The Mad WW2 Battle That Completely Shocked the Allies
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 вер 2024
- In a crushingly swift campaign, Germany humiliated France in just six weeks during World War 2, exposing the utter inadequacy of French military efforts. The famed Maginot Line touted as an unbreakable defense, was sidestepped with ease as German panzers roared through the Ardennes, an area the French mistakenly thought was unpassable. France’s old-school tactics and complacent brass crumbled under the relentless blitzkrieg.
The German juggernaut’s rapid push left French forces in shambles, their retreat a chaotic mess of failure. Paris fell like a house of cards, the once-proud French army reduced to a symbol of ineptitude and defeat, as the nation caved in a humiliating armistice in June 1940, splitting France into German territory in the north and a puppet state in the south that would come to be known as Vichy France.
After that slap in the face, when the United States finally joined the war, they planned their first significant move: Operation Torch, landing in North Africa to wrest control of the Mediterranean from the Axis powers. The Americans assumed Vichy French colonies would welcome them as liberators and rally to fight against their German oppressors.
As General George Patton and 35,000 men of the US Second Division stood off the shore of Casablanca, expecting a peaceful reception, the French Navy, under Vice Admiral Félix Michelier, took battle positions with 11 submarines, seven destroyers, an incomplete battleship, and numerous shore batteries. It was madness; the US forces had over 100 ships at their disposal. If the French wanted to be humiliated again, Patton was ready to oblige...
Annnnnnnd... Here we go, again and again and again...
1) The Maginot Line was not a failure : only a few spots (mostly underfortified) were taken during the two last weeks of may 1940. The rest did not surrender before the signing of the armistice, and only under threat of retaliation against French prisoners by the Germans.
2) The French defeat was enforced by the three betrayals of General Gort :
- Refusal to sustain a French attack from the north and south in order to break the German lines encircling the pocket of Dunkirk.
- Refusal to defend the pocket alongside the French troops.
- Refusal to evacuate the French troops alonside the British ones, turning their weapons agains their allies if necessary.
3) The attack at Mers-el-Kebir was solely organised in order to prove to the American government that the British would not surrender no matter what. It was described by De Gaulle as « an axe blow in the back ». The negotiations were botched because Churchill wanted his pint of blood and got it. Even Admiral Somerville was disgusted by the whole thing, a stance Churchill took a dislike to, so he tryied to destroyed Somerville's carreer. Churchill even tried to have the French ships (including a carrier) destroyed in the West Indies, even though those ships had been disarmed. Roosevelt stopped him. Operation Catapult led to French infighting in Lebanon and Syria, to the failure of the battle for Dakar and the invasion of Madagascar. And whoever want to get into an argument with me over this, I'll just ask of you this question : name one, only ONE of your country (whatever it is) naval officer who would have bent over against a French fleet or otherwise under such conditions. Go ahead, I'm very patient.
4) Operation Torch was supported by the British because they wanted primarily to secure their possessions in North Africa, especially Suez.
5) Lo and behold : De Gaulle was pushed away by the allies during the negociations with the French military in North Africa. Apparently it was more sensible to the Allies to negotiate with Vichy officers (like Vichy Admiral Giraud) than Free French. This led to chaos among the Free French in North Africa, officers sympathetic to the Allies were arrested, Communist and Gaullist Freedom Fighter were left on their own to try to prevent the catastrophe to come, leading to multiple arrests and executions. Giraud was outraged to learn that the operations had been taken over from him 24 hours before the landings, which led to more confusion (the Free French having to wait 48 hours for his approval of the taking of Algiers. On october 23, 1942, 400 Freedom Fighters seized the coastal batteries of Sidi-Ferruch, which led to the successful allied landings (with the help of Colonel Baril) and the turning of the French Army of Africa. Those same 400 men took over Algiers all by themselves. They also put under arrest general Juin and admiral Darlan.
6) The pilots of the landing crafts, who would later prove themselves in Normandy, had undergone practically no training, due to lack of time. So, many barges loaded with heavily equipped soldiers hit the hulls of ships, collided, or were poorly moored on the landing beaches and thrown back into the sea onto those following them. So, many of these boats overturned and sank with their occupants. Under these conditions, General Ryder, who for hours had no vehicle at his disposal, did not dare, despite the entreaties of the resistance envoys, to march immediately on Algiers. And subsequently, when he set out, he limited himself, jointly with his forces landed to the east of the city, to surrounding it from the heights without penetrating it. In truth, distraught by his losses at sea, he was unable to admit that a few hundred civilian volunteers had really been able to capture a town defended by an army corps.
7) Admiral Darlan suggested that Marshal Pétain could perhaps make a favorable decision and asked Robert Murphy for authorization to send a letter to the Admiralty, giving his officer's word that it would have no military character. In reality, while inviting Admiral Leclerc, the recipient of the message, to send it telegraphically to Philippe Pétain, he was indeed giving him, in the last paragraph of this letter, the order to resist the Allies. Furthermore, by expressly requesting that his telegram be sent “clearly”, that is to say without coding it, he at the same time warned the German listening services of the Allied intervention. Murphy allowed himself to be convinced and gave his agreement, but the bearer of this message stopped on the way at the Resistance HQ, at 26 rue Michelet. There was Lieutenant Abbot Cordier, companion of Henri d'Astier de La Vigerie, to whom he had come to report on the neutralization of the protected military headquarters. However, Cordier, like the other resistance fighters, had no confidence in Admiral Darlan. So he intercepted this message. But half an hour later, François Darlan sent a second letter to the Admiralty, with the renewed assent of Robert Murphy, and it was taken directly there. Upon receipt of this letter, brought by an American vice-consul, the naval forces of the Admiralty immediately opened fire on the commando of American Colonel Swenson, who had just disembarked in the port of Algiers. Darlan was later liberated by The arrival of Colonel Zwinglin who surprised the young resistance fighters. These, who like the other volunteers had received orders not to shed French blood, did not resist. Almost all of them were captured and threatened with shooting, along with the remaining United States representatives. Darlan then sent to Vichy a telegram asking the Luftwaffe to bomb Allied transports off the coast of Algiers and to lead the fight against the Free French and the allied troops.
8) Nonetheless, the Freedom Fighters managed to put under arrest several Vichy heads of office including general Ettori, general Lebreux, leader of the Legion Breleux. They also supplied misinformations to the others heads of government by describing the stages of a slow and imaginary American progression towards Algiers. There was nonetheless a lot of chaos and infighting between Free French and Vichy forces leading to many deaths, especially on the Free French side who was reluctant to shoot other french and more inclined to try to overturn them. The fights stopped only with the arrival of general Ryder on the evening of november 8. Juin and Darlan were taken prisoners on November 10 and 11 by General Clark.
9) In mainland France, Operation Anton of November 11, 1942 caused the occupation of the free zone: the south of France, spared from occupation since June 1940, was invaded by the Germans and Italians. This led to the scuttling of the French fleet at Toulon on November 27, 1942. Five submarines escaped the disaster. Only three would reach North Africa.
10) A Vichy government for French Africa was formed on November 14, 1942 by François Darlan under the name “High Commission of France in Africa” with the blessing of the allies. He took power “in the name of the Marshal”, and mobilized the French in North Africa to “liberate the Marshal”. Churchill was then questioned in the Commons, while Roosevelt, taken to task by the free American press, explained that the Clark-Darlan agreements were only “military expedients”, while maintaining them. Darlan was murdered on december 24.
11) Petain's government was the official government in regards of the US Government until january 1943. By the way, when De Gaulle met Roosevelt for the first time at Casablanca, unbeknowst to him, the room was full of US bodyguards ready to shoot him if he even blinked. De Gaulle was told about the Normandy landings only three days beforehand and was not allowed to set foot on his own country before july 14th. His route was all mapped out by the allies, he only had to make a short trip. But Charles de Gaulle imposed himself by making a speech in Bayeux. Finally the Americans demanded of the French to get rid of their African soldiers for obvious racist reasons. The French couldn't help it since they needed the weapons.
You really think the americains and british care about all that? They just want to see that french as bad fighters.. and cowards. bad allies etc... They don't care about the reality of the war and the position of France.
They want their piece of meat.. and again a video to give them that.
I'm sure they love it.
Thank you for your work here and to try to explain a few things.. but again if it is in english.. they will certainly do not care.
It's not about history. Never was about history, and all about stories. Stories for them to be the heroes and others.. well not important at best.
You can argue the design of the line was great, but it purpose wise it was still a failure.
@@Antiteshmis It was not a failure, the Maginot line did not fall. It forced into surrendering.
@@Brehat29 The Maginot was not a failure and did its job, it was the French military to correctly react to their recon planes identifying a massive invasion convoy passing through the Ardennes, had this been taken seriously and not ignored the "blitz" would have been the biggest failure in German military history similar to what happened recently in Ukraine when the Russian convoy to Kiev was bogged down.
Then the French military inability to adaptive/ flexible warfare after the breakthrough in the Ardennes, with too much of a focus on static warfare meant being unable to reorganise the line, such as the Maginot line holding while the enemies took Paris.
@@jackwalker4990the Maginot line was incomplete because the diplomatically approved upon plan was to rush French (and British, if need be) forces into Belgium on pre-fortified positions in Eastern Belgium to prevent the Germans from advancing into butter.
It failed because the Belgian authorities got cold feet and refused that the French forces entered Belgium before Belgium was actually attacked by Germany, in order to appease the German authorities and not appear like belligerents / stay neutral. Well, that worked perfectly, did it not?
11:36: they were not fighting for the Nazis, they were fighting for France in defence of French territory.
Germany humaliated France AND UK in 6 weeks. Strange English forget alwys they retreated unilaterally after 4 weeks...
Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, France and UK to be precise. Last four in 6 weeks.
How do we say? Ah yes, selective memory!
@@VascoDaGamaOtRupcha And Luxembourg to be even more precise xD
@KubiG1000 Luxemburg didn't fight, Germans simply marched in, what's your point?
@@VascoDaGamaOtRupcha Denmark also didn't fight, what was your point then?
After Torch, Patton said "These bastards should have fought like this in 1940! Hitler would never have got into Paris"
Classic Patton - so true.
Where was Patton in 1940? Ah yes...
@@jeromelemoine1942 I think it was more of a back handed compliment than a criticism. He was impressed with the French troops when they were given modern equipment.
@@gordonwood1594 Patton had learnt his business in WW1 France, especially as a tank commander, therefore I don't think he had a poor opinion of the average French soldier. He was surely surprised and highly disappointed by the 1940 campaign but nobody could match the Germans at this particular moment and, as of 1942 (Bir Hakeim), the Free French were back in the game. In the aftermath of Operation Torch, 8 fully reequipped French-north African divisions swelled the Allied ranks.
Nobody - and this includes the Americans - fought well against the Germans at first. Look how far the Soviets ran. Then, after absorbing the lessons, everybody learnt.
Who’s put the French flag on HMS Rodney or Nelson on the thumbnail still advertising this vid?
that pissed me off too
The Americans understanding first-hand, England's 1000 year history with France.
Muricans know English arrocance longer.
French are going to French. Look at Charles D G. Happy to seek refuge in England but then hates the Anglo Saxons when they liberate his country
The British was the most dangerous Allied you can have.
Oh, I'm sure the Hungarians, Romanians, Italians and Finns would beg to differ.
@@sparkyinsertnamehere6673the Italians got utterly spanked by the brits in WW2 they ended up taking massive amounts of pow without much resistance. It’s quite well documented, monty wrote about it in his book.
It’s true France didn’t fight well in WW2, but neither did USA in Korea, Vietnam or Afghanistan. However France is the country which has a battle & wars track record that is unmatched by anyone.
France lost twice against Italy. No other country did
@@ErikLundgren-p5p when?
@@ErikLundgren-p5p Look at Battle of Menton, 9 French soldier holding a full Italian army, killing hundreds of them.
WW2 and the Battle of France are two separate events. The English didn't do so well in the Battle of France either.
Bir akeim was a succes because french saved flank of allies for exemple
@@maellepopova against Romans early on. Then in WW2. Although they wouldn't have done nothing without the germans
The attack at Mers el Kebir completely justifies the Vichy regime. This video falsely claims the attack was on the Vichy navy. Vichy had not been properly formed yet. The attack at Mers el Kebir was on the 3rd of July, while the Vichy regime formed a week later on the 10th of July. The British just straight up attacked the French navy, and as a result of the attack, the Vichy regime decided to cut all ties with the allies, which the allies called "collaborationist" but it wasn't really. The French were betrayed and their war was lost.
And all because Churchill knew what a bunch of turncoats the French are. Never to be trusted. It’s quite possible once the French refused to side with the allies preferring the Nazis????, that fleet had to go lest it fall into German hands. This would have made an invasion to liberate Europe extremely difficult.
Horseshit, the drift to an Axis friendly Vichy regime was well under before Mers el Kebir, Laval was rabidly anti British as was Petain. The French fleet was repeatedly given the choice of sailing to a neutral port, most likely in the US, to get them out of the German's clutches, but outright refused.
As expected the French quickly surrendered to Hitler yet bravely fought against Hitler's enemies. Amazing....
@@sparkyinsertnamehere6673
Neither Laval nor Pétain were in power when the attack on Mers el Kebir happened, Vichy France didn't exist yet either. Any sovereign country wouldn't give up it's fleet and particularly when earlier that year the allies agreed to not conclude a separate peace with the axis powers, which an armistice isn't.
Most french politicians and officers didn't like Britain that much, and most british politicians and officers had the same feelings regarding France, you can't exactly judge someone for not particularly liking their old sworn enemy.
The attack just tells that Britain didn't have any faith in France and absolutely no confidence to bring the country to their side with diplomacy and politics, it just shows who didn't like the other one the most in that case.
Overall Britain and the allies could have brought back France to their side but they chose to attack and sink the french fleet, killing many french sailors and just made a very good justification for the Vichy regime to exist and turn into what it is now known for.
(later in the war when the germans tried to capture the remainder of the french fleet of Vichy France, the french preferred to sink their own fleet than to let it fall in the hands of the germans)
@@blitzhill9533 With all due respect, that is an argument in semantics @ 'not yet being in power'. Yes, they weren't YET in power, but it was pretty bloody obvious that they were going to be, or somebody like them. Should the British have just waited (in their greatest time of danger, summer 1940), to see whatever pro German government that emerged in France was going to be coerced by the Germans to do with the French fleet? No one is claiming that this was a glorious move on Britain's part, but it was almost certainly necessary.
The last 300 German soldiers when Berlin fell weren't even German!.😮
I would guess either French or Spanish
They were french waffen ss!
@@keithmcwilliams7424 they also had Spaniards in the SS
@Paulftate yes but i'm not sure if they were in berlin mostly they fought on the russian front
Right off hand I can't remember the river the Allies stopped at .... I'm thinking they were part of the breakout of Berlin trying to get to the river
Operation Torch consisited of MORE British soldiers, warships, planes, material, logistics in much larger quantities than the USA forces, this video is negligent in not mentioning this at the beginning.
Spike Milligan tells the story very well.
@@philipdurling1964 Spike wasn't exactly the full dollar.
@@HenriHattar When Mulligan's first WWII book was published an historian/ book critic wrote that it was a marvelous read but that the dates and descriptions shouldn't be taken as fact. Spike sued the paper and the critic and challenged them to disprove one detail in the book which was not factual. After some investigation the paper and critic agreed to settle out of court and publicly apologised.
@@gordonwood1594 Ihve READ the book, it didn;t have too many war facts in it!
@@HenriHattar Milligan was annoyed because the critic implied that he and his regiment did not take part in the middle eastern battles described in the book. Clearly he was wrong and had to pay compensation.
No one was prepared for the lightning attack of the Germans in the 1940's
Just simple air recognition would have helped
@@ErikLundgren-p5p Now you tell us. It may be too late.
It's amazing to me how many times through history military leaders have underestimated the enemy and gotten their asses kicked.
They missed the significance of French Fascism. Many of the French ruling class regarded the Nazis as rescuers from Communism. Western politicians should remember this treachery when they deal with the descendants of European Fascism in France and Italy.
Committed treachery against THEM?! What is a modern, neoliberal politician if not a treacherous, lying snake at the beck and call of their tiny hat overlords. They brought in the millions of “refugees” who rape and murder our people daily all across Europe and America. Those politicians should be put on trial.
Subtitute ritish to french and you’ll be much closer to the truth...
Just Look into the would have been king who was good friend of the Nazis.
Starts with british guy telling how France’s military was ineffecient and has been humiliated… While the perfectly adequate and efficient british army was busy hiding behind those lame french soldiers to run away…
Not true again, study history properly.
Moral of the story: never trust an Anglo.
At 6'42. Error. The Richelieu never participated in the battle of Mers el Kébir. Concerning him (her), you are confused with the battle of Dakar where the English and the free French were repelled.
In 1940 Petain quipped
Who needs enemies when you are allied to the British?
The Mad WW2 BATTLE that completely shocked the AXIS!!
Say what you want, but sending in waves upon waves of green and untested onto the beaches of France early on would have been an unimaginable disaster for the allies.
The Germans concentration of troops were MUCH higher there compared to later on. and they properly would have ended up with another Dunkirk just x10
Richelieu never went to Mers El Kébir. Dunkerque and Strasbourg were there and armor wise they were more battlecruisers than true battleships.
Dunkerque was crippled with just a few shots from Hood whereas Strasbourg managed to flee towards Toulon at full speed.
Turn up the music. The narrator is still heard.
Re. the British naval attack on the Vichy French fleet; Admiral Somerville sent one of his staff officers to carry out negotiations with the French Admiral, as Somerville spoke no French, whereas his staff officer was fluent in the language.
The French Admiral was outraged at being expected to deal with a mere captain - and refused to even meet him! The reality was that, in 1940, we were fighting for our survival, and the French Mediterranean fleet posed a potentially enormous threat to the Royal Navy in the Med.
Our view was simple; if that fleet was not placed on our side, or under our control, it must be destroyed. The French Admiral could have ordered the fleet to scuttle, in which case not a single French sailor would have been harmed. Instead, he chose to put his 'honour' before the lives of his men.
The French could have sailed to USA.
no excuse for such an infamy
@@stephanelorioz5013 At the time it looked like treachery. However the Vichy defence of North Africa against the USA proved that it had to be done. The French were broken and had to be neutralised.
@@gordonwood1594 You're totally missing the point : Mers El Kebir alone explains why french forces defended against Torch. You don't figure out the incredible level of resentment of french military against the brits after Mers El Kebir. Maybe the biggest infamy in all the french military history and you seem to view it as something rather benign
@@stephanelorioz5013 Not at all! The resentment is perfectly understandable. But they were killing Americans . The British were still fighting the Germans in the East and had comparatively little input in Torch.
Permettez que je fasse usage de ma langue pour commenter ce remarquable et méconnu reportage sur cette bataille de la seconde guerrre mondiale. J'ai servi mon pays, en tant qu'homme du rang, dans la marine de 1965 à 1966. Honneur Patrie, Valeur Discipline ne sont pas de vaines inscriptions. Les officiers de marines et autres avaient été nommés par le gouvernement de Vichy avec lequel ils partageaient la vision politique de l'époque. Le serment les liait donc à cette autorité "légitime". Avec le recul, ma pensée m incline à donner des circonstances atténuantes à ces soldats. Les forces alliées auraient peut-être mieux agi en démolissant politiquement cette "autorité légitime" avant d'utiliser le canon. Mais ce qui me choque le plus s appuie sur la faillite du renseignement allié au détriment de tous les soldats de part et d'autre. Personnellement j'aurais obéi à mes chefs fidèle à la parole donnée. Merci pour ce que vous faites.
Mon père a servie dans la marine de 80 à 96
Merci votre intéressant et éclairant témoignage.
Mmm mais du coup l'appel du 18 juin tu le vois comment?
La Royale a des avis politiques à l'époque très proche de Vichy c'est très vrai.
Mais le déshonneur de 1940 pour notre pays est terrible. Je préfère la technique de René Godefroy qui s'est rendu à Alexandrie pour la même opération (Catapult). Mers El Kebyr c'est de la faute des deux camps et des deux amiraux
German Perspective: „Wtf Are they doing?!…nah i stay the heck away for now…“
Clarifications: My point of view on this event implies the recognition of the goverrnment in London, and the negation of that of Vichy. This could have sowed doubt in the minds of those responsible....... Unfortunately!
The Jean Bart, "THE" last battleship to be completed
Vichy wasn't a puppy state : France didn't build armed planes and armoured vehicules to Germany. Compulsory work began in october 42 in Belgium and Netherlands ; but in february 43 in France.
We had to resist americans, to save the free zone in France.
When we knew that Hitler wanted to go south ; we joined the Allies.
That's so bullshit mate it wasn't at all free it was a puppet state completely under german control thanks to the collaborator such as Petain.
Why were they angry?
lol maginot line
"Fabulous", in the images, the Graf Spee participating in the battle....
...and the austro-hungaian battleship :D :D :D :D :D :D
ok we got it you don't like France
"FrAnCe BaD"
cry about it
Petains Vichy regime was fascist, with the Wehrmacht occupying a large part of France, with barbarous treatment for French men and women who opposed it, within the Vichy boarders. The gathering of Jewish children in Paris to be sent to Germany, by the French police, gives a picture of its nature. A deep, in your bones reaction to the rejection of the heirs of Vichy, in the latest election results, can be understood.
Paris was in German occupied zone. Not in Vichy France.
@@DT-wp4hkbut it was the french police that gathered them.
But the jews were the worst nazis. Its not only today.
Lol at the description
The thumbnail looks like Rodney/Nelson with a French flag.
The thumbnail IS Rodney / Nelson with a French flag. What is this supposed to mean except that minor detail like the nationality of a warship means nothing to the authors of this video.
I don't know
What a crappy video with great propaganda and false claims.
On the thumbnail for this video, would love to know why a (British) Nelson class BB is flying the French flag :)
unsurprisingly french bashing again... I guess we can't expect americans or british to understand the french stance or point of view. why do (almost, some do nice and neutral stuff with good analysis of the situation in each side) all americans and british "historical" video makers adopt a partial stance with biased informations. That's really sad cause both sides as a lot to learn from this period, but it feels like the goal is just to humiliate pseudo allies in front of them.
Because the French NEVER tell nor spread false narratives. So just ignore France ending in total defeat with the French military in shambles, a generation's worth of French boys in mass graves as enemy troops march down the streets of Paris as France lay under military occupation and call Napoleon "triumph" for France, right.....Why should we respect you when you tell such lies, and have been telling lies for 200 years? People are starting to see right through you, and bashing you more and more, France.
The point is that is was not about Germany Italy France etc Oder annexing any western counties it was all just about German inner affairs in the beginning and then later on just anti communism
Why is there a Nelson class battleship with the French Flag?
You're repeating the same thing over and over but somehow you mad it last 30min🙄
This video does not give an accurate account of the tragedy of Mers-el-Kebir. The alternatives offered by Admiral Somerville to the French admiral aren't reported accurately here - the video fails to mention the option of sailing to the French West Indies. So it wasn't a simple choice of join us or be sunk. I'm also surprised to hear that the battleship Richelieu was at Mers-el-Kebir. It wasn't it - it was at Dakkar in French West Africa at the time.
Drachinifel does a good video on it
Why do the French look so inept?
Look but not are.
@oliviervece6121 Well, it sure LOOKS like it.
Because they are. This is the same France that turned up to WW1 with horses, when Britain and Germany showed up with tanks.
@@jamesg9468try again. Inept comment.
Between the conquest of Poland and the invasion of France, Germany and the USSR were allies. The sizable French Communist Party and the smaller but well-positioned French fascists did a successful campaign to demoralize the French Army. Also, the French high commanders were incompetent. Interestingly, as the French military situation worsened, the French soldiers fought harder, and were very upset with the surrender.
In North Africa, all of the French military and naval officers, and those in charge of the civil government were all Vichy appointees, so were not initially interested in siding with the Allies.
Barely a minute in, and I know I won't sub to this channel. And had I took a shot every time this guy said something false, i'd probably be dead by now. Just another channel who thinks they can mock and change history. Rename your channel to "Fantasy-WW2 on TV"
An affront to French honor to join the Allies...meanwhile France had just been crushed by Germany...Nice logic.
Who gained the most out of WW2
Ford & GM built trucks, vehicles for both sides & Shell & other high octane gasoline suppliers, & whoever controlled rubber. These mongrels made money out of everyone, lust like the arms manufacturers are doing now.
🇮🇱
The USSR by far it occupied half of Europe pillage it ..
@@squirrel287the US got japan though and lost less men
@@justacat2 but the USSR was a traitor and didn't pay anything to repay that. They were allied with Germany but got treated as a winner. Also with or without the war Stalin would have killed many of its civilians.
French arrogance.
And you are probably british or US ?
British ready made comment with no orginality.
@onone7300 no it is aussie comment.
@@keithmcwilliams7424 no surprise there either
@@keithmcwilliams7424Average Virgin Cringe Brainless Fatherless Anti France Troll Fanboy taking Copium over here ⬆️