My dad was a tank commander at the battle of Arras, here he faced Rommel & the 88 flak, hastily used in AT role for his first time. He recalled being dive bombed along roads filled with refugees all the way to Dunkirk, where his regiment was embarked on the IOMSS Mona Isle which was straffed by bf109’s and he caught three in the back. From Dunkirk, to Berlin, via El Alamein was my dads journey. A proud Desert Rat
The British, such as your dad (and the women on the home front), did the most to save western civilization. American industry and logistics, Soviet size and numbers and Siberian Winter, and don't forget colonials contributions, everyone helped enormously, but the British stood alone when all seemed lost and the slave empires were winning and gave them the reverse victory sign. F off, we'll fight you to the last. Thank you to your father!
Love these detailed documentary programs. Very interesting and informative. Thankyou Dan, please send more to youtube as I cannot afford the History channel
The total incompetence of Charles Huntziger also deserves a mention. Bordering on collaboration. For more details I recommend the ww2 week by week series.
The week-by-week series is really the only way to understand this or any war. It’s why the only people who understand what’s happening in Ukraine are focused on just that conflict 24/7.
You sir are a scholar and a gentleman... thank you sooooo much for that recommendation!!!! Twas the thing that was missing in my life, which I never knew was missing in my life!!!! I cannot thank you enough!!!!
Huntziger later became an official in the collaborationist Vichy government, so his disloyalty is not in question. Some have suggested his disastrous handling of his army in the defense against the German invasion might also have been treason...
Slightly misleading to say that German tanks were mostly Pz III & IV when actually there were a lot of older models in use. One thing that rarely gets covered are the armoured clashes in Belgium between French armoured units and the Pz Divs accompanything the 'northern' thrust. The French actually did pretty well there. Largely the problem seems to have been a failure of doctrine, leadership and comms (German radios vs French telephones and dispatch riders).
Add to that large quantities of wishful thinking and confirmation bias. Once you convince yourself Belgium is a good place to do battle because Belgium is not France and so burning the country down is hardly a dubious affair, you pretty much have set yourself up for a disaster.
I don't know about "older models" The first clips of the Germans advances were Czech tanks which were decent tanks in the beginning days of the war (OK hopelessly outclassed in Russia)
It is important to remember that about 90,000 French and French colonial soldiers died in the Battle of France. Looking at the captured French troops, I wonder what happened to those from their African colonies. Great video.
The most active/ effective among the death defying were young demobbed army officers, communists (post nazi attack on USSR), and ordinary French street criminals many of whom worked with British SOE. Post WW2, deGaulle banned all of them from any government employment "because they were deemed by him to be potential security risks" as "his thanks" for their service. ua-cam.com/video/DDZJPo_i5pM/v-deo.html "Code Name Madeline" and "Babbet |Goes To War" were movies which tried to lightly outlined the generic operations without sickening their audiences with the fates realty dealt them.
@@louisavondart9178 On Victory Day (the massacres of May 8, 45), France killed more Africans than Germany during the war. Without talking about their use as human shields and cannon fodder, and nuclear weapons being tested on them . 17 nuclear bombs were tested near the Algerian city of Reggane, four of which were in the air and were highly contaminated, and then 13 underground bombs in the middle of the mountains.
my mothers uncle jean fought in the maginot line. his other brother antoine was a doctor in paris (l'hotel dieu). their sister christine and my mothers older sister fled paris and found refuge in rennes.
Well, there's even more to it than that, The French HC knew the Ardennes were NOT impassable by armoured vehicles. This had been demonstrated at least 3 times during the 1930s by officers within the French army, with kriegspiels, terrain recons et map studies.
@@in3x Pretelat's Kriegspiel in 1938 demonstrated that armoured columns could cross the Ardennes and reach the Meuse in 3 to 4 days, which corresponds to what actually happened. In this, his only confirmed what the previous terrain recons et map studies had already concluded.
I read a story of a French blockhouse there that held off the German advance for most of a day . How history could have been changed if a little more effort was done before the war to block any invasion routes.
You guys produce more quality content then I have free time to watch it. That is VERY rare. And I'm not sure if anyone ever told you, Dan Snow is like English equivalent of Boguslaw Woloszanski, famous Polish historian and tv host of most renowned historical docuseries in polish television called "Sensacje XX wieku" (The Sensations of the 20th Century"), mostly revolving around Second World War and Cold War. Look it up in YT, you'll know what I mean.
When Paris Went Dark: The City of Light Under German Occupation is an excellent read. There's a section that talks about how Picasso FREAKED out on everyone thinking someone had stolen his flashlight. He had misplaced it and of course never apologized to those he accused. But it is an excellent read
@Losangelesharvey I am guessing you are struggling here. The op pointed out a book called "When Paris Went Dark: The City of Light Under German Occupation" highlighting a section about Picasso. This is a video about the collapse of the French at the beginning of World War 2, which led to a multi year occupation. Which that book discusses... I'm not sure what else can be said, I thought it was a nice book recommendation myself.
Having spent decades reading and watching articles on the fall of France, the one conclusion I have come to is, the level of incompetence of the allies beggars belief. France was a nation almost at war with itself, the inability to advance into Germany in 1939, to plans based on "allies" who did not want French and British troops on their soil were early indicators of the deep ineptitude of the allies. Much has been made of the French commanders failures in taking action, but the defeat had long been in the making, and if a wrong decision could be made, then it was made, and compounded by inertia.
@Kalarandir I agree with most of your statements but you are wrong about the so called "allies" and that they did not want French or British troops on their soil. I guess you mean the Dutch and Belgians, who were not part of the Allies at that point. The French and British declared war on Germany in 39, while the Dutch and Belgians were neutral countries and they wanted it to stay that way. Therefore they could not allow foreign military to move or to stay in their countries, otherwise they would have been at war with Germany itself. This might have been naive but at least the Netherlands were neutral throughout the whole of WW1 and they made a lot of money as they were able to trade with everyone and Germany could get many goods only from the Netherlands, as they were isolated and under blockade by the Royal Navy. So the idea to defend France inside Belgium and the plan finally not working out is 100% the French and British fault and not to blame the Belgians and Dutch for being bad allies.
@@sebastiangundolf6740 I agree with regards to the Dutch. However, the same cannot be said about the Belgians. They knew how things would develop, and fully expected the allies to come to their aid. That said though, the allies also knew that they would be in a race do defend France in Belgium and I was stupidity to leave prepared positions and put themselves in a weakened position, but that was the plan. Whether it would have made much of a difference though is also up for debate given all the other issues with the allies.
In both wars, the BEF came under French command, and, as such, the language was an impediment to any agreed plan. Blame who you want, but it was the general failure of the countries to adhere to a plan. The Germans knew the weaknesses and exploited these to the fullest. It general it is the poor footslogger that takes the blame for command failures, yet they do not plan only carry out the operation. The higher up, the more catastrophic the failures, the typical examples, Gallipoli, Somme, Singapore, stalingrad, and D Day, German heavy tanks not allowed to advance to the braches on day one!
It seems both the far left and the far right had no wish to fight in the first place, the communists viewed Germany as friendly because of the pact with Stalin. The far right wanted an authoritarian state, which was what they got, just not the way they had imagined it. It is much the same today, in France, the USA and the UK.
Captain Mainwaring: "I knew they'd never get through the Maginot Line." Sgt Wilson: "They didn't. They went round the side of it." Captain Mainwaring: "They what?!!" Sgt Wilson: "They went round the side!!" Captain Mainwaring: "That's a typical shabby Nazi trick. You see the kind of people we are up against Wilson?!" Sgt Wilson: "Most unreliable, sir."
I am Polish and I will tell you it is pretty karmic. France didn't help us when we were facing Germany alone in 1939, so it was entirely themselves surrendering to Germany. This is one of the key reasons why I was glad to see France's defeats in Vietnam and Algeria.
agree . from the top ( president and politique ) who never prepare war and always try to please hitler to almost all général who were already there in WW1 and didnt understand at all the change .
my comment: The almost instant demise of the French army was not a function of the 'fat' rank and file soldiers but a total failure of leadership at almost all levels, from the military to gov't ministers. Most of the French air force was parked in the south throughout the war and became part of the German invasion force for Barbarossa. Half of France's tanks, which were superior to the Germans', never saw action. The definitive history of this disaster is "The Collapse of the Third Republic" by William Shirer. It was the French ruling class, who hated their socialist gov't more than they feared the Germans, who lost this war.
@@sherriziegel I agree with you. It was the inadequacy of Maurice Gamelin and Alphonse Georges who were primarily responsible for the defeat. Gamelin diverted the entire French mobile reserve to a useless advance to the Nethlerlands which achieved nothing except to deprive the Allied armies of their entire reserve. This is the reserve which should have been in place to block the German advance at Sedan. it was more than powerful enough to achieve this. Georges and Weygand blundered badly in utterly failing to coordinate the Franco-British counterattack after the German advance to the Channel had been complete. One further thing that should be noted: the Wehrmacht had a secret weapon: Pervitin. This drug, which we know as methamphetamine, was issued to the German soldiers in large amounts. It permitted them to march and fight for days at a time, without sleep and without eating properly. For much of the six weeks of the campaign, the German army was advancing and attacking non-stop for days at a time. They paid for this by losing about 30,000 fatalities from drug overdose, exhaustion and dehydration. After July 1941, the Wehrmacht never used it again. One word of caution: I would not rely very much on Shirer. He began the historical tradition of the Wehraboos, apologists for the German army in trying to excuse themselves from responsiblity for the atrocities they committed. He accepted as written all of the post-war statements of Erich Von Manstein and Heinz Guderian. In his history of the Third Reich he largely ignores things inconvenient to his narrative like Walter Reichenau's Severity Order and the mass-murder operations of the Einsatzgruppen.
@@ericvantassell6809 Daladier? His birthplace is listed as Vaucluse in southern France.....🤔😉 but the video stated it was General Gamlin who told Wiston Churchill .
@@fatbadboy329 You mean with a little help from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Free French, free Polish and the Soviet Union and other Allies.
I love how he appears time to time to explain a little more in person, walking in nature to random directions, and walking away from the camera angle a bit faster at the end of the explanation. It reminds of the good old documentaries from the early 2000s, docs i can't get enough of :D
Great observation. I had to remind myself that this is a UA-cam video. The style feels like anything you used to see on TV and that makes sense because why should tried and true production standards and storytelling styles go out the window just because we're on the internet here.
What a joy to find a documentary video that is not repetitive error ridden AI dreck! This video is concise, engaging, and well crafted. I learned a lot. Thank-you. Bravo!!! 💐
The French defence tactics in the second phase of the campaign were actually quite effective in slowing German advances. The problem was their losses had been to their better units and so they didn't have the operational reserves.
It had no reserve military forces because the French high command had not reserved them. The French army was very large in numbers and had sufficient war materiel, but its commanders did not make the right decisions.
I think one thing that is often forgot from the german "Blitzkrieg" (called bewegungskrieg at the time) is the most important element, the entire point of it which is encirclement, the reason it fell so quickly is because the coast meant natural encirclement aided the effort.
No, Hitler halted the advance to allow the infantry and logistics to catch up. If it was down to Guderian, he would have carried on Have a look at this vid from The Tank Museum, ua-cam.com/video/EPKp-GKgbl0/v-deo.html
@@EnglishScripter When you use blitzkreig and your infantry backup is on foot and your supplies are on horse and cart, you very soon outrun your logistics and have to stop. I bet you haven't looked at the link I put up
The thing that never gets mentioned is that France was a paper thin margin away from having a civil war when the Germans marched in. No "coordinated" response was ever possible.
I like this video, but I've never been to dunkirk or the ardenness. I was hoping this video would show the beach at dunkirk, or some of the ardenness roads, maybe one of the crossing points on the meuse where the German pontoon bridge was. Just an idea for a future video.
Any attempt to feel the desperation of both French and especially British citizens at this moment is difficult if not impossible. Put into modern terms the intrusion of the Russian military into the same area today might well spell the end of civilization to many. To those who lived through these awful times my heart goes out to you. Deplorable.
The Russian military is in the historically ethnic Russian part of Ukraine, which was never a country until the Soviet Union disbanded voluntarily and handed sovereignty over to them on a platter. It is the US that is thousands of miles from home provoking war against a nuclear superpower that will blow up the world before it will allow a hostile US military camp a few hour's drive from Moscow. If Khrushchev had done in Cuba what the US has in Ukraine human civilization would have ended in 1963.
Great film footage. Good mention that the Belgians and the Dutch insisted on remaining neutral. About that - The Netherlands had sat out WWI - so - they did have some reason to believe that they could sit out this one too. That and they were indefensible. The Belgians though - had been invaded in WWI and had every reason to believe they would be invaded again. They, however, went into denial and clung to their "Neutrality" past all sense. The Germans had in fact (something you left out) been planning on doing exactly what they did in WWI - in putting their primary thrust through Northern Belgium just as with the von Schlieffen Plan. However - a German staff plane - carrying the plans for the invasion - came down in Belgium and was captured. The Belgians turned over the plans to the British and French - but when they wanted to enter Belgium and set up - the Belgians insisted on remaining neutral. This was mindbogglingly stupid. *_THEY HAD THE PLANS FOR THEIR INVASION IN THEIR HANDS!!!!!!_* For them to not allow the British and the French in - was utterly unbelievable. Make no mistake - THIS - is the primary reason the Allies lost in 1940. The Belgians had built up about as good an Army as Belgium could support - but - THEY just didn't have the troops to man a line that could stop the Germans. IF the French had been able to come in - and emplace a line of French Infantry Corps through the Ardennes - they could stop the Germans - IF - the British committed the bulk of the RAF to the defense of the continent - instead of keeping it back to defend Britain. Because their Plans had been captured THAT is why Manstein proposed going through the Ardennes. Going through the Ardennes was stupid - as the Germans found out in 1944 - but having no one there - was worse. There were 2 Belgian Cavalry divisions in the whole of the Ardennes and for the most part - the Germans never even noticed they were there. There were a number of things wrong with the French Military but - maintaining such a static line that the Germans couldn't turn - was just the type of thing it _could_ do. What it could not do - was handle a War of Maneuver - and that is what the Belgians allowed the Germans to have. .
They did respond to the captured plans. They assembled the French 7th Army under General Giraud to drive along the coast just on the left of the BEF to try to link up with the Dutch at Breda. Of course it failed. All it did was create confusion and traffic congestion for the Allies during the early phases of the Dyle Plan. But much worse. Forming the 7th Army and giving it this stupid last minute mission stripped the French Army of all of its mobile reserves. These were the formations that shoud have been in reserve to stop the German army breakthrough at Sedan. It was this fatal diversion of ALL French army reserves which ensured defeat.
*Those plans were shared with the Dutch, the French and the British.. So what's your point? *Is it that hard to comprehend that Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg held on to their neutrality? 3 small countries squeezed between the giant moloch's: Germany, France and Britain. Switzerland, Sweden and Ireland did the same. The USA staid neutral. The Sovjet Union signed a non-aggression pact with the nazi's. Allowing foreign troops on their land would have been in violation with their neutrality. *First you write: "Going through the Ardennes was stupid". Then you write: "but having no one there - was worse". And then you write: "There were 2 Belgian Cavalry divisions in the whole of the Ardennes".. Please tell me, what is it? And then you write: "the Germans never even noticed they were there". And yet, it took the German recon elements 3 days to reach Sedan.. Were they lost? Did they take the wrong exit?
What you left out is that Belgium was a staunch ally of France after the First World War until 1936. When Hitler marched into the Rhineland, violating several treaties and menacing the Belgian borders, yet the French and British did nothing, the Belgian government lost confidence in Allied promises of support and reverted to neutrality. The wisdom of this decision can be debated, but it did not come out of nowhere.
@@colinhunt4057 Yes, the Breda Manoeuvre was the fatal variation of the Dyle Plan, which was made necessary by the Belgian and Dutch refusal to allow Allied forces to enter their territories before hostilities began. The mobile forces allocated to the 7th Army were exactly those from the French reserve Gamelin was missing, which might have enabled an effective response to the German surprise through the Ardennes...
Even after all those years on UA-cam, I can't imagine - nor suffer - that British journalists are still trying to invent the history of France without asking to French people. However, this document is the British most accurate I ever visionned, so thank you for your efforts. In France, we hardly get to this level of synthesis. But there are still inventions and interpretations instead of easy-to-find French (or German) testimonies ! History is not a story! One day we will have a common history - even for the Hundred yars War (I hope).
even in this video he says they just laid down their arms and fled. Sure some of them may have but he made it sound like this was just common. I'm sure that if they have been given better leadership and better tactics they would have fought hard and long. Look what they did in the first war, they were just as tough as anybody yet us americans make fun of them for surrendering
@@fredgarv79 Lots of accurate documents are available in French only alas, clearly showing what happened. What shall We French do? Let the English repeat lies and laugh on their f**in island, as usual.
The almost instant demise of the French army was not a function of the 'fat' rank and file soldiers but a total failure of leadership at almost all levels, from the military to gov't ministers. Most of the French air force was parked in the south throughout the war and became part of the German invasion force for Barbarossa. Half of France's tanks, which were superior to the Germans', never saw action. The definitive history of this disaster is "The Collapse of the Third Republic" by William Shirer. It was the French ruling class, who hated their socialist gov't more than they feared the Germans, who lost this war.
Yes, it would be good for the average English person to understand the 100-years war wasn't just Crecy and Agincourt, but also that they actually lost the war.
It should be noted that Blitzkrieg is not simply intended to outmaneuver the enemy, that is a means to an end. Blitzkrieg is intended to create a psychological shock to paralyze decision making. The speed of teh enemy movement creates uncertainty, an inability to assess the rapidly eveolving situation, and complete inability to plan -- creating a sense of defeat.
The Germans did not use the term Blitzkrieg and used the term 'Kombinierter Waffenkrieg' so I doubt they meant that, but in any case this is up to date. Blitzkrieg was a physical and psychological weapon at the same time
@@jaaackaissa1633 The term frequently used by the Germans at the time was "Bewegungskrieg", or the war of movement. The Germans used it on a large scale in Operation Barbarossa in 1941. However, they had insufficient fuel to continue the offensive beyond September 1941, which is why they ground to a halt for a month. In 1942 they only had sufficient fuel for one army group, Army Group South for the Fall Blau campaign. After that, Germany did not have suffficient fuel to ever again launch an offensive capable of penetrating into the strategic rear of any Allied army.
John Boyd later described that as the OODA loop. To win you need to Observe, Orient, Decide and Act faster than your opponent. If you achieve that, your opponent becomes confused, makes mistakes and becomes paralyzed.
I can remember conversations with my grandfather, who was a soldier in the Wehrmacht in the Ardennes. He always said that they were totally surprised at how weak the French army was. The German officers had expected much more resistance, especially as the French had much more equipment than the Germans. Many units simply ran away when the first German tanks appeared instead of fighting them. Especially in the first two days, it would have been easy to destroy the gigantic traffic jam of military vehicles in the Ardennes with a few targeted bombing raids. Grandfather always said it was almost a miracle that it was so easy to advance deep into France in such a short time. They had actually feared another protracted trench war. In the end, it was probably a total failure on the part of the Allied generals.
I've read the German high command was concerned about the presence of the Char B1 tank on the battlefield. They were aware that they had few weapons to contend with it. There is a record of a Char B1 on the southern flank of the German advance careering through a German armored unit knocking out tank after tank and absorbing hits with impunity. The Char B1 was no wonder weapon and was nearing obsolescence, but it was still effective in 1940. But no matter how good the weapons might be, getting enough of them to the main part of the fight is the trick, and it was something the French proved wholly incapable of doing.
You grandfather was right but there is an explanation to this situation: it's the result of huge strategic and tactical mistakes. To make it short: 1- The bulk of the French army was in Belgium (this was the trap the allies fell into) and a big part of the best troops was in the Maginot line! Why? Because the idea was that the main forces would counter-attack in Belgium the alleged main German attack while the Maginot line would secure the central part (which it did btw) and the Ardennes in the South were completely underestimated since they were considered as "naturally protected" so to speak, by the configuration of the terrain, "impassable" for tanks ... 2- Consequently, in front of the Ardennes were only some reserve units with rifles, almost no anti-tank weapons and no communication means out of dispatch riders. In front of them: the main attack of the German forces ... It was the weakest point in the French defense and that's where the front collapsed. It's the only place where it ended in total chaos but it was the worst place to experience a setback like this, which paved the way for the encirclement of the allied forces (French and British). This is the miracle your grandfather is referring to...The German plan was brilliant and bold but they were lucky at the time to face an ennemy making all the possible mistakes he could ... 3- Then the Maginot line was taken from behind as well as the whole remaining French army retreating from Belgium as soon as they understood they had been trapped and trying not to be encircled. This mess ended up in Dunkirk from which the Britich fled away to England, protected by 30,000 French troops who sacrificed themselves without even gaining recognition of their "friends". After the debacle in Dunkirk there were no other available forces in metropolitan France and the game was over. The rest is history.
@@patolt1628 so after handing Germany Czechoslovakia & hiding behind the Maginot line watching the NAZIs rape Poland, the allies made a strategic error?
I remember an old workmate of mine in the 1960s who told me what a debacle the retreat to Dunkirk was, he jokingly said we were running that fast we were passing the bullets
In fact they lost by their demography too, it was lost by advance . France 39M citizens vs Germany 83M citizens(Anshluss) and Italy 43M citizens...;so not enought reserve, mainpower, manufactures..
The initial point is misleading that Germany was weak in the west. Mobilisation was slow in France so by the time they started advancing towards Germany on 9 Sept, France had 30 divisions vs 40 German ones. Furthermore French C-in-C indicated that they would not be ready to attack Germany until 1941. So the French advance was a demonstration and not a real offensive.
In his diary, Halder talks about the care the Germans were taking in monitoring the French mobilization so they could meticulously match it with appropriate forces in the West...
Just think if there had been an effective defense against Hitler when Germany attacked Poland. If it doesn’t make you think of Ukraine’s current situation, it should.
The Soviets also attacked Poland, two weeks after the Germans. This had been agreed to in a secret Codicil to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Soviets then went on to invade Finland, forcibly occupy the Baltic States, as well as forcibly occupy two provinces of Romania.
Just think...if instead of declaring war on Germany and plunging the world into darkness, the other great powers had pressured Poland into giving up the Danzig corridor and allowed the former German people there to be protected instead of abused and eventually wiped out by the Poles. Ethnic cleansing was common in those days, as it is today in Ukraine and Palestine. What if....Great Britain had partnered with Germany against the evil of Communism? What if Great Britain and France, instead of starting WWII with their foolish declaration of war and their useless guarantees to preserve Poland-- a state created out of Prussia by treaty--had actually agreed to a limited incursion and helped negotiate a settlement? Who knows. The war ended Great Britain as a power and created the Soviet monster that ended up being worse than Germany ever was. What is lost in the annals of propaganda passing for history is that Hitler admired and loved the English and tried for years to make alliances with them, always rebuffed. Nothing is worse than a massive war, a lesson forgotten by Churchill and others who led their nations into WWI. GB and France made a terrible mistake...and the entire world has suffered because of it. History is written by the winners.
@@gdutfulkbhh7537 The Munich Agreement was before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It was after the Munich Agreement that Germany seized the Sudetenland and Poland annexed Zaolzie.
I saw no use of the extensive memoirs of de Gaulle which should have been used. This idea of tank tactics should have been far better and in depth as it seems to be a critical flaw. Better but not enough on Stuka use.
France had a wonderful time under occupation and very quickly turned on the Allies by going to war against them. It’s impossible to feel sorry for collaborators.
@@seanlander9321 wonderful time? This is ridiculous. You are grossly under-informed about the reality of the occupation for the vast majority of the population.
@@hatittude7609 Really? The Germans had France as a holiday destination, a quarter of million marriages between French women and German soldiers, The Resistance didn’t even kill a German until August ‘41, and employment boomed thanks to France providing Germany with 40% of its industrial output. I’ll concede though that French Jews had a dreadful time.
He mentions the "heroic efforts of the Royal Navy£ during the evacuation. Neglected to mention all the small little civilian ships and other small craft that got involved as well. They also deserve much credit for their efforts and sacrifice.
Enjoyed the video, but I would have like a little more insight into why the British were so slow footed to see what was happening in the Ardennes. The problems with the chain of command, who was really in charge? Didn’t DeGuelle want to fall back and keep fighting? Why was this not done? I has hoping for more than a reading the standard history.
Agree completely. It was a well made little video, but brought no new or particularly insightful analysis to bear. A rote recitation of well known facts.
Maurice Gamelin was the general responsible for the French army, its deployment and operations.DeGaulle was nobody, merely being the commander of the 4th French heavy armoured division.
Im sorry to burst your bubble, but if you expect this British history channel to give you an unbiaised report of the BEF's shortcomings in France in 1940, you're gonna have a bad time !!
It's wild that The Maginot Line was based off of the defensive fortification ideas of Vauban, LouisXIVs top military engineer, and eventually Marshall of France. He tried to get funding for his mutual support fortifications to be built between France and Belgium, but proposed taxing the Nobility. The story says that Vauban suggested that the Nobles needed to be taxed to defend France properly. And LouisXIV responded that if he taxed the Nobles, there would be no France left to defend. Dude saw this coming some 200+ years before it did. What a legend. Too bad he didnt get his funding.
Interesting how it all fits together: The almost instant demise of the French army was not a function of the 'fat' rank and file soldiers but a total failure of leadership at almost all levels, from the military to gov't ministers. Most of the French air force was parked in the south throughout the war and became part of the German invasion force for Barbarossa. Half of France's tanks, which were superior to the Germans', never saw action. The definitive history of this disaster is "The Collapse of the Third Republic" by William Shirer. It was the French ruling class, who hated their socialist gov't more than they feared the Germans, who lost this war.
at 13:45 are those the Pz II's that had an explosive charge on their back, ready to be dropped off? Always wondered if they were somehow thrown forward, or if the tank had to back up and slide off the charge, exposing its very weak rear armour.
Thank you to the British not to give up and continued fighting in 1940 and the following years. Resulting in decades of liberty and freedom for Europe from 1945 onwards. Today another terror regime is grabbing for Europe‘s democracy and freedom. Greetings from Germany
Thank you and congratulations for that excellent documentary, that rehabilitates somewhat France in the eyes of those ignorants who despise her for "having surrendered so fast"! It's true that none of the European countries then took Hitler's threats very seriously, until he invaded Poland, and thus they failed to prepare themselves for the eventuality of being next ...
Yes. In the sense that WW1, and WW2, were actually one war with a 20 year ceasefire. A quote by Marshal Ferdinand Foch, the French military commander said “This isn’t a peace treaty, this is a ceasefire for 20 years!” Foch reportedly made this remark in response to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles which ‘ended’ WW1.
It's indeed a saying, tactically the French army always planned for tactics and strategy fitting the previous war. In 1870 the French 2nd Empire was using the same tactics as during the Crimean War, in 1914 the Plan 17 planned for an attack near Sedan from the Germans (ironically where they'd attack in 1940) like in 1870. And well 1940 you got it here. French material has historically always been top notched, and army usually really good. But with the notable exception of the late 100 years war, 30 years war, Napoleonic wars and 1918 campaign, French tactics and strategies have always been outdated to their current time.
@@garywiseman5080 They do seem to be few & far between. However, this :- 'A great feat of Improvisation. Logistics and the British Expeditionary Force in France 1939-1940.' By Clem Maginniss, looks at the subject from the BEF's point of view.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Quite right. The British were 100% motorized at the time, as was the United States. All of the European nations particularly including Germany and France depended primarily on horse drawn transport to move their artillery and supplies for the infantry. The Germans had truck transport for their 10 Panzer divisions only. They had no fuel for any more motorization. Italy having even less fuel was even worse off for motor transport, let alone tanks.
Normally its the attacker that has the hardest job but the allies moves were widely predictable given the known political constraints and were planned against. In war being so predictable is deadly.
@@FelipeScheuermann1982 and after the USSR had actually helped to finance Germany’s attack on the UK. We know from the Soviet archives and deciphered cables that the Soviet government had several thousand people in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations who were working for the Soviets
Permit me to state it briefly: 1. When the Maginot Line was to be constructed there was an agreement between France, Great Britain and Belgium that at first threat of war, the British and French forces would be allowed in Belgium and into prepared positions. France had a superior supply/logistics/rail network than the Germans in WW1 and at the beginning of WW2. The French could move an entire army in three days during WW1. If Belgians had keep the agreement, Germany would have been defeated right out of the box. However, the Belgium King changed the agreement and would not allow Britain and France to station troops in Belgium. So those forces were in transit when Germany attacked in May 1940. 2. Great sections of western Germany had been occupied from 1918 through the middle 30s. Yes, the French started an offensive and penetrated for a number of miles. There was no German armor. France had never created a local intelligence operation and feared that because it could not create a logistics line that it should retreat. So, lack of intelligence was critical. 3. On the Belgian front, the Germans perfected an attack plan. The German artillery would develop what appeared to be a random series of poor artillery hits in front of the Belgian forts. German troops practiced running to the craters as the artillery advanced. The false hype was that the Germans won the Belgian forts because they used glider troops. If the British and French had been allowed into established positions, the Germans would have been defeated. 4. Rommel violated orders and invaded early. His plan was to eliminate enough strong points so that they could not have interlapping fire. He created a path and went in. At mid night, he over ran the French reserve. Physically, he had to go back through the Maginot Line to get more troops. The German high command did not know what he was doing. As Rommel started outrunning his logistics, he kept going because if he stopped, his forces would have been wiped out.
Fun facts: At the time of the armistice, out of the 53 outposts within the Maginot Line, 45 remained uncaptured. On May 14th, 1940, Rommel (probably one of the best tank commander that ever lived) who commanded the 7th Panzer division, crossed the Meuse river . He found himself around Onaye with his tank when it was hit by artillery. He was wounded and left his damaged tank along with the rest of the crew. They hid in a shallow ravine, meanwhile the French troops were no more than a few hundred feet away and advancing forward. Fortunately for him, German tanks arrived just in time. While the French fought hard (including one artillery guy who would take out 7 German tanks with a 25mm cannon) it simply wasn't enough... fresh German reinforcement as well as the Luftwaffe showed up too. Still makes you wonder if Rommel had been captured, how would that have changed the course of WW2....
Why does no one say that Germany stood alone? Italy wasn't in the war until France was losing. I'm glad Snow pointed out that the UK had a bunch of countries to call on for help, not alone.
The Allies threw all of their reserves into Belgium using their best motorized divisions there, while Germany used most of their motorized divisions through the Ardennes. Allied intelligence was woefully bad and assumed that Germany would attack through Belgium. Turning Dunkirk into a VICTORY for the ALLIES IS A BITTER JOKE.
I recall reading somewhere that in 1920 the number of children born in Germany was 10 times of that in France. If true, it goes a long way to explain why things went they way they did. German army: eager 20-year olds indoctrinated in Nazi ideology since childhood vs. French army: tired middle-aged family men who survived the previous great war just to be drafted into another. There was only one way it could have ended.
sorry I highly doubt birth in Gernany were ten times the birth in France. Fertily rate were similar for those two country, higher population in Germany (62M vs 40M) means higher birth but not ten times.
Not true at all.. Nearly half of the German invasion force were over the age of 40!! Many used horse-drawn vehicles as well, it was just the German propaganda videos that made it appear they were mostly young, healthy men in modern tanks.
France was also still suffering from Napoleon's wars casualty list. They lost so many men, their population still hadn't recovered by WW1, which then dealt another blow.
According the the website Statistia, the birthrate in Germany in 1920 was 2.46 children born per woman of childbearing age, whereas in France that same year it was at a low point in the interwar years at 1.68. That's a huge difference. Germany's population was about 62 million in 1920 versus about 39 million for France and with that many more women of childbearing age each bearing almost a whole extra child apiece, that's a lot of kids, but probably not 10 times as many. I think it's pretty clear, though, that were a lot more 19 year old men in Germany in 1939 than there were in France.
@@gneisenau89 Thank you for information, that's only one year though, & it also depends on just how many each side mobilized. While the above stat is relevant, another of France's issues was that it got hoodwinked by Germany into believing a major attack would come through the Maginot line, so it kept about 41 divisions there, whilst the Germans only had about 17, & moved their forces elsewhere. It doesn't get mentioned much, if at all. If the average divisional strength is say about 12k, that's 492k v 204k. While some of these were lower quality (the same could be said for the Germans), & most of the best units went to Belgium, there was also a British unit of Regulars. This leaves up to 288k that could have been used elsewhere. This may have completely altered the balance in the Ardennes sector. Even just holding the Germans for a few more days would have caused chaos for them, due to the traffic jams which had built up behind the front. It was imperative the Germans moved forward fast to free up all these units. Germany also had limited fuel reserves, & a lot of the units that did reach Dunkirk, used fuel from French fuel stations/garages, as their own supplies didn't get through. It would also give the Allies time to send reserves (whether the Allies would use this time efficiently & effectively is another matter).
One error: I believe that Guderian wasn't yet high enough in rank to command the "armoured corps". He was the lead divisional commander, and had trained the other commanders, and done most to organize the development and training of the armoured divisions in the first place. But during the invasion, the armoured divisions were organized in three corps of two divisions each, plus supporting units. (One division would be transferred to the invasion of the Netherlands once that was definitely decided upon, but would be virtually shorn of tanks. It was replaced with some mechanized battalions.) Guderian would be promoted to Corps Commander following the successful invasion, and would hold this position during Barbarossa. During the invasion of France, he reported to a corps commander (who would complain about him not following orders) who reported to von Rundstedt (who would let him go ahead initially, saying "he knows what he's doing."). Guderian would always claim more for his roles than they actually comprised, but he really had a lot to prove about the capabilities and strategic importance of using the new armoured divisions, and was in a real hurry to do so. I also believe that de Gaulle was not in command of an armoured division during the Battle, although he had argued in general terms for the use of tanks in future wars. The confusion may also have to do with the much more dispersed use of tanks among French forces. There were many types, and many sorts of units had some. The French had only three somewhat experimental armoured divisions during the invasion, and none were actually used in battle, although one came close but ran out of fuel.
The Brit army collapsed as well, but they could do a runner at Dunkirk. Here is what the Brit, army left for the Germans, 2,472 pieces of artillery, 20,000 motorcycles, nearly 65,000 other vehicles, 416,000 long tons (423,000 t) of stores, more than 75,000 long tons (76,000 t) of ammunition, and 162,000 long tons (165,000 t) of fuel.
FACT ! " to the Victors go the spoils" the Victors tell the narrative The Wermact SUPER SOLDIERS were on Amphetamines So We're U.S. Military And Allied Armed Forces
U S. Labor force on Amphetamines b4 Industrial be Revolution! Sweat shops,steel Mills, tunnels,and more. Nothing New Under the SUN THE HUMAN HEART HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE BEGINNING OF TIME WHAT MAKES BABY BOOMERS BE THINK THEY ARE SO SPECIAL!?!? WE ARE NOT ! We think we are so slick... Sex revolution happened early 20th Century in Russia! So many abortions Russian powers- LENIN ,stopped sexual promiscuity !
Point!!!? Look at COCA COLA Entrainment Early years- COCAINE! LAUDANUM; OPIUM DENS NYC/ SAN FRANCISCO OPIUM DENS ;,DETROIT Men,women,children . . . they all did it. We copied Z German innovations during those horrible WARS WWI & WWII ... WE USED DOPE ,SPEED METHAMPHETAMINES; MOTHER'S LITTLE HELPERS- U P P E R S D O W N E R S - VALIUM,QUAALUDES. . . . . . WALLACE 500s ... and, Dexadrine ,Dizoxin ,and Whole lotta mo' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Same happened in Singapore two years later. There were common themes. Extreme overconfidence in the idea of redoubts at the expense of airpower and adequately arming troops in contact. Failure to manoeuver and little or no art when it came to making a fighting retreat. In the case of Singapore losing the capital ships, Prince of Wales and Repulse were a case study in military incompetence. A few weeks earlier HMAS Sydney was lost due to similar incompetence.
In your opening you mentioned that Hitler and Slovakija invaded Poland and for that Britain and France declare war on Germany , but you failed to completely mention the fact that the Soviet union also attacked Poland from the east on September 16, 1939 . You failed to underline the fact that Britain and France did not declare war on the Soviet union for having also in attacked and invaded and occupied eastern Poland being Nazi Germany ‘s un-official ally who later that winter attacked Finland I am in June 1940 invaded in occupied Lithuania,Latvija, and Estonia as well as occupied and annexed Romanian Besssrabia ( today is Moldova ) ? My question to you is why did you ignore those facts and not present them to the audience so that they could have a clear picture of what was going on ?
A vivid contrast to the stubborn resistance by the German soldiers in 1944 and 1945 when it was very obvious that Germany would lose; probably immeasurably strengthened by knowledge of what happened to German civilians who fell into Soviet hands.
The fanatical dedication of German soldiers at that stage of the war was remarkable. What's even harder to believe is how they managed to get crews for U boots right up to the end of the war, when it must have been obvious within that service long before the end that most of them who sallied from port would never return. The Kriegsmarine lost 369 U boots in the 17 months of war in 1944 and 1945, which was almost as many as they lost in the 52 months of war from 1939 to the end of 1943. Yet I think there is no record of a U boot crew refusing to go to sea at any point during the conflict.
What confuses me most about World War II is how the Germans were able to defend France in 1944/45 better than the French in 1940, even though they were in a worse position.
@@jaaackaissa1633 I view the defeat a result of a French political outlook that could not contemplate another war due to the huge WWI losses caused by the French military leadership's doctrine of Élan vital as well as - frankly- incompetent military leaders incapable of incorporating new technology into the traditional military doctrine. That incompetence continued even after WWII as demonstrated by The Battle of Điện Biên Phủ. One other very important reason: French enlisted were poorly paid and treated abysmally by their officers. Who would be willing to die for someone who doesn't either like you or abuses you?
@@gneisenau89 I was in the Chicago movie theater The Biograph for a showing of Das Boot. When the introduction describing total losses appeared upon the screen, the audience gasped in unison.
@@jaaackaissa1633 The Italian military leadership was no better than the French- as demonstrated by how the British were able to defeat Italian troops in the field with the added difficulty that Italian armor was not much better than WWI armor. Italian enlisted were treated as badly by their officers as the French enlisted.
The French government, the French People, and the French Army could not get themselves into a warlike mindset to fight the Boche tooth and nail as they did in 1914. The Frenchman of 1940 was a different person than the nationalistic, pugnacious Frenchman of 1914. Still shell-shocked, horrified, and traumatized from the mass slaughter of WW1 that sent 700,000 Frenchmen to their graves, leaving hundreds of thousands left wounded, maimed, and scarred for life, the Frenchman of 1940 did not have any fight in him. The problem were the men in the French government, constantly quarreling with themselves. The problem were the old men running the French Army. These old generals should have long been retired instead of thinking in 1940 that it was still 1916 to 1917. Just better, dynamic, inspired French military leadership with younger, stronger, resolute, aggressive generals might have resulted in driving the German Army in retreat back across the borders with Adolf Hitler asking for an armistice.
not 700k but 1,397 k soldiers and 300k civillians died during WW1. On a population of 41 million in 1914. France had to wait 1950 to have the same population as pre-WW1, while Germany managed to gain 5 millions inhabitants betwenn 1910 and 1940, from 64 to 69 millions. And nobody believed that another was possible, hence why they preffered to give away Czechoslovaquia to Germany than declaring war to them. And you had to that some right-wing political group that promised a civil war if France attacked Germany, or helped Spain.
Completely True. De Gaulle had written a thesis on the evolution of the War and the army in 1932, and urged the old generals to apply new maneuver tactics like tanks followed by infantry. But they barely listened, the latter didn't have enough influence yet.
In retrospect, it's a horrifying thought that the Allies could've ended the war so much sooner, or at least that France might have never fallen. It wouldn't even have taken much to contain the German offensive, relatively speaking. Instead, we got the Second World War. Just imagine if France contained the German offensive. Even if an armistice is signed, Germany would never have risked invading the Soviet Union with the Franco-British in the west. With the Royal Navy not distracted by Europe, Japan could never hope to take on the two largest navies on the planet. Granted, the war in China continues, with all the horrors therein. It's all speculative, all a What If, but still...yeah. Hard to think about.
@@Cailus3542 You understand all this. Today even the Germans brag that 1940 France could have beaten them. Astonishingly, the Germans today admit that France had the better army but that they (the Germans) had the better mindset. The analysis is more specific: squabbling, ineffectual French politicians mired in factional politics, and old, ossified, outdated, and unimaginative French Army generals who held their positions due to high social class standings and family and political connections. France was poorly served by her civilian and military leaders. Imagine if younger generals controlled the French Army. Even given France's polarized, paralyzed, factionalized government, younger dynamic French Army generals would have been far more alert to German intentions, would have positioned the French Army far more effectively in the right place at the right time with the right forces. The German Army could have been stopped in their tracks as soon as they entered French territory, preventing them from spreading out to commence the blitzkrieg. The German Army could have been driven back into Belgium and thence into Germany. From this point France and Britain could have forced an armistice from Hitler. This armistice would have been on advantageous terms, not as much as WW1 but enough to bottle up Germany.
You can blame the French for the 1940 defeat as much as you want. I don't deny many mistakes were made but the battle of France of 1940 was lost in 1919, during the negotiations of the Treaty of Versailles, when France was adamant that the only way to prevent another German invasion was the permanent occupation of the Rhine region. Unfortunately, the Americans refused to grant France the guarantees she demanded on the Rhine. Marshal Ferdinand Foch, after having signed the Treaty of Versailles for France in 1919 : "This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years." Later, during an interview with the New-York Times : "Next time the Germans won't make any mistake. They will invade France from the north and will seize all the ports on the Channel. From there, they will launch attacks on England. We will lose everything if we are not on the Rhine." Georges Clemenceau to Woodrow Wilson and David Lloyd George in April 1919 : "The United States of America are far away and protected by the ocean. England can not be reached, even by Napoleon. You are both protected. We are not."
Yet another clickbait title. You make some good videos, but this one is really just a shallow summary of how France collapsed, with little consideration of the reasons for it. Calling the video "The Real Reason..." isn't just misleading; it's an outright lie. I'm unsubscribing until you start using titles that accurately represent the content.
In my opinion, the battle of Arras was the most overlooked engagement that may have kept the British from coming to peace terms with the Germans. God bless the heavy but slow Matilda tank. Rommel had to scramble a defense of anti-aircraft guns to suppress the attack. This attack shocked Hitler and it may have discouraged him from being more aggressive at Dunkirk. Just imagine if the Germans bagged a majority of British soldiers?
Especially considering that within the week after Arras, Lord Halifax was proposing in the War Cabinet that UK start peace talks with Germany. That was with the BEF reaching Dunkirk and the evacuation beginning. Had the BEF been lost, maybe there would have been more defeatist sentiment in the House of Commons and Lord Halifax's motion might have succeeded. It came down to who Chamberlain would support and he took a day to choose - ultimately backing Churchill. This was the closest Britain came to giving up on the war.
What ifs can never be definitively answered. But considering the pressure Churchill was under from the pro-negotiations wing of his own Cabinet, it's hard to imagine he could have resisted the push to capitulate if the entire British Army had been captured short of the beaches. Where would that have left the USA? Plenty of isolationists here might have concluded that the Europeans had the opportunity to put out their own fire, and now that the house has burned down, do we need to expend our blood and treasure to rebuild it for them? So, yes, the Arras attack assumes an outsized importance, even if it was neither a strategic nor even tactical success. Even a lioness might pause if the badger shows it can still bite.
@@gneisenau89 A key reason for USA moving towards war with Germany in WW I was a concern that Germany might emerge dominant over most of Europe if they won the war - and that with the resulting military and economic power of Germany it would not be possible to keep them from interfering in the Western Hemisphere. USA would have a choice of either going to war with such an ascendant Germany or give up on the Monroe Doctrine. Seems like the same concern Britain had over any major European continental power, with just a delayed effect. USA began funding a program in January 1941 to develop an intercontinental bomber capable of bombing German cities flying round trip from North America - just in case UK was knocked out of the war. The same concerns would have led USA to re-arm and develop weapons with which they could threaten Germany. I see an American effort to involve themselves more in South American nations. In 1941 they brought Brazil into their circle by offering assistance in industrializing Brazil in exchange for bases on the NE coast of Brazil. This would be essential to establish an American presence so this would also happen in your alternate scenario. Argentina and Chile might have been more problematic given their long standing territorial disputes. The objective of USA would be to unite the Hemisphere against Germany ushering in a Cold War but with Germany instead of USSR. I believe the primary purpose of Lend-Lease was to ensure UK didn't fall and thereby contain German power. Lend-Lease aid was extended to USSR for the same reason.
The Battle of Arras made no difference to the advancing German Army. The small British force was swatted aside like a pesky fly. Hitler and his High Command did not even hear about this minor engagement.The 88mm anti-aircraft guns had been used in the Spanish Civil War in the anti-tank role. This is why the German 88's at Arras had anti-tank shells in their ammunition lockers. Incredible that in May 1940, the British Army had exactly 16 cannon armed tanks ( Matilda II ) in France.
@@shanemcdowall It's pretty well documented that OKH and OKW were aware of a British counter-attack, and that they were paying attention to the breakthrough and engaging in some micromanaging. The initial order came from von Rundstedt as he was concerned about further counter-attacks. This was followed by orders from HItler and OKW to halt all armor. Whether or not they knew the details of the counter-attack or even heard the name "Arras" they were still reacting to it. As for the force at Arras, one armored brigade had these tanks. It wasn't their full complement, but what they had at this point in the war. Still it was quite enough to cause a panic in Rommel's Ghost Division as they rolled through lighter vehicles in the division's rear echelon with the first defensive line of anti-tank guns falling as the guns failed to overcome the frontal armor of the British Tanks. That's a little different than being swatted away. The panic also spread to the SS Totenkopf division that was almost overrun by the British attack.
Nice video, but I was honestly expecting more of an explanation why they failed to defend France, the "real" reason. This video was more of a re-telling of the events and not a deep dive into the various strategic and tactical blunders, politics, hubris, etc.
Good to hear about the bravery of the French and Belgian troups for a change. Although I mostly like British humour, I do find it jarring to hear the French (and sometimes Belgians as well) being branded as eternal cowards. I wonder if the British soldiers who were rescued at Dunkirk felt the same way...
@@pavlovsdog2551 Speaking of disappearing and jarring collapse... the Brits literally dropped their guns against their own government's orders in late May 1940 and betrayed their Belgian and French allies who sacrified themselves in order for the BEF to be able to scurry home from Dunkirk, but you still have the nerve to shit on the French… the truth is your military leaders cowardly flipped over and the only thing that stopped your panicking troops from being butchered by the Germans on the beach was the sacrifice of a few thousands French soldiers. "Following the period of the "Phoney War", the Wehrmacht's attack and breakthrough in the Ardennes in May 1940 succeeded in splitting the Allied Armies, and surrounding the French First Army and BEF. General Gort, commander of the BEF, took the unilateral decision to abandon his orders received from the British Government for a southward attack to be made to support the French Army, instead on 25 May 1940 ordering a retreat by the BEF northwards to the French coast without informing his Belgian or French allies." "Gort went on to serve in various positions for the remainder of the war, but the chaotic rout of the BEF under his command from France had convinced Winston Churchill, the newly installed British Prime Minister, that he was undesirable as a field commander, and he was side-lined to non-combatant posts." "Erwin Rommel had surrounded five divisions of the French First Army near Lille. Although completely cut off and heavily outnumbered, the French fought on for four days under General Molinié in the Siege of Lille, thereby keeping seven German divisions from the assault on Dunkirk and saving an estimated 100,000 British troops. In recognition of the garrison's stubborn defence, German general Kurt Waeger granted them the honours of war, saluting the French troops as they marched past in parade formation with rifles shouldered. Upon learning this, Hitler demoted Waeger."
@@pavlovsdog2551 Speaking of "disappearing" and "jarring collapse", the Brits literally dropped their guns against their own government's orders in May 1940 and betrayed their Belgian and French allies who sacrified themselves in order for the BEF to be able to scurry home from Dunkirk, but you still have the nerve to shit on the French… the truth is your military leaders cowardly flipped over and the only thing that stopped your panicking troops from being butchered by the Germans on the beach was the sacrifice of a few thousands French soldiers. "Following the period of the "Phoney War", the Wehrmacht's attack and breakthrough in the Ardennes in May 1940 succeeded in splitting the Allied Armies, and surrounding the French First Army and BEF. General Gort, commander of the BEF, took the unilateral decision to abandon his orders received from the British Government for a southward attack to be made to support the French Army, instead on 25 May 1940 ordering a retreat by the BEF northwards to the French coast without informing his Belgian and French allies." "Gort went on to serve in various positions for the remainder of the war, but the chaotic rout of the BEF under his command from France had convinced Winston Churchill, the newly installed British Prime Minister, that he was undesirable as a field commander, and he was side-lined to non-combatant posts." "Erwin Rommel had surrounded five divisions of the French First Army near Lille. Although completely cut off and heavily outnumbered, the French fought on for four days under General Molinié in the Siege of Lille, thereby keeping seven German divisions from the assault on Dunkirk and saving an estimated 100,000 British troops. In recognition of the garrison's stubborn defence, German general Waeger granted them the honours of war, saluting the French troops as they marched past in parade formation with rifles shouldered. Upon learning this, Hitler demoted Waeger immediately."
@@pavlovsdog2551 Speaking of "jarring collapse" : the Brits literally dropped their guns against their own government's orders on May 25th 1940 and betrayed their Belgian and French allies who sacrified themselves in order for the BEF to be able to scurry home from Dunkirk, but hey, better find a scapegoat and blame your own incompetence on the French, it seems easier for you than acting honorably… The truth is the BEF military leaders cowardly flipped over and the only thing that stopped your panicking troops from being butchered by the Germans on the beach was the sacrifice of a few thousands French soldiers. Leave it to the Brits to proudly celebrate abandoning one's allies, dropping their guns and giving up the fight. I could never understand how they can be so proud of that Dunkirk "miracle"… I guess trolling is a lot more fun and dishonor easier than living with the shame of betrayal and cowardice :)
Dan, Great video as always! Great delivery and content. But could you wear a Polo Shirt or something other than an undershirt? The t-shirt detracts from the presentation. Much appreciated.
My dad was a tank commander at the battle of Arras, here he faced Rommel & the 88 flak, hastily used in AT role for his first time. He recalled being dive bombed along roads filled with refugees all the way to Dunkirk, where his regiment was embarked on the IOMSS Mona Isle which was straffed by bf109’s and he caught three in the back. From Dunkirk, to Berlin, via El Alamein was my dads journey. A proud Desert Rat
Almost all my family missed the war, my dad went in the US Navy in 1951 when he was 17 in time for Korea and became a cold warrior.
remarkable
Jesus, shot three times from a fighter plane and surviving...
@@cannae216 Maybe he got "lucky" with an early version BF-109 firing 7,92 mm... three 20 mm shells could have been really painful.
The British, such as your dad (and the women on the home front), did the most to save western civilization. American industry and logistics, Soviet size and numbers and Siberian Winter, and don't forget colonials contributions, everyone helped enormously, but the British stood alone when all seemed lost and the slave empires were winning and gave them the reverse victory sign. F off, we'll fight you to the last. Thank you to your father!
Thanks! You clarified some important details!
Love these detailed documentary programs. Very interesting and informative. Thankyou Dan, please send more to youtube as I cannot afford the History channel
You're not smarter?
Thanks
The total incompetence of Charles Huntziger also deserves a mention. Bordering on collaboration. For more details I recommend the ww2 week by week series.
Also the Between Two Wars segments on the French political situation. France in the 20's and 30's was a dumpster fire 🔥.
The week-by-week series is really the only way to understand this or any war. It’s why the only people who understand what’s happening in Ukraine are focused on just that conflict 24/7.
You sir are a scholar and a gentleman... thank you sooooo much for that recommendation!!!! Twas the thing that was missing in my life, which I never knew was missing in my life!!!! I cannot thank you enough!!!!
A symptom and part of the problem: arrogance.
Huntziger later became an official in the collaborationist Vichy government, so his disloyalty is not in question. Some have suggested his disastrous handling of his army in the defense against the German invasion might also have been treason...
Thanks
Slightly misleading to say that German tanks were mostly Pz III & IV when actually there were a lot of older models in use. One thing that rarely gets covered are the armoured clashes in Belgium between French armoured units and the Pz Divs accompanything the 'northern' thrust. The French actually did pretty well there.
Largely the problem seems to have been a failure of doctrine, leadership and comms (German radios vs French telephones and dispatch riders).
Congrats! You win the coveted "Actually..." award!
Add to that large quantities of wishful thinking and confirmation bias. Once you convince yourself Belgium is a good place to do battle because Belgium is not France and so burning the country down is hardly a dubious affair, you pretty much have set yourself up for a disaster.
I don't know about "older models"
The first clips of the Germans advances were Czech tanks which were decent tanks in the beginning days of the war (OK hopelessly outclassed in Russia)
@@g8ymwI think that between 20% and 50% of the tanks were Panzee I and II
@@herkamer98 I'll remove the word 'actually' and replace it with 'in fact' if you prefer? Do I still win the award?😁
Great film and well presented by Dan Snow as always. Thank you.
It is important to remember that about 90,000 French and French colonial soldiers died in the Battle of France. Looking at the captured French troops, I wonder what happened to those from their African colonies. Great video.
Many were used in propaganda films in which they were given blanks and the Germans used live rounds. Many more were simply executed by starvation.
@@louisavondart9178many colonial troops such as Senegalese troops were simply rounded up and executed
There is no denying those French people who did fight courageously, especially Partisans and the underground.
The most active/ effective among the death defying were young demobbed army officers, communists (post nazi attack on USSR), and ordinary French street criminals many of whom worked with British SOE. Post WW2, deGaulle banned all of them from any government employment "because they were deemed by him to be potential security risks" as "his thanks" for their service.
ua-cam.com/video/DDZJPo_i5pM/v-deo.html
"Code Name Madeline" and "Babbet |Goes To War" were movies which tried to lightly outlined the generic operations without sickening their audiences with the fates realty dealt them.
@@louisavondart9178
On Victory Day (the massacres of May 8, 45), France killed more Africans than Germany during the war.
Without talking about their use as human shields and cannon fodder, and nuclear weapons being tested on them . 17 nuclear bombs were tested near the Algerian city of Reggane, four of which were in the air and were highly contaminated, and then 13 underground bombs in the middle of the mountains.
Dan and peter snow! My favourite historians!
Two left-wing shills.
@@Jeremy-y1t Welcome to planet earth, strange creature. Here, on this part of the planet, we communicate in English. Do you require medication?
@@Blisterdude123 Dan Snow is a far left shill who only got on TV because of his famous father.
Same side two the same coin.
my mothers uncle jean fought in the maginot line. his other brother antoine was a doctor in paris (l'hotel dieu). their sister christine and my mothers older sister fled paris and found refuge in rennes.
Thank you for this fascinating documentary
A French tank officer had driven his tanks through the Ardennes in about 1938. His report was ignored.
Well, there's even more to it than that,
The French HC knew the Ardennes were NOT impassable by armoured vehicles. This had been demonstrated at least 3 times during the 1930s by officers within the French army, with kriegspiels, terrain recons et map studies.
@@Raph1805 Yes, but they didn't think you could support the tanks logistically through the Ardennes.
@@in3x Pretelat's Kriegspiel in 1938 demonstrated that armoured columns could cross the Ardennes and reach the Meuse in 3 to 4 days, which corresponds to what actually happened.
In this, his only confirmed what the previous terrain recons et map studies had already concluded.
I read a story of a French blockhouse there that held off the German advance for most of a day . How history could have been changed if a little more effort was done before the war to block any invasion routes.
Stupid officers & stupider politicians.
You guys produce more quality content then I have free time to watch it. That is VERY rare.
And I'm not sure if anyone ever told you, Dan Snow is like English equivalent of Boguslaw Woloszanski, famous Polish historian and tv host of most renowned historical docuseries in polish television called "Sensacje XX wieku" (The Sensations of the 20th Century"), mostly revolving around Second World War and Cold War. Look it up in YT, you'll know what I mean.
Quality? Never have so many being dubbed by so few.
Ahh that's nice Dan's got a new friend
Well done. Enjoyed it immensely. Cheers from Tennessee
When Paris Went Dark: The City of Light Under German Occupation is an excellent read. There's a section that talks about how Picasso FREAKED out on everyone thinking someone had stolen his flashlight. He had misplaced it and of course never apologized to those he accused. But it is an excellent read
Thanks for the book recommendation. :)
you must be commenting on some other video
@Losangelesharvey I am guessing you are struggling here. The op pointed out a book called "When Paris Went Dark: The City of Light Under German Occupation" highlighting a section about Picasso.
This is a video about the collapse of the French at the beginning of World War 2, which led to a multi year occupation. Which that book discusses...
I'm not sure what else can be said, I thought it was a nice book recommendation myself.
Poor Picasso. Do you get some kind of pleasure out of the breakdowns of the tortured and confused?
@@sherriziegel The confused guy that was still there enough to date a woman 40 years younger than him at the time?
Always interesting 👍
EXCELLENT, as usual. Thanks for this presentation.
Very well explained.
The real Reason?
Never were so many fooled by so few.
Having spent decades reading and watching articles on the fall of France, the one conclusion I have come to is, the level of incompetence of the allies beggars belief.
France was a nation almost at war with itself, the inability to advance into Germany in 1939, to plans based on "allies" who did not want French and British troops on their soil were early indicators of the deep ineptitude of the allies. Much has been made of the French commanders failures in taking action, but the defeat had long been in the making, and if a wrong decision could be made, then it was made, and compounded by inertia.
@DiotimaMantinea-qm5yt Communists in France actually aided the Nazi invasion.
@Kalarandir
I agree with most of your statements but you are wrong about the so called "allies" and that they did not want French or British troops on their soil.
I guess you mean the Dutch and Belgians, who were not part of the Allies at that point. The French and British declared war on Germany in 39, while the Dutch and Belgians were neutral countries and they wanted it to stay that way. Therefore they could not allow foreign military to move or to stay in their countries, otherwise they would have been at war with Germany itself.
This might have been naive but at least the Netherlands were neutral throughout the whole of WW1 and they made a lot of money as they were able to trade with everyone and Germany could get many goods only from the Netherlands, as they were isolated and under blockade by the Royal Navy.
So the idea to defend France inside Belgium and the plan finally not working out is 100% the French and British fault and not to blame the Belgians and Dutch for being bad allies.
@@sebastiangundolf6740 I agree with regards to the Dutch. However, the same cannot be said about the Belgians. They knew how things would develop, and fully expected the allies to come to their aid.
That said though, the allies also knew that they would be in a race do defend France in Belgium and I was stupidity to leave prepared positions and put themselves in a weakened position, but that was the plan. Whether it would have made much of a difference though is also up for debate given all the other issues with the allies.
In both wars, the BEF came under French command, and, as such, the language was an impediment to any agreed plan. Blame who you want, but it was the general failure of the countries to adhere to a plan. The Germans knew the weaknesses and exploited these to the fullest. It general it is the poor footslogger that takes the blame for command failures, yet they do not plan only carry out the operation. The higher up, the more catastrophic the failures, the typical examples, Gallipoli, Somme, Singapore, stalingrad, and D Day, German heavy tanks not allowed to advance to the braches on day one!
It seems both the far left and the far right had no wish to fight in the first place, the communists viewed Germany as friendly because of the pact with Stalin. The far right wanted an authoritarian state, which was what they got, just not the way they had imagined it.
It is much the same today, in France, the USA and the UK.
Captain Mainwaring:
"I knew they'd never get through the Maginot Line."
Sgt Wilson:
"They didn't. They went round the side of it."
Captain Mainwaring:
"They what?!!"
Sgt Wilson:
"They went round the side!!"
Captain Mainwaring:
"That's a typical shabby Nazi trick. You see the kind of people we are up against Wilson?!"
Sgt Wilson:
"Most unreliable, sir."
Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler...
If you think we are on the run...
I was watching some old episodes, trying to find this scene, any clues?
@@petesoneone
Its from the 1971 feature film.
I am Polish and I will tell you it is pretty karmic. France didn't help us when we were facing Germany alone in 1939, so it was entirely themselves surrendering to Germany. This is one of the key reasons why I was glad to see France's defeats in Vietnam and Algeria.
Failure of French leadership was the reason. A lot of French gear was superior to German when it was used right.
The Germans used captured French equipment in their formations in Operation Barbarossa in 1941. This was particularly true for artillery and trucks.
french failure was the most humiliating defeating until Biden lost Afghanistan.
agree .
from the top ( president and politique ) who never prepare war and always try to please hitler to almost all général who were already there in WW1 and didnt understand at all the change .
my comment: The almost instant demise of the French army was not a function of the 'fat' rank and file soldiers but a total failure of leadership at almost all levels, from the military to gov't ministers. Most of the French air force was parked in the south throughout the war and became part of the German invasion force for Barbarossa. Half of France's tanks, which were superior to the Germans', never saw action. The definitive history of this disaster is "The Collapse of the Third Republic" by William Shirer. It was the French ruling class, who hated their socialist gov't more than they feared the Germans, who lost this war.
@@sherriziegel I agree with you. It was the inadequacy of Maurice Gamelin and Alphonse Georges who were primarily responsible for the defeat. Gamelin diverted the entire French mobile reserve to a useless advance to the Nethlerlands which achieved nothing except to deprive the Allied armies of their entire reserve. This is the reserve which should have been in place to block the German advance at Sedan. it was more than powerful enough to achieve this.
Georges and Weygand blundered badly in utterly failing to coordinate the Franco-British counterattack after the German advance to the Channel had been complete.
One further thing that should be noted: the Wehrmacht had a secret weapon: Pervitin. This drug, which we know as methamphetamine, was issued to the German soldiers in large amounts. It permitted them to march and fight for days at a time, without sleep and without eating properly. For much of the six weeks of the campaign, the German army was advancing and attacking non-stop for days at a time. They paid for this by losing about 30,000 fatalities from drug overdose, exhaustion and dehydration. After July 1941, the Wehrmacht never used it again.
One word of caution: I would not rely very much on Shirer. He began the historical tradition of the Wehraboos, apologists for the German army in trying to excuse themselves from responsiblity for the atrocities they committed. He accepted as written all of the post-war statements of Erich Von Manstein and Heinz Guderian. In his history of the Third Reich he largely ignores things inconvenient to his narrative like Walter Reichenau's Severity Order and the mass-murder operations of the Einsatzgruppen.
Deladier telling Churchill that he had no reserves reminded me of Gen Pickett telling Gen Lee, "General, I have no division."
I never knew that Daladier had a southern drawl.
@@ericvantassell6809 Daladier? His birthplace is listed as Vaucluse in southern France.....🤔😉
but the video stated it was General Gamlin who told Wiston Churchill .
@@PhongJr.934 While the Brits legged it with their tales flapping.
@@jamesjukebox2386 still beat Germany didn't they?
@@fatbadboy329 You mean with a little help from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Free French, free Polish and the Soviet Union and other Allies.
I love how he appears time to time to explain a little more in person, walking in nature to random directions, and walking away from the camera angle a bit faster at the end of the explanation. It reminds of the good old documentaries from the early 2000s, docs i can't get enough of :D
Great observation. I had to remind myself that this is a UA-cam video. The style feels like anything you used to see on TV and that makes sense because why should tried and true production standards and storytelling styles go out the window just because we're on the internet here.
What a joy to find a documentary video that is not repetitive error ridden AI dreck! This video is concise, engaging, and well crafted. I learned a lot. Thank-you. Bravo!!! 💐
The French defence tactics in the second phase of the campaign were actually quite effective in slowing German advances. The problem was their losses had been to their better units and so they didn't have the operational reserves.
Hardly relevant. They lost the battle before the start.
Yes, they learned, but too late.
@@FritsKist That's pretty much what the OP said...
French tactics and strategy were wrong and they did not have the fortitude to continue he war and suffer the inevitable losses.
It had no reserve military forces because the French high command had not reserved them. The French army was very large in numbers and had sufficient war materiel, but its commanders did not make the right decisions.
I love seeing footage that ive never seen before, love these free documents
I think one thing that is often forgot from the german "Blitzkrieg" (called bewegungskrieg at the time) is the most important element, the entire point of it which is encirclement, the reason it fell so quickly is because the coast meant natural encirclement aided the effort.
Great point!
No, Hitler halted the advance to allow the infantry and logistics to catch up.
If it was down to Guderian, he would have carried on
Have a look at this vid from The Tank Museum, ua-cam.com/video/EPKp-GKgbl0/v-deo.html
@@g8ymw But they still used Blitzkreig...
@@EnglishScripter When you use blitzkreig and your infantry backup is on foot and your supplies are on horse and cart, you very soon outrun your logistics and have to stop.
I bet you haven't looked at the link I put up
@@g8ymw They had motorised logistics they were not the polish. Have you even looked at Calais, and dunkirk.
Great video. Perhaps one day you can demonstrate how to drive it.
Thanks for your work! Would you be able to make a video about the importance of colonies into the war effort against Nazi Germany and their allies?
Keep making these vids. I loved the Master and Commander one you did.
As even your original footage shows, Pz2 and Czech tanks were dominant. PZ 3s and 4s were rather rare still.
The lighter tanks were still the majority even by Operation Barbarossa in 1941. It only really changed by end 1941/42.
Great video. Excellent! Thanks
The thing that never gets mentioned is that France was a paper thin margin away from having a civil war when the Germans marched in.
No "coordinated" response was ever possible.
Think the French are there again.
I like this video, but I've never been to dunkirk or the ardenness. I was hoping this video would show the beach at dunkirk, or some of the ardenness roads, maybe one of the crossing points on the meuse where the German pontoon bridge was. Just an idea for a future video.
Any attempt to feel the desperation of both French and especially British citizens at this moment is difficult if not impossible. Put into modern terms the intrusion of the Russian military into the same area today might well spell the end of civilization to many. To those who lived through these awful times my heart goes out to you. Deplorable.
Russia in 2024 is not capable of any serious warfare.
Amen to that.
A cheap gesture. Virtue signaling.
Empathy and compassion are "virtue signalling"? What a delightful specimen of humanity you are.@@FritsKist
The Russian military is in the historically ethnic Russian part of Ukraine, which was never a country until the Soviet Union disbanded voluntarily and handed sovereignty over to them on a platter. It is the US that is thousands of miles from home provoking war against a nuclear superpower that will blow up the world before it will allow a hostile US military camp a few hour's drive from Moscow. If Khrushchev had done in Cuba what the US has in Ukraine human civilization would have ended in 1963.
That was the thing with De Gaulle, you overwhelm him but then he sometimes always comes back. 😅
Great film footage.
Good mention that the Belgians and the Dutch insisted on remaining neutral.
About that - The Netherlands had sat out WWI - so - they did have some reason to believe that they could sit out this one too. That and they were indefensible.
The Belgians though - had been invaded in WWI and had every reason to believe they would be invaded again. They, however, went into denial and clung to their "Neutrality" past all sense.
The Germans had in fact (something you left out) been planning on doing exactly what they did in WWI - in putting their primary thrust through Northern Belgium just as with the von Schlieffen Plan.
However - a German staff plane - carrying the plans for the invasion - came down in Belgium and was captured.
The Belgians turned over the plans to the British and French - but when they wanted to enter Belgium and set up - the Belgians insisted on remaining neutral.
This was mindbogglingly stupid.
*_THEY HAD THE PLANS FOR THEIR INVASION IN THEIR HANDS!!!!!!_*
For them to not allow the British and the French in - was utterly unbelievable.
Make no mistake - THIS - is the primary reason the Allies lost in 1940.
The Belgians had built up about as good an Army as Belgium could support - but - THEY just didn't have the troops to man a line that could stop the Germans.
IF the French had been able to come in - and emplace a line of French Infantry Corps through the Ardennes - they could stop the Germans - IF - the British committed the bulk of the RAF to the defense of the continent - instead of keeping it back to defend Britain.
Because their Plans had been captured THAT is why Manstein proposed going through the Ardennes. Going through the Ardennes was stupid - as the Germans found out in 1944 - but having no one there - was worse. There were 2 Belgian Cavalry divisions in the whole of the Ardennes and for the most part - the Germans never even noticed they were there.
There were a number of things wrong with the French Military but - maintaining such a static line that the Germans couldn't turn - was just the type of thing it _could_ do. What it could not do - was handle a War of Maneuver - and that is what the Belgians allowed the Germans to have.
.
Nicely summed up.👍
They did respond to the captured plans. They assembled the French 7th Army under General Giraud to drive along the coast just on the left of the BEF to try to link up with the Dutch at Breda. Of course it failed. All it did was create confusion and traffic congestion for the Allies during the early phases of the Dyle Plan.
But much worse. Forming the 7th Army and giving it this stupid last minute mission stripped the French Army of all of its mobile reserves. These were the formations that shoud have been in reserve to stop the German army breakthrough at Sedan. It was this fatal diversion of ALL French army reserves which ensured defeat.
*Those plans were shared with the Dutch, the French and the British.. So what's your point?
*Is it that hard to comprehend that Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg held on to their neutrality? 3 small countries squeezed between the giant moloch's: Germany, France and Britain. Switzerland, Sweden and Ireland did the same. The USA staid neutral. The Sovjet Union signed a non-aggression pact with the nazi's. Allowing foreign troops on their land would have been in violation with their neutrality.
*First you write: "Going through the Ardennes was stupid".
Then you write: "but having no one there - was worse".
And then you write: "There were 2 Belgian Cavalry divisions in the whole of the Ardennes"..
Please tell me, what is it?
And then you write: "the Germans never even noticed they were there".
And yet, it took the German recon elements 3 days to reach Sedan.. Were they lost? Did they take the wrong exit?
What you left out is that Belgium was a staunch ally of France after the First World War until 1936. When Hitler marched into the Rhineland, violating several treaties and menacing the Belgian borders, yet the French and British did nothing, the Belgian government lost confidence in Allied promises of support and reverted to neutrality. The wisdom of this decision can be debated, but it did not come out of nowhere.
@@colinhunt4057 Yes, the Breda Manoeuvre was the fatal variation of the Dyle Plan, which was made necessary by the Belgian and Dutch refusal to allow Allied forces to enter their territories before hostilities began. The mobile forces allocated to the 7th Army were exactly those from the French reserve Gamelin was missing, which might have enabled an effective response to the German surprise through the Ardennes...
Great documentary
Even after all those years on UA-cam, I can't imagine - nor suffer - that British journalists are still trying to invent the history of France without asking to French people.
However, this document is the British most accurate I ever visionned, so thank you for your efforts. In France, we hardly get to this level of synthesis.
But there are still inventions and interpretations instead of easy-to-find French (or German) testimonies ! History is not a story!
One day we will have a common history - even for the Hundred yars War (I hope).
even in this video he says they just laid down their arms and fled. Sure some of them may have but he made it sound like this was just common. I'm sure that if they have been given better leadership and better tactics they would have fought hard and long. Look what they did in the first war, they were just as tough as anybody yet us americans make fun of them for surrendering
@@fredgarv79 Lots of accurate documents are available in French only alas, clearly showing what happened.
What shall We French do? Let the English repeat lies and laugh on their f**in island, as usual.
He’s not a journalist, he’s a historian with a 1st class honours degree from Oxford University.
The almost instant demise of the French army was not a function of the 'fat' rank and file soldiers but a total failure of leadership at almost all levels, from the military to gov't ministers. Most of the French air force was parked in the south throughout the war and became part of the German invasion force for Barbarossa. Half of France's tanks, which were superior to the Germans', never saw action. The definitive history of this disaster is "The Collapse of the Third Republic" by William Shirer. It was the French ruling class, who hated their socialist gov't more than they feared the Germans, who lost this war.
Yes, it would be good for the average English person to understand the 100-years war wasn't just Crecy and Agincourt, but also that they actually lost the war.
It proves that even at this late date as it has throughout history, that military forces, from top to bottom, prevail by being adaptable and flexible.
It should be noted that Blitzkrieg is not simply intended to outmaneuver the enemy, that is a means to an end. Blitzkrieg is intended to create a psychological shock to paralyze decision making. The speed of teh enemy movement creates uncertainty, an inability to assess the rapidly eveolving situation, and complete inability to plan -- creating a sense of defeat.
The Germans did not use the term Blitzkrieg and used the term 'Kombinierter Waffenkrieg' so I doubt they meant that, but in any case this is up to date. Blitzkrieg was a physical and psychological weapon at the same time
@@jaaackaissa1633 The term frequently used by the Germans at the time was "Bewegungskrieg", or the war of movement. The Germans used it on a large scale in Operation Barbarossa in 1941. However, they had insufficient fuel to continue the offensive beyond September 1941, which is why they ground to a halt for a month. In 1942 they only had sufficient fuel for one army group, Army Group South for the Fall Blau campaign. After that, Germany did not have suffficient fuel to ever again launch an offensive capable of penetrating into the strategic rear of any Allied army.
@@colinhunt4057How smart do I have to be to realize how stupid i am?
John Boyd later described that as the OODA loop. To win you need to Observe, Orient, Decide and Act faster than your opponent. If you achieve that, your opponent becomes confused, makes mistakes and becomes paralyzed.
what kind of tank is that at 2:17?
French Tank "B1 Bis" made by Renault Factory. The first Heavy Tank.
It was the best tank during 1939-1940.
I can remember conversations with my grandfather, who was a soldier in the Wehrmacht in the Ardennes. He always said that they were totally surprised at how weak the French army was. The German officers had expected much more resistance, especially as the French had much more equipment than the Germans.
Many units simply ran away when the first German tanks appeared instead of fighting them. Especially in the first two days, it would have been easy to destroy the gigantic traffic jam of military vehicles in the Ardennes with a few targeted bombing raids.
Grandfather always said it was almost a miracle that it was so easy to advance deep into France in such a short time. They had actually feared another protracted trench war.
In the end, it was probably a total failure on the part of the Allied generals.
Fighting a tank with a rifle 🤣
I've read the German high command was concerned about the presence of the Char B1 tank on the battlefield. They were aware that they had few weapons to contend with it. There is a record of a Char B1 on the southern flank of the German advance careering through a German armored unit knocking out tank after tank and absorbing hits with impunity. The Char B1 was no wonder weapon and was nearing obsolescence, but it was still effective in 1940. But no matter how good the weapons might be, getting enough of them to the main part of the fight is the trick, and it was something the French proved wholly incapable of doing.
You grandfather was right but there is an explanation to this situation: it's the result of huge strategic and tactical mistakes. To make it short:
1- The bulk of the French army was in Belgium (this was the trap the allies fell into) and a big part of the best troops was in the Maginot line! Why? Because the idea was that the main forces would counter-attack in Belgium the alleged main German attack while the Maginot line would secure the central part (which it did btw) and the Ardennes in the South were completely underestimated since they were considered as "naturally protected" so to speak, by the configuration of the terrain, "impassable" for tanks ...
2- Consequently, in front of the Ardennes were only some reserve units with rifles, almost no anti-tank weapons and no communication means out of dispatch riders. In front of them: the main attack of the German forces ... It was the weakest point in the French defense and that's where the front collapsed. It's the only place where it ended in total chaos but it was the worst place to experience a setback like this, which paved the way for the encirclement of the allied forces (French and British). This is the miracle your grandfather is referring to...The German plan was brilliant and bold but they were lucky at the time to face an ennemy making all the possible mistakes he could ...
3- Then the Maginot line was taken from behind as well as the whole remaining French army retreating from Belgium as soon as they understood they had been trapped and trying not to be encircled. This mess ended up in Dunkirk from which the Britich fled away to England, protected by 30,000 French troops who sacrificed themselves without even gaining recognition of their "friends". After the debacle in Dunkirk there were no other available forces in metropolitan France and the game was over. The rest is history.
@@patolt1628 so after handing Germany Czechoslovakia & hiding behind the Maginot line watching the NAZIs rape Poland, the allies made a strategic error?
@@gneisenau89 "careening"
I remember an old workmate of mine in the 1960s who told me what a debacle the retreat to Dunkirk was, he jokingly said we were running that fast we were passing the bullets
The British have always been faster runners then the French , Dunkirk is proof of that.
During the retreat my dad commented "we knew we were in trouble when we caught up with the generals" 😉😉
Excellent work. Thank you.
This was really well done.
In fact they lost by their demography too, it was lost by advance . France 39M citizens vs Germany 83M citizens(Anshluss) and Italy 43M citizens...;so not enought reserve, mainpower, manufactures..
For whatever reason, you prefer to embezzle from the French colonies and from the corresponding colonial troops (Algerians, Senegalese).
not counting the Belgian, British and for four days Dutch armies...
Tremendous 😊🧐💓
The initial point is misleading that Germany was weak in the west. Mobilisation was slow in France so by the time they started advancing towards Germany on 9 Sept, France had 30 divisions vs 40 German ones. Furthermore French C-in-C indicated that they would not be ready to attack Germany until 1941. So the French advance was a demonstration and not a real offensive.
In his diary, Halder talks about the care the Germans were taking in monitoring the French mobilization so they could meticulously match it with appropriate forces in the West...
I think Groundskeeper Willie summed it up best.
Willie had obviously never heard of Jehanne D'arc.
@@sturmgesutz she didn't eat cheese as she was lactose intolerant.
Just think if there had been an effective defense against Hitler when Germany attacked Poland. If it doesn’t make you think of Ukraine’s current situation, it should.
The Soviets also attacked Poland, two weeks after the Germans. This had been agreed to in a secret Codicil to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Soviets then went on to invade Finland, forcibly occupy the Baltic States, as well as forcibly occupy two provinces of Romania.
Never forget that the Soviet Union were also pivotal in starting WWII - and they were on the 'wrong' side until Germany betrayed them.
@@gdutfulkbhh7537 The Soviet Union was on the wrong side for the entirety of its existence. Communists are worse than Nazis.
Just think...if instead of declaring war on Germany and plunging the world into darkness, the other great powers had pressured Poland into giving up the Danzig corridor and allowed the former German people there to be protected instead of abused and eventually wiped out by the Poles. Ethnic cleansing was common in those days, as it is today in Ukraine and Palestine. What if....Great Britain had partnered with Germany against the evil of Communism? What if Great Britain and France, instead of starting WWII with their foolish declaration of war and their useless guarantees to preserve Poland-- a state created out of Prussia by treaty--had actually agreed to a limited incursion and helped negotiate a settlement? Who knows. The war ended Great Britain as a power and created the Soviet monster that ended up being worse than Germany ever was. What is lost in the annals of propaganda passing for history is that Hitler admired and loved the English and tried for years to make alliances with them, always rebuffed. Nothing is worse than a massive war, a lesson forgotten by Churchill and others who led their nations into WWI. GB and France made a terrible mistake...and the entire world has suffered because of it.
History is written by the winners.
@@gdutfulkbhh7537 The Munich Agreement was before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It was after the Munich Agreement that Germany seized the Sudetenland and Poland annexed Zaolzie.
I saw no use of the extensive memoirs of de Gaulle which should have been used. This idea of tank tactics should have been far better and in depth as it seems to be a critical flaw. Better but not enough on Stuka use.
My hart goes out to the French people who had to suffer under the horrible terrors of German occupation. But I thank GOD for Great Britain.❤
France had a wonderful time under occupation and very quickly turned on the Allies by going to war against them. It’s impossible to feel sorry for collaborators.
@@seanlander9321 Were you there ? France was neutral after they signed the Armistice.
@@seanlander9321 wonderful time? This is ridiculous. You are grossly under-informed about the reality of the occupation for the vast majority of the population.
@@hatittude7609 Really? The Germans had France as a holiday destination, a quarter of million marriages between French women and German soldiers, The Resistance didn’t even kill a German until August ‘41, and employment boomed thanks to France providing Germany with 40% of its industrial output. I’ll concede though that French Jews had a dreadful time.
@@seanlander9321 sources for the info?
Not a good title but a good narrative worth watching with period film. Thanks
He mentions the "heroic efforts of the Royal Navy£ during the evacuation. Neglected to mention all the small little civilian ships and other small craft that got involved as well. They also deserve much credit for their efforts and sacrifice.
Enjoyed the video, but I would have like a little more insight into why the British were so slow footed to see what was happening in the Ardennes. The problems with the chain of command, who was really in charge? Didn’t DeGuelle want to fall back and keep fighting? Why was this not done? I has hoping for more than a reading the standard history.
Agree completely. It was a well made little video, but brought no new or particularly insightful analysis to bear. A rote recitation of well known facts.
Maurice Gamelin was the general responsible for the French army, its deployment and operations.DeGaulle was nobody, merely being the commander of the 4th French heavy armoured division.
Im sorry to burst your bubble, but if you expect this British history channel to give you an unbiaised report of the BEF's shortcomings in France in 1940, you're gonna have a bad time !!
It's wild that The Maginot Line was based off of the defensive fortification ideas of Vauban, LouisXIVs top military engineer, and eventually Marshall of France.
He tried to get funding for his mutual support fortifications to be built between France and Belgium, but proposed taxing the Nobility.
The story says that Vauban suggested that the Nobles needed to be taxed to defend France properly. And LouisXIV responded that if he taxed the Nobles, there would be no France left to defend.
Dude saw this coming some 200+ years before it did. What a legend. Too bad he didnt get his funding.
Interesting how it all fits together:
The almost instant demise of the French army was not a function of the 'fat' rank and file soldiers but a total failure of leadership at almost all levels, from the military to gov't ministers. Most of the French air force was parked in the south throughout the war and became part of the German invasion force for Barbarossa. Half of France's tanks, which were superior to the Germans', never saw action. The definitive history of this disaster is "The Collapse of the Third Republic" by William Shirer. It was the French ruling class, who hated their socialist gov't more than they feared the Germans, who lost this war.
at 13:45 are those the Pz II's that had an explosive charge on their back, ready to be dropped off? Always wondered if they were somehow thrown forward, or if the tank had to back up and slide off the charge, exposing its very weak rear armour.
Thank you to the British not to give up and continued fighting in 1940 and the following years. Resulting in decades of liberty and freedom for Europe from 1945 onwards. Today another terror regime is grabbing for Europe‘s democracy and freedom.
Greetings from Germany
👍 It is telling that it is a German who says that.
Thank you and congratulations for that excellent documentary, that rehabilitates somewhat France in the eyes of those ignorants who despise her for "having surrendered so fast"!
It's true that none of the European countries then took Hitler's threats very seriously, until he invaded Poland, and thus they failed to prepare themselves for the eventuality of being next ...
I worked with a French lady and she said theres a saying in France that they are always one war behind
Yes. In the sense that WW1, and WW2, were actually one war with a 20 year ceasefire. A quote by Marshal Ferdinand Foch, the French military commander said “This isn’t a peace treaty, this is a ceasefire for 20 years!” Foch reportedly made this remark in response to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles which ‘ended’ WW1.
The victor in 1918 prepared to refight the last war. While the loser in 1918 chose not to follow the old plan. The plan that failed in 1914
The French Army sacrificed itself outside Dunkirk. Guarding the evacuation to England
@@bradleypierce1561 Yes, but he said that because the treaty was not that harsh, it was inconsistent and not respect over time.
It's indeed a saying, tactically the French army always planned for tactics and strategy fitting the previous war. In 1870 the French 2nd Empire was using the same tactics as during the Crimean War, in 1914 the Plan 17 planned for an attack near Sedan from the Germans (ironically where they'd attack in 1940) like in 1870. And well 1940 you got it here.
French material has historically always been top notched, and army usually really good. But with the notable exception of the late 100 years war, 30 years war, Napoleonic wars and 1918 campaign, French tactics and strategies have always been outdated to their current time.
important to mention that french tanks used signal flags to communicate. this put them at a huge disadvantage when trying to organize tank battles
I have never seen the photo of all those horse drawn wagons abandoned by the British and French forces.
Not by the British, who were 100% mechanised at the time.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 I never find good information about logistics in the Battle for France. Any reading you could recommend?
@@garywiseman5080 They do seem to be few & far between. However, this :-
'A great feat of Improvisation. Logistics and the British Expeditionary Force in France 1939-1940.' By Clem Maginniss, looks at the subject from the BEF's point of view.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Thanks!
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Quite right. The British were 100% motorized at the time, as was the United States. All of the European nations particularly including Germany and France depended primarily on horse drawn transport to move their artillery and supplies for the infantry. The Germans had truck transport for their 10 Panzer divisions only. They had no fuel for any more motorization. Italy having even less fuel was even worse off for motor transport, let alone tanks.
Normally its the attacker that has the hardest job but the allies moves were widely predictable given the known political constraints and were planned against. In war being so predictable is deadly.
min 2 : The Soviets invaded Poland with Germany. They planned it together
Yes they planned it together but whereas the Germans invaded on September 1st, the Soviets invaded from the east on September the 17th.
Yet Allies not only didnt declared on soviets, but allied with them😂
Yes, and Poland also stole territory from Czechoslovakia in 1938 when Germany carved it up...
@@FelipeScheuermann1982 and after the USSR had actually helped to finance Germany’s attack on the UK. We know from the Soviet archives and deciphered cables that the Soviet government had several thousand people in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations who were working for the Soviets
Good informative video.shame at the lost of all thoses young lifes, on either side,allies or axis .
Incredible video.
Thank you all, so much.
Every single little snippet of info is important.
Well done HH!
Please, by all means…keep it flowing!
😎👍❤
I love this Narrator !
Salud
Permit me to state it briefly:
1. When the Maginot Line was to be constructed there was an agreement between France, Great Britain and Belgium that at first threat of war, the British and French forces would be allowed in Belgium and into prepared positions. France had a superior supply/logistics/rail network than the Germans in WW1 and at the beginning of WW2. The French could move an entire army in three days during WW1. If Belgians had keep the agreement, Germany would have been defeated right out of the box. However, the Belgium King changed the agreement and would not allow Britain and France to station troops in Belgium. So those forces were in transit when Germany attacked in May 1940.
2. Great sections of western Germany had been occupied from 1918 through the middle 30s. Yes, the French started an offensive and penetrated for a number of miles. There was no German armor. France had never created a local intelligence operation and feared that because it could not create a logistics line that it should retreat. So, lack of intelligence was critical.
3. On the Belgian front, the Germans perfected an attack plan. The German artillery would develop what appeared to be a random series of poor artillery hits in front of the Belgian forts. German troops practiced running to the craters as the artillery advanced. The false hype was that the Germans won the Belgian forts because they used glider troops. If the British and French had been allowed into established positions, the Germans would have been defeated.
4. Rommel violated orders and invaded early. His plan was to eliminate enough strong points so that they could not have interlapping fire. He created a path and went in. At mid night, he over ran the French reserve. Physically, he had to go back through the Maginot Line to get more troops. The German high command did not know what he was doing. As Rommel started outrunning his logistics, he kept going because if he stopped, his forces would have been wiped out.
Don't forget Meth...which allowed some German troops to push through fatigue.
Fun facts:
At the time of the armistice, out of the 53 outposts within the Maginot Line, 45 remained uncaptured.
On May 14th, 1940, Rommel (probably one of the best tank commander that ever lived) who commanded the 7th Panzer division, crossed the Meuse river . He found himself around Onaye with his tank when it was hit by artillery. He was wounded and left his damaged tank along with the rest of the crew. They hid in a shallow ravine, meanwhile the French troops were no more than a few hundred feet away and advancing forward. Fortunately for him, German tanks arrived just in time. While the French fought hard (including one artillery guy who would take out 7 German tanks with a 25mm cannon) it simply wasn't enough... fresh German reinforcement as well as the Luftwaffe showed up too.
Still makes you wonder if Rommel had been captured, how would that have changed the course of WW2....
References and sources?
Would be nice to share those 😊
Excellent mini documentary
What Ukraine is doing now should be a lesson to all the great powers in the world. The style of fighting a war is changing quickly.
Why does no one say that Germany stood alone? Italy wasn't in the war until France was losing. I'm glad Snow pointed out that the UK had a bunch of countries to call on for help, not alone.
Old but gold: why are the boulevards of France lined with trees? So the German army can march in the shade…
Lesson, in a question:
How many times has France been invaded since it developed its own nuclear weapons arsenal?
How many times has Germany or Belgium been invaded in that same time period?
they're being invaded as we speak LOL
The Allies threw all of their reserves into Belgium using their best motorized divisions there, while Germany used most of their motorized divisions through the Ardennes. Allied intelligence was woefully bad and assumed that Germany would attack through Belgium. Turning Dunkirk into a VICTORY for the ALLIES IS A BITTER JOKE.
I recall reading somewhere that in 1920 the number of children born in Germany was 10 times of that in France. If true, it goes a long way to explain why things went they way they did. German army: eager 20-year olds indoctrinated in Nazi ideology since childhood vs. French army: tired middle-aged family men who survived the previous great war just to be drafted into another. There was only one way it could have ended.
sorry I highly doubt birth in Gernany were ten times the birth in France. Fertily rate were similar for those two country, higher population in Germany (62M vs 40M) means higher birth but not ten times.
Not true at all.. Nearly half of the German invasion force were over the age of 40!! Many used horse-drawn vehicles as well, it was just the German propaganda videos that made it appear they were mostly young, healthy men in modern tanks.
France was also still suffering from Napoleon's wars casualty list. They lost so many men, their population still hadn't recovered by WW1, which then dealt another blow.
According the the website Statistia, the birthrate in Germany in 1920 was 2.46 children born per woman of childbearing age, whereas in France that same year it was at a low point in the interwar years at 1.68. That's a huge difference. Germany's population was about 62 million in 1920 versus about 39 million for France and with that many more women of childbearing age each bearing almost a whole extra child apiece, that's a lot of kids, but probably not 10 times as many. I think it's pretty clear, though, that were a lot more 19 year old men in Germany in 1939 than there were in France.
@@gneisenau89 Thank you for information, that's only one year though, & it also depends on just how many each side mobilized.
While the above stat is relevant, another of France's issues was that it got hoodwinked by Germany into believing a major attack would come through the Maginot line, so it kept about 41 divisions there, whilst the Germans only had about 17, & moved their forces elsewhere. It doesn't get mentioned much, if at all.
If the average divisional strength is say about 12k, that's 492k v 204k. While some of these were lower quality (the same could be said for the Germans), & most of the best units went to Belgium, there was also a British unit of Regulars. This leaves up to 288k that could have been used elsewhere.
This may have completely altered the balance in the Ardennes sector. Even just holding the Germans for a few more days would have caused chaos for them, due to the traffic jams which had built up behind the front. It was imperative the Germans moved forward fast to free up all these units. Germany also had limited fuel reserves, & a lot of the units that did reach Dunkirk, used fuel from French fuel stations/garages, as their own supplies didn't get through.
It would also give the Allies time to send reserves (whether the Allies would use this time efficiently & effectively is another matter).
One error: I believe that Guderian wasn't yet high enough in rank to command the "armoured corps". He was the lead divisional commander, and had trained the other commanders, and done most to organize the development and training of the armoured divisions in the first place. But during the invasion, the armoured divisions were organized in three corps of two divisions each, plus supporting units. (One division would be transferred to the invasion of the Netherlands once that was definitely decided upon, but would be virtually shorn of tanks. It was replaced with some mechanized battalions.) Guderian would be promoted to Corps Commander following the successful invasion, and would hold this position during Barbarossa. During the invasion of France, he reported to a corps commander (who would complain about him not following orders) who reported to von Rundstedt (who would let him go ahead initially, saying "he knows what he's doing.").
Guderian would always claim more for his roles than they actually comprised, but he really had a lot to prove about the capabilities and strategic importance of using the new armoured divisions, and was in a real hurry to do so.
I also believe that de Gaulle was not in command of an armoured division during the Battle, although he had argued in general terms for the use of tanks in future wars. The confusion may also have to do with the much more dispersed use of tanks among French forces. There were many types, and many sorts of units had some. The French had only three somewhat experimental armoured divisions during the invasion, and none were actually used in battle, although one came close but ran out of fuel.
Rommel the secret weapon!
The Brit army collapsed as well, but they could do a runner at Dunkirk. Here is what the Brit, army left for the Germans, 2,472 pieces of artillery, 20,000 motorcycles, nearly 65,000 other vehicles, 416,000 long tons (423,000 t) of stores, more than 75,000 long tons (76,000 t) of ammunition, and 162,000 long tons (165,000 t) of fuel.
Thanks for this valuable information.....I missed it for a long time
More french troops died fighting FOR Hitler, than against him. Keep that in mind while listening to this heroic account.
🤣🤣🤣source ? Simpsons ? stop smocking ! pls it is not good for yo... ours health !
One thing that may be understated is the Germans use of Pervitin, which can explain their multi-day attacks and also the crashes that resulted.
Pervitin, a/k/a methylamphetamine, a/k/a meth, a/k/a speed.
FACT !
" to the Victors go the spoils"
the Victors tell the narrative
The Wermact SUPER SOLDIERS were on Amphetamines
So We're U.S. Military
And Allied Armed Forces
Look ppl have ALWAYS been on
' something '
U S. Labor force on Amphetamines b4 Industrial be Revolution!
Sweat shops,steel Mills, tunnels,and more.
Nothing New Under the SUN
THE HUMAN HEART HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE BEGINNING OF TIME
WHAT MAKES BABY BOOMERS BE THINK THEY ARE SO SPECIAL!?!?
WE ARE NOT !
We think we are so slick...
Sex revolution happened early 20th Century in Russia!
So many abortions Russian powers- LENIN ,stopped sexual promiscuity !
Point!!!?
Look at COCA COLA Entrainment Early years-
COCAINE!
LAUDANUM; OPIUM DENS NYC/ SAN FRANCISCO OPIUM DENS ;,DETROIT
Men,women,children . . .
they all did it.
We copied Z German innovations during those horrible WARS WWI & WWII ...
WE USED DOPE ,SPEED
METHAMPHETAMINES;
MOTHER'S LITTLE HELPERS- U P P E R S
D O W N E R S - VALIUM,QUAALUDES. . . . . . WALLACE 500s ...
and, Dexadrine ,Dizoxin ,and
Whole lotta mo' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Same happened in Singapore two years later. There were common themes.
Extreme overconfidence in the idea of redoubts at the expense of airpower and adequately arming troops in contact. Failure to manoeuver and little or no art when it came to making a fighting retreat.
In the case of Singapore losing the capital ships, Prince of Wales and Repulse were a case study in military incompetence. A few weeks earlier HMAS Sydney was lost due to similar incompetence.
In your opening you mentioned that Hitler and Slovakija invaded Poland and for that Britain and France declare war on Germany , but you failed to completely mention the fact that the Soviet union also attacked Poland from the east on September 16, 1939 . You failed to underline the fact that Britain and France did not declare war on the Soviet union for having also in attacked and invaded and occupied eastern Poland being Nazi Germany ‘s un-official ally who later that winter attacked Finland I am in June 1940 invaded in occupied Lithuania,Latvija, and Estonia as well as occupied and annexed Romanian Besssrabia ( today is Moldova ) ? My question to you is why did you ignore those facts and not present them to the audience so that they could have a clear picture of what was going on ?
Excellent Points that are ignored in all of these so called documentaries.
May 1940: Germany launched the largest concentration of motorised vehicles in history. June 1944: the western allies: hold our beers.
A vivid contrast to the stubborn resistance by the German soldiers in 1944 and 1945 when it was very obvious that Germany would lose;
probably immeasurably strengthened by knowledge of what happened to German civilians who fell into Soviet hands.
The fanatical dedication of German soldiers at that stage of the war was remarkable. What's even harder to believe is how they managed to get crews for U boots right up to the end of the war, when it must have been obvious within that service long before the end that most of them who sallied from port would never return. The Kriegsmarine lost 369 U boots in the 17 months of war in 1944 and 1945, which was almost as many as they lost in the 52 months of war from 1939 to the end of 1943. Yet I think there is no record of a U boot crew refusing to go to sea at any point during the conflict.
What confuses me most about World War II is how the Germans were able to defend France in 1944/45 better than the French in 1940, even though they were in a worse position.
@@jaaackaissa1633 I view the defeat a result of a French political outlook that could not contemplate another war due to the huge WWI losses caused by the French military leadership's doctrine of Élan vital as well as - frankly- incompetent military leaders incapable of incorporating new technology into the traditional military doctrine.
That incompetence continued even after WWII as demonstrated by The Battle of Điện Biên Phủ. One other very important reason:
French enlisted were poorly paid and treated abysmally by their officers. Who would be willing to die for someone who doesn't either like you or abuses you?
@@gneisenau89 I was in the Chicago movie theater The Biograph for a showing of Das Boot.
When the introduction describing total losses appeared upon the screen, the audience gasped in unison.
@@jaaackaissa1633 The Italian military leadership was no better than the French- as demonstrated by how the British were able to defeat Italian troops in the field with the added difficulty that Italian armor was not much better than WWI armor. Italian enlisted were treated as badly by their officers as the French enlisted.
8:50 - Nice vid. First time I see him on video
The French government, the French People, and the French Army could not get themselves into a warlike mindset to fight the Boche tooth and nail as they did in 1914. The Frenchman of 1940 was a different person than the nationalistic, pugnacious Frenchman of 1914. Still shell-shocked, horrified, and traumatized from the mass slaughter of WW1 that sent 700,000 Frenchmen to their graves, leaving hundreds of thousands left wounded, maimed, and scarred for life, the Frenchman of 1940 did not have any fight in him.
The problem were the men in the French government, constantly quarreling with themselves. The problem were the old men running the French Army. These old generals should have long been retired instead of thinking in 1940 that it was still 1916 to 1917. Just better, dynamic, inspired French military leadership with younger, stronger, resolute, aggressive generals might have resulted in driving the German Army in retreat back across the borders with Adolf Hitler asking for an armistice.
not 700k but 1,397 k soldiers and 300k civillians died during WW1. On a population of 41 million in 1914. France had to wait 1950 to have the same population as pre-WW1, while Germany managed to gain 5 millions inhabitants betwenn 1910 and 1940, from 64 to 69 millions. And nobody believed that another was possible, hence why they preffered to give away Czechoslovaquia to Germany than declaring war to them. And you had to that some right-wing political group that promised a civil war if France attacked Germany, or helped Spain.
Completely True. De Gaulle had written a thesis on the evolution of the War and the army in 1932, and urged the old generals to apply new maneuver tactics like tanks followed by infantry. But they barely listened, the latter didn't have enough influence yet.
In retrospect, it's a horrifying thought that the Allies could've ended the war so much sooner, or at least that France might have never fallen. It wouldn't even have taken much to contain the German offensive, relatively speaking. Instead, we got the Second World War.
Just imagine if France contained the German offensive. Even if an armistice is signed, Germany would never have risked invading the Soviet Union with the Franco-British in the west. With the Royal Navy not distracted by Europe, Japan could never hope to take on the two largest navies on the planet. Granted, the war in China continues, with all the horrors therein.
It's all speculative, all a What If, but still...yeah. Hard to think about.
@@Cailus3542 You understand all this. Today even the Germans brag that 1940 France could have beaten them. Astonishingly, the Germans today admit that France had the better army but that they (the Germans) had the better mindset. The analysis is more specific: squabbling, ineffectual French politicians mired in factional politics, and old, ossified, outdated, and unimaginative French Army generals who held their positions due to high social class standings and family and political connections. France was poorly served by her civilian and military leaders.
Imagine if younger generals controlled the French Army. Even given France's polarized, paralyzed, factionalized government, younger dynamic French Army generals would have been far more alert to German intentions, would have positioned the French Army far more effectively in the right place at the right time with the right forces. The German Army could have been stopped in their tracks as soon as they entered French territory, preventing them from spreading out to commence the blitzkrieg. The German Army could have been driven back into Belgium and thence into Germany. From this point France and Britain could have forced an armistice from Hitler. This armistice would have been on advantageous terms, not as much as WW1 but enough to bottle up Germany.
You can blame the French for the 1940 defeat as much as you want. I don't deny many mistakes were made but the battle of France of 1940 was lost in 1919, during the negotiations of the Treaty of Versailles, when France was adamant that the only way to prevent another German invasion was the permanent occupation of the Rhine region. Unfortunately, the Americans refused to grant France the guarantees she demanded on the Rhine.
Marshal Ferdinand Foch, after having signed the Treaty of Versailles for France in 1919 :
"This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years."
Later, during an interview with the New-York Times :
"Next time the Germans won't make any mistake. They will invade France from the north and will seize all the ports on the Channel. From there, they will launch attacks on England. We will lose everything if we are not on the Rhine."
Georges Clemenceau to Woodrow Wilson and David Lloyd George in April 1919 :
"The United States of America are far away and protected by the ocean. England can not be reached, even by Napoleon. You are both protected. We are not."
My mother used to say that for world war one men went on singing.for the second ,they went crying.it was too soon,they were not ready🥺😊😊🇲🇫
Yet another clickbait title. You make some good videos, but this one is really just a shallow summary of how France collapsed, with little consideration of the reasons for it. Calling the video "The Real Reason..." isn't just misleading; it's an outright lie. I'm unsubscribing until you start using titles that accurately represent the content.
Agreed. A rote recitation of the well worn facts.
It's a 'popular' history programme and not aimed at anal pedants like yourselves. Toodle-loo!
I love Reynaud’s eyebrows
In my opinion, the battle of Arras was the most overlooked engagement that may have kept the British from coming to peace terms with the Germans. God bless the heavy but slow Matilda tank. Rommel had to scramble a defense of anti-aircraft guns to suppress the attack. This attack shocked Hitler and it may have discouraged him from being more aggressive at Dunkirk. Just imagine if the Germans bagged a majority of British soldiers?
Especially considering that within the week after Arras, Lord Halifax was proposing in the War Cabinet that UK start peace talks with Germany. That was with the BEF reaching Dunkirk and the evacuation beginning. Had the BEF been lost, maybe there would have been more defeatist sentiment in the House of Commons and Lord Halifax's motion might have succeeded.
It came down to who Chamberlain would support and he took a day to choose - ultimately backing Churchill. This was the closest Britain came to giving up on the war.
What ifs can never be definitively answered. But considering the pressure Churchill was under from the pro-negotiations wing of his own Cabinet, it's hard to imagine he could have resisted the push to capitulate if the entire British Army had been captured short of the beaches. Where would that have left the USA? Plenty of isolationists here might have concluded that the Europeans had the opportunity to put out their own fire, and now that the house has burned down, do we need to expend our blood and treasure to rebuild it for them? So, yes, the Arras attack assumes an outsized importance, even if it was neither a strategic nor even tactical success. Even a lioness might pause if the badger shows it can still bite.
@@gneisenau89 A key reason for USA moving towards war with Germany in WW I was a concern that Germany might emerge dominant over most of Europe if they won the war - and that with the resulting military and economic power of Germany it would not be possible to keep them from interfering in the Western Hemisphere. USA would have a choice of either going to war with such an ascendant Germany or give up on the Monroe Doctrine.
Seems like the same concern Britain had over any major European continental power, with just a delayed effect.
USA began funding a program in January 1941 to develop an intercontinental bomber capable of bombing German cities flying round trip from North America - just in case UK was knocked out of the war.
The same concerns would have led USA to re-arm and develop weapons with which they could threaten Germany. I see an American effort to involve themselves more in South American nations. In 1941 they brought Brazil into their circle by offering assistance in industrializing Brazil in exchange for bases on the NE coast of Brazil. This would be essential to establish an American presence so this would also happen in your alternate scenario.
Argentina and Chile might have been more problematic given their long standing territorial disputes. The objective of USA would be to unite the Hemisphere against Germany ushering in a Cold War but with Germany instead of USSR.
I believe the primary purpose of Lend-Lease was to ensure UK didn't fall and thereby contain German power. Lend-Lease aid was extended to USSR for the same reason.
The Battle of Arras made no difference to the advancing German Army. The small British force was swatted aside like a pesky fly. Hitler and his High Command did not even hear about this minor engagement.The 88mm anti-aircraft guns had been used in the Spanish Civil War in the anti-tank role. This is why the German 88's at Arras had anti-tank shells in their ammunition lockers. Incredible that in May 1940, the British Army had exactly 16 cannon armed tanks ( Matilda II ) in France.
@@shanemcdowall It's pretty well documented that OKH and OKW were aware of a British counter-attack, and that they were paying attention to the breakthrough and engaging in some micromanaging.
The initial order came from von Rundstedt as he was concerned about further counter-attacks. This was followed by orders from HItler and OKW to halt all armor.
Whether or not they knew the details of the counter-attack or even heard the name "Arras" they were still reacting to it.
As for the force at Arras, one armored brigade had these tanks. It wasn't their full complement, but what they had at this point in the war. Still it was quite enough to cause a panic in Rommel's Ghost Division as they rolled through lighter vehicles in the division's rear echelon with the first defensive line of anti-tank guns falling as the guns failed to overcome the frontal armor of the British Tanks. That's a little different than being swatted away.
The panic also spread to the SS Totenkopf division that was almost overrun by the British attack.
Nice video, but I was honestly expecting more of an explanation why they failed to defend France, the "real" reason. This video was more of a re-telling of the events and not a deep dive into the various strategic and tactical blunders, politics, hubris, etc.
Good to hear about the bravery of the French and Belgian troups for a change. Although I mostly like British humour, I do find it jarring to hear the French (and sometimes Belgians as well) being branded as eternal cowards. I wonder if the British soldiers who were rescued at Dunkirk felt the same way...
Thank you.
I suspect that the jarring collapse of the French flank in May and the "disappearing" Belgian flank in June had some bearing on their thoughts...
@@pavlovsdog2551 Speaking of disappearing and jarring collapse... the Brits literally dropped their guns against their own government's orders in late May 1940 and betrayed their Belgian and French allies who sacrified themselves in order for the BEF to be able to scurry home from Dunkirk, but you still have the nerve to shit on the French… the truth is your military leaders cowardly flipped over and the only thing that stopped your panicking troops from being butchered by the Germans on the beach was the sacrifice of a few thousands French soldiers.
"Following the period of the "Phoney War", the Wehrmacht's attack and breakthrough in the Ardennes in May 1940 succeeded in splitting the Allied Armies, and surrounding the French First Army and BEF. General Gort, commander of the BEF, took the unilateral decision to abandon his orders received from the British Government for a southward attack to be made to support the French Army, instead on 25 May 1940 ordering a retreat by the BEF northwards to the French coast without informing his Belgian or French allies."
"Gort went on to serve in various positions for the remainder of the war, but the chaotic rout of the BEF under his command from France had convinced Winston Churchill, the newly installed British Prime Minister, that he was undesirable as a field commander, and he was side-lined to non-combatant posts."
"Erwin Rommel had surrounded five divisions of the French First Army near Lille. Although completely cut off and heavily outnumbered, the French fought on for four days under General Molinié in the Siege of Lille, thereby keeping seven German divisions from the assault on Dunkirk and saving an estimated 100,000 British troops. In recognition of the garrison's stubborn defence, German general Kurt Waeger granted them the honours of war, saluting the French troops as they marched past in parade formation with rifles shouldered. Upon learning this, Hitler demoted Waeger."
@@pavlovsdog2551 Speaking of "disappearing" and "jarring collapse", the Brits literally dropped their guns against their own government's orders in May 1940 and betrayed their Belgian and French allies who sacrified themselves in order for the BEF to be able to scurry home from Dunkirk, but you still have the nerve to shit on the French… the truth is your military leaders cowardly flipped over and the only thing that stopped your panicking troops from being butchered by the Germans on the beach was the sacrifice of a few thousands French soldiers.
"Following the period of the "Phoney War", the Wehrmacht's attack and breakthrough in the Ardennes in May 1940 succeeded in splitting the Allied Armies, and surrounding the French First Army and BEF. General Gort, commander of the BEF, took the unilateral decision to abandon his orders received from the British Government for a southward attack to be made to support the French Army, instead on 25 May 1940 ordering a retreat by the BEF northwards to the French coast without informing his Belgian and French allies."
"Gort went on to serve in various positions for the remainder of the war, but the chaotic rout of the BEF under his command from France had convinced Winston Churchill, the newly installed British Prime Minister, that he was undesirable as a field commander, and he was side-lined to non-combatant posts."
"Erwin Rommel had surrounded five divisions of the French First Army near Lille. Although completely cut off and heavily outnumbered, the French fought on for four days under General Molinié in the Siege of Lille, thereby keeping seven German divisions from the assault on Dunkirk and saving an estimated 100,000 British troops. In recognition of the garrison's stubborn defence, German general Waeger granted them the honours of war, saluting the French troops as they marched past in parade formation with rifles shouldered. Upon learning this, Hitler demoted Waeger immediately."
@@pavlovsdog2551 Speaking of "jarring collapse" : the Brits literally dropped their guns against their own government's orders on May 25th 1940 and betrayed their Belgian and French allies who sacrified themselves in order for the BEF to be able to scurry home from Dunkirk, but hey, better find a scapegoat and blame your own incompetence on the French, it seems easier for you than acting honorably…
The truth is the BEF military leaders cowardly flipped over and the only thing that stopped your panicking troops from being butchered by the Germans on the beach was the sacrifice of a few thousands French soldiers.
Leave it to the Brits to proudly celebrate abandoning one's allies, dropping their guns and giving up the fight. I could never understand how they can be so proud of that Dunkirk "miracle"… I guess trolling is a lot more fun and dishonor easier than living with the shame of betrayal and cowardice :)
Dan, Great video as always! Great delivery and content. But could you wear a Polo Shirt or something other than an undershirt? The t-shirt detracts from the presentation. Much appreciated.
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much!
@@MicrophonesInTheTrees Its a serious subject. The t-shirt can go.
…”snd Britain and her empire stood alone.” This underdog myth is … very british.
But also accurate.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Absolutely NOT sir ...take a look at the @bartonwishart 9994 comment. ( if you're not a stupid french hater ).
Britain never stood alone. You had Australia helping India and new Zealand, Canada,
Outstanding video !! ❤
Tell us!
Those German marching songs have a certain inspiring effect!!.
Achtung!! Awesome ❤