20 This actually isnt true. Paris was spared because it was declared an open city by the french. What this means is that the defenders of the city abandoned in and the attackers are then expected not to attack and bomb it. This is what spared Paris historically, and as the germans reached it before the French surrender, i dont see any reason why the German would destroy it. Other than this though great video :)
the thing is tho While the nazis were horrible. They were at least somewhat friendly towards the west and even admired them partly. Why would they destroy Paris? Theres no reason or motivation unless there is a massive uprising
Passive nazi supportive comments here.yes nazis would have spared Paris bc its a open city (and muh fellow europeans) but regardless they are still FUCKING NAZIS.
I dont think you actually understand history very well. There were even general orders within the German Army and even SS to stay out of WW1 cemeteries and if at all possible leave the monuments alone. There are many weird ironic things the Germans did during the war and to ignore them all and screech about Nazis is rather sophomoric. News flash, Hitler and his cronies were human. Simply referring to him and his true believers as the devil incarnate really does take away from how horrific and strange things were.
I think that the French actually didn’t do that bad. They lost thousands of men defending Dunkirk long enough for over 350 thousand British and some other countries soldiers to be evacuated. Then after that they surrendered.
Well, they allowed for Germany to grow strong through appeasement and the Proxy War. The French also launched an invasion past the Maginot Line, but the army was a few miles into the country and decided to turn around and go home. They also amassed a huge group of tanks and other armoured vehicles, which got into a traffic jam and the President refused to believe it, keeping them there like sitting ducks for the Luftwaffe. Some of their military was also outdated - for example, they carried messages on vehicles, rather than through radio. Orders given to soldiers were also quite vague, and the troops were rarely checked upon. The only success the French had was Dunkirk, and even then that was a desperate retreat and the land was occupied.
@@jubylukose9915 Poland fought back more than the French, the reason they fell so quickly was because of a lack of assistance from the United Kingdom or France and they didn't have the funds to ever compare to the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, which were both superpowers who invaded the country at the same time.
@@AGwest1 what I meant was how well the poles fought compared to the the French who was considered a superpower stockpiled with enough arm and munitions to last ragnarok and poles who held to superpowers back for not 1 or 2 but 19 days and gave the occupiers on heck of a pain in the ass when the revolted , and I tried to represent Poland in a positive light
I’m Iranian, we lost around 200k to 600k in 8 YEARS. And the french lost 200k in weeks, they were butchered while defending their families, truly a respectable people!
More often than not defeats aren't due to the individual soldiers. If you put any nations soldiers in the French troops position the results would have been the same.
Atleast Iran won single handedly against Iraq, Saudi and all the Western allies combined. France was sold out in 6 weeks despite having a much superior force.
@@hamzamahmood9565 Iran's been powerful for like 2 thousand years for 1. For 2 the French literally were using white flags to communicate w each other...their morale was low and the Germans were just really well coordinated and it worked out perfectly.
yousef 501st what is artillery and air superiority? They can mountain all they want, they’ll just be starved out once the Nazis cut off their ocean access for trade if they really don’t want to fight in the mountains
Why did the French give up? The answer is WWI. Although France and Britain had roughly the same population, the French suffered 1.4 million dead, compared with 1.1 million dead in the British Army. But 25% of the British casualties were Empire forces, so that makes about 800,000 British dead. The French had nearly twice the death rate of the UK. After WWI, the spanish flu took a heavy toll in both countries, and the Great Depression followed. France was still a largely agricultural country by WWII, the men were needed in the fields, often the only man available to be called up was the single son of a rare survivor of WWI. The population was told that the Maginot Line would hold, they were fighting a defensive war from well prepared positions. When Blitzkrieg hit them, they were totally unprepared. There was no Churchill promising Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat. Additionally, once the Vichy government was formed, they broadcast the black propaganda that the Brits had run out on them, a gross calumny that is repeated to this day. When the truth is that 70000 of them were lifted off the beaches at Dunkirk. It is totally understandable that a population in this position would accept what they were told. What of the Resistance? French men and women began resisting the occupation pretty much at once, and many died doing it. But what made them an effective force early on was the arrival of 4500 Spanish veterans of the Civil War, many of them Communists. They brought expertise and experience, after crossing the border from Catalunya; Franco's forces were still 'mopping up'. One of the Resistance vehicles in the victory parade in Paris can be seen carrying battle honours from the Spanish Civil War. Estimates of the total Resistance casualties still vary widely, some 25-35000 shot or KIA. Another 100-200,000 deported to death camps.
Considered the price paid by France, its ally really gipped them at the WWI armistice. had they given them the western bank of the Rhine for new frontier, it might have avoided this disaster.
But the real reason is because of Belgium If french generals didn't send troops to save belgians and british around Dunkirk, the Blitzkrieg would've never succeeded Lost because of big heart
My great great uncle fought in the war in 1940, he was taken prisoner by nazi forces and sent to a POW camp in the Reich where he would remain until 1945. However instead of simply releasing the prisoners, the soviets decided to take many prisoners with them back to Russia. He remained in a gulag there for 3 more subsequent years before escaping back to France. He told my father his entire story once and asked him to listen carefully, *because he wouldn't tell his story twice* .
French and British prisoners were sent back to their homes after the war. You're definitely lying. You also can't escape gulag and also find a way to escape Soviet Union
@@volumist Just because my great great uncle story doesn't match history books doesn't mean it is a lie. Gulags can be escaped, but doubtful you'd find any soviet official telling you that whether back then or now (for obvious reasons). There are many stories that are not consigned in history books, that's why first hand witnesses of these events are the best source of learning.
I'll just have to correct you about the Louvre: Knowing that a war would break out sooner or later, the director of National Museums Jacques Jaujard had entierely organised the transport of the museum's paintings and archaeological pieces towards châteaux in southern France. The goal was to protect the artifacts from bombings, fires and especially the taste of high-ranking nazi officials (especially Göring) for art. So the Germans who came to investigate the Louvre were faced with a museum, while not empty, at least devoid of a staggering portion of its collections. So yeah, the Mona Lisa, the Venus de Milo, the Victory of Samothrace all spent the whole war in safely stored boxes. There are lots of interesting stories about the evacuation, and about this man, who even in France is relatively unknown to this day.
That's if the French didn't deploy their forces towards Netherlands to help them nearly at the same time the germans decided to launch their main force through the ardennes
A much shorter war in Europe probably. If this happened the French could've kept their original plan going which was to dig in in Belgium, deal large losses to the German, then when they where about to be overrun they would retreat a bit back, dig in and so on. By the time the Germans had reached the French border they would've taken too many losses to continue the offensive. Now they would just have to wait until the allied superiority in resources came into play to build up their forces, and then crush the Germans. People don't often realise how close the war in France actually was. The Manstein plan could've gone wrong in many ways and was even heavily criticised by many of its supporters.
Yeah, no. They could have traded casualties about 1:1, but in the end the Allies still would have lost. And with the Molotov-Ribbentrop-pact still intact (and most of eastern Europe more inclined towards Germany), it would be very hard to starve them. Also don't forget that Italy was still planning to enter the war. If the Wehrmacht got bogged down in Belgium, they could have just gone for a southern push to support them. Sure, Mussolinis troops were unprepared, but Hitler would have gladly lent him a hand. And the British Empire... you think they could muster the manpower it took the soviets to stop the german meatgrinder - without provoking a shit ton of colonial revolts? I don't think so. There was still a lot of bitterness about having to fight WWI for Britain, and without the Nazis seeming that much of a threat, there wouldn't be much willingness to fight.
Timothy McLean, sure there's plenty of things to make fun about in this war, but there's more to study on how the lack of loyalty to their people of french officers at the time coupled to political treasons replaced the victory of all french by the only benefit of the military and political elite.
Jovan Mitrić the us treated vietnam as a priority not a full out war... france treated it seriously afterall vietnam was the heart of the french empire
Mussolini : i gonna send 3000 mans for defeat france ! France : *send 9 mans* Mussolini : noooo they are to strong for me !! (Battle of Pont saint Louis)
I disagree, yes, more french people would have died, but the french government would escape to Algeria and french colonies would never fall into the hands of the germans and the war would have lasted a little shorter.
3 роки тому+5
@@napoleonbonaparte6705 but the historical artifacts too
If the French navy and the 100,000 French troops successfully evacuated at Dunkirk had continued to fight after the fall of France, they could have played an important role in the conflict. However, the Nazis would have likely taken their displeasure at that development out on the French people. As it was, less than 10,000 stayed in the U.K. to form the Free French army. EDIT: Also, several people correctly pointed out that French troops in Africa, as well as 50 ships of the French navy, refused to surrender and continued the fight. Many others, seeing what was happening under Nazi occupation, escaped France to join the Free French. By 1944, there were 400,000 Free French troops, who took part in the Normandy campaign and liberation of France. In addition, the French Resistance continued to undermine the German occupiers and provide intelligence to the allies. The French government may have surrendered, but the French people did not.
The French troops saved at Dunkerque returned immediately to resume the fight until capitulation, while the British enjoyed a break on their fortified rock. Also, the British unilateraly decided to withdraw at Dunkerque, while the French were planning a counter offensive from the north and southern France to break encirclement and cut off the German breakthrough. Despite that, the French held the British retreat and still got called cowards by their best "pals" for the next 100 years.
A vast majority of French still remained passive under Nazi occupation. Not trying to undermine those who resisted but many either didn't want more bloodshed or simply didn't care. There were many collaborators in the Vichy regime too and helped deport Jewish citizens.
this is a different subject, but the German occupation of France was very documented. There was dumb cucks collaborating, there was a vast majority of people just trying to live their lives the best they could, and there was many people resisting and trying not to get killed until their help was useful. It's a good read, I can only advise you to explore the subject. Also, given the fact that thousands of French civilians, sometimes entire villages, were taken hostage and executed to deter resistance actions, I don't think anyone can know what one would have done at the time, especially when you have a family that relies on you. I don't think we can blame those who remained passive. It's not glorious, but it's not like they had an army and plans.
The navy could have done something, and if France hadn't surrendered, the british may not have destroyed french ships and killed their crew in africa, "suspecting" them to collaborate with the germans
If that were the case: The USSR would be practically surrounded by its enemies. China would have a democratic and fully capitalistic economy. There would be a smaller chance of the Korean War happening. The two Koreas would be unified. The Viet Cong would have a harder time resisting the Americans if the Vietnam War were to still occur. Japan would not be so prosperous as the Americans would rather spend and invest their fortune in China (better economic opportunities). Mongolia would probably link with China once again.
Peter Wong That might happen, but Stalin liked the nationalist more than the communist because he saw Mao as a rival. If the nationalist won they might be like an early Cold War South Korean style dictator ship, as for choosing a side for the Cold War, the Nationalist will probably join the non-alined group with India, Yugoslavia and others. But hey we don't know what could have happened as Commie China won the war.
General Georg von Küchler, 18th Army of the Wehrmacht, fully committed against the Dunkirk pocket war diary: "Despite our overwhelming numerical and material superiority, French troops counter-attack in several places. I can not understand how such brave soldiers, struggling in different places to one against ten (sometimes even one against thirty), manage to find enough strength to go on the assault: it's just amazing ! I find in the French soldiers of Dunkirk the same passion as that of the hairy Verdun in 1916. For several days hundreds of bombers and cannons pound French defenses. But it's always the same thing, our infantry and our tanks can not break through, despite some ephemeral local successes. The French command very skilfully installed his troop and his artillery. I fear that Dunkirk is a failure for us: almost all the British Expeditionary Force and most of the 1st French Army will escape, because a few thousand brave men bar us access to the sea. It is appalling but that's the way it is. " "Dunkirk brings me proof that the French soldier is one of the best in the world. The French artillery, so feared in 14-18, once again demonstrates its formidable effectiveness. Our losses are terrifying: many battalions have lost 60% of their strength, sometimes even more! " "By resisting for ten days our forces significantly superior in manpower and resources, the French army has accomplished, in Dunkirk, a superb feat that should be commended. She certainly saved Great Britain from defeat, allowing her professional army to reach the English coast. " When our enemies are more respect for us than our allies ... it's hopeless. We will remember it next time.
@@pifly29 yeah because the movies is about the British evacuation not the French holding the line. Where do you think all the French soldiers were if they were not standing on the beach? They were fighting. Theres even a short scene where the main character comes across a French barricade and almost gets shot, which shows that while the Brits were running the French were holding the line as long as possible to let them escape
@@pifly29 your original comment made it sound like you meant the British actually were the heroes when it's in fact the French (and in some way the stupidity of the germans for not launching absolutely they had into dunkirk at the time)
@@pifly29 The movie ain't even showing the real stories lol The only reason why the british were able to escape by hundreds of thousands was because the french did a human wall around and inside Dunkirk They gave their lives to save british soldiers when they knew the nazis were too many and had more artilleries The only reason why France was taken is because french generals had big heart, they wanted to save belgians and british around Dunkirk If they didn't move their units to save them, the Blitzkrieg would've never succeeded and the Germans would've never get in France
@@dillonblair6491 You clearly have fuck all idea about either history or any military matter. I recommend you get some form of education and leave your dear old mum's basement every once in a while.
95% of are traitor gunpowder was supplied by france, without which the rebellion would have been over in a matter of weeks as ghey had neither the facilities nor supplies to manufacture their own nor fund to import it commercially. Additionally the French and Spanish navies hindered the British logistics and troop movement ensuring the traitors never had to fight more than an undersupplied fraction of the army
3:15 Technically, Warsaw after September campaign was still in a pretty good shape. Poland did not stand a chance in a two front war against both Third Reich and USSR so fight did not last for long. After carpet bombing on 25 of September about 12% of buildings in warsaw were destroyed and around 10000 civilians were killed. Two days after that polish military command decided to cease fire to not put in danger any more civilians. The percentage that Cody used in this video was percentage of the city destroyed in 1944 after the Warsaw Uprising. During the uprising itself about 25% of all the buildings was destroyed but Hitler was furious that Poles stood against occupier so he ordered Warsaw to be compeletly leveled. Over the next few months special german forces were systematicly setting on fire and blowing up buildings in left bank part of the Warsaw. Because of that 80% of the city in 1945 was compeletly turned into ashes and almost entire population was either killed or fled the destroyed city.
UberDroid russia was not really part of the allies all things considered, russia and germany basically claimed halvsies on poland in order to maintain a temporary peace. Neither one expected it to last, but germany was the first to actively defy it. So yes, russia did attack poland, but in the same way that finland attacked russia despite not being an axis power, russia attacked poland even though they became part of the allies. When running back through the city, they did liberate the poles, but through the consequence of battle damage, continued to smash through cities.
We lost so much anyway: the city I live in is the capital of William the Conqueror, Caen. It has a 1000 years history. It was obliterated by allied bombing during liberation: 80% of the city was razed to the ground. For the 75th anniversary of D-Day, we had the real life equivalent of this internet widget letting you see the "before-after" of several european cities in WII vs Now. Large posters covering half the buildings that were rebuilt after the war reminded us what we had lost. We were lucky though. Paris could have been left in this state too: Hitler retreat orders for the Wermacht was to lay waste to the city. Most major building were stuffer with explosives, and General Choltitz refused to trigger them: considered it to be a warcrime, for which he didn't want to be remembered. What France lost in the first months of the war in military forces is akin to what Britain or the US lost during the whole duration of the war. This country was hit, and hit hard. My granfather told me of D-Day: he was 14, he saw everything happening in south-east Cotentin. Near Périers he saw a german collumn wielded to their vehicles by white phosphorous bombs, while he was trying to bring is little brother shoes: he looted it on on of the burned corpses that wasn't too crispy and about the right size. A team of Canadia specialists saved him and his family, my two great uncles, my great aunt, and my great grand mother. The Germans were retreating and they started to fire randomly into buildings or set them aflame to wreck the countryside as much as possible: they were hiding in a barn under large quantities of hay. The germans where in a hurry and couldn't spend too much time searching. They simply gunned dow the barn, but aimed to high to hit my family under the hay, and were about to burn it, when the canadians arrived. The germans had given away their position by firing shots, and while they were busy spraying gasoline on the barn, the special team gunned them down. They had a Quebec French officer that politely asked my family to leave their hiding place. He wanted to know where an artillery post was situated exactly, and if they could come from a direction that was less surveilled. My grandfather was a delivery boy for the germans, there wasn't much else to be when you were a the child of tenants farmer under occupied France without anyone else to hire. He told them about the road he biked through with the bike they given him, and how there was nothing but a couple guards a the end of the trail, that was a perfect exemple of bocage, high roadsides picked with fluffy bushes and tall trees: absolute cover all the way. The officer asked politely if he could set temporary camps here, and my mémère (g-grandma) said yes, and scrapped the little food they had hidden alongside them to cook for the Canadians. Nothing but a few potatoes and carrots, but they were happy: two soldiers stayed with a radio, and the rest went for the artillery. They all came back later after what my grandfather said was a couple booms and a few gunshots: some were wounded but most were fine. They were happy to have a meal right away. Later the same day, a couple of american soldiers that were lost found him wandering in the countryside: he was trying to find food to replace what they offered the Canadians. They didn't speak French, and didn't believe he couldn't understand nor speak English: they held him at gunpoint the whole time, and started hitting him in the face with the butt of their guns to know where the nearest Germans were (that's what my Grandfather surmised: he was proud of being a good school student, having completed the "Certificat d'Etude Primaire", which was a diploma they gave 10 years old after completing the first four years of school at the time, and he noticed the English " German" sounded like the old word Romans used to designate what we called "Allemagne" in France, but he didn't understand a single word of what was gibberish to him) My Grandfather was pissed, he lost a couple hours being bitten down by two Americans he didn't understand for informations he didn't have instead of foraging for his family: he reminisced of a machine-gun nest being set up nearby by the Germans, and sent the Americans here. He din't knew what happenned to them, but never saw them again, and the maths of putting these two guys against a platoon armed with a machine gun don't really hint at a favorable outcome. It was complicated, disgusting, and the country was on its knees for a while now: I didn't mention my great-grandfather. He wasn't a prisonner, nor killed in action, or even in forced labor (my grandfather's older brother was escaping by 1944, thus the healthy, lifesaving habit of my family of hiding well) He was dead since 1936, never having recovered of gases wounds he suffered during WWI: he was about 38 at the time, and would have been "young enough" to enlist again in 1939, and probably would have done so if he wasn't crippled for life. But he was, and his ailment was made worse by his alcoolism, contracted because he wasn't allowed pain medication once he left active duty for his burned lungs: he ached during every breath, from 1916 to 1936. He lied about his age in 1914 to enlist, being 16: he became a "Chasseur à Cheval", essentially cavalry unit. By september he has lost 86% of his unit to stupid frontal attacks on machine gun nest: he was nearl 6" tall, even bigger on his goddamn horse, and it's a wonder why he was spared while all the other died. By 1915 no horses anymore, but on foot in the northeastern part of the country, and many sabotaged dams that rendered half the land a cursed swamp: they had been reinforced, and his originally 3300 strong unit was around 36% capacity, somewhere around a thousand guys. They suffered heavy losses right away, and after two weeks there the unit was down to 300+/- men: they were pulled from the front and reinforced. Next stop was Verdun. Hopefully for him it was the last: his unit lost 88% of the men during their 3 months here. He was among the last: when the gases hit, he had the chance not to die right there on the field, and to be dragged away after the worse passed. They were about 40 of those that signed in 1914 two years later when he was honourably discharged. My Grandfather was born in 1930: he was the second child. War caught my family again while it was barely recovering from the first. As a people, we weren't ready: most of the active soldiers had been volounteers in spain in 1936 during the civil war, and their officiers were WWI veterans. The country hadn't yet rebounded demographicaly from WWI, and barely economicaly so: the northeastern part of the country had been razed to the ground twenty years prior. Imagine losing the eastern seaboard and the rustbelt in 1921 and entering WWII im 41 like nothing happenned: France did just that. WWII was the uppercut right after the sucker punch. France lost, badly: but it wasn't lack of will, nor cowardice. The country wasn't ready, it didn't had the means, but it did what it could, and more. Hence the resistance. Hence the standing of this land as one of the major power of the world, despite such an apocalypse, twice in a generation
The war crime thing would be good if the nazis already killed a lot.oh no I made mistake the part about it would be good is supposed to be it would be good if the nazis didn’t kill a lot of people tho. Srry
Actually bombing civilian cities is a war crime. But the judge in Nuremberg had the secretive order only to care about German war crimes ... There has been no justice at all. It was just revenge. This is underlined by the fact Noam Chomsky mentioned "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged. By violation of the Nuremberg laws I mean the same kind of crimes for which people were hanged in Nuremberg."
Let's not forget the French saved the British army at the battle of Dunkirk. The British were retreating while the French were fighting and dying to cover their retreat. That's why the British had an army to defend their Island.
@@marcintalaga2376 "On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland after having staged several false flag border incidents as a pretext to initiate the attack.[69] The Battle of Westerplatte is often described as the first battle of the war.[70] The United Kingdom responded with an ultimatum to Germany to cease military operations, and on 3 September, after the ultimatum was ignored, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand declared war on Germany." Source : Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#War_breaks_out_in_Europe_(1939%E2%80%9340)
@@lesmeilleursvideos58 I know they declared war on germany but they didnt invade it but waited for germant to start the offensive that was thw whole plan of the french military
The entire world expected France (historically a superpower) to compete admirably against Germany and USSR (historically a wimp) to be destroyed instantly by Germany
boldCactus france lost entire generations in world war i, thats why they put so much effort in the maginot line. So they could play a defensive war instead of going head to head with the germans, but as we know technological advances and a surprise attack was able to pass through the line.
Well no the bigger problem was the tactics of france (germany lost more soldiers then france in ww1). First of all after Poland Germany was pretty much defenless and Brittian and France did nothing. For months. And France expected a stalemate like in WW1. Except this time germany had tanks. Where trenches and trench warfare is kinda useless. Also most of their troops were at their Border. So ones Rommel broke though their defensive they pretty much lost. Most of their troops were surronded and/or cut off and the mainland was poorly maned.
Incompetent is kind of an exaggeration They didn't have a way to anticipate HOW to use tanks - the French tanks were BETTER than the German tanks (arguably), and were sufficient in number, but their doctrine for the USE of the tanks was bad. Germany massed tanks and mechanized their infantry, allowing them to break through everything. The French used the tanks as infantry support, which was a good but inferior idea.
The German and French manpower pool wasnt the same. In term of percentage, France did loose much more men than Germany, even if Germany still lost more men.
Man, thank you. I'm not even French and this annoys me. Anyone who has studied military history should know that France has one of the best military records of any nation on the planet. The Battle of France took 46 days and the dead and injured on the allied side numbered over 360,000. Compare that to the "Battle of the Bulge" which had the most American casualties of any battle in WW2. It lasted 40 days, and the dead and injured on the Allied side numbered a whopping... 67,900. Give or take. Not to mention that the majority of Frances' 567,000 casualties throughout the war were Civillians. I'd say that they made the right choice to officially surrender. It was either that, or be slaughtered wholesale. Not like they didn't still continue to fight afterwards anyway. Civilians formed resistances, and many soldiers went and joined up with other militaries to continue fighting the German forces. We can all argue about whether our nation would do better or not, but the truth is, we wouldn't. If America or Canada or Britain or what-have-you was faced with the same odds, if their nation was overrun, their military decimated, their allies retreating and their civilians were being killed en masse, they'd do the same. But as none of these countries were ever actually invaded, I guess we'll never know will we?
Exxaaaactly ! It's easy to judge a country when you're hiding behind a sea.. Just take a look at Verdun and how french fought the germans during WWI. What a fucking no man's lands and still, the allies won the war. But there, french were left alone by Britains retreating to U.K. while number of french soldiers stayed on the Dunkirk beaches. 35'000 soldiers against 800'000 germans. They hold 9 days to ensure the U.K. forces retreat before either being taken prisonner or being slaughtered. Got reports of waffen-SS unteroffizier uncliping grenades to force their men to charge the french hiding in their covers. In the final, german lost more men (20'000) than french did (18'000).
campbellsoup93 I'm not French either, (Scottish actually) and it's always bugged me too. The problem, certainly in the UK, is that people would rather listen to jingoistic arseholes like Jeremy Clarkston , than historians & academics. Not that historians can't be jingoistic arseholes too......David Starkey proves that point. I'm not sure where the American viewpoint came from, but I suspect a similar type of thing.
GothTrad If Britain hadn't managed to get the BEF, and a number of French, off the beaches at Dunkirk, British involvement in the War would have been over at that point.
campbellsoup93 Even then, France wouldn't of surrendered if it wasn't for the traumatic experiences of WW1. The French could've fought, but they didn't want to. It wouldn't have changed anything besides leaving more French bodies on the ground to bury after the war was over.
Warsaw has been bombed in 1939 anyway... The simple idea that any bomb could fall on our capital is unbearable, lose Paris just for a brief and not very profitable resistance was an unbearable cost. Even today you know : since couple of weeks a lot of protesters march in the streets of Paris. Nothing important to say about this quite regular event in France, but 2 weeks ago protesters made a huge scandal : they profaned the Arc de Triomphe... During 1 month they burnt cars in the street and throw Molotov cocktails on police officers and nobody cares, but the profanation of this monument made a huge commotion and deeply offended the french citizens. Paris is litteraly covered with thousands of historical monuments, each one is part of our History and it's start with the roman empire period... This town was too precious to risk it in a vain resistance, that's it! My grand-parents chose to surrender, if it was me, i would do the same.
@Иван Возяков We didn't have thousands km of territory to flee and prepare counter-attack and we didn't have 20 million lives to sacrifice. France in 1940 was like Russia in 1941 : it was a complete rout. When germans arrived in Stalingrad or near Moscow, they made 2000km incursion in russian territory and hundred of thousands russian prisonners and they had to deal with russian winter and spring and a poor and bad road network. They just had to make 500km to reach atlantic ocean in 1940, during summer with good roads. Once again it's easy to say french people is coward when you don't have the most powerfull army of all time at your borders... Maybe would we make a deal with Germany, like Russia? That's maybe more courageous I suppose...
@Иван Возяков That's so funny to see how the russian patriotic propaganda prevaricated russian vision of this war. Anyway, all french kid learn history of WWII in school and they all know what they owe to Russia (to be clear : more than USA). If you were not blinded by your anti-western media, maybe would you know how respectfull we are about russian soldiers and their courage and sacrifice. But it's easier to insult the bad and decadent western world...
@Иван Возяков “Russia lost about 5% of its territory fleeing” Even literally by your own numbers. If you take territory of Russia and surrender only 5%, you just surrendered territory bigger than whole France. Great advice smart-ass. “Hey France, just be bigger so Nazis literally run out of oil chasing you and then they can’t do blitzkrieg anymore.” Genius.
problem is, Hitler didn't hate the french as much as he hated the east. anyway england and france didn't do shit when Czechoslovakia was annexed, didn't do shit when poland was invaded, only got involved at the last minute.
The US military was in even worse shape than the French in 1939. We were lucky we didn't get into WWII until the the USSR and Britain had been wearing Germany down. We also had an entire ocean to protect us. We still got our asses handed to us initially. We are in no place to brag. France ha historically been our most reliable ally and we shoudn't be insult them for not being our b--- in Iraq. They turned out to be right on that call anyways. We don't exist without us, nor them without us. They are like the good friend who tells you the truth rather than what you want to hear.
Wrong, the US made shit ton of money from selling weapons and furniture to europe just before japan attacked them, otherwise they wouldn't have fought this war, why do you think the US is now the richest country on earth ? Because the US is the biggest war profiteer ever
Oh? An USAn that knows history and knows to be grateful? As an asian, i'm quite impressed. I once tought USAn are bunch of ingrate. If to France that USA owes many debt of gratitude they have treated them like shit, imagined to those who dont.
Always fun to see people mocking France for that (and being serious). I wonder what their country could have done against Germany if they were direct neighbours.
@@Wafflepudding Without the winter and the specificities of the Russian geography Hitler would have probably defeated the USSR. Germany could have taken Moscou but they choose to go to Stalingrad. However it doesn't change the fact that the USSR was quite impressive during the 2WW even more if we take in account the fact that they fought a civil war not so many years ago.
@@Bobols91 To be honest fighting the USSR is like attacking 10 countries at once because they were like the British commonwealth but with more direct goverment, If it was Russia by itself they would most likely loose all of western russia and fall back to siber and wait until the allies do something.
@@dillonblair6491 By the time america would have ready for war, the first thing the soldier would see is a german officer drinking a beer at a bar reserved only for germans.
@@dillonblair6491 That america would have already lost against the germans in 1939 since the 'world' never knew about theit new tactic. The Blitzkrieg. German high-command would have had plans to make america sign an armistice. They could use tactics like guerilla or bombardment with V2 rockets aka ICBM from greenland. Or more likely ask the USSR to assist the invasion under the pretense of reclaiming alaska.
While I respect that you wanted to emphasize how brutally this would destroy Paris and mainland France, it would've been interesting to imagine how that affects the North African and general Mediterranean Theaters.
French naval forces and air forces could have gone to the pacific colonial possessions to combat Japenese agression. or more likely, they could have freed up British naval forces in the mediterranean and North Africa which could have assisted elsewhere like the Pacific or Russian theatre. The addition of the French Navy surely could have assisted with the war in the Atlantic. Their was a French aircraft carrier that could have done so much.
I'm awful for laughing at that that surrender joke 0:12 but probably because of the Seinfeld theme and the crying frenchman. It was perfectly executed XD.
You are completely wrong about the destruction of Warsaw. Warsaw was barely damaged in 1939, which you can see in German aerial movies of the conquered city. Warsaw was completely wiped from the face of the Earth after the Warsaw Uprising in 1944.
SnowGroomer Yep I’ve researched that a bit, out of the 75% of the city being destroyed, about 65 of those were from the Warsaw Uprising Although there définit,y was damage by the Nazis.
Actually the Russians were that time at the doorstep of Warsaw.. They stopped the front and let the Germans crush the uprising. They did not really wanted rebels... not sure if some part of the destruction came from fights inside the town. WW2 was pretty devastating to cities, and Russia got plenty artillery...
An a Frenchman myself, I don't find your scenario bad at all but I absolutely DON'T agree with it. Why ? First of all, not surrendering was actually seriously considered by the French government in the last weeks of the war. Had prime minister Paul Reynaud not been so weak and unable to make decisions, he would probabably have agreed with De Gaulle's plan to keep fighting instead of letting Pétain take over and set up a far right pro-nazi dictatorship. However, had France continued to fight, the plan never would have been to defend Paris until Germany burns it to the ground. The French government was totally aware that the mainland was lost. Instead, De Gaulle and Reynaud wanted to retreat to Algeria and continue the fight oversea. In that scenario, France would have not been as weak as you say. Of course the mainland and its industry would have been lost, but a decent part of the army could have escaped to Africa in a Dunkirk-style operation. When France surrendered, the entire army collaped in absolute chaos. But if the government had decided to keep fighting, the army could have retreated in good order. In fact, in june 1940, most of the French army was still able to fight. France settling a government-in-exile in Algeria as early as 1940 would have changed everything. Vichy would never have been a thing, France would have remained united and the French people would have secretely backed their government just like the British supported Churchill. In our timeline, many French were fooled by Pétain and thought he actually had a secret plan to resist Germany, which proves the French were not fans of the nazis at all. Instead of a long and painlful war in Africa against Vichy and Italy, France and the UK could have controlled the Mediterranean as early as 1941 or 1942 thanks to the mighty French fleet. In our timeline, the fleet, which was a key factor for the control of the Mediterranean, was lost because of France surrendering. Churchill was perfectly aware of that and that's why he tried everything to prevent its ally from signing an armitistice. When Pétain refused to give the fleet to the British, Britain simply bombed it. Also, France would have refused to give up Indochina to Japan, which would have slowed down the Japanese conquest of southeast Asia. By controlling Africa as early as 1941 or 1942, the Allied could have started to plan an invasion of Italy and Southern France. American troops would not even have been needed in North Africa and operation Overlord could have happened earlier. France could have been liberated in 1943 or early 1944 and would have kept its legitimacy as a great power. The Allied could have reached Berlin before the USSR and the Cold War could have looked entirely different. Finally, I would like to talk about the famous argument that the Germans would have committed atrocities in mainland France in retaliation. That's actually what many people feared at the time and what Pétain explained at his trial after the war. But I'm not sure that would have happened. Why ? Because Hitler knew he had interest to befriend the French people instead of being seen as crual tyrant. Hitler's ambitions had always been in the east. War against Britain and France was inevitable because of Poland but he didn't want to lose his time, equipement, money and men occupying a hostile France when he was planning a conquest of the USSR. Committing atrocities against the French would only have strenghthened the Résistance and increased popular support for the Allies. Hitler's interest was actually to be 'nice' with the French people, even though its government was refusing to surrender. Did Germany commit atrocities in the Netherlands because its government was fighting oversea ? Not that much. Of course, atrocities like the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre could have happened more often because of a stronger resistance, but I don't think the war would have been much more costly for France in term of human losses. However, I must admit the Occupation could have been far worse for French Jews (even though Vichy played an active role in the Holocaust in our timeline). Anyway, it's just my scenario and yours is not necessarily unrealistic. I just wanted to give my point of view, based on how French historians see our role and actions in WW2.
They lost mainly due to their mentality was still in WW1. The Maginot line was impressive but was really only strong on the border with Germany and they expected more trench warfare. Defenses along Belgium were almost non existent. If they fully fortified the Maginot line all the way to the ocean maybe things would have been different but the French pretty much built a wall with a gaping hole in it. Surrender no matter what
the defences along the belgium border could of held, the problem was they considered the arden impassable by vehicles, they where wrong and simply unable to respond in time.
also one important thing to consider (aside from bad leadership etc.) is this: A whole 1/10 of France was completely destroyed during WW1 and we lost 1.4 million of our men and 40k civilians. It took a lot of money and time to rebuild the villages, cities, factories, fields, to recover the bodies, bury them, build memorials etc. All of that took 10 - 15 years of excruciating efforts. And on top of that we lost about 400k to the Spanish flu. Most of the vets were traumatized, if not disfigured or physically impaired, and lots of efforts were made to reintegrate them into society. Compare that to Germany who lost more men but was fighting on 2 fronts, and who sustained almost no damages to its land and cities and lost almost no civilians. That and the rage created from the defeat and dire economic situation the years after of course. And what happens about 5 years after we've finished rebuilding and mourning? After all the parades and ceremonies? Well there's that loud German dude at it again, and he's invading Poland oh boi. Some of the vets are called for duty once again, troops are massed at the border, civilians are evacuated, we are bracing for another big war and this time we think we are "more" prepared. But here it is, it's another war, 20 years after the last one, against the same enemy, on the same fields that were just rebuilt and where there's still rotting corpses of brave men buried under the grass. Moral wasn't that high on the french side when the war started, and it was probably non-existant when Belgium was lost.
Germany sustained no damages to its land and cities and lost almost no civilians? Man Germany got raped by a ton of countries all over the place. They took a ton of damage and lost a ton of civilians.
Moral had nothing to do with the french defeat in 1940. Also german moral wasnt that high eather. the war was not popular in germany, not at all. Most thought the poland crisis would be over like what happened with the chechz - peacfull. The main fact for slightly higher german moral was that they won in poland in record time, boosting. When you look closer in the matter, the german military was everything except ready for war in 1939. For example the german army lost half!!! its tankforce in poland and only had ammunition after polish surrender for 6 more weeks. even worse the german divisions (reservists at best) stationed at the french/german border during the poland campaign had only ammunition for a few days and nearly no heavy guns. they were also ordered to retreat to the westwall, which was a huge bluff by the germans as it only consisted of a few bunkers and anti tank obsticls. there were three things that garanted german succsess at the start of the war: 1) the allieds incompetence far outmatched the german one 2)The germans were succsessfull gamblers and bluffed/ got lucky with succsess 3)The german army thought out of the box of standart ww1 doctrines and got creative (gambling as in 2)) Fun fact: the war would have ended on the first day of the german invasion of france if the french would have used their bombers and bombed the ardennes forest. Nearly the entire german motorised and armour army was on ONE SMALL STREET lined up in a huge traffic jam with no way to evade the bombs. The german airforce could have never stopped all bombers, only a few good hits would have been enough to destroy the road and make the entire offensive stop in its tracks. The french even new about the massing of german forces in the ardennes, but the information got stuck in middle french command were it was considered unrealisitc and irrelevant information. One attack to end the war :D
the only reason the UK and USA survived the war was because they're practically islands. and had time to observe blitzkrieg and how the wehrmacht was weakened
@@dillonblair6491 real men who fled after 2 weeks of battle who like the Americans hid on their islands only to start fighting when the Russians had won the war.
@@dillonblair6491 the Japanese were never really a problem, they couldn't even beat the Chinese. the battle of Britain is a marginal victory for the Brits even though RAF were the clear first priority for the Brits. and the Africa campaign was just like the Balkan campaigns Italian troops and material. operation barbarossa stated in July of 41, 3 years before d-day.
Dillon Blair It is a known fact, but the first ever loss of German during WW2 was Stalingrad. I don’t really see how the Russian could have « joined » when they were out there for a while. The USA waited to move their ass until Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. For instance back in WW1, they joined in 17’ when the war was already over, provided ammo and a few men. Actually, I’m not even sure the USA actually won a war they were part of from day 1. (can somebody confirm ?). It is always easy to call yourself almighty when you are protected by the sea and wait 3 to 4 years to make any move compare to a country that have immediate borders with its ennemies. The war wouldn’t have been won without the us for sure, but it is only because Hitler and its allies was no more profitable for the US business. They are not « real men », rather « real business men ».
Dillon Blair the German were losing a part of their positions, indeed, but it was in the French-uk-Russian favour. (even if the war would have been longer without the us for sure.) Fun fact, the real reason why the us joined in April 17 was because in January 17, the German navy and sub marine forces announced that they would attack and acquire any neutral business/bargain boats and floats they would find in the Atlantic, making it it a lot harder for the US to make business in Europe. As for the point that you never surrendered... yeah, Vietnam was not surrendering right... oh wait, it was ! Didn’t you back off of Iraq too ? Gas acquiring cost was starting to be a bit too high I guess... And if you talk about home soil... well technically you didn’t, as the only war you had in your own country was for your independence, right ? (No need to mention in this cas that France was vital to the whole creation of your country of course) Europeans are so weak ... => The USA is mainly a European decent country, filled with many European decent people and created by Europeans... what’s your point ? Are you denying your own history ?
Dillon Blair Dillon Blair do you know what sarcastic means ? Check my sentence about Irak and Vietnam and use your tiny brain. Please. The Zimmerman telegram was just the apotheose of it, not the main reason, as the Mexican government didn’t have a proper institution yet and refused the German proposition. It was not a real threat. And in case you didn’t get my first point about business men (which is still the same I’m referring to), the reason I quoted Vietnam is indeed because just like Irak you made war not for justice, not for your country’s sake, but for the money/strategic ambitions. As always. Iraq is the most laughable war there is, as there were never any real threat from there, but you just wanted the ressources. You created this war. From the day the CIA financed governments for political affairs till the end. And also, which major war did you started / were part of since day 1 ? NONE. As I said before, you never participated in risky wars, you waited for a side to become weak, or fought minor ennemies. « A vaincre sans péril, on triomphe sans gloire » As for your arguments about home soil, as we said it again and again... being separated by a deep ocean was pretty convenient at the time. Of course you would win today, that is a fact. (At least if we put nuclear/atomic bomb aside, because the first one that « fires » the bomb wins)
@@everburnerfish but what's the so great point in some French solders stopping Hitler from taking an elevator? I could do that too all alone lol, and like I said there is no point in saying it
"...My father died on your battleground, i haven't seen the shadow of his coffin, hitted to death by one of your bullets, this is the reason of my grief-dress. You had the Alsace and the Loraine, you had the millions of foreigners, you had Germanie and Bohême; But you will never own my little heart, but my little heart will stay FRENCH !!!" The last part of "La Strasbourgoise", a French military song that i love.
ça tombe bien cette chanson est sur l'annexion de l'alsace lorraine en 1870 par l'empire allemand, ce qui n'a donc aucun rapport avec la seconde guerre mondiale x)
A lot of mistakes here - French surrender was decided after the fall of Paris, declared open city to prevent bombing, but while fighting was still present on the front. - The decision was political and remained undecided for a very long time. Union with England was a possibility but continuing as a single country was still viable, and had a lot of partisan. - Blitzkrieg had its limits, a lot of infrastructure in northen France was destroyed as a target of german bombing, and were now preventing a quick advance from german divisions. - France still had a lot of military equipment that could have been evacuated on the south to maghrebian territories. - The role of French army would not have been to defend, but to win time for evacuation - Germany would have needed to pursue the conquest of France, which is traversed by a lot of rivers. With a correct defense and destruction of bridges, each crossing would have been a logistical nightmare for German command. - Most importantly, the French navy was one of the strongest in the world, and would have helped assert ally dominance in Mediterranean sea, preventing Italy to do anything in Africa, and creating the menace of a landing in Sicilia as soon as 1941 - The toll taken by Germany on French economy during the occupation/Vichy regime and a bigger impact than most destruction. Moreover it is doubtful that Nazis would have destroyed city in already conquered areas. I’m french btw, and I recommend to any french speaking to read “1940, et si la France avait continué la guerre...” which cover with great rigor and in details this alternate story line.
The french army was beaten, there was no organized retreat or holding any frontline against the german panzerdivisions. Guderian already trapped the maginot army while reaching swiss border , paris was taken and the best troops in the north got circled by the sichelschnitt. France had no Chance at all because they were overwhelmed so hard that they were paralized and their commanders sat miles behind the front. France declared war and thought they could win by playing the 1918 game again with the brits. Germany was smarter and used an advanced tactic with a very efficent teamplay between tanks and stukas. Also guderian and other generals were leading from the front in such a speed that france couldnt keep up. It seems very unlikely that france could have build up any form of frontline to delay the wehrmacht. The most crucial factor is moral. The french gave up because the knew its over... But I agree wirh your navy point. Still a big issue the french navy. But your ally gb backstabbed you and attacked the french navy in north africa.
@@ASMR.GentleMan Evacuations of hundreds of thousands of troops could have been carried out along the Southern Atlantic coast and Mediterranean coast, aircraft could have been flown to Britain, the navy saved, and the French forces in the colonies would still be in tact. France may not have been able to have escaped the continent with her full might but she could have escaped with far more assets than countries like Poland, Norway, Belgium, and the Netherlands who would continue to fight on from the British Isles. She would have still had more assets to put into the fight than any other country in the allies except Britain. And, above all, she would have preserved the honor of her nation and would not still be mocked to this very day.
There's a difference between fighting on because there's hope and fighting on without any hope. The French simply couldn't have won, and as they lived in a democratic nation they couldn't have fought on without the populations' consent.
yeah you're right but france had no way win because the french population simply don't wanted to die , france was still hunted by the first war and all the useless dead
YES FINALLY SOMEONE DEFENDED FRANCE FROM THE MEMES, NOW PLEASE EXPLAIN ITALY PS I'm not talking about the militarily poorly power (believe me even at history School here in Italy they teach us how we sucked in both world wars, we're not proud of that) i'm talking about the "betrail joke" tof both world wars. And Sorry for the bad english.
ciaotiziociaus I'm sorry but it really is hard to defend Italy. They knew they were behind the curve in almost every way and yet they still were happy to go to war hoping to win mostly on esprit de corps. They were in a terrible position from the start. They had a hard time occupying ethiopia lol It was just a bad decision. Atleast the French were modernizing and had adequate equipment and somewhat of a plan. They just had a bad plan lol
Alexander Strickland wait i know that, really. Italy was really poorly militirized that's true, Mussolini when Hitler arrived showed him tank made out of papers! I'm not talking about that but about the shapeside meme. Oh and Sorry for bad english
Most people forget that Britain lost the battle that made France surrender too. The UK would have had certainly the same fate as France's if there wasn't the Channel between them and Germany. (edited to remove typos)
MaxBuster if the channel didn't exist, then the UK might have already been a part of France. It's a pretty historically important piece of geography to change.
No FRANCE might have a large part of great britain , pls read ur history book, uk was like a french region when Normand have invaded the south of the uk :)
Piotr S. Pawlak thats verry important fact. Warsaw wasnt destroyed because Polland didnt surrender. But becose Poles wanted to liberate themselfs from Germans before soviets will do it. Its a huuuuge diffrence and it put France in even worst image.
FYI several big cities in northern france were destroyed in that month and half of fighting. Dunkirk and Lille were in ruins. If they continued fighting that situation would have just extended further south. Fact is, France had no possibility to win, and more fighting in their territory would cause even more civilian deaths. French soldiers do not fight because they like to fight, they fight to defend their family. If said family get bombed because they fight in their own cities, and on top of this there's no prospect of winning anyway, then fighting becomes completely retarded.
The whole idea was that the soviets were only a few kilometers away from Warsaw, the uprising was supposed to make the recapture of Warsaw easier and come along quicker- the soviets waited on the other side of the wisla river for a month giving only a few airdrops to get their hands clean and be able to say they helped and camped until any polish resistance got slaughtered
my great grandfather jumped bridges against the Germans towards Orleans and also ended up spending years in German prison, but obviously it is a coward by what Kevin of Missouri says it
@Cole DeBeer In Barbarossa many men surrendered, moreover the country is very huge and the land is essentially desertic, in winter its worst Napoleon saw it, its an big advantage for resistance. Finally, there were resistance in France, I know than one of my ancestor was in and parents of my grandmother hide jews.
@Cole DeBeer Respect. Sadly we don't talk about other nations who fought too and contributed to win the war. Holywood propaganda present american as saviour of the world in both WW. No Russia, Australia, Canada and lot of smaller country
Thumbnail should read ‘Ah Non!’ ‘We will fight you! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!’ *blows raspberry and taps his helmet*
Not really. It's a stone building with wood, not a wood building with some stone. The wood is burnt, but the stone is still there. Explosives would have destroyed the stone as well.
that one wa sactually a possibility, just don't go that far into russia, I guess. WW1 and WW2 may have never existed in that timeline, or involve UK vs France instead. In fact germany itself may have never become a country like we know today. That's a pretty big shaking of everything. The world today may be separated between a French and an UK domination or something.
Agustin D. Britain would probably join the war at some point. Britain was still allows to France and Russia they wouldn't have liked German hegemony over mainland Europe. The UK also wanted to gain control over German colonies and prove their dominance of the seas. If the war would start favouring Germany Britain would have joined as they didn't want the balance of power on Europe switching so dramatically in favour of Germany.
John Mosier, in “The Blitzkrieg Myth” argues persuasively that the blitzkrieg happened mostly in panicked headlines, that the German tank corps had outrun its supply lines, and that France was in no worse shape in May of 1940 than it had been in a similar moment in 1914. Essentially, surrender was a political failure rather than a military certainty.
Their largest reserve and best men are encircled at that point in the Low Countries, and slapped back to the coast, what were they supposed to do exactly? Are we forgetting the part where the only lines left were second rate troops?
I think it's a bit wrong as german generals were really better than french ones Also there were the italian threat to the south The french air force was 5 years old and thus not very good with some "ok" planes (they weren't very bad but they weren't good either) and their numbers was much lower than the luftwaffe The french force were very lacking radio and discipline (at first) The british didn't help that much france when the germans hit hard France's manpower was still affected by ww1 German soldiers were drugs to be more effective France didn't want to fight too etc etc The situation was very worse than ww1 in many aspects But france had the "best army in the world" at the beggining of the war
@@looinrims they weren't genuinely surrounded since the German units had outrun their supply lines. France could've fought on and won, although it would've meant urban warfare
As a brit (especially an Englishman) I think the French should be proud of there history as the French resistance stopped resources getting to the nazis during D-Day and so much more. The old saying goes love France but hate the french. As we have been at piece for 200 years and are close allies considering of our old history (even though the old english generation and a few other englishmen took us out of the EU *well not yet*) and we're strong close partners during the 2 world wars (also I love the germans, I ain't spreading no hate) I can say that all that nonsense between us both has gone. Love your culture cheese and wine. Peace out from the island just off your coast
Techically, they didn’t. They simply signed a truce. It was not a surrender because everyone thought England would surrender soon. Therefore, all French POWs were kept in POW camps.
There were 53 major conflicts in Europe. France will have been a belligerent in 49 of them, and the UK in 43. Among the 185 battles that France has delivered over the past 800 years, its armies will have gained 132 of them, and will have lost 43, leaving only 10 undecided battles. Giving the French military the record of victories in Europe and therefore in the world. France is the nation that has participated in the greatest number of war and battle in the whole history of mankind. Over the last 800 years France has beaten over 200 years against England, more than 150 years against the Germanic nations, more than 190 years against the Spaniards / Portuguese, and facing many other nations
and because of the maréchal Pétain who put all of its defence on the "ligne maginaux" and not taking care of what Charles de Gaule was saying we lost many brave soldiers and civilians to the german , we never surrender , only the politics surrender not the civilians who built the "résistance" and thanks too our allied the US and UK + USSR who saved us .(srry for the english i'm french)
2 things : 1) the deaths for the british in the battle of france only amount to 10k. The 80k includes wounded. The numbers you have here are the deceased for the french, but the casualties (deceased+wounded) for UK. And among those 10k, half didn't die on France's soil but in the sea when the ship they were retreating to England with was sunk by the Germans. One reason for such small number compared to the france is that despite having a higher population than France, Uk barely sent any troops to help in the northern France early on. Another is that half of that number were caught in Dunkirk and refused to continue fighting under the pretence that their troops were "tired", and let the desperate defence under constant bombing to the French's first army that was trapped with them, while the British were evacuating. 2) More than half of the french navy actually intended to fight on from the colonies. They were sunk by the british who didn't think it was a good idea to leave the possibility that they'll be captured by the german. 1,300 french soldiers who waved at the british navy approaching believing they were allies died that day from their allies' hands at Mers El Kebir. That was the infamous operation catapult, and a major reason for the Vichy government to cut ties with its backstabbing ally to focus on its relationship with the germans.
Yes, but the problem here is, in THIS VIDEO the number used for the french is death alone whereas the number UK side is casualties, so death+ wounded. Also german has death only in this video as well. This makes it look like UK and France suffered comparable losses when they did not. France had 18 times more dead soldiers on its soil than UK, that's nowhere near the same number. Casualties were 140k for germany VS 200k for france and 68k for UK. Deaths were 27k for Germany VS 85K for France and 5K (+5K for Lancastria sunk) for UK. You can't just go and mix those numbers without precising.
The Roman Empire would probably be established earlier than it was. Also Augustus probably wouldn't be known as Rome's first emperor, and the whole Julio-Claudian dynasty would have been different. I could probably name some things though. 1. Cato, Cicero, and the assassins of Julius Caesar wouldn't have been killed. Or lets say that they do conspire to kill Caesar anyway, but just ends in failure. They would have been killed by that way. Pompey still would have died. 2. More conquest. Caesar probably would have tried to annex Britain and Germany. Augustus sent his army to annex Germany but failed in the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest of 9 CE. Julius Caesar I have a feeling would have annihilated the Germanic people and make them surrender like he did in Gaul. 3. Because Caesar doesn't die, Cleopatra doesn't marry Mark Antony. Also Caesarion isn't murdered on the order of Octavian. To which, Cleopatra's other sons and daughter by Antony wouldn't have been born. But if she had more children with Caesar, Cleopatra probably would have formulated her plans to have them rule Egypt, Asia Minor, Lebanon, and Syria. But if they just had Caesarion, then he would have continued to Ptolemaic legacy farther. Egypt wouldn't have been a province of Rome, it would've been an empire. The history of the Roman Empire would have been different (at least in the earliest times). Jesus still would have been born, and Christianity still would have become a thing. But Julius Caesar, after having a long-lived life, would have been seen as a god to Rome (as he was in our timeline). But there would have been more temples, and statues of him, and probably mosaics of him with the Gods. Caesarion probably would have been Rome's first emperor (that is if Julius didn't declare himself as such), it wouldn't have been Augustus. I have a feeling the Roman Empire would have been chaotic in this scenario than in our timeline. Pax Romana wouldn't have been a thing. Julius Caesar didn't care about the Romans well-being, he only cared about conquest. Caesar would have passed that down to Caesarion, and Caesarion would have passed it down to his kids and so on. Perhaps down the line, there would have been a rebellion, and the Senate would call for the Republic be re-established. Or we could have a scenario where the Empire was never established, and the Republic just reorganized itself (somehow after years of tyranny). Also Virgil's Aeneid still would have been written, but it would have been a propaganda piece for Julius Caesar or Caesarion, not Octavian. Or possibly it would not have been written at all. We actually aren't supposed to have the Aeneid, Virgil died before he finished it. He on his deathbed deemed it imperfect and wanted it burned, but Augustus said no. As a history buff, these are my two cents on what could have happened.
That is interesting to think about, but I don't recall Caesar (or the Romans in general) caring for the Jews much. Unless if the Jews caused an outrage (Judeo-Roman War of 66-70 CE for example), and the fact that the Romans dedicated the Jewish Temple to Jupiter. I just find it unlikely. Jesus's ancestors were most likely average Halacha-abiding Jews who were to the Romans nobodies. Jesus's genealogy isn't really important. Why would Caesar care about them? In fact, it was Julius Caesar that made Judaism a legal religion recognized by Rome. But this is after the civil war of Judea and Idumea in 63 BCE, 19 years before Caesar died. It was Roman custom to allow foreign peoples to practice their way of life. Jesus's ancestors would be no different than any other Jew at the time. If Caesar wasn't assassinated, Caesar would have kept his policy in place as in our timeline, which was continued by Augustus. Caesarion on the other hand, we have no way of knowing how he would've treated Jews. Caesarion either would have continued the religio licita policy, or he would have revoked it with persecution of the Jews. It is just my opinion that Christianity would inevitably happen. It was Pompey that installed Antipater as ruler of Judea, which Antipater favored Pompey over Caesar. I feel Caesar would had had to force his legitimacy in the East, as they favored Pompey. Caesar rarely was in the East except for Egypt and Asia Minor. After Pompey was killed, Antipater shifted his allegiance to Caesar. After Caesar died, Antipater had to ally with Cassius against Antony. But in this alternative scenario, as the years go by, Antipater is still murdered by poison. It probably would have lead to the destruction of the whole Antipatrid family. Jews would then outcry for independence. Caesar would refuse, which would then lead to Caesar's involvement in Judea. The only way Caesar could have murdered Jesus's ancestors would go to Judea on a total invasion. But yes, one person can change history.
What would have happened if the French government had accepted the union Churchill offered between France and Britain? How would that have affected the legitimacy of the Vichy government?
big beak entertainment, im glad, u r the first guy i see onto web having knowledge too this (with me), or nobody never talk too.. but that s a very interesting question:)
What would have happened if the Japanese invaded the USSR with the german army? (Some people don't get what I'm trying to say, what would the war look like if the Siberian troops where busy fighting the Japanese instead of defending Moscow?)
Otto von Bismarck if the Japanese invade threw China and Mongolia then yeah but through Siberia and their whole invasions force would parish only about a few thousand would survive the harsh weathers and environment and terrain
Now this is actually an interesting alternate history discussion. As long as the Kwantung army forgets the trauma of facing Soviet tanks I think the entire war on the Eastern Front will be different.
The Axis Powers would still have lost. Unless you're Mongolia, you cannot invade Russia, especially in winter. Have you seen the former Soviet countries? Russia alone is HUGE! Now add in Belarus, Ukraine, the Caucasian countries, and most of the Central Eurasian countries ending in "-stan". Many of these countries had also been part of the Russian Empire before. That's a LOT of land to take and hold. The Nazis and Japanese could take some towns, a couple cities, maybe an entire oblast or okrug and it wouldn't matter. The Soviets could just surround and reconquer the occupied territory. They still had their size and numbers going for them even after the famines and purges.
the Japanese advance into Siberia and Mongolia would come to a near slog due to severe logistics issues. Chinese troops when begin to gain ground and recapture some territory due to the need to pull some Japanese troops to Russia. the Soviets would use the same doctrine of deep battle and force the Japanese into a slow retreat. Now if Pearl Harbour did happen I would like to think that the Japanese forces would do an operational retreat to inner Manchuria an establish a defence line there. Now since soviet forces are the ones receiving supply issues they do would set up a defence line and both would hold their positions until the strategical situation improves. After the fall of Germany the soviets would renew their offensive into Manchuria. now it won't be a massive hundreds of thousands of troops sort of invasion but maybe 2 Corps of Armour and Infantry divisions. They would participate in a strategic combined invasion of Japan with China and the USA. USA would do the nukey nukey and the soviets would give Manchuria to the CCP. And they all lived happily ever after. The End.
Free France existed and had controlled French North African colonies under leadership of Charles de Gaulle far before D-Day. And the idea that some of mankind's most precious artwork wouldn't be evacuated from the Louvre and other museums and places is ridiculous. Without the Vichy Regime in North Africa, the British, and eventually the Americans, would have a great landing place to invade Italian holdings, and eventually to control the Mediterranean Sea, just like what actually happened, minus the invasion of Morocco since the region would already be friendly. I think while the European theater would be relatively unchanged, the ramifications of France remaining in the war would matter certainly in Africa, and maybe even in French Indochina against Japanese invasion, since A) the French would still exist and have some sort of colonial presence and B) the French navy (which was not bad for its time) would still be operating, and not scuttled or sank by the British.
No they wouldnt have that. the germans would have imidiatly taken over french north africa with the help of the Italians. there were nearly no french troops to defend it and the british at that point couldnt defend aegypt and north africa. Also the german africa corps would have been bigger, because western north africa could be used to attack gibraltar, thereby crippling the british. Meanwhile the germans could bring half there army and airforce to nort africa at that point. Evacuate when? the german speed took the french by compleate suprise. they conquered 20km a day at least. Considering the amount of art in Paris they could have never evacuated it, which is the reason it was declared a free city in the first place (also because there were nearly no french troops to defend it left) Indochina would have been taken over by the japanease within days. Just look at their malaysia campain, where they defeated supirior fortified brtish soldiers. The french colonials in indochina wouldnt stand a chance.
Noobster the Germans to take Gibraltar would have needed to navally land there which given the Forces based at Gibraltar and the existing guns and fortifications is unlikely at best, combine that with the French navy matching that of the Italians and the British navy presence in the Mediterranean there is little possibility of the axis ever having the control to invade Gibraltar or Malta. for Germany and Italy to take French North Africa they would have had to divide their forces allowing the British more breathing room in Egypt, the far east colonies would have fallen to Japan but then everyone's far east colonies fell to Japan they dominated the region until America kicked their production into high gear. The biggest downside I can see is that if French assistance managed to force North Africa to be a big problem then maybe Germany would delay their invasion of Russia which was the factor which cost them the war
Germany did not have the sealift capability to move anything to North Africa whatsoever. The Afrika Korps, typically about 80k strong had incredible problems with supply, as the only way to get supplies to Africa was for the Italian Navy to try to sneak in a convoy past Malta and the Royal Navy, far from an easy task. It is unreasonable to assume that French North Africa would simply fall if the French had fought on. The Italians struggled to supply what the Germans had already sent in theater, and while the Axis had made good progress into Egypt, that would become much less beneficial when sandwiched between Tunisia and Egypt, forcing them to split their forces between the two fronts, with the added threat of the still powerful French Navy lurking the waves. Even if Japan was willing to go to war with the Allies in 1940, they would not have made it anywhere near as far into SEA as they would have in real life. The linchpin to the complete Allied defeat in South East Asia was the loss of Singapore, which in real life was on an absolute knife's edge with General Yamashita, commander of Japanese forces in Malaya, having such a desperate supply situation that when the British came to surrender at Singapore, he initially thought they had come to demand his surrender. This was with an allied Thailand and having peacefully taken control of Indochina. With all that extra land to cover, there is no way Japan could have taken anywhere near as much of South East Asia as they did in real life, which translates into much less rubber and oil for the already starved Japanese war industry, which then leads to a shorter war.
Noobster no I am sure that the (french) Marine Nationale and the Mediterranean fleet of the (british) Royal Navy could handle the (italian) Regia Marina.
You seem to forget that most of the german troops were cut of from theire chain of command. Ineed there was nazi presence through most famously Rommel but a lot were isolated. There is also the mindset of the "colonised" who had still a good memory of the previous war and would have probably fought fiercely ,ask any french person if the word "zouave" meens anything to them. They would also have tactical advantage, knowing the terain better, tanks not being the bbest in desertic terrain and no base that would allow plain to function optimaly, in other no blitzkreig wich was the core of the german strategy.
Anyway the English and the French have been rival and made joke about each others (like any neighbours) for hundreds of years. The Brits are in a bad position to criticise France's military power, as they lost the 100 years' war againt a teenage French girl (Joan of Arc), and didn't manage to defeat Napoleon without the help of Prussia, Austria and Russia (and even so that was a short call). In fact, they have been so proud to defeat France with this super-coalition 200 years ago that they still have their main train station in London (Eurostar station) named after the Battle of Waterloo, and the city's largest square named after the single naval victory of Trafalgar (which didn't win the war)
Plus the British weren't able to beat the Germans in both world wars without help from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, America and Russia as well as other nations. They also lost the American Revolution as well as battles to the Boers, Zulus and Sudanese in the late 19th century when they were at their height of power not to mention the First Afghan War (1839-1842) yet no one makes fun of the British.
Alan Parker if I remember correctly, the hundred years war went on for another 20 years after Joan of arc got burned, so technically she didn't win that war
Didn't Britain, fight France during the American Revolution too? And Spain? The Reason they lost was because they were fighting pretty much the Other Key conquerors at the time. Without a Doubt, america won the American (french/spanish) revolution, but without just a single French or Spanish Aid, the revolution would have crumbled. Britain was winning, not to mention they returned years later burned the white house down and choked the Country dry of foreign aid at docks. The only reason neither side surrendered was because a stale mate was set. Britian couldn't financially continue conflict due to tax problems back home. And america couldn't continue because congress was unable to counter the british navel blockade. Thats why the truce began. If britain had a few extra Pounds in the bank, it could have won overtime. You see, what makes the UK a dangerous Opponent isn't the BIG, SCARY guns we have, its the way they use them. The strategy that not a single other nation yet, can counter without the need of ZERG Rushing them. Keeping in mind, Battle of britain Made the luffwaffe almost none existent in ww2. D-day was mostly British planned, as well as the Advancements in Tech like the Tiger Killer, the Sherman Firefly (which was an american original design, britian just made it more powerful). Also yes, the commonwealth allies helped hugely on all theaters in pretty much every war, but... Most of the largely known Divisions were english,Scottish,welsh and Irish. I.e Desert Rats (which most of my grand-dads were in WW2) and Lancashire Fusiliers in WW1 who fought at the Somme. People seem to think Britain is a push over. But when Did britain (Medieval - Modern Uk) surrender its island again. I seem to be abit foggy there? Huge respect to our allies though, couldnt have done it without them. Atleast not without great cost and Risk. (thats why we have Monuments for our fallen foreign brethren too). P.s Sorry that got deep toward the end...
i think every american agrees that without france the revolution would have been lost however you give the colonies another 50 years to build up for a war and they win easily simply because of the geography and the cost of running a major war half way around the world. Plus logistics back then were complete shit overseas compared to what they are now (plus steamships would not have been a thing yet causing the royal navy to still rely on sails)
very true, the steam ship and distance thing. But what about canada? (or Pre-canada in this case). The Revolution probably wouldn't have lasted another 50 years if it was just America vs Britian. I only say this because if france and Spain didn't fight. Thats the majority of the British forces deloying to the New colonies. There was so much man power, the colonists could likely have been steamrolled and completely replaced if it was required. Without a doubt though, even tho it was a british defeat in reality, im kinda glad our cousin nation won, they have done a F**k tonne since then and have been our closest ally since.
France in ww1: *huff* I can't *huff* believe *huff* we won. France in ww2: we've lost our best men, we have no choice but to surrender. This is the basic description of France through the world wars
@@dillonblair6491 ww1? napoleonic wars? The assault on italian forces in ww2? The french resistance? The americans also weren't able to beat the germans alone. The defeat of nazi germany was performed by several countries who fought together as one force. As a french, I thank the 16 (and there were even more countries that supported the allies) other countries that fought with my countries outside forces to liberate europe. United we rise divided we fall.
Actually, there was a chance that France might’ve not surrendered and the war would’ve been won much earlier. In the desperate months of may 1940, the British launched a desperate counterattack near Arras, Aimed at cutting off German panzers who had overstretched and were far from infantry support. Only Rommel’s Troops held the line long enough to convince the British and French to withdraw. However, had the Allies broken through, Allied Troops would’ve poured through the breach in the German lines, cutting off General Guderian‘s panzers, this time with **their** backs to the sea, with no rescue from the sea as the British had. The Allies would’ve been able to destroy the pocket and the front lines would’ve gradually been pushed back, as long as they didn’t fuck up again, but by this point the Allies had learn their lesson. I think this would’ve been a more plausible alternate reality then what is presented in the video.
Noob PTFO Well this vidéo is quite wrong. A lot would have been different You can go on google trans and read this. It is a research made by a lot of experts on the subject 1940lafrancecontinue.org
One thing I'd like to point out- in 1939-1940 Warsaw was still in a pretty good shape (i mean, a part of it was destroyed but not as much) It was only after the uprising in 1944 when the Nazis whiped away 80% of the city. Still, a pretty good video nonetheless
Ironically , Charles De Gaulle wrote books years before WW2 about uses of tanks in a similar way than Blitzkrieg , it was kind of a best seller among militaries , specially in Germany...
france just had retarded leaders ( except for pétain and de gaulle) who didn’t see the real capabilities of offensives and the use of tanks
@@vincentwitt1810 they were old with a lack of imagination
They didn't listened to the intel that German forces are going through the ardennes
@@fulcrum2951 sadly
TOO BAD THEY DIDNT USE THEIR OWN GODDAMN BOOK
Imagine being one of the 200k french soldiers who died for their country only to later be called cowardly by keybord warriors
"if all the people who say France surrender were rassemble in one army , they would loss in 1 second "
(Me , 2020 , not colorised because it's a text lololol )
Lol those cowards. Idiots decided to "spare the lives and heritage of millions" at the expense of surrendering a month earlier. Its not like it would have just ended with the same result.
My father old old grampa died in 1940 , Defending His country (Frqnce cuz i qm french)
The Soviets lost 20 million.
@@hamburger2726 This number is Soldiers and civilians combined. The Soviets lost about 10 Million men. Well the official number by the Russian military is 8.7 Million.
5:20 This actually isnt true. Paris was spared because it was declared an open city by the french. What this means is that the defenders of the city abandoned in and the attackers are then expected not to attack and bomb it. This is what spared Paris historically, and as the germans reached it before the French surrender, i dont see any reason why the German would destroy it. Other than this though great video :)
Wartime History uhm, because they are nazis? Ofcourse they would destroy Paris.
What are you some nazi ?
the thing is tho
While the nazis were horrible. They were at least somewhat friendly towards the west and even admired them partly. Why would they destroy Paris? Theres no reason or motivation unless there is a massive uprising
Passive nazi supportive comments here.yes nazis would have spared Paris bc its a open city (and muh fellow europeans) but regardless they are still FUCKING NAZIS.
Busy Bee Nazis were bad people, but not a bloody demonic boogeyman
I dont think you actually understand history very well. There were even general orders within the German Army and even SS to stay out of WW1 cemeteries and if at all possible leave the monuments alone. There are many weird ironic things the Germans did during the war and to ignore them all and screech about Nazis is rather sophomoric.
News flash, Hitler and his cronies were human. Simply referring to him and his true believers as the devil incarnate really does take away from how horrific and strange things were.
I think that the French actually didn’t do that bad. They lost thousands of men defending Dunkirk long enough for over 350 thousand British and some other countries soldiers to be evacuated. Then after that they surrendered.
Compare it to Poland 🇵🇱
Well, they allowed for Germany to grow strong through appeasement and the Proxy War. The French also launched an invasion past the Maginot Line, but the army was a few miles into the country and decided to turn around and go home. They also amassed a huge group of tanks and other armoured vehicles, which got into a traffic jam and the President refused to believe it, keeping them there like sitting ducks for the Luftwaffe. Some of their military was also outdated - for example, they carried messages on vehicles, rather than through radio. Orders given to soldiers were also quite vague, and the troops were rarely checked upon. The only success the French had was Dunkirk, and even then that was a desperate retreat and the land was occupied.
@@jubylukose9915 Poland fought back more than the French, the reason they fell so quickly was because of a lack of assistance from the United Kingdom or France and they didn't have the funds to ever compare to the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, which were both superpowers who invaded the country at the same time.
@@AGwest1 what I meant was how well the poles fought compared to the the French who was considered a superpower stockpiled with enough arm and munitions to last ragnarok and poles who held to superpowers back for not 1 or 2 but 19 days and gave the occupiers on heck of a pain in the ass when the revolted , and I tried to represent Poland in a positive light
Had France went to war in 1936 or 1933 the Nazis would have been curbstomped
WW2 is much less brutal and the Cold War is more favorable for NATO
Well thank goodness they surrendered, we couldn't have lost the Notre Dame cathedral right guys...?
makes me cry
oof bad pun bad pun
Yes
*cri*
Sick burn
Lol
"I looked back in time, I saw 14,000,605 pasts"
"In how many of them did France stay in the war?"
"None of them"
Elliott Piker, holy shit.
You win XD
poor France
WORLD WAR 1 THE SEVEN YEARS WAR THE 100 YEARS WAR, the bagatelle war 😏
Totally not the flash :3 lol HOI4
1940
France: surrender
Notre-dame: oof this was a close one
2019
Fire: hold your roof
This whole 'hold my' things is really getting stale.
@@the_red_barron1002 hold my like bro
TinyLordCthulhu 😂
@@the_red_barron1002 You're right, of course. But most people are too dumb or slow to realize it.
*roof crashes onto a blonde Italian man that uses bubbles to fight*
I’m Iranian, we lost around 200k to 600k in 8 YEARS.
And the french lost 200k in weeks, they were butchered while defending their families, truly a respectable people!
More often than not defeats aren't due to the individual soldiers. If you put any nations soldiers in the French troops position the results would have been the same.
Atleast Iran won single handedly against Iraq, Saudi and all the Western allies combined.
France was sold out in 6 weeks despite having a much superior force.
@@hamzamahmood9565 Iran's been powerful for like 2 thousand years for 1. For 2 the French literally were using white flags to communicate w each other...their morale was low and the Germans were just really well coordinated and it worked out perfectly.
@@ayellowpeep actually in 1815 Prussian wanted to dismantle France so it was payback
@@ayellowpeep eh and helped fight Britain in the 1700s
3:53 "You're about one year too early."
Ben Taylor *too 🥴
Ah, ah, ah. Yro’ue*
Sweden: *kicks back eating popcorn and watching the war*
Switzerland: enjoying the show?
Spain: what about me?
Switzerland was surrounded by Nazis and was almost invaded
But ok
@@looinrims Ha good luck with them fighting in the Alps
yousef 501st what is artillery and air superiority? They can mountain all they want, they’ll just be starved out once the Nazis cut off their ocean access for trade if they really don’t want to fight in the mountains
@@looinrims oh yeah your right
Why did the French give up?
The answer is WWI. Although France and Britain had roughly the same population, the French suffered 1.4 million dead, compared with 1.1 million dead in the British Army. But 25% of the British casualties were Empire forces, so that makes about 800,000 British dead. The French had nearly twice the death rate of the UK. After WWI, the spanish flu took a heavy toll in both countries, and the Great Depression followed. France was still a largely agricultural country by WWII, the men were needed in the fields, often the only man available to be called up was the single son of a rare survivor of WWI. The population was told that the Maginot Line would hold, they were fighting a defensive war from well prepared positions. When Blitzkrieg hit them, they were totally unprepared. There was no Churchill promising Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat.
Additionally, once the Vichy government was formed, they broadcast the black propaganda that the Brits had run out on them, a gross calumny that is repeated to this day. When the truth is that 70000 of them were lifted off the beaches at Dunkirk. It is totally understandable that a population in this position would accept what they were told.
What of the Resistance? French men and women began resisting the occupation pretty much at once, and many died doing it. But what made them an effective force early on was the arrival of 4500 Spanish veterans of the Civil War, many of them Communists. They brought expertise and experience, after crossing the border from Catalunya; Franco's forces were still 'mopping up'. One of the Resistance vehicles in the victory parade in Paris can be seen carrying battle honours from the Spanish Civil War.
Estimates of the total Resistance casualties still vary widely, some 25-35000 shot or KIA. Another 100-200,000 deported to death camps.
indeed it's one of the reasons !!
nicktecky55 France and Britain the two countries to do fuck all in ww2
Considered the price paid by France, its ally really gipped them at the WWI armistice. had they given them the western bank of the Rhine for new frontier, it might have avoided this disaster.
ua-cam.com/video/1Ir8fp_Buhg/v-deo.html
Because of this, we couldn't handle the Germans...
But the real reason is because of Belgium
If french generals didn't send troops to save belgians and british around Dunkirk, the Blitzkrieg would've never succeeded
Lost because of big heart
My great great uncle fought in the war in 1940, he was taken prisoner by nazi forces and sent to a POW camp in the Reich where he would remain until 1945.
However instead of simply releasing the prisoners, the soviets decided to take many prisoners with them back to Russia. He remained in a gulag there for 3 more subsequent years before escaping back to France.
He told my father his entire story once and asked him to listen carefully, *because he wouldn't tell his story twice* .
that has got to be the most bad ass thing i have heard
“Nazi forces”
French and British prisoners were sent back to their homes after the war. You're definitely lying. You also can't escape gulag and also find a way to escape Soviet Union
@@volumist Just because my great great uncle story doesn't match history books doesn't mean it is a lie.
Gulags can be escaped, but doubtful you'd find any soviet official telling you that whether back then or now (for obvious reasons).
There are many stories that are not consigned in history books, that's why first hand witnesses of these events are the best source of learning.
@@gothik33 Possibly he could escape but that's unlikely, he probably joked or didn't tell the story fully
I'll just have to correct you about the Louvre:
Knowing that a war would break out sooner or later, the director of National Museums Jacques Jaujard had entierely organised the transport of the museum's paintings and archaeological pieces towards châteaux in southern France. The goal was to protect the artifacts from bombings, fires and especially the taste of high-ranking nazi officials (especially Göring) for art. So the Germans who came to investigate the Louvre were faced with a museum, while not empty, at least devoid of a staggering portion of its collections.
So yeah, the Mona Lisa, the Venus de Milo, the Victory of Samothrace all spent the whole war in safely stored boxes. There are lots of interesting stories about the evacuation, and about this man, who even in France is relatively unknown to this day.
I'd watch that movie.
Interesting
Andy S Pretty Sure that it’s called Monument Men
Jaujard actually collaborated regularly with an assistant curator named Rose Valland, who inspired Cate Blanchett's character in this movie.
If France didn't surrender then we would have "What if France surrender" instead
Deep
MINDBLOW
JUST MONIKA *What if France surrendered sooner
JUST MONIKA What if France Surrendered after germany invaded Poland
JUST MONIKA Monika from doki doki!
UA-cam logo instead of swastikas, well played man.
F M That shows that political correctness is pure cancer. Im personally sick of it.
If the Nazis won, the youtube logo would've been on the USA soldier . It's all about who controls the message, therefore history.
NightSoldier 81 no shit Sherlock
But hammer and sickle is still ok even though millions have died bc of that ideology too
We should start doing that whenever we can.
The French get a bad rap when it comes to war
Napoleon: I am a joke to you?
@WithAStick AngryWhiteMan He was French idiot.
WithAStick AngryWhiteMan he was Italian witch isn't better
Antoine The Great he was born in Corsica witch speaks A type of Italian he didn't speak French for a part of his childhood
Antoine The Great he was from Corsica witch is more Italian than French
Antoine The Great so? Most of Africa was that doesn't mean Africa is French
I was hoping this would be a “What if France successfully defended the Ardennes and didn’t get encircled?” scenario.
MasterEndless tbh that would be quite interesting
MasterEndless Sadly it would probably just be WWI all over again.
That's if the French didn't deploy their forces towards Netherlands to help them nearly at the same time the germans decided to launch their main force through the ardennes
A much shorter war in Europe probably. If this happened the French could've kept their original plan going which was to dig in in Belgium, deal large losses to the German, then when they where about to be overrun they would retreat a bit back, dig in and so on. By the time the Germans had reached the French border they would've taken too many losses to continue the offensive. Now they would just have to wait until the allied superiority in resources came into play to build up their forces, and then crush the Germans.
People don't often realise how close the war in France actually was. The Manstein plan could've gone wrong in many ways and was even heavily criticised by many of its supporters.
Yeah, no. They could have traded casualties about 1:1, but in the end the Allies still would have lost. And with the Molotov-Ribbentrop-pact still intact (and most of eastern Europe more inclined towards Germany), it would be very hard to starve them.
Also don't forget that Italy was still planning to enter the war. If the Wehrmacht got bogged down in Belgium, they could have just gone for a southern push to support them. Sure, Mussolinis troops were unprepared, but Hitler would have gladly lent him a hand.
And the British Empire... you think they could muster the manpower it took the soviets to stop the german meatgrinder - without provoking a shit ton of colonial revolts? I don't think so. There was still a lot of bitterness about having to fight WWI for Britain, and without the Nazis seeming that much of a threat, there wouldn't be much willingness to fight.
Funny that you replaced the Nazi symbol with the UA-cam symbol
Edit: wow that’s a lot of likes 👍
ikr lulz
I mean arnt they the same thing?
There's a difference?...
Aezzil ....hey that was basically what i said oof
LostNameTag oof mb
France would be unfairly mocked for losing to Germany in the Franco-Prussian War instead.
Timothy McLean, sure there's plenty of things to make fun about in this war, but there's more to study on how the lack of loyalty to their people of french officers at the time coupled to political treasons replaced the victory of all french by the only benefit of the military and political elite.
you can't expect us to win every time
dakuru lmao you guys lost u vietnam
So did US.
Jovan Mitrić the us treated vietnam as a priority not a full out war... france treated it seriously afterall vietnam was the heart of the french empire
France: doesn't surrender in wwII
Italy: GOT DAMMIT!
Mussolini : i gonna send 3000 mans for defeat france !
France : *send 9 mans*
Mussolini : noooo they are to strong for me !!
(Battle of Pont saint Louis)
@@noahdecoco4232 Tu la connais cette histoire ? 😂😂 9vs3000 😂
@@noahdecoco4232 also Mussolini: loses against Greece using its whole army while everyone thought they were going to lose
Warsaw was destroyed during the uprising in 1944, not in 1939...
Some sources I read suggest 10% of the city was destroyed and 40% heavily damaged in the 1939 siege. Still not 80%.
I think one of the pics he shows as well is of Rotterdam...not Warsaw..
Yes i he did show Rotterdam i now i am from Rotterdam
well warsaw was still pounded by german planes and artillery in the 1 monthish siege of 1939
Cody getting something wrong? Never seen that before
/s
in other words, surrender was the smartest action to take
In fact that was not a surrendering but an armistice.
Therefore French state was not a "puppet state" of Germany.
Gabriel S.S. Yes, and people will remembered that France surrendered to the Fascist.
@@ihatecabbage7270 Dude you're even confusing nazi and fascist. You're not serious.
This was a treason and sold the country to Germans. This was the last thing to do.
@@come7850 It was an armistice and France was neutral after the armistice. In fact, Vichy and Pétain helped a lot the allies.
"Guys I have le plan"
*France has left the game*
watch?v=qYbG0-FtMrE
*America joined the server*
*I'm sorry something is wrong with the server. Freedom overload retorting to main menu*
@@gonnalooseit2578 two years later
If they didn't surrender so much history and lifes would be lost. Surrending was an epic gamer move
- Le Frenchman
I disagree, yes, more french people would have died, but the french government would escape to Algeria and french colonies would never fall into the hands of the germans and the war would have lasted a little shorter.
@@napoleonbonaparte6705 but the historical artifacts too
@@napoleonbonaparte6705 It woud be useless at that point to fight, even ghe fucking nazis surrendered when they where fucked.
The most epic gamer is to become the Germans NANI Japan says
Polish capital city, Warsaw wasn't destroyed in 80% in 1939 but during the Warsaw Uprising in 1944.
So it was the polish that destroyed their own city?
Chocolatnave123 no, when Nazis destroyed the uprising. Learn WW2 history before watching WW2 alternate history
Chocolatnave123 Hitler was so insane at that moment, that he ordered Warsaw to be leveled and build into fortress at the same time.
Martial Cabo I'm glad you noticed
UberDroid Nice troll
If the French navy and the 100,000 French troops successfully evacuated at Dunkirk had continued to fight after the fall of France, they could have played an important role in the conflict. However, the Nazis would have likely taken their displeasure at that development out on the French people. As it was, less than 10,000 stayed in the U.K. to form the Free French army.
EDIT: Also, several people correctly pointed out that French troops in Africa, as well as 50 ships of the French navy, refused to surrender and continued the fight. Many others, seeing what was happening under Nazi occupation, escaped France to join the Free French. By 1944, there were 400,000 Free French troops, who took part in the Normandy campaign and liberation of France. In addition, the French Resistance continued to undermine the German occupiers and provide intelligence to the allies. The French government may have surrendered, but the French people did not.
The French troops saved at Dunkerque returned immediately to resume the fight until capitulation, while the British enjoyed a break on their fortified rock.
Also, the British unilateraly decided to withdraw at Dunkerque, while the French were planning a counter offensive from the north and southern France to break encirclement and cut off the German breakthrough. Despite that, the French held the British retreat and still got called cowards by their best "pals" for the next 100 years.
A vast majority of French still remained passive under Nazi occupation. Not trying to undermine those who resisted but many either didn't want more bloodshed or simply didn't care. There were many collaborators in the Vichy regime too and helped deport Jewish citizens.
this is a different subject, but the German occupation of France was very documented. There was dumb cucks collaborating, there was a vast majority of people just trying to live their lives the best they could, and there was many people resisting and trying not to get killed until their help was useful. It's a good read, I can only advise you to explore the subject. Also, given the fact that thousands of French civilians, sometimes entire villages, were taken hostage and executed to deter resistance actions, I don't think anyone can know what one would have done at the time, especially when you have a family that relies on you. I don't think we can blame those who remained passive. It's not glorious, but it's not like they had an army and plans.
Arthur Williams good point.
The navy could have done something, and if France hadn't surrendered, the british may not have destroyed french ships and killed their crew in africa, "suspecting" them to collaborate with the germans
Cody has covered some far out there topics but this is ridiculous.
Which he himself points out in the video; or did you simply read the title before posting?
Jason Toddman
It’s a joke 🤦♂️
I dont get it : (
Commander Appo Shit joke.
The joke is France not surrendering for once
This video: “exists”
History memers: *unforchenatly history won’t see it that way*
*Unfortunately
@@monkethinking How the fuck do you mess up that bad.
Darth Maul
Please do if Nationalist China won their civil war
A man can dream
If that were the case: The USSR would be practically surrounded by its enemies. China would have a democratic and fully capitalistic economy. There would be a smaller chance of the Korean War happening. The two Koreas would be unified. The Viet Cong would have a harder time resisting the Americans if the Vietnam War were to still occur. Japan would not be so prosperous as the Americans would rather spend and invest their fortune in China (better economic opportunities). Mongolia would probably link with China once again.
Peter Wong
That might happen, but Stalin liked the nationalist more than the communist because he saw Mao as a rival. If the nationalist won they might be like an early Cold War South Korean style dictator ship, as for choosing a side for the Cold War, the Nationalist will probably join the non-alined group with India, Yugoslavia and others. But hey we don't know what could have happened as Commie China won the war.
Peter Wong
We got the wrong timeline.
(no, seriously, China's actions under communism is responsible for around 1/5th of the world's current problems)
Alan Goldsmith It would be like if mao got to power only we be shaming the nationalist and be asking what if the communists won
General Georg von Küchler, 18th Army of the Wehrmacht, fully committed against the Dunkirk pocket war diary: "Despite our overwhelming numerical and material superiority, French troops counter-attack in several places. I can not understand how such brave soldiers, struggling in different places to one against ten (sometimes even one against thirty), manage to find enough strength to go on the assault: it's just amazing ! I find in the French soldiers of Dunkirk the same passion as that of the hairy Verdun in 1916. For several days hundreds of bombers and cannons pound French defenses. But it's always the same thing, our infantry and our tanks can not break through, despite some ephemeral local successes. The French command very skilfully installed his troop and his artillery. I fear that Dunkirk is a failure for us: almost all the British Expeditionary Force and most of the 1st French Army will escape, because a few thousand brave men bar us access to the sea. It is appalling but that's the way it is. "
"Dunkirk brings me proof that the French soldier is one of the best in the world. The French artillery, so feared in 14-18, once again demonstrates its formidable effectiveness. Our losses are terrifying: many battalions have lost 60% of their strength, sometimes even more! "
"By resisting for ten days our forces significantly superior in manpower and resources, the French army has accomplished, in Dunkirk, a superb feat that should be commended. She certainly saved Great Britain from defeat, allowing her professional army to reach the English coast. "
When our enemies are more respect for us than our allies ... it's hopeless. We will remember it next time.
Well put Bernabé. "popular history" often overlooks the bravery of those who's stand made the famous dunkirk evacuation possible.
@@pifly29 yeah because the movies is about the British evacuation not the French holding the line. Where do you think all the French soldiers were if they were not standing on the beach? They were fighting. Theres even a short scene where the main character comes across a French barricade and almost gets shot, which shows that while the Brits were running the French were holding the line as long as possible to let them escape
@@pifly29 your original comment made it sound like you meant the British actually were the heroes when it's in fact the French (and in some way the stupidity of the germans for not launching absolutely they had into dunkirk at the time)
@@pifly29 The movie ain't even showing the real stories lol
The only reason why the british were able to escape by hundreds of thousands was because the french did a human wall around and inside Dunkirk
They gave their lives to save british soldiers when they knew the nazis were too many and had more artilleries
The only reason why France was taken is because french generals had big heart, they wanted to save belgians and british around Dunkirk
If they didn't move their units to save them, the Blitzkrieg would've never succeeded and the Germans would've never get in France
@@dillonblair6491 what are you talking about
America was returning the favor. Without France's help during the war for independence, we'd all be driving on the wrong side of the road.
France didnt really help much other then aid, and even then that was only when America was starting to win
@@KaiserLerma Without France pumping in millions in both weapons and plain cash, the americans would have lost in a matter of months.
@@dillonblair6491 "You" were winning, because France had supplied the Continental Army with weapons and loans for years.
@@dillonblair6491 You clearly have fuck all idea about either history or any military matter.
I recommend you get some form of education and leave your dear old mum's basement every once in a while.
95% of are traitor gunpowder was supplied by france, without which the rebellion would have been over in a matter of weeks as ghey had neither the facilities nor supplies to manufacture their own nor fund to import it commercially. Additionally the French and Spanish navies hindered the British logistics and troop movement ensuring the traitors never had to fight more than an undersupplied fraction of the army
The French: They wont be here for three weeks!
German Blitzkrieg: three days take it or leave it
They didn't take 6 weeks?
@@jeb0b-.-157 The number six isnt even in the comment
@@Eanso-706 yes, and?
@@whitezombie10 I dont understand his question, the number six is literally no where
@@Eanso-706yes, he meant that 3 didn't have nothing to do with France, because it capitulated in 6 weeks
3:15
Technically, Warsaw after September campaign was still in a pretty good shape. Poland did not stand a chance in a two front war against both Third Reich and USSR so fight did not last for long. After carpet bombing on 25 of September about 12% of buildings in warsaw were destroyed and around 10000 civilians were killed. Two days after that polish military command decided to cease fire to not put in danger any more civilians.
The percentage that Cody used in this video was percentage of the city destroyed in 1944 after the Warsaw Uprising. During the uprising itself about 25% of all the buildings was destroyed but Hitler was furious that Poles stood against occupier so he ordered Warsaw to be compeletly leveled. Over the next few months special german forces were systematicly setting on fire and blowing up buildings in left bank part of the Warsaw. Because of that 80% of the city in 1945 was compeletly turned into ashes and almost entire population was either killed or fled the destroyed city.
Also about 12% of the city was destroyed in the previous uprising - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 43'.
And then the Soviets rolled in. City 3 times rolled over in just one war, such a shame and pity considering its long history.
UberDroid USSR attacked Poland on 17 of September
UberDroid russia was not really part of the allies all things considered, russia and germany basically claimed halvsies on poland in order to maintain a temporary peace. Neither one expected it to last, but germany was the first to actively defy it. So yes, russia did attack poland, but in the same way that finland attacked russia despite not being an axis power, russia attacked poland even though they became part of the allies. When running back through the city, they did liberate the poles, but through the consequence of battle damage, continued to smash through cities.
UberDroid
LOL thats what happens when you get your history lessons from HOI 4
We lost so much anyway: the city I live in is the capital of William the Conqueror, Caen.
It has a 1000 years history. It was obliterated by allied bombing during liberation: 80% of the city was razed to the ground. For the 75th anniversary of D-Day, we had the real life equivalent of this internet widget letting you see the "before-after" of several european cities in WII vs Now. Large posters covering half the buildings that were rebuilt after the war reminded us what we had lost.
We were lucky though. Paris could have been left in this state too: Hitler retreat orders for the Wermacht was to lay waste to the city. Most major building were stuffer with explosives, and General Choltitz refused to trigger them: considered it to be a warcrime, for which he didn't want to be remembered.
What France lost in the first months of the war in military forces is akin to what Britain or the US lost during the whole duration of the war.
This country was hit, and hit hard.
My granfather told me of D-Day: he was 14, he saw everything happening in south-east Cotentin.
Near Périers he saw a german collumn wielded to their vehicles by white phosphorous bombs, while he was trying to bring is little brother shoes: he looted it on on of the burned corpses that wasn't too crispy and about the right size.
A team of Canadia specialists saved him and his family, my two great uncles, my great aunt, and my great grand mother.
The Germans were retreating and they started to fire randomly into buildings or set them aflame to wreck the countryside as much as possible: they were hiding in a barn under large quantities of hay. The germans where in a hurry and couldn't spend too much time searching. They simply gunned dow the barn, but aimed to high to hit my family under the hay, and were about to burn it, when the canadians arrived.
The germans had given away their position by firing shots, and while they were busy spraying gasoline on the barn, the special team gunned them down.
They had a Quebec French officer that politely asked my family to leave their hiding place.
He wanted to know where an artillery post was situated exactly, and if they could come from a direction that was less surveilled.
My grandfather was a delivery boy for the germans, there wasn't much else to be when you were a the child of tenants farmer under occupied France without anyone else to hire.
He told them about the road he biked through with the bike they given him, and how there was nothing but a couple guards a the end of the trail, that was a perfect exemple of bocage, high roadsides picked with fluffy bushes and tall trees: absolute cover all the way.
The officer asked politely if he could set temporary camps here, and my mémère (g-grandma) said yes, and scrapped the little food they had hidden alongside them to cook for the Canadians.
Nothing but a few potatoes and carrots, but they were happy: two soldiers stayed with a radio, and the rest went for the artillery.
They all came back later after what my grandfather said was a couple booms and a few gunshots: some were wounded but most were fine.
They were happy to have a meal right away.
Later the same day, a couple of american soldiers that were lost found him wandering in the countryside: he was trying to find food to replace what they offered the Canadians.
They didn't speak French, and didn't believe he couldn't understand nor speak English: they held him at gunpoint the whole time, and started hitting him in the face with the butt of their guns to know where the nearest Germans were (that's what my Grandfather surmised: he was proud of being a good school student, having completed the "Certificat d'Etude Primaire", which was a diploma they gave 10 years old after completing the first four years of school at the time, and he noticed the English " German" sounded like the old word Romans used to designate what we called "Allemagne" in France, but he didn't understand a single word of what was gibberish to him)
My Grandfather was pissed, he lost a couple hours being bitten down by two Americans he didn't understand for informations he didn't have instead of foraging for his family: he reminisced of a machine-gun nest being set up nearby by the Germans, and sent the Americans here.
He din't knew what happenned to them, but never saw them again, and the maths of putting these two guys against a platoon armed with a machine gun don't really hint at a favorable outcome.
It was complicated, disgusting, and the country was on its knees for a while now: I didn't mention my great-grandfather.
He wasn't a prisonner, nor killed in action, or even in forced labor (my grandfather's older brother was escaping by 1944, thus the healthy, lifesaving habit of my family of hiding well) He was dead since 1936, never having recovered of gases wounds he suffered during WWI: he was about 38 at the time, and would have been "young enough" to enlist again in 1939, and probably would have done so if he wasn't crippled for life. But he was, and his ailment was made worse by his alcoolism, contracted because he wasn't allowed pain medication once he left active duty for his burned lungs: he ached during every breath, from 1916 to 1936.
He lied about his age in 1914 to enlist, being 16: he became a "Chasseur à Cheval", essentially cavalry unit. By september he has lost 86% of his unit to stupid frontal attacks on machine gun nest: he was nearl 6" tall, even bigger on his goddamn horse, and it's a wonder why he was spared while all the other died.
By 1915 no horses anymore, but on foot in the northeastern part of the country, and many sabotaged dams that rendered half the land a cursed swamp: they had been reinforced, and his originally 3300 strong unit was around 36% capacity, somewhere around a thousand guys.
They suffered heavy losses right away, and after two weeks there the unit was down to 300+/- men: they were pulled from the front and reinforced.
Next stop was Verdun.
Hopefully for him it was the last: his unit lost 88% of the men during their 3 months here.
He was among the last: when the gases hit, he had the chance not to die right there on the field, and to be dragged away after the worse passed.
They were about 40 of those that signed in 1914 two years later when he was honourably discharged.
My Grandfather was born in 1930: he was the second child.
War caught my family again while it was barely recovering from the first.
As a people, we weren't ready: most of the active soldiers had been volounteers in spain in 1936 during the civil war, and their officiers were WWI veterans.
The country hadn't yet rebounded demographicaly from WWI, and barely economicaly so: the northeastern part of the country had been razed to the ground twenty years prior.
Imagine losing the eastern seaboard and the rustbelt in 1921 and entering WWII im 41 like nothing happenned: France did just that.
WWII was the uppercut right after the sucker punch.
France lost, badly: but it wasn't lack of will, nor cowardice.
The country wasn't ready, it didn't had the means, but it did what it could, and more.
Hence the resistance.
Hence the standing of this land as one of the major power of the world, despite such an apocalypse, twice in a generation
The war crime thing would be good if the nazis already killed a lot.oh no I made mistake the part about it would be good is supposed to be it would be good if the nazis didn’t kill a lot of people tho. Srry
Actually bombing civilian cities is a war crime. But the judge in Nuremberg had the secretive order only to care about German war crimes ... There has been no justice at all. It was just revenge. This is underlined by the fact Noam Chomsky mentioned "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged. By violation of the Nuremberg laws I mean the same kind of crimes for which people were hanged in Nuremberg."
This is beautiful
Let's not forget the French saved the British army at the battle of Dunkirk. The British were retreating while the French were fighting and dying to cover their retreat. That's why the British had an army to defend their Island.
Long af
Then France wouldn't become a meme
Check My Playlist I was just about to comment that but your comment was the first one
Check My Playlist true
Check My Playlist and that's no good
Not if you're English
But rather, a massive graveyard
There was no combat, until there was.
Spoken like a true historian
French surrender jokes can't just go away.
*But their armies can*
It's called taking a French leave.
*How could you except true Frenchmen to resist the urge of escorting fleeing English soldiers out of France ?*
Fuck you, little brainwashed shit ;)
*boude lourdement en facho *
@@nicolasaudra8709 hahahaha xD
I'm with you. All we'd have left is Freedom Fries
Do what if france and uk invaded germany when germany invaded poland
But that is the real history
No they waited for germany to invade france
@@marcintalaga2376
"On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland after having staged several false flag border incidents as a pretext to initiate the attack.[69] The Battle of Westerplatte is often described as the first battle of the war.[70] The United Kingdom responded with an ultimatum to Germany to cease military operations, and on 3 September, after the ultimatum was ignored, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand declared war on Germany."
Source : Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#War_breaks_out_in_Europe_(1939%E2%80%9340)
@@lesmeilleursvideos58
I know they declared war on germany but they didnt invade it but waited for germant to start the offensive that was thw whole plan of the french military
@@marcintalaga2376 Okay sorry i didn't understand ^^
Love the new swastika. Seems a lot more appropriate
Really strikes fear in the heartbof the people
Yeah
Well it was UA-cam inspiration...
Imagine being sent to a You Tube concentration camp, forced to watch all those cat videos without Adblocker.
France: * aggressively yeets baguette at the Nazis*
Germany: oh shit they mean business
Soviet Union: Pls don't be defeated, Germany, otherwise I'll have to be neighbours with...that.
France: We have ze 3rd highest amount of nuclear warheads after the USA and Russia.
Germany: Oh shit they're not taking any chances this time.
@@SirAntoniousBlock that's now, not in the war
@@rahuliyer_2290 and I won't expand my empire without having problems with big countries
U.s: * shoves 3 5 pound burgers down their gullet without chewing *
Germany : fuck
The entire world expected France (historically a superpower) to compete admirably against Germany and USSR (historically a wimp) to be destroyed instantly by Germany
boldCactus france lost entire generations in world war i, thats why they put so much effort in the maginot line. So they could play a defensive war instead of going head to head with the germans, but as we know technological advances and a surprise attack was able to pass through the line.
Well no the bigger problem was the tactics of france (germany lost more soldiers then france in ww1). First of all after Poland Germany was pretty much defenless and Brittian and France did nothing. For months. And France expected a stalemate like in WW1. Except this time germany had tanks. Where trenches and trench warfare is kinda useless. Also most of their troops were at their Border. So ones Rommel broke though their defensive they pretty much lost. Most of their troops were surronded and/or cut off and the mainland was poorly maned.
Incompetent is kind of an exaggeration
They didn't have a way to anticipate HOW to use tanks - the French tanks were BETTER than the German tanks (arguably), and were sufficient in number, but their doctrine for the USE of the tanks was bad. Germany massed tanks and mechanized their infantry, allowing them to break through everything. The French used the tanks as infantry support, which was a good but inferior idea.
NoHarmony compare the size of the US and Germany. That's ignoring the terrain, manpower, resources, logistics systems etc etc
The German and French manpower pool wasnt the same. In term of percentage, France did loose much more men than Germany, even if Germany still lost more men.
Man, thank you. I'm not even French and this annoys me. Anyone who has studied military history should know that France has one of the best military records of any nation on the planet.
The Battle of France took 46 days and the dead and injured on the allied side numbered over 360,000.
Compare that to the "Battle of the Bulge" which had the most American casualties of any battle in WW2. It lasted 40 days, and the dead and injured on the Allied side numbered a whopping... 67,900. Give or take.
Not to mention that the majority of Frances' 567,000 casualties throughout the war were Civillians. I'd say that they made the right choice to officially surrender. It was either that, or be slaughtered wholesale. Not like they didn't still continue to fight afterwards anyway. Civilians formed resistances, and many soldiers went and joined up with other militaries to continue fighting the German forces.
We can all argue about whether our nation would do better or not, but the truth is, we wouldn't. If America or Canada or Britain or what-have-you was faced with the same odds, if their nation was overrun, their military decimated, their allies retreating and their civilians were being killed en masse, they'd do the same. But as none of these countries were ever actually invaded, I guess we'll never know will we?
Exxaaaactly ! It's easy to judge a country when you're hiding behind a sea.. Just take a look at Verdun and how french fought the germans during WWI. What a fucking no man's lands and still, the allies won the war. But there, french were left alone by Britains retreating to U.K. while number of french soldiers stayed on the Dunkirk beaches. 35'000 soldiers against 800'000 germans. They hold 9 days to ensure the U.K. forces retreat before either being taken prisonner or being slaughtered. Got reports of waffen-SS unteroffizier uncliping grenades to force their men to charge the french hiding in their covers. In the final, german lost more men (20'000) than french did (18'000).
campbellsoup93 I'm not French either, (Scottish actually) and it's always bugged me too.
The problem, certainly in the UK, is that people would rather listen to jingoistic arseholes like Jeremy Clarkston , than historians & academics.
Not that historians can't be jingoistic arseholes too......David Starkey proves that point.
I'm not sure where the American viewpoint came from, but I suspect a similar type of thing.
GothTrad If Britain hadn't managed to get the BEF, and a number of French, off the beaches at Dunkirk, British involvement in the War would have been over at that point.
Thaaaaank you finally i see someone like you saying the truth
campbellsoup93 Even then, France wouldn't of surrendered if it wasn't for the traumatic experiences of WW1. The French could've fought, but they didn't want to. It wouldn't have changed anything besides leaving more French bodies on the ground to bury after the war was over.
You are mistaking Warsaw uprising in 1944 and destruction of the city with 1939 and warsaw siege. Warsaw wasn't destroyed in 80% in 1939.
Warsaw has been bombed in 1939 anyway... The simple idea that any bomb could fall on our capital is unbearable, lose Paris just for a brief and not very profitable resistance was an unbearable cost. Even today you know : since couple of weeks a lot of protesters march in the streets of Paris. Nothing important to say about this quite regular event in France, but 2 weeks ago protesters made a huge scandal : they profaned the Arc de Triomphe... During 1 month they burnt cars in the street and throw Molotov cocktails on police officers and nobody cares, but the profanation of this monument made a huge commotion and deeply offended the french citizens. Paris is litteraly covered with thousands of historical monuments, each one is part of our History and it's start with the roman empire period... This town was too precious to risk it in a vain resistance, that's it! My grand-parents chose to surrender, if it was me, i would do the same.
@Иван Возяков We didn't have thousands km of territory to flee and prepare counter-attack and we didn't have 20 million lives to sacrifice. France in 1940 was like Russia in 1941 : it was a complete rout. When germans arrived in Stalingrad or near Moscow, they made 2000km incursion in russian territory and hundred of thousands russian prisonners and they had to deal with russian winter and spring and a poor and bad road network. They just had to make 500km to reach atlantic ocean in 1940, during summer with good roads. Once again it's easy to say french people is coward when you don't have the most powerfull army of all time at your borders... Maybe would we make a deal with Germany, like Russia? That's maybe more courageous I suppose...
@Иван Возяков That's so funny to see how the russian patriotic propaganda prevaricated russian vision of this war. Anyway, all french kid learn history of WWII in school and they all know what they owe to Russia (to be clear : more than USA). If you were not blinded by your anti-western media, maybe would you know how respectfull we are about russian soldiers and their courage and sacrifice. But it's easier to insult the bad and decadent western world...
@Иван Возяков “Russia lost about 5% of its territory fleeing” Even literally by your own numbers. If you take territory of Russia and surrender only 5%, you just surrendered territory bigger than whole France. Great advice smart-ass. “Hey France, just be bigger so Nazis literally run out of oil chasing you and then they can’t do blitzkrieg anymore.” Genius.
problem is, Hitler didn't hate the french as much as he hated the east. anyway england and france didn't do shit when Czechoslovakia was annexed, didn't do shit when poland was invaded, only got involved at the last minute.
Just a mistake: Mona Lisa was not in the Louvre during WW2. They hid her in several places.
could you name one or two?
@@henrypaleveda7760 No its a secret.
The US military was in even worse shape than the French in 1939. We were lucky we didn't get into WWII until the the USSR and Britain had been wearing Germany down. We also had an entire ocean to protect us. We still got our asses handed to us initially. We are in no place to brag.
France ha historically been our most reliable ally and we shoudn't be insult them for not being our b--- in Iraq. They turned out to be right on that call anyways.
We don't exist without us, nor them without us. They are like the good friend who tells you the truth rather than what you want to hear.
well said my friend ! from france !
Wrong, the US made shit ton of money from selling weapons and furniture to europe just before japan attacked them, otherwise they wouldn't have fought this war, why do you think the US is now the richest country on earth ? Because the US is the biggest war profiteer ever
Oh? An USAn that knows history and knows to be grateful?
As an asian, i'm quite impressed. I once tought USAn are bunch of ingrate. If to France that USA owes many debt of gratitude they have treated them like shit, imagined to those who dont.
@@nurlindafsihotang49 The USA doesn't have allies only vassals
@@myasuujo3330 ain't that the truth.
And those who does not want to be their bitches get bullied every day.
Always fun to see people mocking France for that (and being serious).
I wonder what their country could have done against Germany if they were direct neighbours.
Kick the shit out of the Germans if you were Russian.
@@Wafflepudding Without the winter and the specificities of the Russian geography Hitler would have probably defeated the USSR. Germany could have taken Moscou but they choose to go to Stalingrad. However it doesn't change the fact that the USSR was quite impressive during the 2WW even more if we take in account the fact that they fought a civil war not so many years ago.
@@Bobols91 To be honest fighting the USSR is like attacking 10 countries at once because they were like the British commonwealth but with more direct goverment, If it was Russia by itself they would most likely loose all of western russia and fall back to siber and wait until the allies do something.
@@dillonblair6491 By the time america would have ready for war, the first thing the soldier would see is a german officer drinking a beer at a bar reserved only for germans.
@@dillonblair6491 That america would have already lost against the germans in 1939 since the 'world' never knew about theit new tactic. The Blitzkrieg. German high-command would have had plans to make america sign an armistice. They could use tactics like guerilla or bombardment with V2 rockets aka ICBM from greenland. Or more likely ask the USSR to assist the invasion under the pretense of reclaiming alaska.
While I respect that you wanted to emphasize how brutally this would destroy Paris and mainland France, it would've been interesting to imagine how that affects the North African and general Mediterranean Theaters.
French naval forces and air forces could have gone to the pacific colonial possessions to combat Japenese agression. or more likely, they could have freed up British naval forces in the mediterranean and North Africa which could have assisted elsewhere like the Pacific or Russian theatre.
The addition of the French Navy surely could have assisted with the war in the Atlantic. Their was a French aircraft carrier that could have done so much.
Yum
I'm awful for laughing at that that surrender joke 0:12 but probably because of the Seinfeld theme and the crying frenchman. It was perfectly executed XD.
What if China permanently fractured into many states ( like the way the Romans fractured into Spain , France , Italy , ect )
Nirekin Inc. Indeed. Look up warlord era, 3 kingdoms period, period before Qin unification.
Dams I know that , I mean permanently , not the dynasty collapses and the warlords create temporary new state while they try to reunite China
Ozer Harry after qing (1914-1945)
Never Lucky m8 read previous reply
"What if China did what they have always done"
What if Justin Y stopped commenting?
What is a Justin Y ?
ur mom
I guess you mean i have a life and fulltime job to not have time to know about some irrelevant commentator.
You are completely wrong about the destruction of Warsaw. Warsaw was barely damaged in 1939, which you can see in German aerial movies of the conquered city. Warsaw was completely wiped from the face of the Earth after the Warsaw Uprising in 1944.
SnowGroomer Yep I’ve researched that a bit, out of the 75% of the city being destroyed, about 65 of those were from the Warsaw Uprising Although there définit,y was damage by the Nazis.
There was, but not the proportion described. After the Warsaw Uprising though, the city was near levelled.
yeah, but that's still 5 years of difference - not a good thing messing with facts like these on a history-focused channel
SnowGroomer But imagine the French Resistance. There would be lots of damage done to France that's for sure...
Actually the Russians were that time at the doorstep of Warsaw.. They stopped the front and let the Germans crush the uprising. They did not really wanted rebels... not sure if some part of the destruction came from fights inside the town. WW2 was pretty devastating to cities, and Russia got plenty artillery...
An a Frenchman myself, I don't find your scenario bad at all but I absolutely DON'T agree with it. Why ?
First of all, not surrendering was actually seriously considered by the French government in the last weeks of the war. Had prime minister Paul Reynaud not been so weak and unable to make decisions, he would probabably have agreed with De Gaulle's plan to keep fighting instead of letting Pétain take over and set up a far right pro-nazi dictatorship.
However, had France continued to fight, the plan never would have been to defend Paris until Germany burns it to the ground. The French government was totally aware that the mainland was lost. Instead, De Gaulle and Reynaud wanted to retreat to Algeria and continue the fight oversea.
In that scenario, France would have not been as weak as you say. Of course the mainland and its industry would have been lost, but a decent part of the army could have escaped to Africa in a Dunkirk-style operation. When France surrendered, the entire army collaped in absolute chaos. But if the government had decided to keep fighting, the army could have retreated in good order. In fact, in june 1940, most of the French army was still able to fight.
France settling a government-in-exile in Algeria as early as 1940 would have changed everything. Vichy would never have been a thing, France would have remained united and the French people would have secretely backed their government just like the British supported Churchill. In our timeline, many French were fooled by Pétain and thought he actually had a secret plan to resist Germany, which proves the French were not fans of the nazis at all.
Instead of a long and painlful war in Africa against Vichy and Italy, France and the UK could have controlled the Mediterranean as early as 1941 or 1942 thanks to the mighty French fleet. In our timeline, the fleet, which was a key factor for the control of the Mediterranean, was lost because of France surrendering. Churchill was perfectly aware of that and that's why he tried everything to prevent its ally from signing an armitistice. When Pétain refused to give the fleet to the British, Britain simply bombed it. Also, France would have refused to give up Indochina to Japan, which would have slowed down the Japanese conquest of southeast Asia.
By controlling Africa as early as 1941 or 1942, the Allied could have started to plan an invasion of Italy and Southern France. American troops would not even have been needed in North Africa and operation Overlord could have happened earlier. France could have been liberated in 1943 or early 1944 and would have kept its legitimacy as a great power. The Allied could have reached Berlin before the USSR and the Cold War could have looked entirely different.
Finally, I would like to talk about the famous argument that the Germans would have committed atrocities in mainland France in retaliation. That's actually what many people feared at the time and what Pétain explained at his trial after the war. But I'm not sure that would have happened. Why ? Because Hitler knew he had interest to befriend the French people instead of being seen as crual tyrant. Hitler's ambitions had always been in the east. War against Britain and France was inevitable because of Poland but he didn't want to lose his time, equipement, money and men occupying a hostile France when he was planning a conquest of the USSR. Committing atrocities against the French would only have strenghthened the Résistance and increased popular support for the Allies. Hitler's interest was actually to be 'nice' with the French people, even though its government was refusing to surrender. Did Germany commit atrocities in the Netherlands because its government was fighting oversea ? Not that much. Of course, atrocities like the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre could have happened more often because of a stronger resistance, but I don't think the war would have been much more costly for France in term of human losses. However, I must admit the Occupation could have been far worse for French Jews (even though Vichy played an active role in the Holocaust in our timeline).
Anyway, it's just my scenario and yours is not necessarily unrealistic. I just wanted to give my point of view, based on how French historians see our role and actions in WW2.
So france is going to lose regardless if they refused to surrender. Thats just sad
They lost mainly due to their mentality was still in WW1. The Maginot line was impressive but was really only strong on the border with Germany and they expected more trench warfare. Defenses along Belgium were almost non existent. If they fully fortified the Maginot line all the way to the ocean maybe things would have been different but the French pretty much built a wall with a gaping hole in it. Surrender no matter what
Well, if they didn't get surrounded by the Blitzkrieg and was able to resist it then maybe.
the defences along the belgium border could of held, the problem was they considered the arden impassable by vehicles, they where wrong and simply unable to respond in time.
I thought it's obvious that you surrender when you're going to lose, who would surrender if they had the ability to win? Common sense really
france lost ww2 twenty years before the war even started
also one important thing to consider (aside from bad leadership etc.) is this:
A whole 1/10 of France was completely destroyed during WW1 and we lost 1.4 million of our men and 40k civilians. It took a lot of money and time to rebuild the villages, cities, factories, fields, to recover the bodies, bury them, build memorials etc.
All of that took 10 - 15 years of excruciating efforts.
And on top of that we lost about 400k to the Spanish flu.
Most of the vets were traumatized, if not disfigured or physically impaired, and lots of efforts were made to reintegrate them into society.
Compare that to Germany who lost more men but was fighting on 2 fronts, and who sustained almost no damages to its land and cities and lost almost no civilians. That and the rage created from the defeat and dire economic situation the years after of course.
And what happens about 5 years after we've finished rebuilding and mourning? After all the parades and ceremonies? Well there's that loud German dude at it again, and he's invading Poland oh boi.
Some of the vets are called for duty once again, troops are massed at the border, civilians are evacuated, we are bracing for another big war and this time we think we are "more" prepared. But here it is, it's another war, 20 years after the last one, against the same enemy, on the same fields that were just rebuilt and where there's still rotting corpses of brave men buried under the grass.
Moral wasn't that high on the french side when the war started, and it was probably non-existant when Belgium was lost.
Erwan TILLY if only, my dude, if only
Germany sustained no damages to its land and cities and lost almost no civilians?
Man Germany got raped by a ton of countries all over the place. They took a ton of damage and lost a ton of civilians.
Moral had nothing to do with the french defeat in 1940. Also german moral wasnt that high eather. the war was not popular in germany, not at all. Most thought the poland crisis would be over like what happened with the chechz - peacfull. The main fact for slightly higher german moral was that they won in poland in record time, boosting. When you look closer in the matter, the german military was everything except ready for war in 1939. For example the german army lost half!!! its tankforce in poland and only had ammunition after polish surrender for 6 more weeks. even worse the german divisions (reservists at best) stationed at the french/german border during the poland campaign had only ammunition for a few days and nearly no heavy guns. they were also ordered to retreat to the westwall, which was a huge bluff by the germans as it only consisted of a few bunkers and anti tank obsticls.
there were three things that garanted german succsess at the start of the war:
1) the allieds incompetence far outmatched the german one
2)The germans were succsessfull gamblers and bluffed/ got lucky with succsess
3)The german army thought out of the box of standart ww1 doctrines and got creative (gambling as in 2))
Fun fact: the war would have ended on the first day of the german invasion of france if the french would have used their bombers and bombed the ardennes forest. Nearly the entire german motorised and armour army was on ONE SMALL STREET lined up in a huge traffic jam with no way to evade the bombs. The german airforce could have never stopped all bombers, only a few good hits would have been enough to destroy the road and make the entire offensive stop in its tracks. The french even new about the massing of german forces in the ardennes, but the information got stuck in middle french command were it was considered unrealisitc and irrelevant information. One attack to end the war :D
Twinzzlers during WW1? nope, not at all, do some research
I don't think it's bad leadership to surrender, probably the best thing to do to avoid further losses
the only reason the UK and USA survived the war was because they're practically islands. and had time to observe blitzkrieg and how the wehrmacht was weakened
@@dillonblair6491 real men who fled after 2 weeks of battle who like the Americans hid on their islands only to start fighting when the Russians had won the war.
@@dillonblair6491 the Japanese were never really a problem, they couldn't even beat the Chinese. the battle of Britain is a marginal victory for the Brits even though RAF were the clear first priority for the Brits. and the Africa campaign was just like the Balkan campaigns Italian troops and material. operation barbarossa stated in July of 41, 3 years before d-day.
Dillon Blair It is a known fact, but the first ever loss of German during WW2 was Stalingrad. I don’t really see how the Russian could have « joined » when they were out there for a while. The USA waited to move their ass until Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. For instance back in WW1, they joined in 17’ when the war was already over, provided ammo and a few men. Actually, I’m not even sure the USA actually won a war they were part of from day 1. (can somebody confirm ?). It is always easy to call yourself almighty when you are protected by the sea and wait 3 to 4 years to make any move compare to a country that have immediate borders with its ennemies. The war wouldn’t have been won without the us for sure, but it is only because Hitler and its allies was no more profitable for the US business. They are not « real men », rather « real business men ».
Dillon Blair the German were losing a part of their positions, indeed, but it was in the French-uk-Russian favour. (even if the war would have been longer without the us for sure.) Fun fact, the real reason why the us joined in April 17 was because in January 17, the German navy and sub marine forces announced that they would attack and acquire any neutral business/bargain boats and floats they would find in the Atlantic, making it it a lot harder for the US to make business in Europe.
As for the point that you never surrendered... yeah, Vietnam was not surrendering right... oh wait, it was ! Didn’t you back off of Iraq too ? Gas acquiring cost was starting to be a bit too high I guess...
And if you talk about home soil... well technically you didn’t, as the only war you had in your own country was for your independence, right ?
(No need to mention in this cas that France was vital to the whole creation of your country of course)
Europeans are so weak ... => The USA is mainly a European decent country, filled with many European decent people and created by Europeans... what’s your point ? Are you denying your own history ?
Dillon Blair Dillon Blair do you know what sarcastic means ? Check my sentence about Irak and Vietnam and use your tiny brain. Please.
The Zimmerman telegram was just the apotheose of it, not the main reason, as the Mexican government didn’t have a proper institution yet and refused the German proposition. It was not a real threat.
And in case you didn’t get my first point about business men (which is still the same I’m referring to), the reason I quoted Vietnam is indeed because just like Irak you made war not for justice, not for your country’s sake, but for the money/strategic ambitions. As always. Iraq is the most laughable war there is, as there were never any real threat from there, but you just wanted the ressources. You created this war. From the day the CIA financed governments for political affairs till the end.
And also, which major war did you started / were part of since day 1 ? NONE. As I said before, you never participated in risky wars, you waited for a side to become weak, or fought minor ennemies. « A vaincre sans péril, on triomphe sans gloire »
As for your arguments about home soil, as we said it again and again... being separated by a deep ocean was pretty convenient at the time. Of course you would win today, that is a fact. (At least if we put nuclear/atomic bomb aside, because the first one that « fires » the bomb wins)
I remember my French teacher talking about how amazing France was by using one example the French preventing hitler from using an elevator
elevator in those years?
@@whitezombie10 apparently
@@everburnerfish but what's the so great point in some French solders stopping Hitler from taking an elevator? I could do that too all alone lol, and like I said there is no point in saying it
@@whitezombie10 I don't know it's just the example a French teacher always used
Make a wish
Me:I want a dragon
Thats impossible
Me:i want france to not surrender
What kind of dragon you want?
"...My father died on your battleground, i haven't seen the shadow of his coffin, hitted to death by one of your bullets, this is the reason of my grief-dress.
You had the Alsace and the Loraine, you had the millions of foreigners, you had Germanie and Bohême; But you will never own my little heart, but my little heart will stay FRENCH !!!"
The last part of "La Strasbourgoise", a French military song that i love.
ça tombe bien cette chanson est sur l'annexion de l'alsace lorraine en 1870 par l'empire allemand, ce qui n'a donc aucun rapport avec la seconde guerre mondiale x)
A lot of mistakes here
- French surrender was decided after the fall of Paris, declared open city to prevent bombing, but while fighting was still present on the front.
- The decision was political and remained undecided for a very long time. Union with England was a possibility but continuing as a single country was still viable, and had a lot of partisan.
- Blitzkrieg had its limits, a lot of infrastructure in northen France was destroyed as a target of german bombing, and were now preventing a quick advance from german divisions.
- France still had a lot of military equipment that could have been evacuated on the south to maghrebian territories.
- The role of French army would not have been to defend, but to win time for evacuation
- Germany would have needed to pursue the conquest of France, which is traversed by a lot of rivers. With a correct defense and destruction of bridges, each crossing would have been a logistical nightmare for German command.
- Most importantly, the French navy was one of the strongest in the world, and would have helped assert ally dominance in Mediterranean sea, preventing Italy to do anything in Africa, and creating the menace of a landing in Sicilia as soon as 1941
- The toll taken by Germany on French economy during the occupation/Vichy regime and a bigger impact than most destruction. Moreover it is doubtful that Nazis would have destroyed city in already conquered areas.
I’m french btw, and I recommend to any french speaking to read “1940, et si la France avait continué la guerre...” which cover with great rigor and in details this alternate story line.
la marine Italienne ! Tu as pensé a la marine Italienne ...Ducon
The french army was beaten, there was no organized retreat or holding any frontline against the german panzerdivisions. Guderian already trapped the maginot army while reaching swiss border , paris was taken and the best troops in the north got circled by the sichelschnitt.
France had no Chance at all because they were overwhelmed so hard that they were paralized and their commanders sat miles behind the front. France declared war and thought they could win by playing the 1918 game again with the brits.
Germany was smarter and used an advanced tactic with a very efficent teamplay between tanks and stukas.
Also guderian and other generals were leading from the front in such a speed that france couldnt keep up.
It seems very unlikely that france could have build up any form of frontline to delay the wehrmacht.
The most crucial factor is moral. The french gave up because the knew its over...
But I agree wirh your navy point. Still a big issue the french navy. But your ally gb backstabbed you and attacked the french navy in north africa.
You sucks
@@ASMR.GentleMan Evacuations of hundreds of thousands of troops could have been carried out along the Southern Atlantic coast and Mediterranean coast, aircraft could have been flown to Britain, the navy saved, and the French forces in the colonies would still be in tact. France may not have been able to have escaped the continent with her full might but she could have escaped with far more assets than countries like Poland, Norway, Belgium, and the Netherlands who would continue to fight on from the British Isles. She would have still had more assets to put into the fight than any other country in the allies except Britain. And, above all, she would have preserved the honor of her nation and would not still be mocked to this very day.
@@ASMR.GentleMan just one word "berthier rifle" in 1939 in french army in front of panzer and MP(38 and other)/MG34
Lazy memers: did you do it?
France: yes
Lazy memers: what did it cost?
France: everything
This makes France's surrender much more noble.
Alexander Lehigh IRL or in this scenario ?
There's a difference between fighting on because there's hope and fighting on without any hope. The French simply couldn't have won, and as they lived in a democratic nation they couldn't have fought on without the populations' consent.
Or more selfish and worse. Meanwhile Serbia raised a million man resistance army to fight the German occupation.
Noble!? LMAO!
yeah you're right but france had no way win because the french population simply don't wanted to die , france was still hunted by the first war and all the useless dead
YES FINALLY SOMEONE DEFENDED FRANCE FROM THE MEMES, NOW PLEASE EXPLAIN ITALY
PS
I'm not talking about the militarily poorly power (believe me even at history School here in Italy they teach us how we sucked in both world wars, we're not proud of that) i'm talking about the "betrail joke" tof both world wars.
And Sorry for the bad english.
*Several People are Typing...*
ciaotiziociaus I'm sorry but it really is hard to defend Italy. They knew they were behind the curve in almost every way and yet they still were happy to go to war hoping to win mostly on esprit de corps. They were in a terrible position from the start. They had a hard time occupying ethiopia lol
It was just a bad decision.
Atleast the French were modernizing and had adequate equipment and somewhat of a plan. They just had a bad plan lol
Alexander Strickland wait i know that, really.
Italy was really poorly militirized that's true, Mussolini when Hitler arrived showed him tank made out of papers!
I'm not talking about that but about the shapeside meme.
Oh and Sorry for bad english
Ah, if only they had the Great *CHEF BOYARDEE*
Before he went bald Mussolini’s hair was pretty GREECEy
What if UA-cam didn't act like a bigot and censor real life history?
The funny thing is, they're doing this while calling everyone else a bigot.
I'm gonna get a historical flag mod for HOI4 just to anger them
what , really?? how??
I´m really curious
Actually, He did that so people in Germany can view the video. If a swastika is shown, the video is banned in Germany.
__ Buzzard but wouldn’t his video still be considered as a method of teaching what the Nazis were in the past.
Knowing when to quit is a talent unto itself
Most people forget that Britain lost the battle that made France surrender too. The UK would have had certainly the same fate as France's if there wasn't the Channel between them and Germany. (edited to remove typos)
MaxBuster if the channel didn't exist, then the UK might have already been a part of France. It's a pretty historically important piece of geography to change.
No FRANCE might have a large part of great britain , pls read ur history book, uk was like a french region when Normand have invaded the south of the uk :)
it is people from France that invaded england in 1066, i Don't see why France would be a part of GB
matt Who said it would?
elix
80% of Warsaw was destroyed in 1944 not in 1939
Piotr S. Pawlak thats verry important fact. Warsaw wasnt destroyed because Polland didnt surrender. But becose Poles wanted to liberate themselfs from Germans before soviets will do it. Its a huuuuge diffrence and it put France in even worst image.
War never... you mean "the warsaw uprising" which was kinda stupid cuz they held out to germans without thinking of the soviet invasion
FYI several big cities in northern france were destroyed in that month and half of fighting. Dunkirk and Lille were in ruins. If they continued fighting that situation would have just extended further south. Fact is, France had no possibility to win, and more fighting in their territory would cause even more civilian deaths. French soldiers do not fight because they like to fight, they fight to defend their family. If said family get bombed because they fight in their own cities, and on top of this there's no prospect of winning anyway, then fighting becomes completely retarded.
The whole idea was that the soviets were only a few kilometers away from Warsaw, the uprising was supposed to make the recapture of Warsaw easier and come along quicker- the soviets waited on the other side of the wisla river for a month giving only a few airdrops to get their hands clean and be able to say they helped and camped until any polish resistance got slaughtered
my grandfather served in the french army he fought in Belgium and....
was taken prisoner for a month in germany .
The Russians fought to the death, why didn’t the French? Not making fun, it’s a serious question.
my great grandfather jumped bridges against the Germans towards Orleans and also ended up spending years in German prison, but obviously it is a coward by what Kevin of Missouri says it
@Cole DeBeer 🏳️🏳️🏳️
@Cole DeBeer In Barbarossa many men surrendered, moreover the country is very huge and the land is essentially desertic, in winter its worst Napoleon saw it, its an big advantage for resistance. Finally, there were resistance in France, I know than one of my ancestor was in and parents of my grandmother hide jews.
@Cole DeBeer Respect. Sadly we don't talk about other nations who fought too and contributed to win the war. Holywood propaganda present american as saviour of the world in both WW. No Russia, Australia, Canada and lot of smaller country
Thumbnail should read ‘Ah Non!’ ‘We will fight you! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!’ *blows raspberry and taps his helmet*
3:48 jokes on you Alternate, notre dame is still gone it just took another 80 years
Not really.
It's a stone building with wood, not a wood building with some stone.
The wood is burnt, but the stone is still there.
Explosives would have destroyed the stone as well.
Damaged, but not gone. Actually the structure of the building has survived largely intact.
@@keithewright please dont over analyse, its just satire.
@@Deneris02 you'r idiot
@@Deneris02 it was a wack satirical joke
What if France Won the Napoleonic Wars?
Master of the world lol
France won most of them. The only one it still needed to win was the war against Russia.
that one wa sactually a possibility, just don't go that far into russia, I guess. WW1 and WW2 may have never existed in that timeline, or involve UK vs France instead. In fact germany itself may have never become a country like we know today. That's a pretty big shaking of everything. The world today may be separated between a French and an UK domination or something.
Winter screwed them over. They did take Moscow.
Alucard Hellsing
They even planned for the winter, it just started two weeks early.
What if Belgium gave military acces to Germany in WW1?
BANANA _ the uk wouldn’t join the war and therefore france russia and serbia loose the war because there is no US or UK
I want historyhub to answer, not you.
too bad, you will wait an eternity kido
Skylake okay then kido
Agustin D. Britain would probably join the war at some point. Britain was still allows to France and Russia they wouldn't have liked German hegemony over mainland Europe. The UK also wanted to gain control over German colonies and prove their dominance of the seas. If the war would start favouring Germany Britain would have joined as they didn't want the balance of power on Europe switching so dramatically in favour of Germany.
John Mosier, in “The Blitzkrieg Myth” argues persuasively that the blitzkrieg happened mostly in panicked headlines, that the German tank corps had outrun its supply lines, and that France was in no worse shape in May of 1940 than it had been in a similar moment in 1914. Essentially, surrender was a political failure rather than a military certainty.
Their largest reserve and best men are encircled at that point in the Low Countries, and slapped back to the coast, what were they supposed to do exactly? Are we forgetting the part where the only lines left were second rate troops?
@@looinrims they should've spent 70 command points for the "Last Stand" ability or at least put a field marshall with defensive doctrine
@@fiendish9474 Should’ve put some garrison units down
I think it's a bit wrong as german generals were really better than french ones
Also there were the italian threat to the south
The french air force was 5 years old and thus not very good with some "ok" planes (they weren't very bad but they weren't good either) and their numbers was much lower than the luftwaffe
The french force were very lacking radio and discipline (at first)
The british didn't help that much france when the germans hit hard
France's manpower was still affected by ww1
German soldiers were drugs to be more effective
France didn't want to fight too
etc etc
The situation was very worse than ww1 in many aspects
But france had the "best army in the world" at the beggining of the war
@@looinrims they weren't genuinely surrounded since the German units had outrun their supply lines. France could've fought on and won, although it would've meant urban warfare
As a brit (especially an Englishman) I think the French should be proud of there history as the French resistance stopped resources getting to the nazis during D-Day and so much more. The old saying goes love France but hate the french. As we have been at piece for 200 years and are close allies considering of our old history (even though the old english generation and a few other englishmen took us out of the EU *well not yet*) and we're strong close partners during the 2 world wars (also I love the germans, I ain't spreading no hate) I can say that all that nonsense between us both has gone. Love your culture cheese and wine. Peace out from the island just off your coast
What If Australia Won The Great Emu War?
They wouldn't, like the surrender of france, it was inevitable
The Emus would've retaliated with a last ditch nuclear strike on Sydney.
Techically, they didn’t. They simply signed a truce. It was not a surrender because everyone thought England would surrender soon. Therefore, all French POWs were kept in POW camps.
Jordan Sharpe en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_of_22_June_1940
Jordan Sharpe umm that was a term of the truce which was violated after 1943
*UK
germany: your country's army is virtually gone, you have to surrender!
france: nah i'd win
There were 53 major conflicts in Europe. France will have been a belligerent in 49 of them, and the UK in 43. Among the 185 battles that France has delivered over the past 800 years, its armies will have gained 132 of them, and will have lost 43, leaving only 10 undecided battles. Giving the French military the record of victories in Europe and therefore in the world. France is the nation that has participated in the greatest number of war and battle in the whole history of mankind. Over the last 800 years France has beaten over 200 years against England, more than 150 years against the Germanic nations, more than 190 years against the Spaniards / Portuguese, and facing many other nations
Respect from France (Alsace,,just in the border with Germany)
and because of the maréchal Pétain who put all of its defence on the "ligne maginaux" and not taking care of what Charles de Gaule was saying we lost many brave soldiers and civilians to the german , we never surrender , only the politics surrender not the civilians who built the "résistance" and thanks too our allied the US and UK + USSR who saved us .(srry for the english i'm french)
And they did not surrender during ww2.
Don't forget UK is a Lucky country,,,an island ,,,no borders withe Germany,,, English chanel = 40 divisions,,(yesterday,,today,,,with missiles ???)
Cool, (*insert avatar music*) but when the world needed her the most, she surrendered.
2 things :
1) the deaths for the british in the battle of france only amount to 10k. The 80k includes wounded. The numbers you have here are the deceased for the french, but the casualties (deceased+wounded) for UK. And among those 10k, half didn't die on France's soil but in the sea when the ship they were retreating to England with was sunk by the Germans. One reason for such small number compared to the france is that despite having a higher population than France, Uk barely sent any troops to help in the northern France early on. Another is that half of that number were caught in Dunkirk and refused to continue fighting under the pretence that their troops were "tired", and let the desperate defence under constant bombing to the French's first army that was trapped with them, while the British were evacuating.
2) More than half of the french navy actually intended to fight on from the colonies. They were sunk by the british who didn't think it was a good idea to leave the possibility that they'll be captured by the german. 1,300 french soldiers who waved at the british navy approaching believing they were allies died that day from their allies' hands at Mers El Kebir. That was the infamous operation catapult, and a major reason for the Vichy government to cut ties with its backstabbing ally to focus on its relationship with the germans.
Yes, but the problem here is, in THIS VIDEO the number used for the french is death alone whereas the number UK side is casualties, so death+ wounded. Also german has death only in this video as well. This makes it look like UK and France suffered comparable losses when they did not. France had 18 times more dead soldiers on its soil than UK, that's nowhere near the same number. Casualties were 140k for germany VS 200k for france and 68k for UK. Deaths were 27k for Germany VS 85K for France and 5K (+5K for Lancastria sunk) for UK. You can't just go and mix those numbers without precising.
A scenario where Julius Caesar was never assassinated.
The Roman Empire would probably be established earlier than it was. Also Augustus probably wouldn't be known as Rome's first emperor, and the whole Julio-Claudian dynasty would have been different. I could probably name some things though.
1. Cato, Cicero, and the assassins of Julius Caesar wouldn't have been killed. Or lets say that they do conspire to kill Caesar anyway, but just ends in failure. They would have been killed by that way. Pompey still would have died.
2. More conquest. Caesar probably would have tried to annex Britain and Germany. Augustus sent his army to annex Germany but failed in the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest of 9 CE. Julius Caesar I have a feeling would have annihilated the Germanic people and make them surrender like he did in Gaul.
3. Because Caesar doesn't die, Cleopatra doesn't marry Mark Antony. Also Caesarion isn't murdered on the order of Octavian. To which, Cleopatra's other sons and daughter by Antony wouldn't have been born. But if she had more children with Caesar, Cleopatra probably would have formulated her plans to have them rule Egypt, Asia Minor, Lebanon, and Syria. But if they just had Caesarion, then he would have continued to Ptolemaic legacy farther.
Egypt wouldn't have been a province of Rome, it would've been an empire. The history of the Roman Empire would have been different (at least in the earliest times). Jesus still would have been born, and Christianity still would have become a thing. But Julius Caesar, after having a long-lived life, would have been seen as a god to Rome (as he was in our timeline). But there would have been more temples, and statues of him, and probably mosaics of him with the Gods.
Caesarion probably would have been Rome's first emperor (that is if Julius didn't declare himself as such), it wouldn't have been Augustus. I have a feeling the Roman Empire would have been chaotic in this scenario than in our timeline. Pax Romana wouldn't have been a thing. Julius Caesar didn't care about the Romans well-being, he only cared about conquest. Caesar would have passed that down to Caesarion, and Caesarion would have passed it down to his kids and so on.
Perhaps down the line, there would have been a rebellion, and the Senate would call for the Republic be re-established. Or we could have a scenario where the Empire was never established, and the Republic just reorganized itself (somehow after years of tyranny). Also Virgil's Aeneid still would have been written, but it would have been a propaganda piece for Julius Caesar or Caesarion, not Octavian. Or possibly it would not have been written at all. We actually aren't supposed to have the Aeneid, Virgil died before he finished it. He on his deathbed deemed it imperfect and wanted it burned, but Augustus said no.
As a history buff, these are my two cents on what could have happened.
The Antiquity Goth An exceptional response!
Thank you good sir!
That is interesting to think about, but I don't recall Caesar (or the Romans in general) caring for the Jews much. Unless if the Jews caused an outrage (Judeo-Roman War of 66-70 CE for example), and the fact that the Romans dedicated the Jewish Temple to Jupiter. I just find it unlikely. Jesus's ancestors were most likely average Halacha-abiding Jews who were to the Romans nobodies. Jesus's genealogy isn't really important.
Why would Caesar care about them? In fact, it was Julius Caesar that made Judaism a legal religion recognized by Rome. But this is after the civil war of Judea and Idumea in 63 BCE, 19 years before Caesar died. It was Roman custom to allow foreign peoples to practice their way of life. Jesus's ancestors would be no different than any other Jew at the time. If Caesar wasn't assassinated, Caesar would have kept his policy in place as in our timeline, which was continued by Augustus.
Caesarion on the other hand, we have no way of knowing how he would've treated Jews. Caesarion either would have continued the religio licita policy, or he would have revoked it with persecution of the Jews. It is just my opinion that Christianity would inevitably happen. It was Pompey that installed Antipater as ruler of Judea, which Antipater favored Pompey over Caesar.
I feel Caesar would had had to force his legitimacy in the East, as they favored Pompey. Caesar rarely was in the East except for Egypt and Asia Minor. After Pompey was killed, Antipater shifted his allegiance to Caesar. After Caesar died, Antipater had to ally with Cassius against Antony. But in this alternative scenario, as the years go by, Antipater is still murdered by poison.
It probably would have lead to the destruction of the whole Antipatrid family. Jews would then outcry for independence. Caesar would refuse, which would then lead to Caesar's involvement in Judea. The only way Caesar could have murdered Jesus's ancestors would go to Judea on a total invasion.
But yes, one person can change history.
He Will fight with Burebista
Did the Americans forgot that the French is a big part of why they don't drink tea and aren't still British now?
What would have happened if the French government had accepted the union Churchill offered between France and Britain? How would that have affected the legitimacy of the Vichy government?
big beak entertainment, im glad, u r the first guy i see onto web having knowledge too this (with me), or nobody never talk too.. but that s a very interesting question:)
I love how the swastika was replaced with the youtube logo
Stolen
@@karibrimacombe8710 cry
Same strictness, different ideology
@@karibrimacombe8710 cope
What would have happened if the Japanese invaded the USSR with the german army? (Some people don't get what I'm trying to say, what would the war look like if the Siberian troops where busy fighting the Japanese instead of defending Moscow?)
Otto von Bismarck the same thing but the war will probably end quicker
Otto von Bismarck if the Japanese invade threw China and Mongolia then yeah but through Siberia and their whole invasions force would parish only about a few thousand would survive the harsh weathers and environment and terrain
Now this is actually an interesting alternate history discussion. As long as the Kwantung army forgets the trauma of facing Soviet tanks I think the entire war on the Eastern Front will be different.
The Axis Powers would still have lost. Unless you're Mongolia, you cannot invade Russia, especially in winter. Have you seen the former Soviet countries? Russia alone is HUGE! Now add in Belarus, Ukraine, the Caucasian countries, and most of the Central Eurasian countries ending in "-stan". Many of these countries had also been part of the Russian Empire before. That's a LOT of land to take and hold. The Nazis and Japanese could take some towns, a couple cities, maybe an entire oblast or okrug and it wouldn't matter. The Soviets could just surround and reconquer the occupied territory. They still had their size and numbers going for them even after the famines and purges.
the Japanese advance into Siberia and Mongolia would come to a near slog due to severe logistics issues. Chinese troops when begin to gain ground and recapture some territory due to the need to pull some Japanese troops to Russia. the Soviets would use the same doctrine of deep battle and force the Japanese into a slow retreat. Now if Pearl Harbour did happen I would like to think that the Japanese forces would do an operational retreat to inner Manchuria an establish a defence line there. Now since soviet forces are the ones receiving supply issues they do would set up a defence line and both would hold their positions until the strategical situation improves. After the fall of Germany the soviets would renew their offensive into Manchuria. now it won't be a massive hundreds of thousands of troops sort of invasion but maybe 2 Corps of Armour and Infantry divisions. They would participate in a strategic combined invasion of Japan with China and the USA. USA would do the nukey nukey and the soviets would give Manchuria to the CCP. And they all lived happily ever after. The End.
If France didn't surrender, the French surrendering meme wouldn't exist.
Free France existed and had controlled French North African colonies under leadership of Charles de Gaulle far before D-Day. And the idea that some of mankind's most precious artwork wouldn't be evacuated from the Louvre and other museums and places is ridiculous. Without the Vichy Regime in North Africa, the British, and eventually the Americans, would have a great landing place to invade Italian holdings, and eventually to control the Mediterranean Sea, just like what actually happened, minus the invasion of Morocco since the region would already be friendly. I think while the European theater would be relatively unchanged, the ramifications of France remaining in the war would matter certainly in Africa, and maybe even in French Indochina against Japanese invasion, since A) the French would still exist and have some sort of colonial presence and B) the French navy (which was not bad for its time) would still be operating, and not scuttled or sank by the British.
No they wouldnt have that. the germans would have imidiatly taken over french north africa with the help of the Italians. there were nearly no french troops to defend it and the british at that point couldnt defend aegypt and north africa. Also the german africa corps would have been bigger, because western north africa could be used to attack gibraltar, thereby crippling the british. Meanwhile the germans could bring half there army and airforce to nort africa at that point.
Evacuate when? the german speed took the french by compleate suprise. they conquered 20km a day at least. Considering the amount of art in Paris they could have never evacuated it, which is the reason it was declared a free city in the first place (also because there were nearly no french troops to defend it left)
Indochina would have been taken over by the japanease within days. Just look at their malaysia campain, where they defeated supirior fortified brtish soldiers. The french colonials in indochina wouldnt stand a chance.
Noobster the Germans to take Gibraltar would have needed to navally land there which given the Forces based at Gibraltar and the existing guns and fortifications is unlikely at best, combine that with the French navy matching that of the Italians and the British navy presence in the Mediterranean there is little possibility of the axis ever having the control to invade Gibraltar or Malta.
for Germany and Italy to take French North Africa they would have had to divide their forces allowing the British more breathing room in Egypt, the far east colonies would have fallen to Japan but then everyone's far east colonies fell to Japan they dominated the region until America kicked their production into high gear.
The biggest downside I can see is that if French assistance managed to force North Africa to be a big problem then maybe Germany would delay their invasion of Russia which was the factor which cost them the war
Germany did not have the sealift capability to move anything to North Africa whatsoever. The Afrika Korps, typically about 80k strong had incredible problems with supply, as the only way to get supplies to Africa was for the Italian Navy to try to sneak in a convoy past Malta and the Royal Navy, far from an easy task. It is unreasonable to assume that French North Africa would simply fall if the French had fought on. The Italians struggled to supply what the Germans had already sent in theater, and while the Axis had made good progress into Egypt, that would become much less beneficial when sandwiched between Tunisia and Egypt, forcing them to split their forces between the two fronts, with the added threat of the still powerful French Navy lurking the waves.
Even if Japan was willing to go to war with the Allies in 1940, they would not have made it anywhere near as far into SEA as they would have in real life. The linchpin to the complete Allied defeat in South East Asia was the loss of Singapore, which in real life was on an absolute knife's edge with General Yamashita, commander of Japanese forces in Malaya, having such a desperate supply situation that when the British came to surrender at Singapore, he initially thought they had come to demand his surrender. This was with an allied Thailand and having peacefully taken control of Indochina.
With all that extra land to cover, there is no way Japan could have taken anywhere near as much of South East Asia as they did in real life, which translates into much less rubber and oil for the already starved Japanese war industry, which then leads to a shorter war.
Noobster no I am sure that the (french) Marine Nationale and the Mediterranean fleet of the (british) Royal Navy could handle the (italian) Regia Marina.
You seem to forget that most of the german troops were cut of from theire chain of command. Ineed there was nazi presence through most famously Rommel but a lot were isolated. There is also the mindset of the "colonised" who had still a good memory of the previous war and would have probably fought fiercely ,ask any french person if the word "zouave" meens anything to them. They would also have tactical advantage, knowing the terain better, tanks not being the bbest in desertic terrain and no base that would allow plain to function optimaly, in other no blitzkreig wich was the core of the german strategy.
hon hon hon oui oui baguette fromage *_surrenders_*
Minifridge Ever heard of the Weygand line? Hmm?
This comment legit made me laugh out loud
*oui oui
You forgot fromage
They were busy being overly French.
she she she yes yes baguette *surrenders*
OMG. You put a photo of my home town at 3:16, I wouldn't have imagined that thus would ever happen
I love that youtube logo instead of the "bad one". It sends a subtle message.
they are becoming what they swore to destroy
Anyway the English and the French have been rival and made joke about each others (like any neighbours) for hundreds of years. The Brits are in a bad position to criticise France's military power, as they lost the 100 years' war againt a teenage French girl (Joan of Arc), and didn't manage to defeat Napoleon without the help of Prussia, Austria and Russia (and even so that was a short call). In fact, they have been so proud to defeat France with this super-coalition 200 years ago that they still have their main train station in London (Eurostar station) named after the Battle of Waterloo, and the city's largest square named after the single naval victory of Trafalgar (which didn't win the war)
Plus the British weren't able to beat the Germans in both world wars without help from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, America and Russia as well as other nations. They also lost the American Revolution as well as battles to the Boers, Zulus and Sudanese in the late 19th century when they were at their height of power not to mention the First Afghan War (1839-1842) yet no one makes fun of the British.
Alan Parker if I remember correctly, the hundred years war went on for another 20 years after Joan of arc got burned, so technically she didn't win that war
Didn't Britain, fight France during the American Revolution too? And Spain? The Reason they lost was because they were fighting pretty much the Other Key conquerors at the time. Without a Doubt, america won the American (french/spanish) revolution, but without just a single French or Spanish Aid, the revolution would have crumbled. Britain was winning, not to mention they returned years later burned the white house down and choked the Country dry of foreign aid at docks. The only reason neither side surrendered was because a stale mate was set. Britian couldn't financially continue conflict due to tax problems back home. And america couldn't continue because congress was unable to counter the british navel blockade. Thats why the truce began. If britain had a few extra Pounds in the bank, it could have won overtime. You see, what makes the UK a dangerous Opponent isn't the BIG, SCARY guns we have, its the way they use them. The strategy that not a single other nation yet, can counter without the need of ZERG Rushing them.
Keeping in mind, Battle of britain Made the luffwaffe almost none existent in ww2. D-day was mostly British planned, as well as the Advancements in Tech like the Tiger Killer, the Sherman Firefly (which was an american original design, britian just made it more powerful). Also yes, the commonwealth allies helped hugely on all theaters in pretty much every war, but... Most of the largely known Divisions were english,Scottish,welsh and Irish. I.e Desert Rats (which most of my grand-dads were in WW2) and Lancashire Fusiliers in WW1 who fought at the Somme.
People seem to think Britain is a push over. But when Did britain (Medieval - Modern Uk) surrender its island again. I seem to be abit foggy there?
Huge respect to our allies though, couldnt have done it without them. Atleast not without great cost and Risk. (thats why we have Monuments for our fallen foreign brethren too).
P.s Sorry that got deep toward the end...
i think every american agrees that without france the revolution would have been lost however you give the colonies another 50 years to build up for a war and they win easily simply because of the geography and the cost of running a major war half way around the world. Plus logistics back then were complete shit overseas compared to what they are now (plus steamships would not have been a thing yet causing the royal navy to still rely on sails)
very true, the steam ship and distance thing. But what about canada? (or Pre-canada in this case). The Revolution probably wouldn't have lasted another 50 years if it was just America vs Britian. I only say this because if france and Spain didn't fight. Thats the majority of the British forces deloying to the New colonies. There was so much man power, the colonists could likely have been steamrolled and completely replaced if it was required. Without a doubt though, even tho it was a british defeat in reality, im kinda glad our cousin nation won, they have done a F**k tonne since then and have been our closest ally since.
Thanks for breaking this myth with French jokes.
I am French and I appreciate!
France in ww1: *huff* I can't *huff* believe *huff* we won.
France in ww2: we've lost our best men, we have no choice but to surrender.
This is the basic description of France through the world wars
@@klutzycactusgaming1188 imagine a french man comes home from ww1 only to be called back again to the frontlines for ww2.
@@dillonblair6491 again? How boring it is, that your vocabulary is only limited to these words
@@dillonblair6491 ww1? napoleonic wars? The assault on italian forces in ww2? The french resistance? The americans also weren't able to beat the germans alone. The defeat of nazi germany was performed by several countries who fought together as one force. As a french, I thank the 16 (and there were even more countries that supported the allies) other countries that fought with my countries outside forces to liberate europe. United we rise divided we fall.
@@dillonblair6491 I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.
Good video :::applause::: you put their surrender in clearer terms than most historians.
1940: Germany kicks ass of France
2019: France deletes Germany from earth with their army and nucleair weapons.
Lmfao
Actually, there was a chance that France might’ve not surrendered and the war would’ve been won much earlier. In the desperate months of may 1940, the British launched a desperate counterattack near Arras, Aimed at cutting off German panzers who had overstretched and were far from infantry support. Only Rommel’s Troops held the line long enough to convince the British and French to withdraw. However, had the Allies broken through, Allied Troops would’ve poured through the breach in the German lines, cutting off General Guderian‘s panzers, this time with **their** backs to the sea, with no rescue from the sea as the British had. The Allies would’ve been able to destroy the pocket and the front lines would’ve gradually been pushed back, as long as they didn’t fuck up again, but by this point the Allies had learn their lesson. I think this would’ve been a more plausible alternate reality then what is presented in the video.
fake, i counquered all of germany as france in HOI4
did u form the eu
Pedro Barbosa Duarte what did you say? I dont speak surrender, sorry...
I conquered all of world as Belgium in HOI4 so Belgium is very stronk in real life!
Антон Савва seem legit
We wouldn’t be making fun of them as much now.
Love France though.
Noob PTFO Well this vidéo is quite wrong. A lot would have been different
You can go on google trans and read this. It is a research made by a lot of experts on the subject 1940lafrancecontinue.org
+Fanghorn Bilers k.
Fanghorn Bilers Ta gueule anglais de mes couilles
As j0ris said, french is much more refined
Remiot Hahaha
One thing I'd like to point out- in 1939-1940 Warsaw was still in a pretty good shape (i mean, a part of it was destroyed but not as much)
It was only after the uprising in 1944 when the Nazis whiped away 80% of the city.
Still, a pretty good video nonetheless
Defunct...land. I’m probably the only person here who gets that joke.
SHARK SHARK SHARK SHARK.
Julius von Brunk what?
A Person I got the shark reference -- watch the Defunctland video on Jaws: The Ride, dawg.
Sodomizing Death Master Oh riiight, I remember.
I got it too
4:32 aye, nice reference there Cody
You got me with the "I can do this all day" line. All I ever hear is Steve Rogers voice saying it 😂
Real question : What if Belgium didn't let the Germans pass and were pitifully unable to cross the Maginot line