My father John Pat a veteran of Dunkirk had great respect for the French army that defended the Dunkirk perimeter. He thought they were excellent soldiers
I had a family member who died in Dunkirk from his wounds, he was an infantryman, died days before the end of the battle of Dunkirk, he's one of the brave man who fought to protect my homeland and my current national Identity, may these heroes be remembered for their heroism.
I love how for years, the French (like the English) just took in and cared for the black American soldiers who were outcasts to their own. France deserves to have these heroic stories and triumphs elaborated on. Hell, the only reason the evacuation of Dunkirk was so successful was partly due to the French, who tried to hold off the advancing infantry and armoured divisions hightailing it to the coast to finish our lads off. And they held the town of Dunkirk too, whilst not even a mile away the British were scrambling aboard tiny boats and trade ships to get back home.
My mind is blown from what you are saying and the fact that you have a british flag as your profile picture. I mean, I agree with what you say but I want to ask you, are you actually from Great Britain ?
@@abeillebretonne4301 why would he not be British ? He knows the real history ( as do I. British too. ) What is also forgotten is the tens of thousands of British troops who carried on fighting to allow the evacuation. Especially around the Calais area. Nearly all of those ended up dead or POWs. A third of those rescued from the beaches at Dunkirk... were French.
@@MatthewVanston of the 338,000 troops evacuated 123,000 were French and Belgian. 40,000 British troops were left behind in the Dunkirk area as a rearguard to become POWs
Actually it mostly had to do with internal politics. The french politicians were afraid of their own military staging a coup and taking power for themselves, establishing a fascist regime. They were correct, BTW, as that's exactly what they did when germany took over and they were left with the vichy government. But the politicans deliberately stalled a lot of the offensive capability preparations of the army to prevent them from seizing power, which meant they didn't have enough modern tanks and planes to fight the germans, and preparations to build them arrived too late. Not to mention they also only allowed france to have a conscript army, not a professional one.
@Tranhoang Long germany develop a war economy, a form of state control economy unlike French but main problem was old doutrine and political instability. There's a few god channels like this one in UA-cam that explain Germany rearmament and their war economy.
In reality it was all the faluire to put Germany in its place before they invaded France. Czechoslovakia should have been the line. Instead they allowed the Germans to practice, gain insights in how to best fight modern wars, develop innovative tactics and strategies, consolidate power, gather reasources, allocate funding, and raise armies leading to an overwhelmingly skilled and expiernced force invading France. By the time the Germans invaded France they had the best army in the world because no one stopped them from building it. It's a bit unfair to label France as utterly incompetent because they were unable to stop an enemy that powerful. It is completely fair to criticize the entire league of nations for not putting down German aggression while it was still developing leading to the invasion and fall of France.
@@theempiredidnothingwrong3227 Ehhhhhhhhhhhh, while nothing you say is untrue, you speak as though France had that option. Their military budget was so heavily invested in and centered around the Maginot line, that even if they’d had the national will, they wouldn’t have had the capability to enact it. They invested in fixed defense. Tough to take those to your neighbor’s place when he gets belligerent.
@@jimbutcher5712 You say it as if France was the only one responsible and had bare the brunt alone. Every nation in the league of nations had a duty to enforce the treaty of Versailles and failed. With England simply taking Hitler's word that he only wanted Czechoslovakia.
i think the greatest "crime" (it's just words, hurtful but not existential crysis) is the fact that french contribution to WW1 has been completely wiped from memories in favor of the WW2 fast surrender story...
@@franctokyo5981 Okay, firstly both French AND British troops covered the retreat- Brits in the north, French in the East and South and yes the French fought like enraged lions and should be proud of that contribution that saved the allies from defeat. Secondly, we were originally planning to ship French troops back to Britain alongside our own (with no preference either way, despite what anti-British rhetoric has been spun) to save them from becoming PoWs and help bolster our counterattack, but French leaders insisted upon us transporting the French troops further south to help with their defence, only for them to be stranded in a capitulated France. Thirdly, while the sea helped to protect us after the surrender of France, it also was a major barrier in both our efforts to defend France and our later efforts to liberate France, so it was more than a little double-edged. 4thly, Rommel's famous push was stopped by fuel problems, being over-extended and being stranded from both the main offencive and even their 'mechanised' infantry which were still on horseback, so saying that we would've been rushed in a similar way to France without the channel is to ignore the reality of the situation. Lastly no shit more French people died in defending _France_ than Brits died defending _France_ - it's their bloody (literally) country after all and they took on the meatgrinder of Verdun, which Britain tried to help with via the infamous Somme offensive, still doesn't change the fact that the war crippled Britain as well and we got even less than France did out of the ordeal. I could go on with at least 3 more points (including why the success of the Ardennes offensive and the neccecity of Dunkirk was basically the fault of Belgium, 1 incompetant/traitorous French General and potentially Edward, Duke of WInsor - who might've been a double-agent when he inspected the Maginot line for British intelligence), but it's already becoming quite an essay so I'll stop here.
@@cplcabs It is a common misconception that the French soldiers refused to fight in ww1, that is simply not true. They refused to go over the top and wanted better living conditions, which is not really surprising given the massive disasters that were all the 1916 offensives and the debacle of the Nivelle offensive (Brits are rather acquainted with Pachendale and the Somme, this battles are comparable and themselves also include massive casualties for the French) "The term "mutiny" does not accurately describe events: soldiers remained in trenches and were willing to defend but rejected attack orders. The new commander, General Philippe Pétain, restored morale by talking to the men, promising no more suicidal attacks, providing rest for exhausted units, home leave, and moderate discipline. He held 3,400 courts martial; 554 mutineers were sentenced to death but only 26 were actually executed."
@@andresmartinezramos7513 forgive me if I am stupid, but isn't refusing to go over the top refusing to fight? Isn't walking away en mass refusing to fight? A large number of French mutinied en mass with many leaving the front meaning if the Germans had known what was happening, they could have just strolled over and taken French lines, all whilst troops of other nations fought and died to keep France free of the German hands. So what if 554 mutinees were sentenced too death and only 26 were actually executed? That doesn't show they were innocent of walking away, that just shows that maybe those in power thought there was just too much death going on.
Great video mate. But I wouldn’t say 90% of the french supported Vichy or did nothing. It’s misleading. It’s commonly accepted that 1% of the french collaborated , 1% resisted ( close to 5% during the last years) and the rest did indeed nothing. They were too busy to survive. Your sentence made me feel like 90% of the population were happy with German occupation which is far to be true
Yes and we even have a term to define this stance, "attentisme" which can be rougthly translated as "waitism". It basically mean that most of the population was simply waiting and enduring the situation. And there is also some acts of "passive resistance" which are not counted in the standard datas which translate by small acts of disobedience, misinformation (removing or switching the signs on the roads), ect...
It's alway like that, in most events people are passive. There is only a fraction of the population that actually do something. The human race is a race of sheep.
The situation was a bit more nuanced. Resistance or collaboration during the early years of the occupation really depended on one's ideological camp. French fascists and french police were more than happy to collaborate while communists and Spanish refugees almost immediately took up arms. For the rest of the population it depended a lot on one's social class where many of the workers and the poor were indeed just focusing on their daily survival, and many in the middle class and upper classes grudgingly accepted with the occupation so long as the Germans ensured law and order. Also since the nazis were still pro-business at this point they were able to get many french business owners (especially factory owners and vineyard owners) to work with them and supply the german army. It was really only after Germany occupied the entirety of France and deported frenchmen to work in German factories that there was a general shift towards resistance
I mean I would also say that those who did support the Germans were either forced to do it and or joined in the factories from a program that Petain where if French workers from Vichy France had came to work for the Germans they would release soldiers that were captured during the battle of France. You could say depending on where the information is from The communist Party in France to support or not mind the Germans until they would attack the soviets.
@@SharkanKuthoshqea The official policy of the french communbist party was to not bother the germans and spread a pacifist sentiment until 1941 and even if this policy made one third of the party members quit, two third still remained. Also ideological similarity with the nazi regime didn't automatically lead people in collaboration. During the early days of the resistance, there was a large proportion of people coming from the far right like members of the Croix-de-Feu, former members of la Cagoule or Action Française. It's explained by the fact that even if they have similar ideas with fascist ideology, most of these people are nationalists and hates the germans so naturally they are pretty upset by the defeat.
My great grandpa was a physics teacher during the occupation of France , he wanted to be part of the resistance but was scared of the consequences if he was found , so he indirectly participated by teaching his students how to craft bombs and various explosives , he would often find in the newspaper that his students blew up railway tunnels with German trains inside and he never got caught
@@augwin1804 give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. Believe that's closer to the saying (no offense if you take any from this)
Merci à ton grand-père, un vrai résistant, il risquait gros rien qu’en faisant ce qu’il a fait. And in case you’re not french yourself, i say thanks to your grandfather, as he was a true resistant, every people that risked is life for the cause is as much as a resistant as the fighters themselves
Yea me too. I am german and everybody just say s every german soldiers was a nazi. This is a lie Most soldiers (i think 95% ) didn't knew about concentrations camps or the mass killing of jews that was the SS and they were horrible. The SS even killed german soldiers. Anyways most soldoers didn't fought for hitler they fought for Germany like russians fought for russia english for england and so on. My grandpa and 3 of my uncles fought directly on the front and they hated Hitler as example.
@@emilioo.7972 I believe you. My great grandpa was a French soldier who was sent to a POW camp in Germany. At the end of the war when he came home he said, appart from a few mean officers, most of the soldiers were nice and wanted to go home to see their families just as bad as he did.
@@chrisclark719 uhm its a fact that bit every german soldier like hitler. My family lived in east preusen so it really didn't make a difference. And nit every german liked the Nazis. I am totally against Nazis but not every german back then was one
The French Army's rear guard action to buy time so that the bulk of the British and other French forces can escape at Dunkirk is seldom every talked about.
@You're Spying In case You forgot, there was a Siegfred Line protecting those territories. The Line Americans had difficulties with in 1945. What makes You think French in 1939 could do any better?
No no, you'r right, we act like it was to late, cause we were not prepared to that blitzkrieg who outsmart everybody in Europe. A Europe wich is post ww1, wich was a position war. They were expecting a static war, the majority of the officers. In fact German army used a book wrote in 1936 by charle de Gaulle about réorganisation of troops only in specialise corpse, and the possibility of winning a war in a week with all the new military technology, no one lesson to him in France he even get push to the exit when we were preparing defense against nazi invasion, cause our entire strategy was to hold a defensive frontiere. One last point the submission of French people is coming from a necessity to survive, don't be silly, less than 10 percent of French people were on the side of the nazi. Gosh the French bashing is real. French ;)
Thanks for this vedeo, it is good as always. As a French history teacher I have some coments : - regarding the colaboration and inaction of the french people, one major factor was the person of Petain. When the battle of France was lost he became Prime minister and was voted the full powers by the assembly, as such Vichy wasn't instituted as a puppet state by the Germans (though they did their bidding), but it was seen as the legitimate continuation of the 3rd republic. Furthermore, Petain was beloved and trusted by the population, he was the saviour of Verdun where most French soldiers of 1916-1917 had fought. When he said thar further resistance was futile, however shamefull, his words carried enourmous weight in a people stunned by the defeat and demorilized. This explains largly the inaction of the population, as for the collaboration, it was encouraged by the governement but it was by no means endemic, most occupied countries had SS units and France was amoungts the most populated. It should be said that resistance, active or passive gained momentum during the war. - Regarding the losses of the 1rst WW, they where enourmous, France WAS bleeded, you only have to go in the french countryside and villages today, all of them have a memorial with a long list of names, often brothers. We lost 1.2 million dead, millions of wounded, out of 39M inhabitants furthermore, the number of birth diminished considerably. In fact this was a problem for conscription from 1935 onwards, we talked of "classes creuses" (hollow classes). In 1939 we mobilized 5M men for all activities and branches of the army, but it was a considerable effort. It was reflected on quality. - Finally for the colonial soldiers, they where volonteers, not conscripted, and some where professionals. In some units, especially in north affrican ones, they where also french collonists in the units. These units fought bravely in both wars and where well integrated to the French army. However, lets not be euphemistic, we CANNOT just say that the black troops "wheren't treated all that kindly" by the germans, both the wehrmacht and the wafen SS outrirgght killed black soldiers taken prisonners, and sometimes their officers, white of black, as well. In one instance they recreated the capture of a village by the Heer using live amunitions against "tirailleurs senegalais" armed with blank, all for propaganda reasons. Sorry for the long message, carry on.
For the Resistance bit, we also have to put things in context when comparing French and Yugoslav/Polish/Czech/Russian resistance. Not only is there a big topography factor with most of France not being well suited to maquis or organised armed resistance, but France was also being regularly bombed by the Allies and obviously the French fleet was attacked by the British even before the armistice with the Prussians had been fully ratified. The Allies made it easy for German propaganda to make it look like the French man was being sacrificed for the interests of London. Beside armed resistance, the distinct lack of productivity in french factories during the occupation is also something to pick up on. For a large industrialized western nation, France only contributed absolutely tiny amounts to the German war effort (aside from captured materiel which was vital to the Wehrmacht until the end of the war). As for Vichy, it should also be noted that this government at first thought about coming back at the Germans, secretly funding improvements to various french weapons (sometimes developping entirely new weapons under the same name as the old one), and camouflaged a lot of equipment which was supposed to be seized by the occupant.
Petain's reputation did not survive WWII. While he was held in high regard by everyone at the time he was old and did not have the strength/energy the had in WWI to run the country/army. Churchill begged the French Government to fight on. When it looked like they wouldn't there was no choice but to treat the official French government and armed forces as German allies.
Ce que tu dis est vrai sur les mémoriaux dans les villages de France. En randonnée, je m'y arrête toujours, et c'est fou de constater qu'effectivement, dans les petits villages ce sont des fratries entières tombées pour la patrie. Le sacrifice fut immense et ne devrait pas être oublié, comme il l'est aujourd'hui par les traitres qui dirigent la nation.
One more myth i would add is that the french aviation did nothing during the battle of France. And one fact i would add: WW1 : France 40 millions people, Germany 70 Millions WW2 : France 40 millions , Germany 80 millions
U.K. didn’t have a large conscript army like the rest. Didn’t have anyone to send. An offensive would be better than the failed defence strategy. Although admittedly it only failed due to Germans moving through “impassable” terrain. If France attacked when Germany invaded Poland and didn’t wait for months there would have been better resistance and a two front war on Germany.
@@James-sk4db as you said France had a large conscript army, that needs time to assemble, the Maginot Line was created to hold at least two weeks to hold a german advance and rally the army for a french offensive into german lands.
@Selina Ansen France did try an half assed offensive into Germany, but France and the UK lost time trying a diplomatic approach to stop Hitler, moreover french and british logistics were not ready for the war, and neither of them managed to do anything of significance during Hitler's invasion of Poland. The french lost a lot of time mobilizing their artillery, and the british did not put their new spitfires into service yet. The french did have an offensive doctrine with more of a combined arms approach but it was the one they had exiting WW1, so even if they had the time to launch one, i'm not sure how effective it would have been. But yes, too late too little, now it's blitzkrieg time.
@Selina Ansen Thank you for having debunked this! The story behind the Saar Offensive was far more complicated than one could think. Had France and the UK launched an offensive against Germany right in 1936, it might have succeeded.
germay didnt have a population of 80 million. they just had colonies in asia, wich you probably included in that count. so they didnt necisarily have a chance to participate in the war.
There is one more myth left undebunked : more than 75% of the French troops captured by the Germans during the battle of France were so between the 17th and the 25th June, because if the effective armistice was signed on the 25th of June, Pétain call the soldier on radio to stop fighting the 17th. From this call, much of the French army collapsed and numerous unit stopped to fight. Allowing the Germans to capture them as "the war was over". However as there was no "formal" order to stop fighting isolated unit continue to fight until the end. But in south France, general Olry answer to the Pétain call that he would not stop the fight until having the armistice bring to his desk, thus, the Alps army he was commanding not only continue to stop the Italian offensive in the mountains but prevent the Germans going further than Grenoble, who were grounded there by the French artillery. His army was the only one authorized to keep all its gear and armament.
The idea that the French didn't think about the Germans going around the Maginot Line annoys me. The reason the Maginot line wasn't extended to the Atlantic was because the French at the time was in an alliance with Belgium. The idea was that when war was declared the French would move soldiers into key defensive positions in Belgium effectively closing the line into one long defense but just before the war started Belgium pulled out of their Alliances France could no longer legally enter Belgium land without Germany first invading. When Hitler invaded Belgium the French Army raced into Belgium to get into position but there just wasn't enough time.
An other reason was an economic one, the cost of the Maginot Line to build, care for and all was enormous where the economic situation of the country asn't this great, unlike the war economy of Germany (even if this economy had it limits, german ecopnomic war affort was enormous). Officials reasons often hides more realistic reasons. They also thought that the time germans took over Belgium, they'd have the time to conscript and be prepared to defend. And also the fact that going through heaveily forested mountains with tanks was not something you can think of directly at the time.
@@moulefrite3303 uhm... if I were the German officer in command back then, I would have moved my tanks through heavily forested mountains rather than in front of a fortification backed up by artillery without even thinking about it that much. Tanks can go through woods more easily than through cement and artillery shells. Usually such move would take a long amount of time but... longer than breaching a heavily fortified front? Absolutely no, so less casualties and wasted time. Also, such maneuver already had its applications in WW1. Still... you usually build full walls, not partial ones. Of course the cost of such fortification would be incredibly high, which makes the line of Maginot an even more stupid concept: think about how many resources the French army wasted building a wall the enemy simply walked around because it wasn't complete. Those resources could have been used somewhere else, and I honestly can't think of a more wasteful way of using them than that line. Perhaps using that money to make white flags would have been the only worse option... or maybe not, since Germany was interested in taking France to attack England, so invading France without destroying half of it probably was in Germany's interests. Short story: line of Maginot is a joke whatever the point of view.
@@John_Smith_ Except at the time it was not thought of like that nor all that true. At the time it was not seen as a viable move nor something that could be done to move a major motorized and armored element through the Ardennes, the ardennes aren’t small easy to mow down forests. These are lands of large forested hills and river bends, to go through it without vehicles constantly breaking down at the time would require immense dedication. Dedication that the germans had.
Also don't forget Eben Emael. The world's biggest and strongest fortress that was in belgium was taken by German forces in 15 minutes with their secret weapons: hollow charge explosives and glider airplanes. And with that fortress intact in their control they shot the surrounding fortresses it was supposed to protect giving the German army free movement.
The SS Division Charlemagne was one of the last units defending Berlin and the Reichstag. In all the video games you play where you're storming the Reichstag, it wouldn't be historically inaccurate to hear some of them speaking French instead of German.
Much of the SS Division Charlemagne was made up of French "Milice",or armed collaborators, who fled France in late 1944 as they faced summary execution or long prison terms if captured by the Allies and the Free French Forces (FFI).
@@ktipussyes, this was after the liberation of France, and after much of the original volunteer division had been cut down on the eastern front. The SS Charlemagne was very much a full volunteer French division of genuine French nazis
I am French and I thank you for helping in the destruction of these myths about the French army in WWII. It's so good to see people who don't learn History through incorrect memes.
Honnêtement, ça touche qui ce genre "d'insultes" Envers notre pays? Le "French Surrender"est tellement risible... Seul les incultes bouffeur de jeux vidéo et de films anglo-saxon le pensent. Quand ont connais vraiment l'histoire, cela ne doit pas nous toucher.
@TheSatanicTicTac On ne peut nier la réalité psychologique du désastre de 1940. Toutefois, on sait aujourd'hui que ce n'était pas si net : défense acharnée de Lille (je résume) permettant l'opération Dynamo, armée des Alpes invaincue, ouvrages de la ligne Maginot résistant au-delà de la date de l'armistice, Luftwaffe sérieusement étrillée par l'aviation française.
@@viragofrance2506 le problème c'est quand les français eux même se mette a oublier cette histoire a cause de la propagande anglo_saxonne et celle de notre propre gouvernement
@@derherrdirektor9686 even though that's not entirely true, it is my favorite argument used when us dutchies start bragging about the resistance. Also highest percentage of Jewish civilian deaths of occupied Europe, due to collaboration by our police force. After the war 45% of the national police force was fired because of this collaboration.
@@maxgrozema1093 I thought the Hungarians are holding the title of sending most of their Jewish population in to their doom and not the dutch. Never stop to learn I guess.
@@sebastianriemer1777 I should probably check facts and figures before replying but I believe the difference is that Hungary was a German ally and not an occupied country.
You forgot to mentions couple of things: in the successes, the French troops did quite a lot in Italy’s conquest, at Monte Casino for example. Then they were quite successful in the landing in Provence. You also said nothing about the conflict with Italians in the Alps. Among the failures, the airforce sustained incredible damages in 1940, with good effect since it probably contributed to decreasing the Luftwaffe ability before the battle of Britain. The navy didn’t have the chance to do much, as part was destroyed by the Brits at Mers el Kebir, and the rest was sunk in Toulon. The rest of what you said is fine and balanced, unless maybe a bit too harsh on the proportion of collaborators. Yes French people were in majority supporting Petain initially, but this was by no mean a support of nazi Germany, and evolved rapidly into suspicion and hostility. Agree with you that French resistance was probably a bit exaggerated, especially in the first two years...
@@whyyoubullyingme2110 Pourquoi tu répond si on s'en fout? tu m'étonne que tu te fait "bully" avec un caractère et un comportement pareil, de la haine gratuite franchement mec ta vie doit être pathétique mon pauvre je plain tes parents qui doivent pensé qu'ils ont échoué dans ton éducation.
The English abandoned their positions without notifying the French major state. In Dunkirk, only the French defended the flight of the English. By saving the English army, France lost prestige but thanks to that the English were able to continue the fight
As a french citizen, we learn about most of these in high school, except for two of them, the first one is that the french soldiers invaded Germany first. The second one is quite saddening because it's about those colonial soldiers. Even though it was obvious there would be some of them, we never learn about how deeply involved they were
Christopher Nolan litterally pooped on French people and history with his movie Dunkerque. Forgetting so many crucial elements of the war to emphaze on British people who almost didn't fight in the ww2 contrary to the 1st one...
@@irishbattletoster9265 yes, because the movie is focusing on the brits and is mostly a psychological horror movie than a war movie, just the fact that we rarely see germans in it proves this
A few quotes about the behavior of the french army at Dunkerque or Lille: General Georg von Küchler, commander of the XVIIIth army of the Wehrmacht, entirely engaged around Dunkirk, this is taken from his war diary: "Despite our overwhelming superiority in men and hardware numbers, the french troops are counter-attacking in several places. I can't understand how those soldiers, sometimes fighting at one versus ten (or even one versus thirty in some areas), can find enough strength to assault us: this is simply amazing ! I see in those french soldiers the same energy than with the veterans of Verdun in 1916. For several days now, hundreds of bombers and guns are pounding the french defence. But, it's always the same thing: our infantry and panzers can't break through, despite some local and ephemeral successes. The french high command has very smartly set up his troops and artillery. I fear that the Dunkirk operation could be a failure for all of us: almost all the BEC and the biggest part of the french 1st Army will escape, because a few thousands of braves block the path to the sea. That's distressing, but that's it ! Dunkirk brings the proof that the french soldier is one of the best in the world. The french artillery, already dreaded in 1914, demonstrates once more its efficiency. Our losses are terrifying: numerous battallions have lost 60% of their men, sometimes even more ! By resisting ten days or more to our much bigger forces, the french army has accomplished, in Dunkirk, a superb achievement that you must pay tribute to. They have certainly saved Great-Britain from the defeat, by allowing the british professional army to reach the british coast." General Franz Halder's diary, one of the chief of staff of the Wehrmacht: "May 18th 1940: the Führer still worries a lot about the southern flank. he's furious and claims that we take the best path to make the whole campaign fail ! The french troops never stops counter-attacking. May 21st 1940: that day starts in an extremely tense atmosphere: reports indicates a serious pressure on the northern flank of the IVth army. The VIth army faces a solid front. May 22nd 1940: our tanks, that are currently fighting in the south, have met a powerful enemy. Our panzerdivisionen suffer too many losses and attack without being required to. Stress is growing. May 23rd 1940: the losses for the tanks of our ten panzerdivisionen reach 50% ! The french resistance is fierce." Winston Churchill in his War Speeches, talking about the french resistance at Lille: "Those frenchs, under the brave command of general Molinié, have during four critical days contained not less than seven german divisions that, otherwise,would have participated to the attacks of the Dunkirk perimeter. Thoses troops thus brought a splendid contribution to the safety of their luckier comrades and of the BEC."
7:30 Before Vichy, French troops also fought Italian troops in the South (Nice, Savoy) and Japanese troops in Indochina. Free France troops also fought Italians in Africa
I respectfully but strongly disagree with your "Resistance was vital" myth : Too bad your earlier quote Dominique Lormier without paying attention to the work he did about the effect of the resistance during D-DAY : German leaders aggreed that about 14 divisions were stuck in french territories, terrorised by the maquisards ambushing them from everywere, completely disorganizing them and preventing them from reaching Normandy. Furthermore, reaching the Rhine was expected to be several months after landing in Provence. It took couple of weeks, just because german columns fled as far as possible away from France, as they realized they had lost it already. My point is, you claim to talk about the difference that Resistance made or not, but you actually talk about Collaboration. This is so wrong, and so unfair. This part of our history is dark, complicated, and very hard to understand. As my grandfather said, "It will be possible to talk about it only after all of those who lived it passed away." Even now, most of them died but it still such a taboo, "A heavy family secret", according to Lormier himself. You could have also told that the first massive tank battle was fought and won by french army in Hannut (Belgium) in May 1940, that during the battle of Stonne, the village was claimed by german and french 17 times and was later called by german "Verdun of 1940" (nobody knows that in France, by the way), or that in Dakar or Syria, french fought french because of different visions of duty. I think there are a lot of innacuracies in this video that make it slightly miss the target. I therefore thank you for contributing into changing this "surrendering France" meme, which is humiliating. And I am not even talking about "military glory" (pretty ironic while France keeps some of the most epic military history of humanity), but the 1940 defeat still has impact nowadays. The french spirit is made with selfdisrespect, mostly because the almost feudal relationship between Europe and USA from 1945. I could talk about that an entire night. Nazis were so close to loosing their bet in 1940. World history would have been so different, but that is not the point. Anyways, thanks again. Regards from France.
I have a lot of respect for you, being an American. However, one thing that has always made me skeptical of the French Resistance was my great grandfather's memoirs. In them, he states that he remembers fighting through French territory, and recalls that he did not see a single resistance fighter until after the town was liberated, when a bunch of men would come out and state they were with the resistance. My great grandfather believed that these people were simply fakes trying to get women to like them, and he doubted the validity of the claims of a French Resistance. Still, I bet there were some resistance fighters, and my great grandfather being an infantryman, so he might have just had less of a chance to see French Resistance fighters. I would say the reason the France surrendering meme exists is because the spotlight has been moving away from France for quite a while now. Another important factor is that almost everyone in the world learns about both World Wars, and France was performing very poorly during those wars. Honestly, if you look at the past, and some of modern times, France is full of bad-asses. A lot of people nowadays had a long lasting impression learning about Germany, Russia, and the US, so these countries are usually held in high regard. Despite what I have said, I mean no offense to your people; you guys are awesome, and I think France is a great country. I especially like your nuclear power policy, and I envy it greatly.
@@gabevietor3685 Your great grandfather was right about the fake resistance movement. As it is often said here «Everyone was a resistant in 1944». There was even worse cases : my father (born in 1948) told me about fake resistants in burgundy who where nothing but thugs, scavenging and pretending to be patriots. They were taken out on quick justice by true resistants, like they were not busy enough fighting Germans. It is great your great grandfather shared memoirs. As I wrote in my previous comment, these times were so dark in France that all remains under the curtain of a huge taboo. You simply won't ask what grandfather did during the war, as it is to frightening to face what could be the truth. If he did nothing, if he was a collaborator, if he simply agreed with Petain's policies (as many did). This is the most tricky thing : Petain had so much prestige (Time magazine mal of the year in the 30s) that everyone was expecting him to protect his country has he did in 1916. It is hard to make a comparison, but let's say Obama would have had an ambiguous behavior after Capitole events : this would have blurred everything I assume. If you want to understand the failure of France during the 1930s, I deeply recommend the book by Peter Jackson 1933-39 France facing nazi germany (not sure of the title). It is not at all about Resistance, but it gave me the most valuable pieces of understanding in the last years, ad I tant to share them. I am sorry for m'y disagreement. It is just that the margin of error between clichés is super thin from «all were resistants» to «french fought under German uniform», especially on a large scale media with a lot of audience not aware of all the historic details. This is why your work is so valuable, to clear the dust away from hidden pieces of truth. Take care ! 😉
@@ellendal1976 Thanks a lot for not taking offense at what I said! I hope to visit France some day. I understand why it would be taboo, similar to how there are taboos in the US about having ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. Much respect for you and your grandfather. Stay safe!
@@gabevietor3685 About what your great grandfather told you, I agree with Hugues, but I would also add that it would be non sense for a Resistant to publicly claim it, before enemies are gone ^^ Because there were resistants as much as there were collaborators, so it would have been way too risky for them ......
@@Blitz78100 True, it could blow their cover. Still, I think that people often use France as an example of resistance, when Poland is a much better example. I still bet there were plenty of French resistance fighters, but during the war, no country put up as much resistance as the Polish. If you want to know about the Polish, you can listen to the song "Uprising" by Sabaton. It's heavy metal, but it teaches a lot about the time period and the situation the Polish were in.
Common misconception: The French forces in 1939-40 were less well armed/equipped than their German counterparts ( typically read ... Myth that Germany had superior arms and equipment)
Well we can argue about that. What do you call well equipment ? A tank whit more armor and more penetration or fast tank whit radio. Also their tanks were less. Infantry were great, but tank was decisive blow.
@@strugle5930 With respect, no. Command.was the decisive blow. Radio per.tank was a factor ( i know Germans had almost all tanks linked with radio). But french command was the major reason the radio issue was never tested. Aside from.radio... Germans plowed crappy mk1 amd 2 tanks into france in 1940. With capable command Superior French tanks would have dramatically slowed German gains. Guudering and Von Runschted would both have agreed.
@@colinmcdonald2499 Do you mean just operational command in may '40 or more pervasive command issues? It is my understanding that the French suffered from design flaws in their command and control structure, including a severe lack of coordination and cooperation between the various branches of the armed forces.
Thanks for an excellent and much-needed redress of popular assumptions. One myth that may not have fallen within the province of your work is the disparity in the quality and numbers of French and German armor. Thanks again!
I heard that the French tanks, notably the Char B1 Bis, outclassed the German armor during the battle of France, and their armor was impossible to penetrate for the Germans en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sedan_(1940)#Battle_of_Stonne While the French armor tactics were primitive than the Germans, they nevertheless put up a great fight
@@MatthewVanston that and plus their overall obeselete tank tactics at that time also contributed to their defeat, but not after giving a tenacious resistance
@@comradekenobi6908 Heavy tanks like the B1 bis were, for pretty obvious reasons, fewer in numbers than medium and light tanks. It also lacked range and was pretty slow. It was a tank made for frontline battle, not maneuvers so it couldn't do things like the german tanks for example. In fact most of the time, these tanks needed to be brought on the battlefield by train before operating. For the lighter tanks, beyond the lack of radio equipement, models like the R35 light tank were also designed to have only a two man crew. It allowed the french to field more tanks but these tanks were quite understaffed with the two members of the crew having to do a lot of tasks during combat while the germans more numerous crew members could specialize and be more effective in their roles.
We always put the blame when it comes to Italians and French on the soldiers, it was really the commanders terrible planning, when these troops were put under good command they actually performed really good, take Erwin Rommel commanding the Italian troops, he gave credit to the fact that the Italians did really well, the troops are good, but the commanders weren’t
"In Defense of France's Military Conduct in WW2" was a great video on UA-cam, at least before the channel got taken down. I Wish I had saved the video, because it was the best video presentation on this subject I've ever seen.
Great video. I’ve heard a big weakness of the French resistance was that they lacked unity and that separate resistance groups fought each other over supplies until Britain stopped supplying them at all.
De gaulle and Jean moulin united them, that's why the country got better instantly after the war while countries like greece who had non unified resistance drowned into civil war
A myth i see repeated a lot is that the Germans went around the Maginot line. the fact is that there *were* fortifications in the Ardennes, just not as dense and formidable as in other places. the French had built fortifications even on their borders with Belgium (the Belgians really didnt like that) and the Germans advance just decided to push a lot of units through a narrow corridor in a somewhat less defended point in the line.
Well it’s also worth pointing out that there were also fortifications in Belgium and the Netherlands. The most famous fortress in Belgium was of course Eben-Emael which was neutralized by German glider troops.
also, there were reserves ready that would have blocked the offensive in its tracks, but french command decreed that the Ardennes push was a diversion and didn't commit more troops to the defense until the breakthrough was solidified... Funny how, during D-day, the germans couldn't deploy their Panzer groups because of failing leadership as well ;7
Up to the Belgian border the Maginot fortifications were contiguous, i.e. a "line". North of that point the fortifications continued in two ways: along the Belgian eastern border in another contiguous line, and along the French eastern border in a series of unconnected fortresses. It was this wide, relatively open sector that the French had laid out as bait for the Germans. Moving through the Ardennes instead of the Belgian plain, the Germans didn't find an narrow corridor but a vast range to fan out in.
1. Arguing that the Maginot Line was successful or effective is like saying ''My shield was highly effective; it took them three attempts before they broke it and killed me.'' 2. The most effective WW2 French units, battalions &etc that resisted the Germans were either those led by rogue commanders who refused to capitulate to orders from ''higher up''... or else forces comprised mostly of colonials and foreigners (in the Legion's case). By and large, the French Army was led by careerists who were more concerned over their uniforms and baguettes than they were about resisting the Nazis. 3. The French were overwhelmingly in support of Nazi antisemitism. Having the Nazis control France gave tens of thousands of French the perfect opportunity to vent their Jew-Hate without limit. 4. The most ugly of French characteristics is their desire for ''revanche''. This was seen after WWI at Versailles and Trianon - when they carved up the defeated empires. It was seen most clearly after WW2 when they used hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war as slaves to rebuild France... and when their ever-so-brave fighting men shaved the heads of helpless women who were accused of collaboration. As if those hypocrites who beat them and humilated those poor women, didn't ! 5. The way the French bang on today, anyone would think that 70 million French people between 1940 and 1944 were all members of the Resistance. As if!
One thing that is often downplayed or even omitted is how crucial the French Army was in the Dunkirk evacuation, the French held off the bulk of the German attack while they were evacuating. In the movie Dunkirk, it focuses almost exclusively on the British and you barely see the French.😕
One thing that led to France's surrender in 1940 is that they were a relatively small country (both in population and geographical size) on the same continent and close-by to Germany, and their room for error was much smaller. A British fuckup meant they could still hightail it across the Channel where Panzerdivisions couldn't follow. A Soviet fuckup meant they can still just sacrifice land for time. An American fuckup means a bunch of boys aren't coming home. A French fuckup means you have Panzerdivisions roaming around your countryside.
@@squidontheside5496 it's a good movie. I enjoyed it. There was another film I saw about an African American soldier and I can't place the name of it... But that one was one of the best I've seen.
@@3lli0 If you like WW2 movies I can also recommend you "Generation war" It's a short serie and it show the war from the german perspective, really refreshing to change the point of view
@@squidontheside5496 I watched Generation War!! I absolutely loved that miniseries. I really like the HBO miniseries Band of Brothers and The Pacific. The movie I wanted to remember is called Mudbound and it's so good.
I'm glad that people recognize the braveness and sacrifices of the old soldiers of that country of mine. I'm French, near Germany to be specific and, yes that's true that our old men lost early in this war, but it's also true that they were in the very front lines and were one of the first country to be attacked on their lands (as the Germans, Poloneses, Belgiums and Autrichians, and more neighbors of ours) but even when the France was occupied, men did not stop fighting, on a side or on other for lots of reasons (political opinions, family, friends, patriotism, honor, duty, freedom, peace, religion,... so many reasons depending of the human who hield the gun and the banner), in a country or in an other, and yes we were part of the first ones to "surrender" but with out the tenacity of all the men and women who stood up and fought, the issue of this war could've been so much different of what we know Honneur, fierté et respect à tous les hommes et femmes qui se sont battus lors de cette guerre.
The French army had, beside some tactical and material issues, one big problem named Gamelin. The man was incapable of leading the army or planning for the war and showed zero resilience under pressure. Thanks to politicians like Dalladier, however, he was not fired until it was too late. The nation was in the hands of rather weak politicians like Reynaud who eventually submitted to Petain, an old man with more ambition than whits left in tank and whose lifelong pessimism and personal agenda sealed the country’s fate in June 1940. I would also mention that no European country fared better against Germany than France during the 1938-1941 period. UK was lucky enough to have the Channel and Churchill but don’t forget about Chamberlain or Halifax... the German general staff had for over a century been a well trained and coherent organization whose focus had long been on delivering quick fatal blows during wars of aggression with the clear understanding that their country was not in a position to succeed in protracted conflicts. In 1940, unlike in 1914, the fast moving, boldly-led panzer divisions didn’t give much time to the French army to reorganize. Eventually, a few effective or ineffective leaders on both sides and luck (sending hundreds of panders undetected through the Ardennes was perhaps lucky...) at times, might very well have led to the final demise of France rather than an inevitable sequence of events. For all the weaknesses of the French army, the key factors were the tactical leadership on the German side with guys like Guderian willing to disobey orders in order to push their advantage (initiative was expected from German field officers, contrary to the French) and the effective use of combined arms warfare.
American killed more French and destriyed more french cities than Germany AMERICAN dont care about France, they cknsidered france occupied territory as German and ennemh, they werent delivering it , they were invading it, bombardment were too heavy the wether started to change
what my grandma reminds about WWII about germans was soldiers giving her chocolate (she was a child), and about americans was bombing... so yeah war is always, let's say "complicated"
@Selina AnsenMy grand Grandpa actually walked all the way from the soviet union to Rhineland Germany just to get away from being captured by the Soviets
It's ironic that the Nazis found so many Anglophobic supporters that were all too happy to collaborate. This included Admiral Darlain who's cagey BS and miscommunication can largely be blamed for the MersElKabir Tragedy. Simply but the Brits had no reason to trust him or his orders, not could they take the chance of the French fleet being surrendered to the Kreigsmarine. This is made Worse because most of the French Fleet was scuttled before being surrendered.
When the Allies were about to liberate Paris, Charles de Gaulle demanded the French lead the attack. The Americans and Brits agreed, but only if the French division had no Black soldiers. This was kinda difficult since most of their divisions were only 40% white. In the end they had to kick out the Black soldiers and had to go as far as North Africa and the Middle East to scrape together enough white troops to fill in the ranks. Source: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7984436.stm
@Jean its a true story tho its reported by a lot different sources and historians just not sure if the french did it themself or the other allies demand it. Colonial troops in ww2 are still unterrepresented
That is another myth The "goumiers" would fight on until 1945 (goumiers are algerian/marocans that fought in free french army) The black soldiers would suffered imense atrition in the cold weather aka the campaign of lorraine/alsace, the french had to sent them back in the south (in ww1 the french did the same thing) And again, most of the algerian division had a lot of black foot (pied noir,french settlers in north africa) in fact 200,000 pied noirs served in the free french army with a huge casualty rate
3600 black soldiers from the 2nd DB were either transfered or retired before the assault on Paris. Leclerc had no choice in the matter since he was sponsored, trained, and equiped by the US army, which had a policy (until 1948) of segregating black troops. Part of the policy in the US army at the time was to not allow black soldiers in "elite" units (such as armoured divisions). This was definitely not part of the History curriculum in France when I was a student.
Actually I never read that the Maginot Line was a failure. Instead what I heard is that it was such a success that it created a false sense of security for the French and an urge to find a way to bypass it for the Germans.
French save the english army 2 times: first at dunkerq where france save the english army which run away. And the 2nd time was at bir hakeim... And never forget that 9 french soldier defeat 4000 italian soldier
@@pilotedavion6716 Technically they still fought after the government surrendered, the radio lines were broken and they didn't know the war was over for them. I think they kept fighting one or two days after the defeat.
When you got to the myth about the French losing every battle I was thinking solely about the battle of France(during which they did achieve some victories), but I forgot about the battles fought after that. I know of them. I just wasn't thinking of them. Both the Vichy French and the Free French fought many battles after the battle of France. And the Free French won numerous victories. France was, on the whole, pretty successful during World War 2, and while the tendency to view the Allies as consisting mainly of the Americans, the British, and the Soviets isn't wrong the French shouldn't be forgotten.
It’s often forgotten that substantial French forces fought in the latter years of the war. French troops fought in North Africa and a French naval task force centered on the battleship Richelieu fought the Japanese in the Pacific. More pertinently, a large French army landed in the south of France a few weeks after the Normandy landings, swiftly overwhelming the Germans there in conjunction with American forces. After the revolution in Paris, it was a French armoured division that liberated the city.
@@Cailus3542 french forces gained important numbers only by late 1942 when a former vichy army corps (the XIXth) joined the free french. I don't think the latter was an important player before that (1940-41) though I wish to be corrected.
"The Germans didn't invade France first." That's doubly true. Not only did the French invade Germany before the Germans' invaded France, the Germans invaded Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Poland before they invaded France.
In french school we do study that many frenchs where agree with the vichy regime and with the Nazis, as you said they helped in the holocaust. The reason they told us why people use to think most of the frenchs participate in the resitance was because after the war, Charles de Gaulle wasn't willing to divide the frenchs in a witch hunt searching who colaborate with the germans and decide to make this lie to unite the frenchs again and rebuild the country. This include censure and many other methods to prevend to talk about the problem even if everybody knew it was not right.
The Maginot line wasn't only on the germain frontier, it surrounded the whole country and was very effective against the italian army (search for the battle of saint Louis brigde's(in fact a part of the battle of Menton)
Beware of not going from a cliché / misconception to another one... Yes, the "Maginot Line" didn't cover only the part of France-Germany border in Alsace. With its concrete fortifications with artillery ("secteur fortifié"), it also covered France frontier with Luxembourg and part of Belgium and a small part in front of Switzerland. Other parts of Belgian border were fortified, but without concrete forts and without arty (called "secteur défensif"). But... it never surrounded THE WHOLE COUNTRY !! There were some parts of "secteur fortifié" in the French Alps in front of Italian border : Alpes-Maritimes, Dauphiné, Savoie, Rhône. But is was not all along the border. This doesn't diminish the heroism of some French units during the Battle of the Alps in June 1940, and particularly on battle of Saint-Louis bridge in Menton. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_France
Really loved the video, thanks for putting it out. Another myth is that they didn't understand Blitzkrieg. The French Army had looked at the development of the Panzer Division, and had begun to build 3 similar divisions, the DCR, (Divisions Cuirassées de Reserve), early in 1940, with a fourth put together during the invasion. Unfortunately for the French, not nearly enough were put together, not enough officers understood how to use them, and the institutional resistance to them was strong.
Those upper-class generals were reluctant to the idea of an army of mecanics et tecnicians , like you need with tanks troops. They believed this would add an leftist influence. And god , they hated those leftist. The newspapers they would provide for the troops (for exemple) would be "Je suis partout", "Gringoire" all type of reactionnaire, antisemitic, pro peace with Germany.
6:10 Number are totally wrong ... it's more like 20 % of resistance and 15 to 20 % of collaboration with the nazi . The french didn't support the nazi but they support the Maréchal Pétain who was know has the hero of Verdun . They all understand that he was not a good guy and stop supporting him . The first act of resistance is literally the first day of the capitulation in the city of Toulouse where leaflets were throw in the street ( saying that Pétain is not a good guy (and yes he was a liar )) . Most of the population didn't care about the war and care for their life , and A LOT wasn't collaborater in the 20% but more like very very very bad people i can say many example but 1 is enouth : a couple did say that neighbors where jewish just to take their sofa . Just in case you didn't know : you give leaflet in the street = execution or death by torture killing a nazi = execution or death by torture and repression( kill civilians , 5,10,12,18,22...doesn't matter for them ) sing the Marseillaise= execution or death by torture having a french flag = execution or death by torture every act of resistance will cost your life Yes my english is garbage and yes there were traitors in france but most of them received what they deserved and the last of them lives in fear every day
The maginot line extended right across the Belgian fronteer and the German army burst right through it. The fortifications weren't as strong as in Alsace-Lorraine but were still grade two.
Merci de mettre tout ça au clair, beaucoup d'anglo-saxons me font bien rire quand ils disent "french always surrender" alors que le corp expéditionnaire anglais n'a pas fait grand chose si ce n'est attendre sur la plage de Dunkerque pendant que les Français retenais les Allemands.
The first one gets even more epic if we consider that Poland did the same thing. Yes you read right, Poland invaded Nazi Germany in the first days of WW2. Although, everyone including the polish Generals say that it was a futile move, only to boost the moral. They pushed 4 miles in.
Another myth, "the French Africa Army (L'Armée d'Afrique) was African", this Army that was the bulk of French Free armies from 42 to 45 was based on the conscription of "Pieds Noir" (European Settlers in Maghreb, that were Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and French mainly). African could volunteer and joined "Senegalese" regiment (if they were Subsaharan) or "Maroccan" (if they were Maghrebi). But as you can see in the archives, or simply in the death lists, the vast majority, above 84% of troops were European And im surprised you dont speak about the Norway invasion, were French and Brit successfully crushed the German try to storm Narvik. This was the first major battle of the WWII between western powers and the Alpes Army did great. We could also speak about the reasons of defea : . Politics (pacifism mainly) was a disaster, the "Grand idea" of blocking the German in Belgium to avoid the same disaster on french soil that in WWI was understandable but it wasnt accompanied greatly by the army. Either the Army should have stationned in Belgium, either it should have kept the Maginot line from Switerzland to the Channel. The sabotages and great strikes from communists element (USSR was allied to Germany at the time) and the great nationalisation that basically destroyed every plant to build new one three to four year before the war. Another unknown fact is the one that qualified technician were called under flags with other people. Which means during six month the plants, that already were newly built, lost all their services. The Dewoitine 520 is considered have lost a full year of production / developpement between 1937 and 1939 (Aviadrix blog)
The Belgium issue is mostly due to the Belgian king naive views. Initially the French were supposed to station at the Belgian-German frontier with Belgian troops. The Maginot Line was supposed to push the fight into the vast Belgian fields where they could fight with an advantage over the Germans, with forts along the main rivers. When the Belgians saw that Germany was readying for war, they called for neutrality, hoping they would not get involved into this bloody mess, and chased the French troops back to France to show their willingness of staying neutral. It's understandable but naive since Germany had already fucked their neutrality in ww1. They did it again, to the surprise of absolutely no one but the Belgian king, I guess ? And this mess cost the Allies to lose quickly the first network of Belgian fortifications. Actually, the Allies still managed to contain the Germans despite this. It's hard to say what would have been the outcome without the Ardennes assault. Maybe the war would have taken a more ww1 style turn, with no real occupied countries and a fight concentrated in the Benelux region. The USSR would certainly have stayed neutral for the whole thing, waiting to take the cake when everyone would be devastated after years of combat. In fact, the Ardennes assault was a coup of poker, a big bet. At the time, the French command suspected the Germans would try to force their way through the Netherlands. When they heard of an assault in the Ardennes, they thought it was only a diversion, which is why they didn't quickly draw back their army from the Benelux and got surrounded after. The Ardennes was known as a weak spot for quite some times now, they already conducted tests in the region and found the Germans could drive an army there. But maybe the generals didn't take this study seriously. For the Germans, the Ardennes assault was a huge bet, because one bomber, or one artillery corps could have turned this into a disaster. They took the bet that the French would find the idea of sending full tank divisions through this bottleneck so stupid and dangerous they would never believe it. It worked, but if it didn't, a simple explosion on the cheap roads of the Ardennes pass would mean delays, even worse if some tanks get broken and block the way. Then, with a stuck German army, France would have been able to send reinforcement quicker and contain the attack, maybe even crush the tank divisions ?
Any historical statement that attempts to summarize a whole nation over any period of time using only a single sentence cannot, by nature, be anywhere near true.
A great video, thank you. I'm from Colmar, in France and for the coincidence, one of my relatives was in the military and her regiment liberated the town of Jebsheim, during the Colmar pocket combats (I recommend to visit our region, for the history, gastronomy, the best wines in the world and conviviality, well, when the actual human malware will end) The Americans had a pretty good run too, with Audie Murphy, the most decorated US soldier of WWII, he received the medal of honor holding for an hour single-handedly a german company with a browning M2 on a disabled tank (an M5 Stuart) and directing artillery strikes, after that, he lead a counterattack successfully while wounded. As for the majority of the people that did nothing during German occupation, I kindly remind you, the casuals historians, that, first, they were people trying to survive during hard times with an occupying enemy pillaging what they could and leaving them scraps, second, the German had 1,8 million hostages in the form of POW and third, they were, in a sense, held at gunpoint, the German, albeit somewhat lenient on the French people (they were in France for the long run, so they had to accommodate the population), wouldn't hesitate to retaliate harshly on individuals and their families if they were caught doing something against the German regime, for example, in Belgium, the country was in similar situation as France, a Belgian pilot named Jean de Selys Longchamps did an unauthorized strafing run on the gestapo headquarters in Brussels, after the German had captured and tortured his father because Jean escaped twice and joined the RAF. Sorry for the long text, but I was feeling that clarifications was needed :)
The dunkirk battle as shown in the Nolan movie is kind of a myth. The french army protected the english retreat preventing the capture and lost of the british army and surely make the German lose the the battle of Gret Britain
@@christianlibertarian5488 Which is the issue. Dunkirk battle was never British only battlefield. Battle of Britain was. it's kinda ironic that when it comes to movies about WW1, french army is often presented with allied armies along its side, but when it comes to WW2 even about events when french army was *still* fighting and dying, they're never visible. This, in itself, sustain the myth. Nolan's choice not to show Dunkirk French defense for more than 10s and, worse, that the only French soldier we see a longer time next is a soldier looking to flee helps maintain this myth of the French soldier who does not fight. And it's all by choice. Oh well. I guess that his choice to show English soldiers being ready to sacrifice this French deserter to save their boat from sinking can be taken as an hyperbole.
After Bir hachim in 1942 , the ordinary British Tommy in the 8th Army stopped calling the French defenders Free French, and rechristened these soldiers the FIGHTING FRENCH as a tribute to their bravery.
As a french, I'm ok with baguette jokes, cheese jokes, frog jokes etc... but the surrender jokes are just insulting for our history and those who died for the country...
Yeah we don’t really care about baguette oui oui omelette du fromage which by the way is grammatically incorrect, snails or whatever i mean it’s food and we’re known for making good food plus y’all know our bread the best bread hehe
Except some points, (already explained by other comments), this video is GREAT. Finally a video in english where facts are facts and it is not just french-bashing. good work !
its very easy to stand back and judge the French people but how would we have reacted if the Germans had got a foothold in the UK? many were sympathetic to the Nazi cause and i'm sure we would have seen some collaboration
Hi could you do a video about our General, Charles De Gaulle ? A lot of people (especially anglo-saxons) seem to think that he was just a loudmouth with no real experience and just fled to England at the start of the war, but General Charles De Gaulle was somewhat of a genius himself. He and his divisions were one of the only French divisions to have successfully repelled the Germans and even took some prisoners during the Battle of France, he also knew that a Second World War would happen years before it took place (though a lot of people saw it coming too), he advocated for a more professional army instead of an army consisting of mostly conscripts, he had his own version of the « Blitzkrieg » and quite ironically one of his books didn’t sell well in France but sold really well... In Germany.
@@apotato5567 Look it up, the leader of the PCF (Parti Communiste Français, French Communist Party) at the time (forgot the name). From the top of my head, he deserted and defected to the USSR and fought Germany only when they waged war against them.
@@breizhrudie4757 Not same spirit at all. Both factions did not look at each other in a very friendly way and it was clear that sooner or later, they would clash.
I am not impressed by any irony. Remember that the former king of England spied for the Germans and gave very important information to the nazis. The French troops took 250 000 casualties in 1940. They fought like lions. Their leaders were ancient and unimaginative, unable to even think about movement tactics.
Did black American soldiers really get treated well by the French when they arrived in WW1? That's a thing I heard and I don't know if it is true or not
The french fought in the mud and piss along side black troops back in Verdun, the probaganda made the tirailleurs looked like hero, or at least a full force amongst the french army The french didnt give 2 shit about the color
When US army was arrived in France for WW1, all the blacks units were under direct French command and fight with French units because the US army doesn't want to fight along side Black people when the French didn't care if they are black or yellow....(a huge part of Africa was French at this time so....)
Because of their history, american tend to see black as ex-slave, and thus, unfit for combat, while french fought against or with them in the colony, and, could see them as warriors.
It's a possibility, yes. If I remember correctly, African colonial troops were better treated by the French Free Forces than it is believed so maybe African-American were as well treated.
Another interesting fact about the Maginot line. You already clarified that the main goal of the Maginot line was a success which is true but you didnt explain why exactly. It's correct that it prevented a full frontal assault and forced the Germans to go through Netherlands and Belgium which was the real plan. The plan was to drive the germans in Belgium with French soldiers blocking thanks to some agreement with Belgium government. It was the agreement to not expand maginot also along their border. The thing is sometime before WW2 Belgium changed their position and only allowed french troops to enter their territory if Germany invaded them.
I would go as far as to say the resistance was not only unnecessary but also actively harmful and downright evil. They weren't fighting Germans because Nazis were evil but, in many cases, because they themselves were communists (which is a literal red flag); and their antics led to a much worse treatment of civilians by the occupants, in many cases large scale massacres like in Oradour.
The french resistance was more in intelligence, sabotage, helping evasions and editing anti-Vichy press. Also 80% of informations and documents which were useful for the preparation of operation Overlord have been transmitted by the french resistance to the allies.
Really makes me feel good I knew all these already, expect maybe the French resistance one because that one is still somewhat debatable to be considered what is “ vital “
As history nerd, It really pains me that people make surrender jokes about france when talking about any war other than the franco prussian war or ww2, and the myth that "france has a history of surrendering" is not true, that only implies that the casual historian thinks that france just acts like ww2 france in every war they fight in.
Channel Islander here. Huge respect to France. Thanks to you I grew up with a Nazi foxhole in my backyard, but speaking English and a modicum of patois
@@youtubecensoredme245 Yes, it's true. But precisely, in the face of the Italian enemy, the French had to keep up against them substantial elite troops (in particular the Alpine Chasseurs) who were very useful against the Germans ....
Another Myth : Vichy France was always a collaborationist state In fact, the real collaborator was Pierre Laval, not Philippe Pétain (he was still an accomplice nevertheless), Laval is the one who taked almost all the decision of the Vichy Regime, the 12th of December 1940, Pétain dismissed him from his post and named François Darlan but Germany oppose the return of Laval the 18th of April 1942, it's around this time the last major decision of the Vichy Regime will occur, the Germans try to invade Vichy France with the Operation Lila and Attila to take the vichy navy by force, but according to the Protocole of Paris signed by Darlan, the order to sabotage the navy is sent, and despite the numerous attempt to prevent it by Laval, the navy is 90% destroyed. On the 20th of August 1945, Pétain was forced to be brought to Sigmaringen, after many refusals, he finally accepted under the threat that Vichy would be bombed if he refuse once more.
I would not be so sure though. Before Jean Moulin came along, the Résistance was quite a mess because Resistants did not share the same political views and would seldom cooperate.
@@MatthewVanston Yes I totally agree . jean moulin did an extraordinary job with the help of Charles de gaules and the FFI . It doesn't look like it but thousands of resistance fighters died and most of them were kids.
@@geremlord9002 The french resistance was more in intelligence, sabotage, helping evasions and editing anti-Vichy press. Also 80% of informations and documents which were useful for the preparation of operation Overlord have been transmitted by the french resistance to the allies.
I often wonder if the French/surrender stereotype was perpetuated by us English speakers as we had to blame someone else after the disaster in France - noting that the British army was also routed and withdrew from France while the French army was blocking the German advance to the beaches. France also wasn't the first powerful country to be defeated in WWII - Poland was by no means a weak nation at the start of the war and their quick defeat surprised the Allies. Of course most who have done even a bit of reading about WWII could tell you the early war defeats of the Allies and Soviets were due to Blitzkrieg tactics which was a completely new way of conducting a war that overwhelmed the trench warfare style the Allies were expecting.
aye the french did what they could. and that is respectable. tho for many europeans its an unwritten law to insult the french where we can. specially when mexico kicked the frogs bottoms. anyway the french fought well, just if their leaders.... government..... and well...... the tank designers werent so incompetent. not gonna say the french tank designers were rubbish. but they should have dropped the 2 man tank concept
In their eyes, 2 man tanks concept meant less men per tanks, so it would allow for more tanks to be deployed overall. The government was a mess, same for the millitary high command and inner rivalries, and the ww1 doctrines As a French I can confirm those, our soldiers fought hard no matter what the Brits and Americans claim today.
@@sylvananas7923 aye that i agree on. no matter what we claim the french fought as well as everyone else. despite the flaws. and yeah the concept sounds well on paper with more tanks deployed. but how good is it with an overstressed commander? reload, aim, shoot, command, look around, communicate with allies, etc. but yeah good on paper until put in the field. and again the french were brilliant fighters.
@Vim Fuego That something I don't understand. I hear a lot about german working quality as a stereotype but many witnesses including you and other germans told me they are lazy and unproductive!?
Please don't forget us. During the world war II New Caledonia (a french land in the pacific) was a strategic point in the war in the pacific. When the other fall, and surrender in france, we have still resist against the Vichy goverment, and we help a lot the american. And when it was possible, we've go in africa to fight with the rest of the french army, at the battle of Bir Hakeim. We are a lot forget in the history.
Well, when it comes to French in 1940, British General Allan Broke, left notes on his observations. And needless to say, they are not pretty: I still see it before my eyes. It was rare for me to see such messy and poorly equipped army. Unshaved men, neglected horses, mismatched uniforms and harnesses, dirty vehicles and complete lack of pride on men's faces. What stroke me most were the faces of those men, who clearly showed dissatisfaction and insubordination. When the order 'Left look!' was made, very few actually bothered to execute it. After the ceremony, Corap invited me for an inspection of obstacles around the fort of St.Michel. We came across an anti-tank trench, incomplete and poorly built, without any additional barricades. I dared to share my opinion that it should be covered with anti-tank rifles. 'Bah! We should take care of this later - Come, let's have breakfast! - I heard in reply. Though to be fair, there is a tale of a French officer- Also named Corap or the same as the one mentioned above - who jumped in front of the train in 1940 on Le Mans train station, with message left for Main Command saying 'Mr. President, I take my own life, so that You will learn, that my men did not lack courage, but You can't send men to fight tanks, armed with only rifles'.
Said the people who were the first to leave their lines.... not even the poor Belgians. The British playing the blame game over an allied defeat and pointing fingers to absolve their involvement? Shocking... Shocking I say lol
@@Itachi951000 perhaps you should go and read a history book or two and stop listening to tired old myths. The British army was still being landed in France (ie 2nd BEF) whilst the Dunkirk evacuation was going on. The last British evacuation from France occured in August 1940, by this time in was an informal evacuation operation as most of the troops and civilians extracted from France had left 3 days after the French signed their Armistice with the Germans on 22nd June 1940.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Lmao the 2nd BEF? When Churchill ordered an evacuation of all your men from France? Yeah right...... nice try. The Dunkirk evacuation ended on June 4th... the only British people left in France where that regiment of Scottish soldiers which were abandoned in Brittany (or Normandy was it?). The fact is the British were long gone for the last stand at the Loire. You left and the French did continue to fight.... it is absolutely disgraceful for you to now be showing up like the original commenter is doing talking shit about French troops when yours were the first to give up pursuing the fight in the Battle of France, not French ones, nor Belgian ones.
@@Itachi951000I wasn't talking about Op Dynamo but Op Aerial which took place between 15th and 25th June 1940 which use St Nazaire and other Atlantic coast ports in France. It involved the evacuation of British, Czech and Polish troops, civilians and equipment. One major loss during this evacuation was HMT Lancastria. Op Dynamo ended on 4th June 1940, but the 157 (Highland Light Infantry) Brigade was one element of what was to be the 2nd BEF set sail for France on 7th June 1940. That really sounds like the British were running away to their fortress island, doesn't it? They were trying to support France, but the Germans were just too good st that time.
@@Itachi951000 You know who is really pathetic? You. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder with regards to the British. When all is said and done the Battle of France was a battle fought principally between the French and German Army's. The BEF numbered in the region of 10 Divisions, the Germans and French both had roughly 100 each engaged or in reserve along a considerable front. Once the French 9th Army Corps broke and effectively ran just short of the Ardennes, unhinging the Allied salient, the situation became untenable. Or perhaps you don't understand how manoeuvre warfare works? Perhaps you think the BEF should have just continued to be wrapped up and destroyed/captured in detail? You'd be looking at a very VERY different world had that decision not been made sunshine. The fall of France lies squarely on the shoulders of the French not least because it was their own damn country!
6:38 from what i've heard 90% is an overstatement and irrealistic. 10% resisted ? Yes. 90% collaborate ? No. 90% weren't resistant ? Yes of course. See the difference ? Those 90% were in their vast majority afraid of german soldiers - remember their soldier were defeated and resistants were executed - It was civilian of all age, they tried to survive, so they were obidient since those men had guns and weren't friendly toward rebellious civilians. Few people truly helped the nazi regime and collaborated. Except if you think that avoiding confrontation against armed soldier is collaborate ? Then yes the vast majority of conquered civilians in europe collaborate. And I take in account Belgium and certainly Dutchland when you state that 90% were collaborators ! Because we lived the same thing as French people. And that statement is disrepectfull. At least !
There is an excellent series which is being aired on the british channel "Yesterday" called "War factories". Episode 6 is a very relevant story of what the life of the average French really was during the occupation : The sabotaging efforts of Peugeot in Nazi-occupied France, where the bosses and workers cooperated with the resistance to hinder the Nazis' use of military vehicles. These 90% were not in the resistance but many have been helping as much as they could. The Germans were not nice to civilians who didn't stick to the rules. And I let you imagine what I mean by not nice.
I'm french, teacher in history and live in Dunkirk. So many things to say about France during WWII. Excellent reminder on the importance of the colonial troops. Devil is in the detail... german rhyme with jerrycan. So many Somua french tanks were destroyed by gasoline missing, no planes (good airplanes: Devoitine, Arsenal VG 33 ... but so late...). But the most evident is the failure of military doctrine: with "le chant du départ" everybody knows that France is invincible, that's the reason to put DJ Petain at the sound system at Sedan in june 1940 was criminal. Good job.
They should have attack during the Czechoslovakia invasion in 1937. The politicians mobilized the troops but decided to not start a direct war on the very last moment
The problem was most of French general was from ww1 and have a conflit vision from ww1 for exemple disperse the tanks to cover the soldiers instead of bringing them together like the Germans no air Field support, the conception of war under the model of the blitz was a major invention in modern warfare
it is true but it was not better in the other countries, the Germans invented this form of combat and no general of the allied army was prepared for it. the same thing happened to the Americans at Pearl Harbor, they believed that the port was unassailable by conventional forces (battleships and heavy cruisers), they never thought of aircraft carriers because the Americans considered them to be escort ships
![Common Myths about the Italian Army most Casual Historians Believe [WW2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4fcFkEo7NA8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Common Myths about the Italian Army most Casual Historians Believe [WW2]](/img/tr.png)
My father John Pat a veteran of Dunkirk had great respect for the French army that defended the Dunkirk perimeter. He thought they were excellent soldiers
I had a family member who died in Dunkirk from his wounds, he was an infantryman, died days before the end of the battle of Dunkirk, he's one of the brave man who fought to protect my homeland and my current national Identity, may these heroes be remembered for their heroism.
I love how for years, the French (like the English) just took in and cared for the black American soldiers who were outcasts to their own. France deserves to have these heroic stories and triumphs elaborated on. Hell, the only reason the evacuation of Dunkirk was so successful was partly due to the French, who tried to hold off the advancing infantry and armoured divisions hightailing it to the coast to finish our lads off. And they held the town of Dunkirk too, whilst not even a mile away the British were scrambling aboard tiny boats and trade ships to get back home.
My mind is blown from what you are saying and the fact that you have a british flag as your profile picture. I mean, I agree with what you say but I want to ask you, are you actually from Great Britain ?
@@abeillebretonne4301 why would he not be British ? He knows the real history ( as do I. British too. ) What is also forgotten is the tens of thousands of British troops who carried on fighting to allow the evacuation. Especially around the Calais area. Nearly all of those ended up dead or POWs. A third of those rescued from the beaches at Dunkirk... were French.
@@andym9571 A third? If only...
@@MatthewVanston of the 338,000 troops evacuated 123,000 were French and Belgian. 40,000 British troops were left behind in the Dunkirk area as a rearguard to become POWs
@@andym9571 Nope, of the 35K troops who were taken prisoner, most were French.
French were brave soldiers but had a very "old" war doutrine, not always well led and suffered many economical problems (armys aren't cheap)
Actually it mostly had to do with internal politics. The french politicians were afraid of their own military staging a coup and taking power for themselves, establishing a fascist regime. They were correct, BTW, as that's exactly what they did when germany took over and they were left with the vichy government. But the politicans deliberately stalled a lot of the offensive capability preparations of the army to prevent them from seizing power, which meant they didn't have enough modern tanks and planes to fight the germans, and preparations to build them arrived too late. Not to mention they also only allowed france to have a conscript army, not a professional one.
@Tranhoang Long germany develop a war economy, a form of state control economy unlike French but main problem was old doutrine and political instability. There's a few god channels like this one in UA-cam that explain Germany rearmament and their war economy.
In reality it was all the faluire to put Germany in its place before they invaded France. Czechoslovakia should have been the line. Instead they allowed the Germans to practice, gain insights in how to best fight modern wars, develop innovative tactics and strategies, consolidate power, gather reasources, allocate funding, and raise armies leading to an overwhelmingly skilled and expiernced force invading France. By the time the Germans invaded France they had the best army in the world because no one stopped them from building it. It's a bit unfair to label France as utterly incompetent because they were unable to stop an enemy that powerful. It is completely fair to criticize the entire league of nations for not putting down German aggression while it was still developing leading to the invasion and fall of France.
@@theempiredidnothingwrong3227 Ehhhhhhhhhhhh, while nothing you say is untrue, you speak as though France had that option. Their military budget was so heavily invested in and centered around the Maginot line, that even if they’d had the national will, they wouldn’t have had the capability to enact it. They invested in fixed defense. Tough to take those to your neighbor’s place when he gets belligerent.
@@jimbutcher5712 You say it as if France was the only one responsible and had bare the brunt alone. Every nation in the league of nations had a duty to enforce the treaty of Versailles and failed. With England simply taking Hitler's word that he only wanted Czechoslovakia.
I think the "French surrender" meme is really disrespectful for their sacrifice In ww1 and ww2, sorry for the bad English, love from Brazil
i think the greatest "crime" (it's just words, hurtful but not existential crysis) is the fact that french contribution to WW1 has been completely wiped from memories in favor of the WW2 fast surrender story...
I think it came from their mass mutiny in WW1
@@franctokyo5981 Okay, firstly both French AND British troops covered the retreat- Brits in the north, French in the East and South and yes the French fought like enraged lions and should be proud of that contribution that saved the allies from defeat. Secondly, we were originally planning to ship French troops back to Britain alongside our own (with no preference either way, despite what anti-British rhetoric has been spun) to save them from becoming PoWs and help bolster our counterattack, but French leaders insisted upon us transporting the French troops further south to help with their defence, only for them to be stranded in a capitulated France. Thirdly, while the sea helped to protect us after the surrender of France, it also was a major barrier in both our efforts to defend France and our later efforts to liberate France, so it was more than a little double-edged. 4thly, Rommel's famous push was stopped by fuel problems, being over-extended and being stranded from both the main offencive and even their 'mechanised' infantry which were still on horseback, so saying that we would've been rushed in a similar way to France without the channel is to ignore the reality of the situation. Lastly no shit more French people died in defending _France_ than Brits died defending _France_ - it's their bloody (literally) country after all and they took on the meatgrinder of Verdun, which Britain tried to help with via the infamous Somme offensive, still doesn't change the fact that the war crippled Britain as well and we got even less than France did out of the ordeal.
I could go on with at least 3 more points (including why the success of the Ardennes offensive and the neccecity of Dunkirk was basically the fault of Belgium, 1 incompetant/traitorous French General and potentially Edward, Duke of WInsor - who might've been a double-agent when he inspected the Maginot line for British intelligence), but it's already becoming quite an essay so I'll stop here.
@@cplcabs It is a common misconception that the French soldiers refused to fight in ww1, that is simply not true.
They refused to go over the top and wanted better living conditions, which is not really surprising given the massive disasters that were all the 1916 offensives and the debacle of the Nivelle offensive (Brits are rather acquainted with Pachendale and the Somme, this battles are comparable and themselves also include massive casualties for the French)
"The term "mutiny" does not accurately describe events: soldiers remained in trenches and were willing to defend but rejected attack orders. The new commander, General Philippe Pétain, restored morale by talking to the men, promising no more suicidal attacks, providing rest for exhausted units, home leave, and moderate discipline. He held 3,400 courts martial; 554 mutineers were sentenced to death but only 26 were actually executed."
@@andresmartinezramos7513 forgive me if I am stupid, but isn't refusing to go over the top refusing to fight? Isn't walking away en mass refusing to fight? A large number of French mutinied en mass with many leaving the front meaning if the Germans had known what was happening, they could have just strolled over and taken French lines, all whilst troops of other nations fought and died to keep France free of the German hands.
So what if 554 mutinees were sentenced too death and only 26 were actually executed? That doesn't show they were innocent of walking away, that just shows that maybe those in power thought there was just too much death going on.
Great video mate. But I wouldn’t say 90% of the french supported Vichy or did nothing. It’s misleading. It’s commonly accepted that 1% of the french collaborated , 1% resisted ( close to 5% during the last years) and the rest did indeed nothing. They were too busy to survive. Your sentence made me feel like 90% of the population were happy with German occupation which is far to be true
Yes and we even have a term to define this stance, "attentisme" which can be rougthly translated as "waitism". It basically mean that most of the population was simply waiting and enduring the situation. And there is also some acts of "passive resistance" which are not counted in the standard datas which translate by small acts of disobedience, misinformation (removing or switching the signs on the roads), ect...
It's alway like that, in most events people are passive. There is only a fraction of the population that actually do something. The human race is a race of sheep.
The situation was a bit more nuanced. Resistance or collaboration during the early years of the occupation really depended on one's ideological camp. French fascists and french police were more than happy to collaborate while communists and Spanish refugees almost immediately took up arms. For the rest of the population it depended a lot on one's social class where many of the workers and the poor were indeed just focusing on their daily survival, and many in the middle class and upper classes grudgingly accepted with the occupation so long as the Germans ensured law and order. Also since the nazis were still pro-business at this point they were able to get many french business owners (especially factory owners and vineyard owners) to work with them and supply the german army.
It was really only after Germany occupied the entirety of France and deported frenchmen to work in German factories that there was a general shift towards resistance
I mean I would also say that those who did support the Germans were either forced to do it and or joined in the factories from a program that Petain where if French workers from Vichy France had came to work for the Germans they would release soldiers that were captured during the battle of France. You could say depending on where the information is from The communist Party in France to support or not mind the Germans until they would attack the soviets.
@@SharkanKuthoshqea The official policy of the french communbist party was to not bother the germans and spread a pacifist sentiment until 1941 and even if this policy made one third of the party members quit, two third still remained.
Also ideological similarity with the nazi regime didn't automatically lead people in collaboration. During the early days of the resistance, there was a large proportion of people coming from the far right like members of the Croix-de-Feu, former members of la Cagoule or Action Française. It's explained by the fact that even if they have similar ideas with fascist ideology, most of these people are nationalists and hates the germans so naturally they are pretty upset by the defeat.
My great grandpa was a physics teacher during the occupation of France , he wanted to be part of the resistance but was scared of the consequences if he was found , so he indirectly participated by teaching his students how to craft bombs and various explosives , he would often find in the newspaper that his students blew up railway tunnels with German trains inside and he never got caught
It makes me think about this sentence "give a man a fish and he it for a day, learn him how to fish and he will eat every day" (or something)
@@augwin1804 give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. Believe that's closer to the saying (no offense if you take any from this)
Merci à ton grand-père, un vrai résistant, il risquait gros rien qu’en faisant ce qu’il a fait. And in case you’re not french yourself, i say thanks to your grandfather, as he was a true resistant, every people that risked is life for the cause is as much as a resistant as the fighters themselves
THank you for this, my French great grandpa fought until the end and I am tired of people disrespecting his honor
Tbh i think most WW2 history enthusiast are tired of it. I know i am
Yea me too. I am german and everybody just say s every german soldiers was a nazi. This is a lie Most soldiers (i think 95% ) didn't knew about concentrations camps or the mass killing of jews that was the SS and they were horrible. The SS even killed german soldiers. Anyways most soldoers didn't fought for hitler they fought for Germany like russians fought for russia english for england and so on. My grandpa and 3 of my uncles fought directly on the front and they hated Hitler as example.
@@emilioo.7972 I believe you. My great grandpa was a French soldier who was sent to a POW camp in Germany. At the end of the war when he came home he said, appart from a few mean officers, most of the soldiers were nice and wanted to go home to see their families just as bad as he did.
@@chrisclark719 uhm its a fact that bit every german soldier like hitler. My family lived in east preusen so it really didn't make a difference. And nit every german liked the Nazis. I am totally against Nazis but not every german back then was one
@@chrisclark719 but yea keep your racism and say they were all nazis
Nobody:
No country in existence:
France: **Makes a song about Onions, and killing Austrians so they can't steal those fried Onions**
Shallots are amazing and you cannot convince me otherwise.
@@TheFront, true.
Can you provide link with that song?
@@fuldrew-schodyrzeszowstalo7625 ua-cam.com/video/YE70jrhOrjk/v-deo.html
@@fuldrew-schodyrzeszowstalo7625 ua-cam.com/video/ElJJCAuKslQ/v-deo.html
The French Army's rear guard action to buy time so that the bulk of the British and other French forces can escape at Dunkirk is seldom every talked about.
Yes it is.
It’s almost always talked about
@@lesdodoclips3915 even the dunkirk film barely talks about the french presence
@@underpressure1954 because it’s from the British point of view.... it’s not a conspiracy
@@lesdodoclips3915 Well, it's almost always talked... from non french point of view. That's the point.
"Jogged back after Poland was unmade"
Did anyone else catch that?
Simply said: French advanced 8 miles into the Saarland, Poland was then dead, so they retreated
"aight we out"
@@TheFront 😂 pretty much
@You're Spying In case You forgot, there was a Siegfred Line protecting those territories. The Line Americans had difficulties with in 1945. What makes You think French in 1939 could do any better?
No no, you'r right, we act like it was to late, cause we were not prepared to that blitzkrieg who outsmart everybody in Europe. A Europe wich is post ww1, wich was a position war. They were expecting a static war, the majority of the officers. In fact German army used a book wrote in 1936 by charle de Gaulle about réorganisation of troops only in specialise corpse, and the possibility of winning a war in a week with all the new military technology, no one lesson to him in France he even get push to the exit when we were preparing defense against nazi invasion, cause our entire strategy was to hold a defensive frontiere. One last point the submission of French people is coming from a necessity to survive, don't be silly, less than 10 percent of French people were on the side of the nazi. Gosh the French bashing is real.
French ;)
French were lions, commended by koalas
I also want a Koala commendation but I don't want to fight the wermacht for it.
Merci mon pote ❤️
French were pandas commended by possums
I'd like to say which animal the French army and their commenders were, but I'm really not koalified.
😂😂😂😂😂🇺🇸
Thanks for this vedeo, it is good as always. As a French history teacher I have some coments :
- regarding the colaboration and inaction of the french people, one major factor was the person of Petain. When the battle of France was lost he became Prime minister and was voted the full powers by the assembly, as such Vichy wasn't instituted as a puppet state by the Germans (though they did their bidding), but it was seen as the legitimate continuation of the 3rd republic. Furthermore, Petain was beloved and trusted by the population, he was the saviour of Verdun where most French soldiers of 1916-1917 had fought. When he said thar further resistance was futile, however shamefull, his words carried enourmous weight in a people stunned by the defeat and demorilized. This explains largly the inaction of the population, as for the collaboration, it was encouraged by the governement but it was by no means endemic, most occupied countries had SS units and France was amoungts the most populated. It should be said that resistance, active or passive gained momentum during the war.
- Regarding the losses of the 1rst WW, they where enourmous, France WAS bleeded, you only have to go in the french countryside and villages today, all of them have a memorial with a long list of names, often brothers. We lost 1.2 million dead, millions of wounded, out of 39M inhabitants furthermore, the number of birth diminished considerably. In fact this was a problem for conscription from 1935 onwards, we talked of "classes creuses" (hollow classes). In 1939 we mobilized 5M men for all activities and branches of the army, but it was a considerable effort. It was reflected on quality.
- Finally for the colonial soldiers, they where volonteers, not conscripted, and some where professionals. In some units, especially in north affrican ones, they where also french collonists in the units. These units fought bravely in both wars and where well integrated to the French army. However, lets not be euphemistic, we CANNOT just say that the black troops "wheren't treated all that kindly" by the germans, both the wehrmacht and the wafen SS outrirgght killed black soldiers taken prisonners, and sometimes their officers, white of black, as well. In one instance they recreated the capture of a village by the Heer using live amunitions against "tirailleurs senegalais" armed with blank, all for propaganda reasons.
Sorry for the long message, carry on.
For the Resistance bit, we also have to put things in context when comparing French and Yugoslav/Polish/Czech/Russian resistance. Not only is there a big topography factor with most of France not being well suited to maquis or organised armed resistance, but France was also being regularly bombed by the Allies and obviously the French fleet was attacked by the British even before the armistice with the Prussians had been fully ratified. The Allies made it easy for German propaganda to make it look like the French man was being sacrificed for the interests of London.
Beside armed resistance, the distinct lack of productivity in french factories during the occupation is also something to pick up on. For a large industrialized western nation, France only contributed absolutely tiny amounts to the German war effort (aside from captured materiel which was vital to the Wehrmacht until the end of the war).
As for Vichy, it should also be noted that this government at first thought about coming back at the Germans, secretly funding improvements to various french weapons (sometimes developping entirely new weapons under the same name as the old one), and camouflaged a lot of equipment which was supposed to be seized by the occupant.
@@MadManchou All true, we could add that anglophobia was strong in France, and rather ancient, especially in the armed forces.
Petain's reputation did not survive WWII. While he was held in high regard by everyone at the time he was old and did not have the strength/energy the had in WWI to run the country/army. Churchill begged the French Government to fight on. When it looked like they wouldn't there was no choice but to treat the official French government and armed forces as German allies.
Thank you for your expert knowledge! Thanks for correcting us
Ce que tu dis est vrai sur les mémoriaux dans les villages de France.
En randonnée, je m'y arrête toujours, et c'est fou de constater qu'effectivement, dans les petits villages ce sont des fratries entières tombées pour la patrie.
Le sacrifice fut immense et ne devrait pas être oublié, comme il l'est aujourd'hui par les traitres qui dirigent la nation.
One more myth i would add is that the french aviation did nothing during the battle of France.
And one fact i would add:
WW1 : France 40 millions people, Germany 70 Millions
WW2 : France 40 millions , Germany 80 millions
U.K. didn’t have a large conscript army like the rest. Didn’t have anyone to send.
An offensive would be better than the failed defence strategy. Although admittedly it only failed due to Germans moving through “impassable” terrain.
If France attacked when Germany invaded Poland and didn’t wait for months there would have been better resistance and a two front war on Germany.
@@James-sk4db as you said France had a large conscript army, that needs time to assemble, the Maginot Line was created to hold at least two weeks to hold a german advance and rally the army for a french offensive into german lands.
@Selina Ansen France did try an half assed offensive into Germany, but France and the UK lost time trying a diplomatic approach to stop Hitler, moreover french and british logistics were not ready for the war, and neither of them managed to do anything of significance during Hitler's invasion of Poland.
The french lost a lot of time mobilizing their artillery, and the british did not put their new spitfires into service yet.
The french did have an offensive doctrine with more of a combined arms approach but it was the one they had exiting WW1, so even if they had the time to launch one, i'm not sure how effective it would have been.
But yes, too late too little, now it's blitzkrieg time.
@Selina Ansen Thank you for having debunked this! The story behind the Saar Offensive was far more complicated than one could think. Had France and the UK launched an offensive against Germany right in 1936, it might have succeeded.
germay didnt have a population of 80 million. they just had colonies in asia, wich you probably included in that count. so they didnt necisarily have a chance to participate in the war.
There is one more myth left undebunked : more than 75% of the French troops captured by the Germans during the battle of France were so between the 17th and the 25th June, because if the effective armistice was signed on the 25th of June, Pétain call the soldier on radio to stop fighting the 17th. From this call, much of the French army collapsed and numerous unit stopped to fight. Allowing the Germans to capture them as "the war was over".
However as there was no "formal" order to stop fighting isolated unit continue to fight until the end. But in south France, general Olry answer to the Pétain call that he would not stop the fight until having the armistice bring to his desk, thus, the Alps army he was commanding not only continue to stop the Italian offensive in the mountains but prevent the Germans going further than Grenoble, who were grounded there by the French artillery.
His army was the only one authorized to keep all its gear and armament.
The idea that the French didn't think about the Germans going around the Maginot Line annoys me.
The reason the Maginot line wasn't extended to the Atlantic was because the French at the time was in an alliance with Belgium. The idea was that when war was declared the French would move soldiers into key defensive positions in Belgium effectively closing the line into one long defense but just before the war started Belgium pulled out of their Alliances France could no longer legally enter Belgium land without Germany first invading. When Hitler invaded Belgium the French Army raced into Belgium to get into position but there just wasn't enough time.
An other reason was an economic one, the cost of the Maginot Line to build, care for and all was enormous where the economic situation of the country asn't this great, unlike the war economy of Germany (even if this economy had it limits, german ecopnomic war affort was enormous). Officials reasons often hides more realistic reasons. They also thought that the time germans took over Belgium, they'd have the time to conscript and be prepared to defend. And also the fact that going through heaveily forested mountains with tanks was not something you can think of directly at the time.
@@moulefrite3303 uhm... if I were the German officer in command back then, I would have moved my tanks through heavily forested mountains rather than in front of a fortification backed up by artillery without even thinking about it that much.
Tanks can go through woods more easily than through cement and artillery shells. Usually such move would take a long amount of time but... longer than breaching a heavily fortified front?
Absolutely no, so less casualties and wasted time. Also, such maneuver already had its applications in WW1. Still... you usually build full walls, not partial ones. Of course the cost of such fortification would be incredibly high, which makes the line of Maginot an even more stupid concept: think about how many resources the French army wasted building a wall the enemy simply walked around because it wasn't complete. Those resources could have been used somewhere else, and I honestly can't think of a more wasteful way of using them than that line.
Perhaps using that money to make white flags would have been the only worse option... or maybe not, since Germany was interested in taking France to attack England, so invading France without destroying half of it probably was in Germany's interests.
Short story: line of Maginot is a joke whatever the point of view.
@@John_Smith_ Except at the time it was not thought of like that nor all that true. At the time it was not seen as a viable move nor something that could be done to move a major motorized and armored element through the Ardennes, the ardennes aren’t small easy to mow down forests. These are lands of large forested hills and river bends, to go through it without vehicles constantly breaking down at the time would require immense dedication. Dedication that the germans had.
Also don't forget Eben Emael. The world's biggest and strongest fortress that was in belgium was taken by German forces in 15 minutes with their secret weapons: hollow charge explosives and glider airplanes. And with that fortress intact in their control they shot the surrounding fortresses it was supposed to protect giving the German army free movement.
@@thejestor9378 what heavily motorized German army are you talking about they mainly used horses
The SS Division Charlemagne was one of the last units defending Berlin and the Reichstag. In all the video games you play where you're storming the Reichstag, it wouldn't be historically inaccurate to hear some of them speaking French instead of German.
Much of the SS Division Charlemagne was made up of French "Milice",or armed collaborators, who fled France in late 1944 as they faced summary execution or long prison terms if captured by the Allies and the Free French Forces (FFI).
@@ktipussyes, this was after the liberation of France, and after much of the original volunteer division had been cut down on the eastern front. The SS Charlemagne was very much a full volunteer French division of genuine French nazis
@@hamishneilson7140 and I regret nothing about them being wiped out in Berlin.
@@11Survivor absolutely
@@11Survivor The few ones captured has been executed immediatly by the french general alongside roads
I am French and I thank you for helping in the destruction of these myths about the French army in WWII. It's so good to see people who don't learn History through incorrect memes.
Honnêtement, ça touche qui ce genre "d'insultes" Envers notre pays? Le "French Surrender"est tellement risible... Seul les incultes bouffeur de jeux vidéo et de films anglo-saxon le pensent. Quand ont connais vraiment l'histoire, cela ne doit pas nous toucher.
@@viragofrance2506 Je ne l'ai jamais envisagé de cette façon. Merci de m'y avoir aidé.
@TheSatanicTicTac On ne peut nier la réalité psychologique du désastre de 1940. Toutefois, on sait aujourd'hui que ce n'était pas si net : défense acharnée de Lille (je résume) permettant l'opération Dynamo, armée des Alpes invaincue, ouvrages de la ligne Maginot résistant au-delà de la date de l'armistice, Luftwaffe sérieusement étrillée par l'aviation française.
@@viragofrance2506 le problème c'est quand les français eux même se mette a oublier cette histoire a cause de la propagande anglo_saxonne et celle de notre propre gouvernement
@@viragofrance2506 Ça touche beaucoup de gens. C'est normal d'être chatouilleux sur quelque chose, nous le sommes tous sur un sujet ou un autre.
Plsss, do some of the Netherlands seeing that everyone thinks that we did nothing and just surrendered
Well, the Dutch did something. 40k volunteers for the Waffen SS on the first day of occupation is hardly nothing.
@@derherrdirektor9686 even though that's not entirely true, it is my favorite argument used when us dutchies start bragging about the resistance.
Also highest percentage of Jewish civilian deaths of occupied Europe, due to collaboration by our police force. After the war 45% of the national police force was fired because of this collaboration.
@@maxgrozema1093 I thought the Hungarians are holding the title of sending most of their Jewish population in to their doom and not the dutch. Never stop to learn I guess.
@@sebastianriemer1777 I should probably check facts and figures before replying but I believe the difference is that Hungary was a German ally and not an occupied country.
You did...
finally someone who talks about the battle of Bir-Hakeim on the English UA-cam. great video by the way.
You forgot to mentions couple of things: in the successes, the French troops did quite a lot in Italy’s conquest, at Monte Casino for example. Then they were quite successful in the landing in Provence. You also said nothing about the conflict with Italians in the Alps. Among the failures, the airforce sustained incredible damages in 1940, with good effect since it probably contributed to decreasing the Luftwaffe ability before the battle of Britain. The navy didn’t have the chance to do much, as part was destroyed by the Brits at Mers el Kebir, and the rest was sunk in Toulon. The rest of what you said is fine and balanced, unless maybe a bit too harsh on the proportion of collaborators. Yes French people were in majority supporting Petain initially, but this was by no mean a support of nazi Germany, and evolved rapidly into suspicion and hostility. Agree with you that French resistance was probably a bit exaggerated, especially in the first two years...
En tant que français je voulais te remercier.
"I'm french and I wanted to thank you."
Ftg
@@whyyoubullyingme2110 je crois que la réponse a la question de ton pseudo est dans ta réponse a mon commentaire ...
@@whyyoubullyingme2110 Pourquoi tu répond si on s'en fout? tu m'étonne que tu te fait "bully" avec un caractère et un comportement pareil, de la haine gratuite franchement mec ta vie doit être pathétique mon pauvre je plain tes parents qui doivent pensé qu'ils ont échoué dans ton éducation.
@@aalfa5779 tu devrais comprendre les memes un peux
@@whyyoubullyingme2110 alors vas falloir m'expliquer là ... je comprend pas vraiment ce que des memes viennent faire là dedans
The English abandoned their positions without notifying the French major state. In Dunkirk, only the French defended the flight of the English. By saving the English army, France lost prestige but thanks to that the English were able to continue the fight
As a french citizen, we learn about most of these in high school, except for two of them, the first one is that the french soldiers invaded Germany first. The second one is quite saddening because it's about those colonial soldiers. Even though it was obvious there would be some of them, we never learn about how deeply involved they were
@The French Potat a better comparison is that the germany military wasn't german because it had norse, dutch and other foreign volunteers in the SS.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Yes but how many foreign volunteers in comparison with German ones?
Christopher Nolan litterally pooped on French people and history with his movie Dunkerque. Forgetting so many crucial elements of the war to emphaze on British people who almost didn't fight in the ww2 contrary to the 1st one...
There's a scene that clearly shows the French soldiers staying back to slow down the Germans and buy time for the Brits.
@@mikeFolco true but it's never talked about more than that
@@irishbattletoster9265 yes, because the movie is focusing on the brits and is mostly a psychological horror movie than a war movie, just the fact that we rarely see germans in it proves this
A few quotes about the behavior of the french army at Dunkerque or Lille:
General Georg von Küchler, commander of the XVIIIth army of the Wehrmacht, entirely engaged around Dunkirk, this is taken from his war diary:
"Despite our overwhelming superiority in men and hardware numbers, the french troops are counter-attacking in several places. I can't understand how those soldiers, sometimes fighting at one versus ten (or even one versus thirty in some areas), can find enough strength to assault us: this is simply amazing ! I see in those french soldiers the same energy than with the veterans of Verdun in 1916. For several days now, hundreds of bombers and guns are pounding the french defence. But, it's always the same thing: our infantry and panzers can't break through, despite some local and ephemeral successes. The french high command has very smartly set up his troops and artillery. I fear that the Dunkirk operation could be a failure for all of us: almost all the BEC and the biggest part of the french 1st Army will escape, because a few thousands of braves block the path to the sea. That's distressing, but that's it !
Dunkirk brings the proof that the french soldier is one of the best in the world. The french artillery, already dreaded in 1914, demonstrates once more its efficiency. Our losses are terrifying: numerous battallions have lost 60% of their men, sometimes even more !
By resisting ten days or more to our much bigger forces, the french army has accomplished, in Dunkirk, a superb achievement that you must pay tribute to.
They have certainly saved Great-Britain from the defeat, by allowing the british professional army to reach the british coast."
General Franz Halder's diary, one of the chief of staff of the Wehrmacht:
"May 18th 1940: the Führer still worries a lot about the southern flank. he's furious and claims that we take the best path to make the whole campaign fail ! The french troops never stops counter-attacking.
May 21st 1940: that day starts in an extremely tense atmosphere: reports indicates a serious pressure on the northern flank of the IVth army. The VIth army faces a solid front.
May 22nd 1940: our tanks, that are currently fighting in the south, have met a powerful enemy. Our panzerdivisionen suffer too many losses and attack without being required to. Stress is growing.
May 23rd 1940: the losses for the tanks of our ten panzerdivisionen reach 50% ! The french resistance is fierce."
Winston Churchill in his War Speeches, talking about the french resistance at Lille:
"Those frenchs, under the brave command of general Molinié, have during four critical days contained not less than seven german divisions that, otherwise,would have participated to the attacks of the Dunkirk perimeter. Thoses troops thus brought a splendid contribution to the safety of their luckier comrades and of the BEC."
7:30 Before Vichy, French troops also fought Italian troops in the South (Nice, Savoy) and Japanese troops in Indochina. Free France troops also fought Italians in Africa
I respectfully but strongly disagree with your "Resistance was vital" myth : Too bad your earlier quote Dominique Lormier without paying attention to the work he did about the effect of the resistance during D-DAY : German leaders aggreed that about 14 divisions were stuck in french territories, terrorised by the maquisards ambushing them from everywere, completely disorganizing them and preventing them from reaching Normandy. Furthermore, reaching the Rhine was expected to be several months after landing in Provence. It took couple of weeks, just because german columns fled as far as possible away from France, as they realized they had lost it already.
My point is, you claim to talk about the difference that Resistance made or not, but you actually talk about Collaboration. This is so wrong, and so unfair.
This part of our history is dark, complicated, and very hard to understand. As my grandfather said, "It will be possible to talk about it only after all of those who lived it passed away." Even now, most of them died but it still such a taboo, "A heavy family secret", according to Lormier himself.
You could have also told that the first massive tank battle was fought and won by french army in Hannut (Belgium) in May 1940, that during the battle of Stonne, the village was claimed by german and french 17 times and was later called by german "Verdun of 1940" (nobody knows that in France, by the way), or that in Dakar or Syria, french fought french because of different visions of duty.
I think there are a lot of innacuracies in this video that make it slightly miss the target. I therefore thank you for contributing into changing this "surrendering France" meme, which is humiliating. And I am not even talking about "military glory" (pretty ironic while France keeps some of the most epic military history of humanity), but the 1940 defeat still has impact nowadays. The french spirit is made with selfdisrespect, mostly because the almost feudal relationship between Europe and USA from 1945.
I could talk about that an entire night. Nazis were so close to loosing their bet in 1940. World history would have been so different, but that is not the point.
Anyways, thanks again. Regards from France.
I have a lot of respect for you, being an American. However, one thing that has always made me skeptical of the French Resistance was my great grandfather's memoirs. In them, he states that he remembers fighting through French territory, and recalls that he did not see a single resistance fighter until after the town was liberated, when a bunch of men would come out and state they were with the resistance. My great grandfather believed that these people were simply fakes trying to get women to like them, and he doubted the validity of the claims of a French Resistance. Still, I bet there were some resistance fighters, and my great grandfather being an infantryman, so he might have just had less of a chance to see French Resistance fighters. I would say the reason the France surrendering meme exists is because the spotlight has been moving away from France for quite a while now. Another important factor is that almost everyone in the world learns about both World Wars, and France was performing very poorly during those wars. Honestly, if you look at the past, and some of modern times, France is full of bad-asses. A lot of people nowadays had a long lasting impression learning about Germany, Russia, and the US, so these countries are usually held in high regard. Despite what I have said, I mean no offense to your people; you guys are awesome, and I think France is a great country. I especially like your nuclear power policy, and I envy it greatly.
@@gabevietor3685 Your great grandfather was right about the fake resistance movement. As it is often said here «Everyone was a resistant in 1944». There was even worse cases : my father (born in 1948) told me about fake resistants in burgundy who where nothing but thugs, scavenging and pretending to be patriots. They were taken out on quick justice by true resistants, like they were not busy enough fighting Germans.
It is great your great grandfather shared memoirs. As I wrote in my previous comment, these times were so dark in France that all remains under the curtain of a huge taboo. You simply won't ask what grandfather did during the war, as it is to frightening to face what could be the truth. If he did nothing, if he was a collaborator, if he simply agreed with Petain's policies (as many did). This is the most tricky thing : Petain had so much prestige (Time magazine mal of the year in the 30s) that everyone was expecting him to protect his country has he did in 1916. It is hard to make a comparison, but let's say Obama would have had an ambiguous behavior after Capitole events : this would have blurred everything I assume.
If you want to understand the failure of France during the 1930s, I deeply recommend the book by Peter Jackson 1933-39 France facing nazi germany (not sure of the title). It is not at all about Resistance, but it gave me the most valuable pieces of understanding in the last years, ad I tant to share them.
I am sorry for m'y disagreement. It is just that the margin of error between clichés is super thin from «all were resistants» to «french fought under German uniform», especially on a large scale media with a lot of audience not aware of all the historic details.
This is why your work is so valuable, to clear the dust away from hidden pieces of truth.
Take care ! 😉
@@ellendal1976 Thanks a lot for not taking offense at what I said! I hope to visit France some day. I understand why it would be taboo, similar to how there are taboos in the US about having ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. Much respect for you and your grandfather. Stay safe!
@@gabevietor3685 About what your great grandfather told you, I agree with Hugues, but I would also add that it would be non sense for a Resistant to publicly claim it, before enemies are gone ^^ Because there were resistants as much as there were collaborators, so it would have been way too risky for them ......
@@Blitz78100 True, it could blow their cover. Still, I think that people often use France as an example of resistance, when Poland is a much better example. I still bet there were plenty of French resistance fighters, but during the war, no country put up as much resistance as the Polish. If you want to know about the Polish, you can listen to the song "Uprising" by Sabaton. It's heavy metal, but it teaches a lot about the time period and the situation the Polish were in.
i was borne in the USA,served in the FRENCH AIRBORNE unit.very professional.true warriors.
Common misconception:
The French forces in 1939-40 were less well armed/equipped than their German counterparts ( typically read ... Myth that Germany had superior arms and equipment)
Well we can argue about that.
What do you call well equipment ?
A tank whit more armor and more penetration or fast tank whit radio.
Also their tanks were less.
Infantry were great, but tank was decisive blow.
@@strugle5930 With respect, no. Command.was the decisive blow.
Radio per.tank was a factor ( i know Germans had almost all tanks linked with radio). But french command was the major reason the radio issue was never tested.
Aside from.radio... Germans plowed crappy mk1 amd 2 tanks into france in 1940. With capable command Superior French tanks would have dramatically slowed German gains. Guudering and Von Runschted would both have agreed.
@@colinmcdonald2499 Do you mean just operational command in may '40 or more pervasive command issues? It is my understanding that the French suffered from design flaws in their command and control structure, including a severe lack of coordination and cooperation between the various branches of the armed forces.
@@strugle5930 Most of the German army wasn't even motorised, they relied on horses for artillery and logistics.
@@oilslick7010 yes, well said.
Thanks for an excellent and much-needed redress of popular assumptions. One myth that may not have fallen within the province of your work is the disparity in the quality and numbers of French and German armor. Thanks again!
I heard that the French tanks, notably the Char B1 Bis, outclassed the German armor during the battle of France, and their armor was impossible to penetrate for the Germans en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sedan_(1940)#Battle_of_Stonne
While the French armor tactics were primitive than the Germans, they nevertheless put up a great fight
@@comradekenobi6908 The big drawback for French tanks back then though was the lack of radio equipment.
@@MatthewVanston that and plus their overall obeselete tank tactics at that time also contributed to their defeat, but not after giving a tenacious resistance
No problem!
@@comradekenobi6908 Heavy tanks like the B1 bis were, for pretty obvious reasons, fewer in numbers than medium and light tanks. It also lacked range and was pretty slow. It was a tank made for frontline battle, not maneuvers so it couldn't do things like the german tanks for example. In fact most of the time, these tanks needed to be brought on the battlefield by train before operating.
For the lighter tanks, beyond the lack of radio equipement, models like the R35 light tank were also designed to have only a two man crew. It allowed the french to field more tanks but these tanks were quite understaffed with the two members of the crew having to do a lot of tasks during combat while the germans more numerous crew members could specialize and be more effective in their roles.
We always put the blame when it comes to Italians and French on the soldiers, it was really the commanders terrible planning, when these troops were put under good command they actually performed really good, take Erwin Rommel commanding the Italian troops, he gave credit to the fact that the Italians did really well, the troops are good, but the commanders weren’t
you forget to mention the battle of dunkerque where the heroic french resistance save the british army and give it the chance to continue the war.
"In Defense of France's Military Conduct in WW2" was a great video on UA-cam, at least before the channel got taken down. I Wish I had saved the video, because it was the best video presentation on this subject I've ever seen.
The video is now on Bitchute :)
@@teamdoge8917 thank you!
I didn't know the channel. Why was it taken down ? The creator closed it ? Or youtube found some infringement of policy or something ?
@@mythicdawn9574 Unfortunatly it was taken down by UA-cam.
@@teamdoge8917 could you share a link to it?
I guess i’m not a casual historian then lol
hehe I guess you aren't
👏
Great video. I’ve heard a big weakness of the French resistance was that they lacked unity and that separate resistance groups fought each other over supplies until Britain stopped supplying them at all.
Right. The UK was thinking about a civil war breaking out after WWII was over. So they stopped supplying the resistance.
Jean Moulin was sent to create this unity though.
De gaulle and Jean moulin united them, that's why the country got better instantly after the war while countries like greece who had non unified resistance drowned into civil war
A myth i see repeated a lot is that the Germans went around the Maginot line. the fact is that there *were* fortifications in the Ardennes, just not as dense and formidable as in other places. the French had built fortifications even on their borders with Belgium (the Belgians really didnt like that) and the Germans advance just decided to push a lot of units through a narrow corridor in a somewhat less defended point in the line.
Well it’s also worth pointing out that there were also fortifications in Belgium and the Netherlands.
The most famous fortress in Belgium was of course Eben-Emael which was neutralized by German glider troops.
@@HingerlAlois yeah, these were really good fortifications for their time, i just mentioned the ones relevant to the French border
Mostly the fortification against the Belgian borders were built when it became clear that Belgium wouldn't fortify it's Rivers
also, there were reserves ready that would have blocked the offensive in its tracks, but french command decreed that the Ardennes push was a diversion and didn't commit more troops to the defense until the breakthrough was solidified...
Funny how, during D-day, the germans couldn't deploy their Panzer groups because of failing leadership as well ;7
Up to the Belgian border the Maginot fortifications were contiguous, i.e. a "line". North of that point the fortifications continued in two ways: along the Belgian eastern border in another contiguous line, and along the French eastern border in a series of unconnected fortresses. It was this wide, relatively open sector that the French had laid out as bait for the Germans. Moving through the Ardennes instead of the Belgian plain, the Germans didn't find an narrow corridor but a vast range to fan out in.
Please, look at the sound volumes. Your voice is too low. When I adjusted it, the intro playing nearly tore-off my ears.
Thanks!
same here, wish he'd speak louder
1. Arguing that the Maginot Line was successful or effective is like saying ''My shield was highly effective; it took them three attempts before they broke it and killed me.''
2. The most effective WW2 French units, battalions &etc that resisted the Germans were either those led by rogue commanders who refused to capitulate to orders from ''higher up''... or else forces comprised mostly of colonials and foreigners (in the Legion's case). By and large, the French Army was led by careerists who were more concerned over their uniforms and baguettes than they were about resisting the Nazis.
3. The French were overwhelmingly in support of Nazi antisemitism. Having the Nazis control France gave tens of thousands of French the perfect opportunity to vent their Jew-Hate without limit.
4. The most ugly of French characteristics is their desire for ''revanche''. This was seen after WWI at Versailles and Trianon - when they carved up the defeated empires. It was seen most clearly after WW2 when they used hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war as slaves to rebuild France... and when their ever-so-brave fighting men shaved the heads of helpless women who were accused of collaboration. As if those hypocrites who beat them and humilated those poor women, didn't !
5. The way the French bang on today, anyone would think that 70 million French people between 1940 and 1944 were all members of the Resistance. As if!
One thing that is often downplayed or even omitted is how crucial the French Army was in the Dunkirk evacuation, the French held off the bulk of the German attack while they were evacuating. In the movie Dunkirk, it focuses almost exclusively on the British and you barely see the French.😕
One thing that led to France's surrender in 1940 is that they were a relatively small country (both in population and geographical size) on the same continent and close-by to Germany, and their room for error was much smaller. A British fuckup meant they could still hightail it across the Channel where Panzerdivisions couldn't follow. A Soviet fuckup meant they can still just sacrifice land for time. An American fuckup means a bunch of boys aren't coming home. A French fuckup means you have Panzerdivisions roaming around your countryside.
There's a really good film called "Day's of Glory" about the Algerian men that fought for France in world war two.
Thanks for sharing, i'll take a look at that :)
@@squidontheside5496 it's a good movie. I enjoyed it. There was another film I saw about an African American soldier and I can't place the name of it... But that one was one of the best I've seen.
@@3lli0 If you like WW2 movies I can also recommend you "Generation war" It's a short serie and it show the war from the german perspective, really refreshing to change the point of view
@@squidontheside5496 I watched Generation War!! I absolutely loved that miniseries. I really like the HBO miniseries Band of Brothers and The Pacific. The movie I wanted to remember is called Mudbound and it's so good.
@@3lli0 Yup band of brothers is still one of my favorite. Red Trails is a good movie too. I'll check Mudbound, never heard of it
I'm glad that people recognize the braveness and sacrifices of the old soldiers of that country of mine. I'm French, near Germany to be specific and, yes that's true that our old men lost early in this war, but it's also true that they were in the very front lines and were one of the first country to be attacked on their lands (as the Germans, Poloneses, Belgiums and Autrichians, and more neighbors of ours) but even when the France was occupied, men did not stop fighting, on a side or on other for lots of reasons (political opinions, family, friends, patriotism, honor, duty, freedom, peace, religion,... so many reasons depending of the human who hield the gun and the banner), in a country or in an other, and yes we were part of the first ones to "surrender" but with out the tenacity of all the men and women who stood up and fought, the issue of this war could've been so much different of what we know
Honneur, fierté et respect à tous les hommes et femmes qui se sont battus lors de cette guerre.
The French army had, beside some tactical and material issues, one big problem named Gamelin. The man was incapable of leading the army or planning for the war and showed zero resilience under pressure. Thanks to politicians like Dalladier, however, he was not fired until it was too late.
The nation was in the hands of rather weak politicians like Reynaud who eventually submitted to Petain, an old man with more ambition than whits left in tank and whose lifelong pessimism and personal agenda sealed the country’s fate in June 1940.
I would also mention that no European country fared better against Germany than France during the 1938-1941 period. UK was lucky enough to have the Channel and Churchill but don’t forget about Chamberlain or Halifax... the German general staff had for over a century been a well trained and coherent organization whose focus had long been on delivering quick fatal blows during wars of aggression with the clear understanding that their country was not in a position to succeed in protracted conflicts. In 1940, unlike in 1914, the fast moving, boldly-led panzer divisions didn’t give much time to the French army to reorganize. Eventually, a few effective or ineffective leaders on both sides and luck (sending hundreds of panders undetected through the Ardennes was perhaps lucky...) at times, might very well have led to the final demise of France rather than an inevitable sequence of events. For all the weaknesses of the French army, the key factors were the tactical leadership on the German side with guys like Guderian willing to disobey orders in order to push their advantage (initiative was expected from German field officers, contrary to the French) and the effective use of combined arms warfare.
I heartily agree. Petain surrendered; the soldiers did not.
How about the topic of allied war crimes against french citizens.
American killed more French and destriyed more french cities than Germany
AMERICAN dont care about France, they cknsidered france occupied territory as German and ennemh, they werent delivering it , they were invading it, bombardment were too heavy the wether started to change
@@gutsjoestar7450 God forbid we cite our arbitrarily made claim
what my grandma reminds about WWII about germans was soldiers giving her chocolate (she was a child), and about americans was bombing... so yeah war is always, let's say "complicated"
@Selina AnsenMy grand Grandpa actually walked all the way from the soviet union to Rhineland Germany just to get away from being captured by the Soviets
I've been a fan of this channel for a while now! Love the content! Please keep it up
Thank you so much! We love making content for you guys!
@@TheFront I feel like you make better content than the big history channels like the infographics show or extra credits. Keep it up 👍
It's ironic that the Nazis found so many Anglophobic supporters that were all too happy to collaborate. This included Admiral Darlain who's cagey BS and miscommunication can largely be blamed for the MersElKabir Tragedy. Simply but the Brits had no reason to trust him or his orders, not could they take the chance of the French fleet being surrendered to the Kreigsmarine. This is made Worse because most of the French Fleet was scuttled before being surrendered.
When the Allies were about to liberate Paris, Charles de Gaulle demanded the French lead the attack. The Americans and Brits agreed, but only if the French division had no Black soldiers. This was kinda difficult since most of their divisions were only 40% white. In the end they had to kick out the Black soldiers and had to go as far as North Africa and the Middle East to scrape together enough white troops to fill in the ranks.
Source: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7984436.stm
Omg that's horrible!
@Jean its a true story tho its reported by a lot different sources and historians just not sure if the french did it themself or the other allies demand it. Colonial troops in ww2 are still unterrepresented
That is another myth
The "goumiers" would fight on until 1945 (goumiers are algerian/marocans that fought in free french army)
The black soldiers would suffered imense atrition in the cold weather aka the campaign of lorraine/alsace, the french had to sent them back in the south (in ww1 the french did the same thing)
And again, most of the algerian division had a lot of black foot (pied noir,french settlers in north africa) in fact 200,000 pied noirs served in the free french army with a huge casualty rate
Yeah. But it was not because of the French or British. The Americans were really strict about that whole no mixing colours thing.
3600 black soldiers from the 2nd DB were either transfered or retired before the assault on Paris.
Leclerc had no choice in the matter since he was sponsored, trained, and equiped by the US army, which had a policy (until 1948) of segregating black troops. Part of the policy in the US army at the time was to not allow black soldiers in "elite" units (such as armoured divisions). This was definitely not part of the History curriculum in France when I was a student.
8:31)The men are from the 102nd or 103rd Infantry Regiment, 26th Inf. Division, US Army. Chateau Thierry. 2nd Marne.
Actually I never read that the Maginot Line was a failure. Instead what I heard is that it was such a success that it created a false sense of security for the French and an urge to find a way to bypass it for the Germans.
French save the english army 2 times: first at dunkerq where france save the english army which run away. And the 2nd time was at bir hakeim...
And never forget that 9 french soldier defeat 4000 italian soldier
I wouldn't say these nine guys defeated the Italians but they did hold them off quite heroicly until they got relocated elsewhere.
@@MatthewVanston *Until the french governement surrender
@@pilotedavion6716 Technically they still fought after the government surrendered, the radio lines were broken and they didn't know the war was over for them. I think they kept fighting one or two days after the defeat.
@@pilotedavion6716 No because they didn't even know about the Armistice until a few days later.
@@MatthewVanston yeah i kown, italians told then
When you got to the myth about the French losing every battle I was thinking solely about the battle of France(during which they did achieve some victories), but I forgot about the battles fought after that. I know of them. I just wasn't thinking of them. Both the Vichy French and the Free French fought many battles after the battle of France. And the Free French won numerous victories. France was, on the whole, pretty successful during World War 2, and while the tendency to view the Allies as consisting mainly of the Americans, the British, and the Soviets isn't wrong the French shouldn't be forgotten.
It’s often forgotten that substantial French forces fought in the latter years of the war. French troops fought in North Africa and a French naval task force centered on the battleship Richelieu fought the Japanese in the Pacific. More pertinently, a large French army landed in the south of France a few weeks after the Normandy landings, swiftly overwhelming the Germans there in conjunction with American forces. After the revolution in Paris, it was a French armoured division that liberated the city.
@@Cailus3542 french forces gained important numbers only by late 1942 when a former vichy army corps (the XIXth) joined the free french. I don't think the latter was an important player before that (1940-41) though I wish to be corrected.
"The Germans didn't invade France first." That's doubly true. Not only did the French invade Germany before the Germans' invaded France, the Germans invaded Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Poland before they invaded France.
(And memel in lithuania )and the benelux before germany invade france, while france only waited till poland
Ça fait plaisir de voir que les gens commencent enfin à s'instruire par eux même sur cet épisode de la guerre dont on nous blâme tout le temps
Merci
on a quand meme fait bien de la merde... en "ç on aurait envahi l'allemagne en 6 semaines... en 'à c'était trop tard...
In french school we do study that many frenchs where agree with the vichy regime and with the Nazis, as you said they helped in the holocaust. The reason they told us why people use to think most of the frenchs participate in the resitance was because after the war, Charles de Gaulle wasn't willing to divide the frenchs in a witch hunt searching who colaborate with the germans and decide to make this lie to unite the frenchs again and rebuild the country. This include censure and many other methods to prevend to talk about the problem even if everybody knew it was not right.
The Maginot line wasn't only on the germain frontier, it surrounded the whole country and was very effective against the italian army (search for the battle of saint Louis brigde's(in fact a part of the battle of Menton)
Beware of not going from a cliché / misconception to another one...
Yes, the "Maginot Line" didn't cover only the part of France-Germany border in Alsace.
With its concrete fortifications with artillery ("secteur fortifié"), it also covered France frontier with Luxembourg and part of Belgium and a small part in front of Switzerland.
Other parts of Belgian border were fortified, but without concrete forts and without arty (called "secteur défensif").
But... it never surrounded THE WHOLE COUNTRY !!
There were some parts of "secteur fortifié" in the French Alps in front of Italian border : Alpes-Maritimes, Dauphiné, Savoie, Rhône.
But is was not all along the border.
This doesn't diminish the heroism of some French units during the Battle of the Alps in June 1940, and particularly on battle of Saint-Louis bridge in Menton.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_France
@@fabienlecoutre8431 thanks for the info
Really loved the video, thanks for putting it out.
Another myth is that they didn't understand Blitzkrieg. The French Army had looked at the development of the Panzer Division, and had begun to build 3 similar divisions, the DCR, (Divisions Cuirassées de Reserve), early in 1940, with a fourth put together during the invasion. Unfortunately for the French, not nearly enough were put together, not enough officers understood how to use them, and the institutional resistance to them was strong.
Those upper-class generals were reluctant to the idea of an army of mecanics et tecnicians , like you need with tanks troops. They believed this would add an leftist influence. And god , they hated those leftist. The newspapers they would provide for the troops (for exemple) would be "Je suis partout", "Gringoire" all type of reactionnaire, antisemitic, pro peace with Germany.
6:10 Number are totally wrong ... it's more like 20 % of resistance and 15 to 20 % of collaboration with the nazi .
The french didn't support the nazi but they support the Maréchal Pétain who was know has the hero of Verdun . They all understand that he was not a good guy and stop supporting him . The first act of resistance is literally the first day of the capitulation in the city of Toulouse where leaflets were throw in the street ( saying that Pétain is not a good guy (and yes he was a liar )) .
Most of the population didn't care about the war and care for their life , and A LOT wasn't collaborater in the 20% but more like very very very bad people i can say many example but 1 is enouth : a couple did say that neighbors where jewish just to take their sofa .
Just in case you didn't know : you give leaflet in the street = execution or death by torture
killing a nazi = execution or death by torture and
repression( kill civilians , 5,10,12,18,22...doesn't matter for them )
sing the Marseillaise= execution or death by torture
having a french flag = execution or death by torture
every act of resistance will cost your life
Yes my english is garbage and
yes there were traitors in france but most of them received what they deserved and the last of them lives in fear every day
The maginot line extended right across the Belgian fronteer and the German army burst right through it. The fortifications weren't as strong as in Alsace-Lorraine but were still grade two.
Merci de mettre tout ça au clair, beaucoup d'anglo-saxons me font bien rire quand ils disent "french always surrender" alors que le corp expéditionnaire anglais n'a pas fait grand chose si ce n'est attendre sur la plage de Dunkerque pendant que les Français retenais les Allemands.
@@xale3658B Non cher ami, cette blague de bien avant 2003. Bush n'a fait que la rendre encore plus populaire.
The first one gets even more epic if we consider that Poland did the same thing. Yes you read right, Poland invaded Nazi Germany in the first days of WW2. Although, everyone including the polish Generals say that it was a futile move, only to boost the moral. They pushed 4 miles in.
Another myth, "the French Africa Army (L'Armée d'Afrique) was African", this Army that was the bulk of French Free armies from 42 to 45 was based on the conscription of "Pieds Noir" (European Settlers in Maghreb, that were Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and French mainly). African could volunteer and joined "Senegalese" regiment (if they were Subsaharan) or "Maroccan" (if they were Maghrebi). But as you can see in the archives, or simply in the death lists, the vast majority, above 84% of troops were European
And im surprised you dont speak about the Norway invasion, were French and Brit successfully crushed the German try to storm Narvik. This was the first major battle of the WWII between western powers and the Alpes Army did great.
We could also speak about the reasons of defea :
. Politics (pacifism mainly) was a disaster,
the "Grand idea" of blocking the German in Belgium to avoid the same disaster on french soil that in WWI was understandable but it wasnt accompanied greatly by the army. Either the Army should have stationned in Belgium, either it should have kept the Maginot line from Switerzland to the Channel.
The sabotages and great strikes from communists element (USSR was allied to Germany at the time) and the great nationalisation that basically destroyed every plant to build new one three to four year before the war.
Another unknown fact is the one that qualified technician were called under flags with other people. Which means during six month the plants, that already were newly built, lost all their services.
The Dewoitine 520 is considered have lost a full year of production / developpement between 1937 and 1939 (Aviadrix blog)
On peut ajouter que l'aviation française a gravement endommagé la Luftwaffe en mai-juin.
Vous avez plus d info sur les attentats ?
Je demande car je ne trouve pas sa vraiment logique (le Pc d urss toujour pensé que Hitler était une menace)
The Belgium issue is mostly due to the Belgian king naive views. Initially the French were supposed to station at the Belgian-German frontier with Belgian troops. The Maginot Line was supposed to push the fight into the vast Belgian fields where they could fight with an advantage over the Germans, with forts along the main rivers. When the Belgians saw that Germany was readying for war, they called for neutrality, hoping they would not get involved into this bloody mess, and chased the French troops back to France to show their willingness of staying neutral. It's understandable but naive since Germany had already fucked their neutrality in ww1. They did it again, to the surprise of absolutely no one but the Belgian king, I guess ? And this mess cost the Allies to lose quickly the first network of Belgian fortifications.
Actually, the Allies still managed to contain the Germans despite this. It's hard to say what would have been the outcome without the Ardennes assault. Maybe the war would have taken a more ww1 style turn, with no real occupied countries and a fight concentrated in the Benelux region. The USSR would certainly have stayed neutral for the whole thing, waiting to take the cake when everyone would be devastated after years of combat.
In fact, the Ardennes assault was a coup of poker, a big bet. At the time, the French command suspected the Germans would try to force their way through the Netherlands. When they heard of an assault in the Ardennes, they thought it was only a diversion, which is why they didn't quickly draw back their army from the Benelux and got surrounded after. The Ardennes was known as a weak spot for quite some times now, they already conducted tests in the region and found the Germans could drive an army there. But maybe the generals didn't take this study seriously. For the Germans, the Ardennes assault was a huge bet, because one bomber, or one artillery corps could have turned this into a disaster. They took the bet that the French would find the idea of sending full tank divisions through this bottleneck so stupid and dangerous they would never believe it. It worked, but if it didn't, a simple explosion on the cheap roads of the Ardennes pass would mean delays, even worse if some tanks get broken and block the way. Then, with a stuck German army, France would have been able to send reinforcement quicker and contain the attack, maybe even crush the tank divisions ?
Good video. I enjoyed it. As a French I'm proud and I thank you for preserving the Memory of our fallen soldiers.
Any historical statement that attempts to summarize a whole nation over any period of time using only a single sentence cannot, by nature, be anywhere near true.
Wise words.
"A Fan From The Philippines"
SAMEEEEEEE dude
"A fan of the Fan from the Philippines"
Did he say that?
I still remember the first intro music damn that was a long time ago and its still great
A great video, thank you.
I'm from Colmar, in France and for the coincidence, one of my relatives was in the military and her regiment liberated the town of Jebsheim, during the Colmar pocket combats (I recommend to visit our region, for the history, gastronomy, the best wines in the world and conviviality, well, when the actual human malware will end)
The Americans had a pretty good run too, with Audie Murphy, the most decorated US soldier of WWII, he received the medal of honor holding for an hour single-handedly a german company with a browning M2 on a disabled tank (an M5 Stuart) and directing artillery strikes, after that, he lead a counterattack successfully while wounded.
As for the majority of the people that did nothing during German occupation, I kindly remind you, the casuals historians, that, first, they were people trying to survive during hard times with an occupying enemy pillaging what they could and leaving them scraps, second, the German had 1,8 million hostages in the form of POW and third, they were, in a sense, held at gunpoint, the German, albeit somewhat lenient on the French people (they were in France for the long run, so they had to accommodate the population), wouldn't hesitate to retaliate harshly on individuals and their families if they were caught doing something against the German regime, for example, in Belgium, the country was in similar situation as France, a Belgian pilot named Jean de Selys Longchamps did an unauthorized strafing run on the gestapo headquarters in Brussels, after the German had captured and tortured his father because Jean escaped twice and joined the RAF.
Sorry for the long text, but I was feeling that clarifications was needed :)
The dunkirk battle as shown in the Nolan movie is kind of a myth.
The french army protected the english retreat preventing the capture and lost of the british army and surely make the German lose the the battle of Gret Britain
To be fair, it is just a movie. You can't get detailed historical realism in 100 minutes. It was really just meant for the British.
@@christianlibertarian5488 Which is the issue. Dunkirk battle was never British only battlefield. Battle of Britain was.
it's kinda ironic that when it comes to movies about WW1, french army is often presented with allied armies along its side, but when it comes to WW2 even about events when french army was *still* fighting and dying, they're never visible. This, in itself, sustain the myth.
Nolan's choice not to show Dunkirk French defense for more than 10s and, worse, that the only French soldier we see a longer time next is a soldier looking to flee helps maintain this myth of the French soldier who does not fight. And it's all by choice.
Oh well. I guess that his choice to show English soldiers being ready to sacrifice this French deserter to save their boat from sinking can be taken as an hyperbole.
After Bir hachim in 1942 , the ordinary British Tommy in the 8th Army stopped calling the French defenders Free French, and rechristened these soldiers the FIGHTING FRENCH as a tribute to their bravery.
*says there are a lot of myths about the French army*
*makes baguette joke*
why can't you have both?
@@matthiuskoenig3378 no you can I was just making a joke
As a french, I'm ok with baguette jokes, cheese jokes, frog jokes etc... but the surrender jokes are just insulting for our history and those who died for the country...
Yeah we don’t really care about baguette oui oui omelette du fromage which by the way is grammatically incorrect, snails or whatever i mean it’s food and we’re known for making good food plus y’all know our bread the best bread hehe
Ou le pain en général
Except some points, (already explained by other comments), this video is GREAT.
Finally a video in english where facts are facts and it is not just french-bashing.
good work !
I'm French, and i just want say thank you for this vidéo
3:50 French commanders told their troops that the Germans were after their baguettes and wine. It was a fight to the death.
its very easy to stand back and judge the French people but how would we have reacted if the Germans had got a foothold in the UK? many were sympathetic to the Nazi cause and i'm sure we would have seen some collaboration
Hi could you do a video about our General, Charles De Gaulle ? A lot of people (especially anglo-saxons) seem to think that he was just a loudmouth with no real experience and just fled to England at the start of the war, but General Charles De Gaulle was somewhat of a genius himself. He and his divisions were one of the only French divisions to have successfully repelled the Germans and even took some prisoners during the Battle of France, he also knew that a Second World War would happen years before it took place (though a lot of people saw it coming too), he advocated for a more professional army instead of an army consisting of mostly conscripts, he had his own version of the « Blitzkrieg » and quite ironically one of his books didn’t sell well in France but sold really well... In Germany.
Fun fact, the French communists were refusing to fight Germany until September 1941. Why? Because Moscow was allied with Berlin at that time.
They weren't allies technically speaking. They signed a non-aggression pact that Hitler then broke by invading the USSR.
Sources kinda sems fake to me
@@MatthewVanston Well of course technically speaking, but same "spirit".
@@apotato5567 Look it up, the leader of the PCF (Parti Communiste Français, French Communist Party) at the time (forgot the name). From the top of my head, he deserted and defected to the USSR and fought Germany only when they waged war against them.
@@breizhrudie4757 Not same spirit at all. Both factions did not look at each other in a very friendly way and it was clear that sooner or later, they would clash.
I am not impressed by any irony. Remember that the former king of England spied for the Germans and gave very important information to the nazis. The French troops took 250 000 casualties in 1940. They fought like lions. Their leaders were ancient and unimaginative, unable to even think about movement tactics.
About your second sentence : I am reading a book about it at the moment : Hidden agenda by Martin Allen. Very interesting.
Did black American soldiers really get treated well by the French when they arrived in WW1? That's a thing I heard and I don't know if it is true or not
The french fought in the mud and piss along side black troops back in Verdun, the probaganda made the tirailleurs looked like hero, or at least a full force amongst the french army
The french didnt give 2 shit about the color
When US army was arrived in France for WW1, all the blacks units were under direct French command and fight with French units because the US army doesn't want to fight along side Black people when the French didn't care if they are black or yellow....(a huge part of Africa was French at this time so....)
Thanks for clarifying this question guys
Because of their history, american tend to see black as ex-slave, and thus, unfit for combat, while french fought against or with them in the colony, and, could see them as warriors.
It's a possibility, yes. If I remember correctly, African colonial troops were better treated by the French Free Forces than it is believed so maybe African-American were as well treated.
Another interesting fact about the Maginot line. You already clarified that the main goal of the Maginot line was a success which is true but you didnt explain why exactly. It's correct that it prevented a full frontal assault and forced the Germans to go through Netherlands and Belgium which was the real plan.
The plan was to drive the germans in Belgium with French soldiers blocking thanks to some agreement with Belgium government. It was the agreement to not expand maginot also along their border. The thing is sometime before WW2 Belgium changed their position and only allowed french troops to enter their territory if Germany invaded them.
another fact: always too much but 75 % of jews who lived in france survived and more of 90 % of jews with french nationality.
yes..and who made the list of foreign jews,lica ugif (a local aipac).
It s not welknow.
I would go as far as to say the resistance was not only unnecessary but also actively harmful and downright evil. They weren't fighting Germans because Nazis were evil but, in many cases, because they themselves were communists (which is a literal red flag); and their antics led to a much worse treatment of civilians by the occupants, in many cases large scale massacres like in Oradour.
The french resistance was more in intelligence, sabotage, helping evasions and editing anti-Vichy press. Also 80% of informations and documents which were useful for the preparation of operation Overlord have been transmitted by the french resistance to the allies.
Really makes me feel good I knew all these already, expect maybe the French resistance one because that one is still somewhat debatable to be considered what is “ vital “
Well their contribution was very far from minimal either. Resistants provided the Allies with a lot of intel that helped elaborate Operation Overlord.
Great video, as a French, saldy in ww2 we are often relegate to jokes and myths. Thx for your great historical video !
I guess I really know my history, I knew every single one of those
As history nerd, It really pains me that people make surrender jokes about france when talking about any war other than the franco prussian war or ww2, and the myth that "france has a history of surrendering" is not true, that only implies that the casual historian thinks that france just acts like ww2 france in every war they fight in.
Denmark: **Surrenders to Germany in 6 hours**
France: **Surrenders to Germany in 46 days**
Everyone: Haha, France is weak.
France : *Invade Berlin in 6 days*
World : I pretend I never see that
@@striker8795 when
@@atleastimtrying5391 During Napoleonic war, battle of Jena and Auesdert
@@striker8795 Yep
Channel Islander here. Huge respect to France. Thanks to you I grew up with a Nazi foxhole in my backyard, but speaking English and a modicum of patois
the French were fighting on two fronts - against the Germans and the Italians.
The italians joined once france was almost down, most of the fighting against italy happened even after capitulation
@@youtubecensoredme245
Yes, it's true. But precisely, in the face of the Italian enemy, the French had to keep up against them substantial elite troops (in particular the Alpine Chasseurs) who were very useful against the Germans ....
Italy an enemy ? really ?
@@albertkurz913 - Italy and Germany were allies during WW2 and the Italians tried to invade france but were beaten back by the french
Another Myth : Vichy France was always a collaborationist state
In fact, the real collaborator was Pierre Laval, not Philippe Pétain (he was still an accomplice nevertheless), Laval is the one who taked almost all the decision of the Vichy Regime, the 12th of December 1940, Pétain dismissed him from his post and named François Darlan but Germany oppose the return of Laval the 18th of April 1942, it's around this time the last major decision of the Vichy Regime will occur, the Germans try to invade Vichy France with the Operation Lila and Attila to take the vichy navy by force, but according to the Protocole of Paris signed by Darlan, the order to sabotage the navy is sent, and despite the numerous attempt to prevent it by Laval, the navy is 90% destroyed.
On the 20th of August 1945, Pétain was forced to be brought to Sigmaringen, after many refusals, he finally accepted under the threat that Vichy would be bombed if he refuse once more.
according to historians, the French resistance was one of the best organizing and important of the Second World War
I would not be so sure though. Before Jean Moulin came along, the Résistance was quite a mess because Resistants did not share the same political views and would seldom cooperate.
@@MatthewVanston Yes I totally agree . jean moulin did an extraordinary job with the help of Charles de gaules and the FFI . It doesn't look like it but thousands of resistance fighters died and most of them were kids.
@@geremlord9002 The french resistance was more in intelligence, sabotage, helping evasions and editing anti-Vichy press. Also 80% of informations and documents which were useful for the preparation of operation Overlord have been transmitted by the french resistance to the allies.
I am surprised you did not mention that the SS Charlemagne division were the last defenders of the Reichstag against the soviets.
Proud to be a french soldier and have a family who participate the resistance
Bravo!
I often wonder if the French/surrender stereotype was perpetuated by us English speakers as we had to blame someone else after the disaster in France - noting that the British army was also routed and withdrew from France while the French army was blocking the German advance to the beaches.
France also wasn't the first powerful country to be defeated in WWII - Poland was by no means a weak nation at the start of the war and their quick defeat surprised the Allies.
Of course most who have done even a bit of reading about WWII could tell you the early war defeats of the Allies and Soviets were due to Blitzkrieg tactics which was a completely new way of conducting a war that overwhelmed the trench warfare style the Allies were expecting.
aye the french did what they could. and that is respectable. tho for many europeans its an unwritten law to insult the french where we can. specially when mexico kicked the frogs bottoms.
anyway the french fought well, just if their leaders.... government..... and well...... the tank designers werent so incompetent.
not gonna say the french tank designers were rubbish. but they should have dropped the 2 man tank concept
In their eyes, 2 man tanks concept meant less men per tanks, so it would allow for more tanks to be deployed overall.
The government was a mess, same for the millitary high command and inner rivalries, and the ww1 doctrines
As a French I can confirm those, our soldiers fought hard no matter what the Brits and Americans claim today.
So they were to the Allies what the Italians were to the Axis. Brave men let down by poor leadership, poor tactics and poor equipment.
@@sylvananas7923 aye that i agree on. no matter what we claim the french fought as well as everyone else. despite the flaws. and yeah the concept sounds well on paper with more tanks deployed. but how good is it with an overstressed commander? reload, aim, shoot, command, look around, communicate with allies, etc. but yeah good on paper until put in the field. and again the french were brilliant fighters.
@Vim Fuego That something I don't understand. I hear a lot about german working quality as a stereotype but many witnesses including you and other germans told me they are lazy and unproductive!?
@Vim Fuego wow thank you for your hindsight, appreciate.
Please don't forget us. During the world war II New Caledonia (a french land in the pacific) was a strategic point in the war in the pacific. When the other fall, and surrender in france, we have still resist against the Vichy goverment, and we help a lot the american. And when it was possible, we've go in africa to fight with the rest of the french army, at the battle of Bir Hakeim. We are a lot forget in the history.
Well, when it comes to French in 1940, British General Allan Broke, left notes on his observations. And needless to say, they are not pretty:
I still see it before my eyes. It was rare for me to see such messy and poorly equipped army. Unshaved men, neglected horses, mismatched uniforms and harnesses, dirty vehicles and complete lack of pride on men's faces. What stroke me most were the faces of those men, who clearly showed dissatisfaction and insubordination. When the order 'Left look!' was made, very few actually bothered to execute it. After the ceremony, Corap invited me for an inspection of obstacles around the fort of St.Michel. We came across an anti-tank trench, incomplete and poorly built, without any additional barricades. I dared to share my opinion that it should be covered with anti-tank rifles. 'Bah! We should take care of this later - Come, let's have breakfast! - I heard in reply.
Though to be fair, there is a tale of a French officer- Also named Corap or the same as the one mentioned above - who jumped in front of the train in 1940 on Le Mans train station, with message left for Main Command saying 'Mr. President, I take my own life, so that You will learn, that my men did not lack courage, but You can't send men to fight tanks, armed with only rifles'.
Said the people who were the first to leave their lines.... not even the poor Belgians. The British playing the blame game over an allied defeat and pointing fingers to absolve their involvement? Shocking... Shocking I say lol
@@Itachi951000 perhaps you should go and read a history book or two and stop listening to tired old myths. The British army was still being landed in France (ie 2nd BEF) whilst the Dunkirk evacuation was going on. The last British evacuation from France occured in August 1940, by this time in was an informal evacuation operation as most of the troops and civilians extracted from France had left 3 days after the French signed their Armistice with the Germans on 22nd June 1940.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Lmao the 2nd BEF? When Churchill ordered an evacuation of all your men from France? Yeah right...... nice try. The Dunkirk evacuation ended on June 4th... the only British people left in France where that regiment of Scottish soldiers which were abandoned in Brittany (or Normandy was it?). The fact is the British were long gone for the last stand at the Loire. You left and the French did continue to fight.... it is absolutely disgraceful for you to now be showing up like the original commenter is doing talking shit about French troops when yours were the first to give up pursuing the fight in the Battle of France, not French ones, nor Belgian ones.
@@Itachi951000I wasn't talking about Op Dynamo but Op Aerial which took place between 15th and 25th June 1940 which use St Nazaire and other Atlantic coast ports in France. It involved the evacuation of British, Czech and Polish troops, civilians and equipment. One major loss during this evacuation was HMT Lancastria.
Op Dynamo ended on 4th June 1940, but the 157 (Highland Light Infantry) Brigade was one element of what was to be the 2nd BEF set sail for France on 7th June 1940. That really sounds like the British were running away to their fortress island, doesn't it? They were trying to support France, but the Germans were just too good st that time.
@@Itachi951000 You know who is really pathetic? You. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder with regards to the British. When all is said and done the Battle of France was a battle fought principally between the French and German Army's. The BEF numbered in the region of 10 Divisions, the Germans and French both had roughly 100 each engaged or in reserve along a considerable front. Once the French 9th Army Corps broke and effectively ran just short of the Ardennes, unhinging the Allied salient, the situation became untenable. Or perhaps you don't understand how manoeuvre warfare works? Perhaps you think the BEF should have just continued to be wrapped up and destroyed/captured in detail? You'd be looking at a very VERY different world had that decision not been made sunshine.
The fall of France lies squarely on the shoulders of the French not least because it was their own damn country!
6:38 from what i've heard 90% is an overstatement and irrealistic.
10% resisted ? Yes.
90% collaborate ? No.
90% weren't resistant ? Yes of course.
See the difference ? Those 90% were in their vast majority afraid of german soldiers - remember their soldier were defeated and resistants were executed - It was civilian of all age, they tried to survive, so they were obidient since those men had guns and weren't friendly toward rebellious civilians. Few people truly helped the nazi regime and collaborated. Except if you think that avoiding confrontation against armed soldier is collaborate ? Then yes the vast majority of conquered civilians in europe collaborate.
And I take in account Belgium and certainly Dutchland when you state that 90% were collaborators !
Because we lived the same thing as French people.
And that statement is disrepectfull. At least !
There is an excellent series which is being aired on the british channel "Yesterday" called "War factories". Episode 6 is a very relevant story of what the life of the average French really was during the occupation : The sabotaging efforts of Peugeot in Nazi-occupied France, where the bosses and workers cooperated with the resistance to hinder the Nazis' use of military vehicles. These 90% were not in the resistance but many have been helping as much as they could. The Germans were not nice to civilians who didn't stick to the rules. And I let you imagine what I mean by not nice.
Can you do a video on British Raj troops fighting in Europe?
I recently heard there was an Indian cavalry unit at Dunkirk
I'm french, teacher in history and live in Dunkirk. So many things to say about France during WWII. Excellent reminder on the importance of the colonial troops.
Devil is in the detail... german rhyme with jerrycan. So many Somua french tanks were destroyed by gasoline missing, no planes (good airplanes: Devoitine, Arsenal VG 33 ... but so late...). But the most evident is the failure of military doctrine: with "le chant du départ" everybody knows that France is invincible, that's the reason to put DJ Petain at the sound system at Sedan in june 1940 was criminal. Good job.
when germany was focused on poland france should have took the initiative and invaded germany. they could have won??
They did but it failed.
They should have attack during the Czechoslovakia invasion in 1937. The politicians mobilized the troops but decided to not start a direct war on the very last moment
@@MatthewVanston no, they didn't, read a history book
@@NihilistAlien Yes they did. Look up the Saar Offensive in 1939. You're the one who needs to read a book.
@@MatthewVanston phony war, go read a real book but as a muricans I think you can't read above 4th grade level
The problem was most of French general was from ww1 and have a conflit vision from ww1 for exemple disperse the tanks to cover the soldiers instead of bringing them together like the Germans no air Field support, the conception of war under the model of the blitz was a major invention in modern warfare
it is true but it was not better in the other countries, the Germans invented this form of combat and no general of the allied army was prepared for it.
the same thing happened to the Americans at Pearl Harbor, they believed that the port was unassailable by conventional forces (battleships and heavy cruisers), they never thought of aircraft carriers because the Americans considered them to be escort ships