The Real Reason France Collapsed So Quickly In World War Two
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 พ.ค. 2024
- Just before dawn on 10 May 1940 the largest concentration of motorised vehicles in history roared into action. After months of quiet it was the start of Hitler’s invasion of the West. What followed was a stunning combination of new tactics and new technologies that left Britain and France - two world superpowers - reeling. Within 6 weeks the latter would sign a humiliating armistice, ensuring that almost all of continental Europe had fallen under the grip of Nazi rule.
But why did France fall so quickly? In this documentary Dan Snow tells the story of the 6 weeks that led to the Fall of France in 1940 and how its outcome helped shape the course of the 20th century.
Discover the past on History Hit with ad-free exclusive podcasts and documentaries released weekly presented by world renowned historians Dan Snow, Suzannah Lipscomb, Lucy Worsely, Mary Beard and more. Watch, listen and read history wherever you are, whenever you want it. Available on all devices: Apple TV, Amazon Prime Video, Android TV, Samsung Smart TV, Roku, Xbox, Chromecast, and iOs & Android.
We're offering a special discount to History Hit for our subscribers, get 50% off your first 3 months with code TH-cam: www.historyhit.com/subscripti...
#historyhit #battleoffrance #blitzkrieg
My dad was a tank commander at the battle of Arras, here he faced Rommel & the 88 flak, hastily used in AT role for his first time. He recalled being dive bombed along roads filled with refugees all the way to Dunkirk, where his regiment was embarked on the IOMSS Mona Isle which was straffed by bf109’s and he caught three in the back. From Dunkirk, to Berlin, via El Alamein was my dads journey. A proud Desert Rat
Almost all my family missed the war, my dad went in the US Navy in 1951 when he was 17 in time for Korea and became a cold warrior.
remarkable
Jesus, shot three times from a fighter plane and surviving...
@@cannae216 Maybe he got "lucky" with an early version BF-109 firing 7,92 mm... three 20 mm shells could have been really painful.
The British, such as your dad (and the women on the home front), did the most to save western civilization. American industry and logistics, Soviet size and numbers and Siberian Winter, and don't forget colonials contributions, everyone helped enormously, but the British stood alone when all seemed lost and the slave empires were winning and gave them the reverse victory sign. F off, we'll fight you to the last. Thank you to your father!
Slightly misleading to say that German tanks were mostly Pz III & IV when actually there were a lot of older models in use. One thing that rarely gets covered are the armoured clashes in Belgium between French armoured units and the Pz Divs accompanything the 'northern' thrust. The French actually did pretty well there.
Largely the problem seems to have been a failure of doctrine, leadership and comms (German radios vs French telephones and dispatch riders).
Congrats! You win the coveted "Actually..." award!
Add to that large quantities of wishful thinking and confirmation bias. Once you convince yourself Belgium is a good place to do battle because Belgium is not France and so burning the country down is hardly a dubious affair, you pretty much have set yourself up for a disaster.
I don't know about "older models"
The first clips of the Germans advances were Czech tanks which were decent tanks in the beginning days of the war (OK hopelessly outclassed in Russia)
@@g8ymwI think that between 20% and 50% of the tanks were Panzee I and II
@@herkamer98 I'll remove the word 'actually' and replace it with 'in fact' if you prefer? Do I still win the award?😁
The total incompetence of Charles Huntziger also deserves a mention. Bordering on collaboration. For more details I recommend the ww2 week by week series.
Also the Between Two Wars segments on the French political situation. France in the 20's and 30's was a dumpster fire 🔥.
The week-by-week series is really the only way to understand this or any war. It’s why the only people who understand what’s happening in Ukraine are focused on just that conflict 24/7.
You sir are a scholar and a gentleman... thank you sooooo much for that recommendation!!!! Twas the thing that was missing in my life, which I never knew was missing in my life!!!! I cannot thank you enough!!!!
A symptom and part of the problem: arrogance.
Huntziger later became an official in the collaborationist Vichy government, so his disloyalty is not in question. Some have suggested his disastrous handling of his army in the defense against the German invasion might also have been treason...
my mothers uncle jean fought in the maginot line. his other brother antoine was a doctor in paris (l'hotel dieu). their sister christine and my mothers older sister fled paris and found refuge in rennes.
Having spent decades reading and watching articles on the fall of France, the one conclusion I have come to is, the level of incompetence of the allies beggars belief.
France was a nation almost at war with itself, the inability to advance into Germany in 1939, to plans based on "allies" who did not want French and British troops on their soil were early indicators of the deep ineptitude of the allies. Much has been made of the French commanders failures in taking action, but the defeat had long been in the making, and if a wrong decision could be made, then it was made, and compounded by inertia.
France was on the brink of a civil war, "Spanish style". And as in Spain, the most combative anti-capitalist Socialists were the Anarco-syndicalists. But after the experience of the Spanish Civil War and WWII the Communists in France were about 30% of the electorate. In the WWII post-war France (and Italy, and Greece) may have fallen in the Communist Sphere.
@@DiotimaMantinea-qm5yt Communists in France actually aided the Nazi invasion.
@Kalarandir
I agree with most of your statements but you are wrong about the so called "allies" and that they did not want French or British troops on their soil.
I guess you mean the Dutch and Belgians, who were not part of the Allies at that point. The French and British declared war on Germany in 39, while the Dutch and Belgians were neutral countries and they wanted it to stay that way. Therefore they could not allow foreign military to move or to stay in their countries, otherwise they would have been at war with Germany itself.
This might have been naive but at least the Netherlands were neutral throughout the whole of WW1 and they made a lot of money as they were able to trade with everyone and Germany could get many goods only from the Netherlands, as they were isolated and under blockade by the Royal Navy.
So the idea to defend France inside Belgium and the plan finally not working out is 100% the French and British fault and not to blame the Belgians and Dutch for being bad allies.
@@sebastiangundolf6740 I agree with regards to the Dutch. However, the same cannot be said about the Belgians. They knew how things would develop, and fully expected the allies to come to their aid.
That said though, the allies also knew that they would be in a race do defend France in Belgium and I was stupidity to leave prepared positions and put themselves in a weakened position, but that was the plan. Whether it would have made much of a difference though is also up for debate given all the other issues with the allies.
In both wars, the BEF came under French command, and, as such, the language was an impediment to any agreed plan. Blame who you want, but it was the general failure of the countries to adhere to a plan. The Germans knew the weaknesses and exploited these to the fullest. It general it is the poor footslogger that takes the blame for command failures, yet they do not plan only carry out the operation. The higher up, the more catastrophic the failures, the typical examples, Gallipoli, Somme, Singapore, stalingrad, and D Day, German heavy tanks not allowed to advance to the braches on day one!
It is important to remember that about 90,000 French and French colonial soldiers died in the Battle of France. Looking at the captured French troops, I wonder what happened to those from their African colonies. Great video.
Many were used in propaganda films in which they were given blanks and the Germans used live rounds. Many more were simply executed by starvation.
@@louisavondart9178many colonial troops such as Senegalese troops were simply rounded up and executed
There is no denying those French people who did fight courageously, especially Partisans and the underground.
The most active/ effective among the death defying were young demobbed army officers, communists (post nazi attack on USSR), and ordinary French street criminals many of whom worked with British SOE. Post WW2, deGaulle banned all of them from any government employment "because they were deemed by him to be potential security risks" as "his thanks" for their service.
th-cam.com/video/DDZJPo_i5pM/w-d-xo.html
"Code Name Madeline" and "Babbet |Goes To War" were movies which tried to lightly outlined the generic operations without sickening their audiences with the fates realty dealt them.
@@louisavondart9178
On Victory Day (the massacres of May 8, 45), France killed more Africans than Germany during the war.
Without talking about their use as human shields and cannon fodder, and nuclear weapons being tested on them . 17 nuclear bombs were tested near the Algerian city of Reggane, four of which were in the air and were highly contaminated, and then 13 underground bombs in the middle of the mountains.
I love how he appears time to time to explain a little more in person, walking in nature to random directions, and walking away from the camera angle a bit faster at the end of the explanation. It reminds of the good old documentaries from the early 2000s, docs i can't get enough of :D
I can remember conversations with my grandfather, who was a soldier in the Wehrmacht in the Ardennes. He always said that they were totally surprised at how weak the French army was. The German officers had expected much more resistance, especially as the French had much more equipment than the Germans.
Many units simply ran away when the first German tanks appeared instead of fighting them. Especially in the first two days, it would have been easy to destroy the gigantic traffic jam of military vehicles in the Ardennes with a few targeted bombing raids.
Grandfather always said it was almost a miracle that it was so easy to advance deep into France in such a short time. They had actually feared another protracted trench war.
In the end, it was probably a total failure on the part of the Allied generals.
Fighting a tank with a rifle 🤣
I've read the German high command was concerned about the presence of the Char B1 tank on the battlefield. They were aware that they had few weapons to contend with it. There is a record of a Char B1 on the southern flank of the German advance careering through a German armored unit knocking out tank after tank and absorbing hits with impunity. The Char B1 was no wonder weapon and was nearing obsolescence, but it was still effective in 1940. But no matter how good the weapons might be, getting enough of them to the main part of the fight is the trick, and it was something the French proved wholly incapable of doing.
You grandfather was right but there is an explanation to this situation: it's the result of huge strategic and tactical mistakes. To make it short:
1- The bulk of the French army was in Belgium (this was the trap the allies fell into) and a big part of the best troops was in the Maginot line! Why? Because the idea was that the main forces would counter-attack in Belgium the alleged main German attack while the Maginot line would secure the central part (which it did btw) and the Ardennes in the South were completely underestimated since they were considered as "naturally protected" so to speak, by the configuration of the terrain, "impassable" for tanks ...
2- Consequently, in front of the Ardennes were only some reserve units with rifles, almost no anti-tank weapons and no communication means out of dispatch riders. In front of them: the main attack of the German forces ... It was the weakest point in the French defense and that's where the front collapsed. It's the only place where it ended in total chaos but it was the worst place to experience a setback like this, which paved the way for the encirclement of the allied forces (French and British). This is the miracle your grandfather is referring to...The German plan was brilliant and bold but they were lucky at the time to face an ennemy making all the possible mistakes he could ...
3- Then the Maginot line was taken from behind as well as the whole remaining French army retreating from Belgium as soon as they understood they had been trapped and trying not to be encircled. This mess ended up in Dunkirk from which the Britich fled away to England, protected by 30,000 French troops who sacrificed themselves without even gaining recognition of their "friends". After the debacle in Dunkirk there were no other available forces in metropolitan France and the game was over. The rest is history.
@@patolt1628 so after handing Germany Czechoslovakia & hiding behind the Maginot line watching the NAZIs rape Poland, the allies made a strategic error?
@@gneisenau89 "careening"
One thing that may be understated is the Germans use of Pervitin, which can explain their multi-day attacks and also the crashes that resulted.
Pervitin, a/k/a methylamphetamine, a/k/a meth, a/k/a speed.
FACT !
" to the Victors go the spoils"
the Victors tell the narrative
The Wermact SUPER SOLDIERS were on Amphetamines
So We're U.S. Military
And Allied Armed Forces
Look ppl have ALWAYS been on
' something '
U S. Labor force on Amphetamines b4 Industrial be Revolution!
Sweat shops,steel Mills, tunnels,and more.
Nothing New Under the SUN
THE HUMAN HEART HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE BEGINNING OF TIME
WHAT MAKES BABY BOOMERS BE THINK THEY ARE SO SPECIAL!?!?
WE ARE NOT !
We think we are so slick...
Sex revolution happened early 20th Century in Russia!
So many abortions Russian powers- LENIN ,stopped sexual promiscuity !
Point!!!?
Look at COCA COLA Entrainment Early years-
COCAINE!
LAUDANUM; OPIUM DENS NYC/ SAN FRANCISCO OPIUM DENS ;,DETROIT
Men,women,children . . .
they all did it.
We copied Z German innovations during those horrible WARS WWI & WWII ...
WE USED DOPE ,SPEED
METHAMPHETAMINES;
MOTHER'S LITTLE HELPERS- U P P E R S
D O W N E R S - VALIUM,QUAALUDES. . . . . . WALLACE 500s ...
and, Dexadrine ,Dizoxin ,and
Whole lotta mo' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great film footage.
Good mention that the Belgians and the Dutch insisted on remaining neutral.
About that - The Netherlands had sat out WWI - so - they did have some reason to believe that they could sit out this one too. That and they were indefensible.
The Belgians though - had been invaded in WWI and had every reason to believe they would be invaded again. They, however, went into denial and clung to their "Neutrality" past all sense.
The Germans had in fact (something you left out) been planning on doing exactly what they did in WWI - in putting their primary thrust through Northern Belgium just as with the von Schlieffen Plan.
However - a German staff plane - carrying the plans for the invasion - came down in Belgium and was captured.
The Belgians turned over the plans to the British and French - but when they wanted to enter Belgium and set up - the Belgians insisted on remaining neutral.
This was mindbogglingly stupid.
*_THEY HAD THE PLANS FOR THEIR INVASION IN THEIR HANDS!!!!!!_*
For them to not allow the British and the French in - was utterly unbelievable.
Make no mistake - THIS - is the primary reason the Allies lost in 1940.
The Belgians had built up about as good an Army as Belgium could support - but - THEY just didn't have the troops to man a line that could stop the Germans.
IF the French had been able to come in - and emplace a line of French Infantry Corps through the Ardennes - they could stop the Germans - IF - the British committed the bulk of the RAF to the defense of the continent - instead of keeping it back to defend Britain.
Because their Plans had been captured THAT is why Manstein proposed going through the Ardennes. Going through the Ardennes was stupid - as the Germans found out in 1944 - but having no one there - was worse. There were 2 Belgian Cavalry divisions in the whole of the Ardennes and for the most part - the Germans never even noticed they were there.
There were a number of things wrong with the French Military but - maintaining such a static line that the Germans couldn't turn - was just the type of thing it _could_ do. What it could not do - was handle a War of Maneuver - and that is what the Belgians allowed the Germans to have.
.
Nicely summed up.👍
They did respond to the captured plans. They assembled the French 7th Army under General Giraud to drive along the coast just on the left of the BEF to try to link up with the Dutch at Breda. Of course it failed. All it did was create confusion and traffic congestion for the Allies during the early phases of the Dyle Plan.
But much worse. Forming the 7th Army and giving it this stupid last minute mission stripped the French Army of all of its mobile reserves. These were the formations that shoud have been in reserve to stop the German army breakthrough at Sedan. It was this fatal diversion of ALL French army reserves which ensured defeat.
*Those plans were shared with the Dutch, the French and the British.. So what's your point?
*Is it that hard to comprehend that Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg held on to their neutrality? 3 small countries squeezed between the giant moloch's: Germany, France and Britain. Switzerland, Sweden and Ireland did the same. The USA staid neutral. The Sovjet Union signed a non-aggression pact with the nazi's. Allowing foreign troops on their land would have been in violation with their neutrality.
*First you write: "Going through the Ardennes was stupid".
Then you write: "but having no one there - was worse".
And then you write: "There were 2 Belgian Cavalry divisions in the whole of the Ardennes"..
Please tell me, what is it?
And then you write: "the Germans never even noticed they were there".
And yet, it took the German recon elements 3 days to reach Sedan.. Were they lost? Did they take the wrong exit?
What you left out is that Belgium was a staunch ally of France after the First World War until 1936. When Hitler marched into the Rhineland, violating several treaties and menacing the Belgian borders, yet the French and British did nothing, the Belgian government lost confidence in Allied promises of support and reverted to neutrality. The wisdom of this decision can be debated, but it did not come out of nowhere.
@@colinhunt4057 Yes, the Breda Manoeuvre was the fatal variation of the Dyle Plan, which was made necessary by the Belgian and Dutch refusal to allow Allied forces to enter their territories before hostilities began. The mobile forces allocated to the 7th Army were exactly those from the French reserve Gamelin was missing, which might have enabled an effective response to the German surprise through the Ardennes...
A French tank officer had driven his tanks through the Ardennes in about 1938. His report was ignored.
Well, there's even more to it than that,
The French HC knew the Ardennes were NOT impassable by armoured vehicles. This had been demonstrated at least 3 times during the 1930s by officers within the French army, with kriegspiels, terrain recons et map studies.
@@Raph1805 Yes, but they didn't think you could support the tanks logistically through the Ardennes.
@@in3x Pretelat's Kriegspiel in 1938 demonstrated that armoured columns could cross the Ardennes and reach the Meuse in 3 to 4 days, which corresponds to what actually happened.
In this, his only confirmed what the previous terrain recons et map studies had already concluded.
I read a story of a French blockhouse there that held off the German advance for most of a day . How history could have been changed if a little more effort was done before the war to block any invasion routes.
Stupid officers & stupider politicians.
It's wild that The Maginot Line was based off of the defensive fortification ideas of Vauban, LouisXIVs top military engineer, and eventually Marshall of France.
He tried to get funding for his mutual support fortifications to be built between France and Belgium, but proposed taxing the Nobility.
The story says that Vauban suggested that the Nobles needed to be taxed to defend France properly. And LouisXIV responded that if he taxed the Nobles, there would be no France left to defend.
Dude saw this coming some 200+ years before it did. What a legend. Too bad he didnt get his funding.
Captain Mainwaring:
"I knew they'd never get through the Maginot Line."
Sgt Wilson:
"They didn't. They went round the side of it."
Captain Mainwaring:
"They what?!!"
Sgt Wilson:
"They went round the side!!"
Captain Mainwaring:
"That's a typical shabby Nazi trick. You see the kind of people we are up against Wilson?!"
Sgt Wilson:
"Most unreliable, sir."
Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler...
If you think we are on the run...
I was watching some old episodes, trying to find this scene, any clues?
@@petesoneone
Its from the 1971 feature film.
Deladier telling Churchill that he had no reserves reminded me of Gen Pickett telling Gen Lee, "General, I have no division."
I never knew that Daladier had a southern drawl.
@@ericvantassell6809 Daladier? His birthplace is listed as Vaucluse in southern France.....🤔😉
but the video stated it was General Gamlin who told Wiston Churchill .
@@robertcuny934 While the Brits legged it with their tales flapping.
@@jamesjukebox2386 still beat Germany didn't they?
@@fatbadboy329 You mean with a little help from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Free French, free Polish and the Soviet Union and other Allies.
Thanks! You clarified some important details!
Failure of French leadership was the reason. A lot of French gear was superior to German when it was used right.
The Germans used captured French dquipment in their formations in Operation Barbarossa in 1941. This was particularly true for artillery and trucks.
french failure was the most humiliating defeating until Biden lost Afghanistan.
Always interesting 👍
Love these detailed documentary programs. Very interesting and informative. Thankyou Dan, please send more to youtube as I cannot afford the History channel
You're not smarter?
EXCELLENT, as usual. Thanks for this presentation.
The French defence tactics in the second phase of the campaign were actually quite effective in slowing German advances. The problem was their losses had been to their better units and so they didn't have the operational reserves.
Hardly relevant. They lost the battle before the start.
Yes, they learned, but too late.
And by that stage they were badly outnumbered
@@user-ij5lc1kw8r That's pretty much what the OP said...
French tactics and strategy were wrong and they did not have the fortitude to continue he war and suffer the inevitable losses.
When Paris Went Dark: The City of Light Under German Occupation is an excellent read. There's a section that talks about how Picasso FREAKED out on everyone thinking someone had stolen his flashlight. He had misplaced it and of course never apologized to those he accused. But it is an excellent read
Thanks for the book recommendation. :)
you must be commenting on some other video
@Losangelesharvey I am guessing you are struggling here. The op pointed out a book called "When Paris Went Dark: The City of Light Under German Occupation" highlighting a section about Picasso.
This is a video about the collapse of the French at the beginning of World War 2, which led to a multi year occupation. Which that book discusses...
I'm not sure what else can be said, I thought it was a nice book recommendation myself.
Any attempt to feel the desperation of both French and especially British citizens at this moment is difficult if not impossible. Put into modern terms the intrusion of the Russian military into the same area today might well spell the end of civilization to many. To those who lived through these awful times my heart goes out to you. Deplorable.
Russia in 2024 is not capable of any serious warfare.
Amen to that.
A cheap gesture. Virtue signaling.
Keep making these vids. I loved the Master and Commander one you did.
Hitler had expected a million Germans to die in conquering France; instead, his goal was accomplished in just six weeks with only 27,000 Germans killed, 18,400 missing and 111,000 wounded, little more than a third of the German casualties in the Battle of Verdun during World War 1. The unexpectedly swift victory resulted in a wave of euphoria among the German population and a strong upsurge in war-fever. Hitler's popularity reached its peak with the celebration of the French capitulation on 6 July 1940.
And then he thought he could easily do in the USSR and start a war against the USA.
Oooops.
@@lyndoncmp5751 By contrast the Germans lost 800,000 men in Operation Barbarossa.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-
Yep, and ultimately the war.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Not true. The USA declared defacto war against Germany when France and Britain did. Churchill and Roosevelt had conspired for such a war since 1935 or so.
Germany invaded the Soviet Union in a peremptory strike. The latter was poised to invade Germany and western Europe a month or so later. Books are available that deal with this extensively. I cannot name them here as that would get me banned by YT again.
You guys produce more quality content then I have free time to watch it. That is VERY rare.
And I'm not sure if anyone ever told you, Dan Snow is like English equivalent of Boguslaw Woloszanski, famous Polish historian and tv host of most renowned historical docuseries in polish television called "Sensacje XX wieku" (The Sensations of the 20th Century"), mostly revolving around Second World War and Cold War. Look it up in YT, you'll know what I mean.
Quality? Never have so many being dubbed by so few.
Ahh that's nice Dan's got a new friend
Very well explained.
The real Reason?
Never were so many fooled by so few.
Thanks for your work! Would you be able to make a video about the importance of colonies into the war effort against Nazi Germany and their allies?
Even after all those years on TH-cam, I can't imagine - nor suffer - that British journalists are still trying to invent the history of France without asking to French people.
However, this document is the British most accurate I ever visionned, so thank you for your efforts. In France, we hardly get to this level of synthesis.
But there are still inventions and interpretations instead of easy-to-find French (or German) testimonies ! History is not a story!
One day we will have a common history - even for the Hundred yars War (I hope).
even in this video he says they just laid down their arms and fled. Sure some of them may have but he made it sound like this was just common. I'm sure that if they have been given better leadership and better tactics they would have fought hard and long. Look what they did in the first war, they were just as tough as anybody yet us americans make fun of them for surrendering
@@fredgarv79 Lots of accurate documents are available in French only alas, clearly showing what happened.
What shall We French do? Let the English repeat lies and laugh on their f**in island, as usual.
I think one thing that is often forgot from the german "Blitzkrieg" (called bewegungskrieg at the time) is the most important element, the entire point of it which is encirclement, the reason it fell so quickly is because the coast meant natural encirclement aided the effort.
Great point!
No, Hitler halted the advance to allow the infantry and logistics to catch up.
If it was down to Guderian, he would have carried on
Have a look at this vid from The Tank Museum, th-cam.com/video/EPKp-GKgbl0/w-d-xo.html
@@g8ymw But they still used Blitzkreig...
@@EnglishScripter When you use blitzkreig and your infantry backup is on foot and your supplies are on horse and cart, you very soon outrun your logistics and have to stop.
I bet you haven't looked at the link I put up
@@g8ymw They had motorised logistics they were not the polish. Have you even looked at Calais, and dunkirk.
Well done. Enjoyed it immensely. Cheers from Tennessee
This was really well done.
Excellent work. Thank you.
The initial point is misleading that Germany was weak in the west. Mobilisation was slow in France so by the time they started advancing towards Germany on 9 Sept, France had 30 divisions vs 40 German ones. Furthermore French C-in-C indicated that they would not be ready to attack Germany until 1941. So the French advance was a demonstration and not a real offensive.
In his diary, Halder talks about the care the Germans were taking in monitoring the French mobilization so they could meticulously match it with appropriate forces in the West...
As even your original footage shows, Pz2 and Czech tanks were dominant. PZ 3s and 4s were rather rare still.
The lighter tanks were still the majority even by Operation Barbarossa in 1941. It only really changed by end 1941/42.
That was the thing with De Gaulle, you overwhelm him but then he sometimes always comes back. 😅
One error: I believe that Guderian wasn't yet high enough in rank to command the "armoured corps". He was the lead divisional commander, and had trained the other commanders, and done most to organize the development and training of the armoured divisions in the first place. But during the invasion, the armoured divisions were organized in three corps of two divisions each, plus supporting units. (One division would be transferred to the invasion of the Netherlands once that was definitely decided upon, but would be virtually shorn of tanks. It was replaced with some mechanized battalions.) Guderian would be promoted to Corps Commander following the successful invasion, and would hold this position during Barbarossa. During the invasion of France, he reported to a corps commander (who would complain about him not following orders) who reported to von Rundstedt (who would let him go ahead initially, saying "he knows what he's doing.").
Guderian would always claim more for his roles than they actually comprised, but he really had a lot to prove about the capabilities and strategic importance of using the new armoured divisions, and was in a real hurry to do so.
I also believe that de Gaulle was not in command of an armoured division during the Battle, although he had argued in general terms for the use of tanks in future wars. The confusion may also have to do with the much more dispersed use of tanks among French forces. There were many types, and many sorts of units had some. The French had only three somewhat experimental armoured divisions during the invasion, and none were actually used in battle, although one came close but ran out of fuel.
It should be noted that Blitzkrieg is not simply intended to outmaneuver the enemy, that is a means to an end. Blitzkrieg is intended to create a psychological shock to paralyze decision making. The speed of teh enemy movement creates uncertainty, an inability to assess the rapidly eveolving situation, and complete inability to plan -- creating a sense of defeat.
The Germans did not use the term Blitzkrieg and used the term 'Kombinierter Waffenkrieg' so I doubt they meant that, but in any case this is up to date. Blitzkrieg was a physical and psychological weapon at the same time
@@jaaackaissa1633 The term frequently used by the Germans at the time was "Bewegungskrieg", or the war of movement. The Germans used it on a large scale in Operation Barbarossa in 1941. However, they had insufficient fuel to continue the offensive beyond September 1941, which is why they ground to a halt for a month. In 1942 they only had sufficient fuel for one army group, Army Group South for the Fall Blau campaign. After that, Germany did not have suffficient fuel to ever again launch an offensive capable of penetrating into the strategic rear of any Allied army.
@@colinhunt4057How smart do I have to be to realize how stupid i am?
John Boyd later described that as the OODA loop. To win you need to Observe, Orient, Decide and Act faster than your opponent. If you achieve that, your opponent becomes confused, makes mistakes and becomes paralyzed.
Just think if there had been an effective defense against Hitler when Germany attacked Poland. If it doesn’t make you think of Ukraine’s current situation, it should.
The Soviets also attacked Poland, two weeks after the Germans. This had been agreed to in a secret Codicil to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Soviets then went on to invade Finland, forcibly occupy the Baltic States, as well as forcibly occupy two provinces of Romania.
Never forget that the Soviet Union were also pivotal in starting WWII - and they were on the 'wrong' side until Germany betrayed them.
@@gdutfulkbhh7537 The Soviet Union was on the wrong side for the entirety of its existence. Communists are worse than Nazis.
Just think...if instead of declaring war on Germany and plunging the world into darkness, the other great powers had pressured Poland into giving up the Danzig corridor and allowed the former German people there to be protected instead of abused and eventually wiped out by the Poles. Ethnic cleansing was common in those days, as it is today in Ukraine and Palestine. What if....Great Britain had partnered with Germany against the evil of Communism? What if Great Britain and France, instead of starting WWII with their foolish declaration of war and their useless guarantees to preserve Poland-- a state created out of Prussia by treaty--had actually agreed to a limited incursion and helped negotiate a settlement? Who knows. The war ended Great Britain as a power and created the Soviet monster that ended up being worse than Germany ever was. What is lost in the annals of propaganda passing for history is that Hitler admired and loved the English and tried for years to make alliances with them, always rebuffed. Nothing is worse than a massive war, a lesson forgotten by Churchill and others who led their nations into WWI. GB and France made a terrible mistake...and the entire world has suffered because of it.
History is written by the winners.
Great video. Perhaps one day you can demonstrate how to drive it.
I love this Narrator !
Salud
Permit me to state it briefly:
1. When the Maginot Line was to be constructed there was an agreement between France, Great Britain and Belgium that at first threat of war, the British and French forces would be allowed in Belgium and into prepared positions. France had a superior supply/logistics/rail network than the Germans in WW1 and at the beginning of WW2. The French could move an entire army in three days during WW1. If Belgians had keep the agreement, Germany would have been defeated right out of the box. However, the Belgium King changed the agreement and would not allow Britain and France to station troops in Belgium. So those forces were in transit when Germany attacked in May 1940.
2. Great sections of western Germany had been occupied from 1918 through the middle 30s. Yes, the French started an offensive and penetrated for a number of miles. There was no German armor. France had never created a local intelligence operation and feared that because it could not create a logistics line that it should retreat. So, lack of intelligence was critical.
3. On the Belgian front, the Germans perfected an attack plan. The German artillery would develop what appeared to be a random series of poor artillery hits in front of the Belgian forts. German troops practiced running to the craters as the artillery advanced. The false hype was that the Germans won the Belgian forts because they used glider troops. If the British and French had been allowed into established positions, the Germans would have been defeated.
4. Rommel violated orders and invaded early. His plan was to eliminate enough strong points so that they could not have interlapping fire. He created a path and went in. At mid night, he over ran the French reserve. Physically, he had to go back through the Maginot Line to get more troops. The German high command did not know what he was doing. As Rommel started outrunning his logistics, he kept going because if he stopped, his forces would have been wiped out.
Don't forget Meth...which allowed some German troops to push through fatigue.
Fun facts:
At the time of the armistice, out of the 53 outposts within the Maginot Line, 45 remained uncaptured.
On May 14th, 1940, Rommel (probably one of the best tank commander that ever lived) who commanded the 7th Panzer division, crossed the Meuse river . He found himself around Onaye with his tank when it was hit by artillery. He was wounded and left his damaged tank along with the rest of the crew. They hid in a shallow ravine, meanwhile the French troops were no more than a few hundred feet away and advancing forward. Fortunately for him, German tanks arrived just in time. While the French fought hard (including one artillery guy who would take out 7 German tanks with a 25mm cannon) it simply wasn't enough... fresh German reinforcement as well as the Luftwaffe showed up too.
Still makes you wonder if Rommel had been captured, how would that have changed the course of WW2....
In fact they lost by their demography too, it was lost by advance . France 39M citizens vs Germany 83M citizens(Anshluss) and Italy 43M citizens...;so not enought reserve, mainpower, manufactures..
For whatever reason, you prefer to embezzle from the French colonies and from the corresponding colonial troops (Algerians, Senegalese).
not counting the Belgian, British and for four days Dutch armies...
I think it happened for 3 reasons:
1. turning around when it got complicated.
2. instead of fleeing to a defensive position, they crouched.
3. they got naked.
Thanks
So where is the REAL reason? Not explained.
The Belgians fought well (despite some comments to the contrary during the battle), and did not crack under the bombing of the Luftwaffe and the German attempts to break through (unlike some French units as noted in this video). But they did not "surrender" as such; that headline at 19:43 is misleading. King Leopold ordered his army to lay down their weapons and cease resistance AGAINST the advice of his own Cabinet which he was constitutionally required to heed. As a result, Lord Gort suddenly found there was an undefended open gap between Ypres and the sea through which the Germans could proceed unopposed.
Leopold went into exile in Switzerland at war's end, but when he returned in 1950 the Belgian population violently reacted and he soon abdicated in favour of his son.
"The Belgians fought well (despite some comments to the contrary during the battle), and did not crack under the bombing of the Luftwaffe and the German attempts to break through (unlike some French units as noted in this video)"
Okay... Are we going to talk about the Flemish troops? Many of them didn't fight at all and surrendered straight away. Why? Because they were separatists and pro-German. Yes, the Belgians fought well, but let me remind you we are talking about the Walloons. Maybe you can also tell me why the Flemish POWs were immediately released while the Walloons had to spend five years in German detention?
@@phlm9038 You are both right. The Belgian capitulation took place as described, but Belgium provided NO advance warning of what it was about to do. Thus a potentially defensible situation became completely impossible after the Belgians collapsed.
The Belgians failed to hold their fortified positions along the Albert Canal Line as expected, which created problems for the British and French trying to take up their own positions along the Dyle River. It was (false) assurances from Belgium about their preparations which encouraged the British and French to move forward to the Dyle River Line...
The British army took up a rear guard retreat after Dunkirk,I think this is largely forgotten .My father was shot down on 11th June.We went to France in 1995 and I noticed a lot of graves dated well after Dunkirk.
8:50 - Nice vid. First time I see him on video
min 2 : The Soviets invaded Poland with Germany. They planned it together
Yes they planned it together but whereas the Germans invaded on September 1st, the Soviets invaded from the east on September the 17th.
Yet Allies not only didnt declared on soviets, but allied with them😂
Yes, and Poland also stole territory from Czechoslovakia in 1938 when Germany carved it up...
Excellent mini documentary
Lesson, in a question:
How many times has France been invaded since it developed its own nuclear weapons arsenal?
Outstanding video !! ❤
Tell us!
Prof Adam Tooze, Wages of Destruction.
Page 371.
_The German army that invaded France in May 1940 was far from being a carefully honed weapon of modern armoured warfare. Of Germany's 93 combat ready divisions on May 10 1940, only 9 were Panzer divisions, with a total of_ *_2.438_* _tanks between them. These units faced a French army that was more heavily motorised, with_ *_3,254_* _tanks in total._
....Half the German tanks that invaded the west were armed only with a machinegun!! The German Army was not on equal footing with the French when in fact it was vastly inferior.
- The Great Tank Scandal:
_....By May 1940 Britain had 7 regiments equipped with 28 light tanks plus 44 scout carriers each. There was also 1 regiment of armoured cars with 38 Morris light reconnaissance cars. There was also an Army Tank brigade with two regiments of infantry tanks. That gave a total of 308 tanks of which had a 2pdr gun the rest had machine guns. Ist Armoured Division started to arrive in France from late May. However many of the Cruiser tanks were so recently issued that their crews had only been half trained on them and many lacked wireless sets, sighting telescopes and even armour piercing ammunition._
Dutch, Belgian, UK & French tanks in total was *4,200* tanks.
Tooze, page 371/372.
_Nor should one accept unquestioningly the popular idea that the concentration of the Germans tanks in specialised tank divisions gave them a decisive advantage. Many French tanks were scattered amongst the infantry units, but with their ample stock of vehicles the French could afford to do this. The bulk of France's best tanks were concentrated in armoured units, that, on paper at least, were every bit a match for the Panzer divisions._
Page 377
_The Germans not only committed all their tanks and planes. In strictest conformity with the Schwerpunkt principle, they committed them on an astonishingly narrow front. The Luftwaffe sacrificed no less than 347 aircraft, including virtually all its transports used in the air landings in Holland and Belgium._
Page 378
_if Allied bombers had penetrated the German fighter screen over the Ardennes they could have wreaked havoc amongst the slow moving traffic with highly inflammable fuel tankers were interspersed with the fighting vehicles at the very front with the armoured fighting vehicles. The plan called for the German armoured columns to drive for three days and nights without interruption._
.....The drivers were put on speed pills.
Page 379
_success would not have been possible had it not been for the particular nature of the battlefield. The Channel coastline provided the German army a natural obstacle to pin their enemies, an obstacle which could be reached within few hundred kilometres of the German border. The Germans benefited from the well made sense network of roads. In Poland in 1939 the Wehrmacht had struggled to maintain the momentum of its motorized troops when faced with far more difficult conditions. A close analysis of the of the mechanics of the Blitzkrieg reveals the astonishing degree of concentration achieved, but an enormous gamble that Hitler and the Wehrmacht were taking on May 10._
Page 380
_because it involved such a concentrated use of force, Manstein's plan was a one-shot affair. If the initial assault had failed, and it could have failed in many ways, the Wehrmacht as an offensive force would have been spent. The gamble paid off. But contrary to appearances, the Germans had not discovered a patent recipe for military miracles. The overwhelming success of May 1940, resulting in the defeat of a major European military power in a matter of weeks, was not a repeatable outcome._
Tooze, page 373:
_In retrospect, it suited neither the Allies nor the Germans to expose the amazingly haphazard course through which the Wehrmacht had arrived at its most brilliant military success. The myth of the Blitzkrieg suited the British and French because it provided an explanation other than military incompetence for their pitiful defeat. But whereas it suited the Allies to stress the alleged superiority of German equipment, Germany's own propaganda viewed the Blitzkrieg in less materialistic terms._
Tooze page 380.
_In both campaigns [France & Barbarossa], the Germans gambled on achieving decisive success in the opening phases of the assault. Anything less spelled disaster._
...If the Blitzkrieg's belt broke the whole movement stopped. The Germans thought they had formulated a version of Blitzkrieg in France that was a sure-fire success. They used this in the USSR, just scaling up forces. They did not have the intelligence to assess properly, that the reason for their success was allied incompetence not anything brilliant they did.
.
Well I believe the Quarter master chief of the German Army said their maximum sustainable supply lines In the USSR was 800 miles and they were at double that at Stalingrad
After 1941 Soviets simply let the Germans run themselves out , traded useless space of which they had an abundance for precious time
when your enemies success is more down to dumb luck and total stupidly on your allies side.
Klockern, nicht kleckern!
very impressive to find here reference to a very clever book by prof Tooze. They say "kudos" in English, don't they?
Great book!
I worked with a French lady and she said theres a saying in France that they are always one war behind
Yes. In the sense that WW1, and WW2, were actually one war with a 20 year ceasefire. A quote by Marshal Ferdinand Foch, the French military commander said “This isn’t a peace treaty, this is a ceasefire for 20 years!” Foch reportedly made this remark in response to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles which ‘ended’ WW1.
The victor in 1918 prepared to refight the last war. While the loser in 1918 chose not to follow the old plan. The plan that failed in 1914
The French Army sacrificed itself outside Dunkirk. Guarding the evacuation to England
@@bradleypierce1561 Yes, but he said that because the treaty was not that harsh, it was inconsistent and not respect over time.
It's indeed a saying, tactically the French army always planned for tactics and strategy fitting the previous war. In 1870 the French 2nd Empire was using the same tactics as during the Crimean War, in 1914 the Plan 17 planned for an attack near Sedan from the Germans (ironically where they'd attack in 1940) like in 1870. And well 1940 you got it here.
French material has historically always been top notched, and army usually really good. But with the notable exception of the late 100 years war, 30 years war, Napoleonic wars and 1918 campaign, French tactics and strategies have always been outdated to their current time.
I like this video, but I've never been to dunkirk or the ardenness. I was hoping this video would show the beach at dunkirk, or some of the ardenness roads, maybe one of the crossing points on the meuse where the German pontoon bridge was. Just an idea for a future video.
Same happened in Singapore two years later. There were common themes.
Extreme overconfidence in the idea of redoubts at the expense of airpower and adequately arming troops in contact. Failure to manoeuver and little or no art when it came to making a fighting retreat.
In the case of Singapore losing the capital ships, Prince of Wales and Repulse were a case study in military incompetence. A few weeks earlier HMAS Sydney was lost due to similar incompetence.
I have never seen the photo of all those horse drawn wagons abandoned by the British and French forces.
Not by the British, who were 100% mechanised at the time.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 I never find good information about logistics in the Battle for France. Any reading you could recommend?
@@garywiseman5080 They do seem to be few & far between. However, this :-
'A great feat of Improvisation. Logistics and the British Expeditionary Force in France 1939-1940.' By Clem Maginniss, looks at the subject from the BEF's point of view.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Thanks!
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Quite right. The British were 100% motorized at the time, as was the United States. All of the European nations particularly including Germany and France depended primarily on horse drawn transport to move their artillery and supplies for the infantry. The Germans had truck transport for their 10 Panzer divisions only. They had no fuel for any more motorization. Italy having even less fuel was even worse off for motor transport, let alone tanks.
Incredible video.
Thank you all, so much.
Every single little snippet of info is important.
Well done HH!
Please, by all means…keep it flowing!
😎👍❤
I love Reynaud’s eyebrows
Normally its the attacker that has the hardest job but the allies moves were widely predictable given the known political constraints and were planned against. In war being so predictable is deadly.
I recall reading somewhere that in 1920 the number of children born in Germany was 10 times of that in France. If true, it goes a long way to explain why things went they way they did. German army: eager 20-year olds indoctrinated in Nazi ideology since childhood vs. French army: tired middle-aged family men who survived the previous great war just to be drafted into another. There was only one way it could have ended.
sorry I highly doubt birth in Gernany were ten times the birth in France. Fertily rate were similar for those two country, higher population in Germany (62M vs 40M) means higher birth but not ten times.
Not true at all.. Nearly half of the German invasion force were over the age of 40!! Many used horse-drawn vehicles as well, it was just the German propaganda videos that made it appear they were mostly young, healthy men in modern tanks.
France was also still suffering from Napoleon's wars casualty list. They lost so many men, their population still hadn't recovered by WW1, which then dealt another blow.
According the the website Statistia, the birthrate in Germany in 1920 was 2.46 children born per woman of childbearing age, whereas in France that same year it was at a low point in the interwar years at 1.68. That's a huge difference. Germany's population was about 62 million in 1920 versus about 39 million for France and with that many more women of childbearing age each bearing almost a whole extra child apiece, that's a lot of kids, but probably not 10 times as many. I think it's pretty clear, though, that were a lot more 19 year old men in Germany in 1939 than there were in France.
@@gneisenau89 Thank you for information, that's only one year though, & it also depends on just how many each side mobilized.
While the above stat is relevant, another of France's issues was that it got hoodwinked by Germany into believing a major attack would come through the Maginot line, so it kept about 41 divisions there, whilst the Germans only had about 17, & moved their forces elsewhere. It doesn't get mentioned much, if at all.
If the average divisional strength is say about 12k, that's 492k v 204k. While some of these were lower quality (the same could be said for the Germans), & most of the best units went to Belgium, there was also a British unit of Regulars. This leaves up to 288k that could have been used elsewhere.
This may have completely altered the balance in the Ardennes sector. Even just holding the Germans for a few more days would have caused chaos for them, due to the traffic jams which had built up behind the front. It was imperative the Germans moved forward fast to free up all these units. Germany also had limited fuel reserves, & a lot of the units that did reach Dunkirk, used fuel from French fuel stations/garages, as their own supplies didn't get through.
It would also give the Allies time to send reserves (whether the Allies would use this time efficiently & effectively is another matter).
No mention of the superiority of the Luftwaffe over the French and British air forces in France - mostly the French. Which is due to poor doctrine, lack of investment (the money was spent on the Maginot line) and the many deficiencies in the French aircraft industry.
All symptomatic of the deep seated issues in French society and its military. And beyond that, the perennial French problem of how to contain Germany - the historical strategy of alliance with Russia was now a guarantee to defend Poland, which France and Britain could not do.
"No mention of the superiority of the Luftwaffe over the French and British air forces in France - mostly the French."
No, that's not so. That is mentioned more than once.
The Luftwaffe had taken a hell of a beating in France, many Jagdgescwader lacking many a/c from their Gruppes? It had not been a one sided fight in the air for the Germans?
The Luftwaffe failed to attain air superiority over the RAF around Dunkirk though. In the words of one Luftwaffe officer when the battle got to Dunkirk "the days of easy victory were over, at Dunkirk we met the RAF head on".
Not quite french air force doctrine was alright for the time. And they had invested quite a bit on aircraft
(One can debate on weather they invested in the right aircraft or not).
The biggest issue for the air force was a extremely badly handled mobilisation that left units seriously understrength and poor coordination with the army.
The royal air forces big problem was lack of aircraft and poor choices of aircraft before the war. They had numerous useless aircraft like the fairey battle which cost a lot of trained pilots in fruitless operations.
The french had major organizational problems.
Luckily the Luftwaffe were led by a bunch of your typical Nazi boneheads all conniving against one another and informed by very ironically named intelligence services. They had the benefit of experience from Spain, Poland etc, but they were not a very professional outfit, more like the arrogant gentleman's service people wrongly associate with the RAF. The RAF were a very professional outfit, Fighter Command especially being led by a man decades ahead of his time. Dowding knew his stuff inside out and built a defence infrastructure that was staggeringly effective and advanced. I think that Dowding's achievement has never been recognised for how good it was. Luckily the Luftwaffe approached the BoB without much planning at any level.Their entire strategy seemed to be "let's attack and don't stress, she'll be alright on the night". The perception of the German WW2 military still seems to be informed by the self-serving memoirs of German officers and wehraboo Tiger fans. The truth is that the military and civilian leadership were fighting with one another like crabs in a bucket to impress Mein Fuhrer, further their careers and enact their grudges. Weapons development was often a clownshow of inefficiency and intrigue. This isn't surprising for an authoritarian dictatorship.
The Saar offensive was just weird.
at 13:45 are those the Pz II's that had an explosive charge on their back, ready to be dropped off? Always wondered if they were somehow thrown forward, or if the tank had to back up and slide off the charge, exposing its very weak rear armour.
My hart goes out to the French people who had to suffer under the horrible terrors of German occupation. But I thank GOD for Great Britain.❤
France had a wonderful time under occupation and very quickly turned on the Allies by going to war against them. It’s impossible to feel sorry for collaborators.
@@seanlander9321 Were you there ? France was neutral after they signed the Armistice.
@@seanlander9321 wonderful time? This is ridiculous. You are grossly under-informed about the reality of the occupation for the vast majority of the population.
@@hatittude7609 Really? The Germans had France as a holiday destination, a quarter of million marriages between French women and German soldiers, The Resistance didn’t even kill a German until August ‘41, and employment boomed thanks to France providing Germany with 40% of its industrial output. I’ll concede though that French Jews had a dreadful time.
@@seanlander9321 sources for the info?
A vivid contrast to the stubborn resistance by the German soldiers in 1944 and 1945 when it was very obvious that Germany would lose;
probably immeasurably strengthened by knowledge of what happened to German civilians who fell into Soviet hands.
The fanatical dedication of German soldiers at that stage of the war was remarkable. What's even harder to believe is how they managed to get crews for U boots right up to the end of the war, when it must have been obvious within that service long before the end that most of them who sallied from port would never return. The Kriegsmarine lost 369 U boots in the 17 months of war in 1944 and 1945, which was almost as many as they lost in the 52 months of war from 1939 to the end of 1943. Yet I think there is no record of a U boot crew refusing to go to sea at any point during the conflict.
What confuses me most about World War II is how the Germans were able to defend France in 1944/45 better than the French in 1940, even though they were in a worse position.
@@jaaackaissa1633 I view the defeat a result of a French political outlook that could not contemplate another war due to the huge WWI losses caused by the French military leadership's doctrine of Élan vital as well as - frankly- incompetent military leaders incapable of incorporating new technology into the traditional military doctrine.
That incompetence continued even after WWII as demonstrated by The Battle of Điện Biên Phủ. One other very important reason:
French enlisted were poorly paid and treated abysmally by their officers. Who would be willing to die for someone who doesn't either like you or abuses you?
@@gneisenau89 I was in the Chicago movie theater The Biograph for a showing of Das Boot.
When the introduction describing total losses appeared upon the screen, the audience gasped in unison.
@@jaaackaissa1633 The Italian military leadership was no better than the French- as demonstrated by how the British were able to defeat Italian troops in the field with the added difficulty that Italian armor was not much better than WWI armor. Italian enlisted were treated as badly by their officers as the French enlisted.
References and sources?
Would be nice to share those 😊
Not a good title but a good narrative worth watching with period film. Thanks
In my opinion, the battle of Arras was the most overlooked engagement that may have kept the British from coming to peace terms with the Germans. God bless the heavy but slow Matilda tank. Rommel had to scramble a defense of anti-aircraft guns to suppress the attack. This attack shocked Hitler and it may have discouraged him from being more aggressive at Dunkirk. Just imagine if the Germans bagged a majority of British soldiers?
Especially considering that within the week after Arras, Lord Halifax was proposing in the War Cabinet that UK start peace talks with Germany. That was with the BEF reaching Dunkirk and the evacuation beginning. Had the BEF been lost, maybe there would have been more defeatist sentiment in the House of Commons and Lord Halifax's motion might have succeeded.
It came down to who Chamberlain would support and he took a day to choose - ultimately backing Churchill. This was the closest Britain came to giving up on the war.
What ifs can never be definitively answered. But considering the pressure Churchill was under from the pro-negotiations wing of his own Cabinet, it's hard to imagine he could have resisted the push to capitulate if the entire British Army had been captured short of the beaches. Where would that have left the USA? Plenty of isolationists here might have concluded that the Europeans had the opportunity to put out their own fire, and now that the house has burned down, do we need to expend our blood and treasure to rebuild it for them? So, yes, the Arras attack assumes an outsized importance, even if it was neither a strategic nor even tactical success. Even a lioness might pause if the badger shows it can still bite.
@@gneisenau89 A key reason for USA moving towards war with Germany in WW I was a concern that Germany might emerge dominant over most of Europe if they won the war - and that with the resulting military and economic power of Germany it would not be possible to keep them from interfering in the Western Hemisphere. USA would have a choice of either going to war with such an ascendant Germany or give up on the Monroe Doctrine.
Seems like the same concern Britain had over any major European continental power, with just a delayed effect.
USA began funding a program in January 1941 to develop an intercontinental bomber capable of bombing German cities flying round trip from North America - just in case UK was knocked out of the war.
The same concerns would have led USA to re-arm and develop weapons with which they could threaten Germany. I see an American effort to involve themselves more in South American nations. In 1941 they brought Brazil into their circle by offering assistance in industrializing Brazil in exchange for bases on the NE coast of Brazil. This would be essential to establish an American presence so this would also happen in your alternate scenario.
Argentina and Chile might have been more problematic given their long standing territorial disputes. The objective of USA would be to unite the Hemisphere against Germany ushering in a Cold War but with Germany instead of USSR.
I believe the primary purpose of Lend-Lease was to ensure UK didn't fall and thereby contain German power. Lend-Lease aid was extended to USSR for the same reason.
The Battle of Arras made no difference to the advancing German Army. The small British force was swatted aside like a pesky fly. Hitler and his High Command did not even hear about this minor engagement.The 88mm anti-aircraft guns had been used in the Spanish Civil War in the anti-tank role. This is why the German 88's at Arras had anti-tank shells in their ammunition lockers. Incredible that in May 1940, the British Army had exactly 16 cannon armed tanks ( Matilda II ) in France.
@@shanemcdowall It's pretty well documented that OKH and OKW were aware of a British counter-attack, and that they were paying attention to the breakthrough and engaging in some micromanaging.
The initial order came from von Rundstedt as he was concerned about further counter-attacks. This was followed by orders from HItler and OKW to halt all armor.
Whether or not they knew the details of the counter-attack or even heard the name "Arras" they were still reacting to it.
As for the force at Arras, one armored brigade had these tanks. It wasn't their full complement, but what they had at this point in the war. Still it was quite enough to cause a panic in Rommel's Ghost Division as they rolled through lighter vehicles in the division's rear echelon with the first defensive line of anti-tank guns falling as the guns failed to overcome the frontal armor of the British Tanks. That's a little different than being swatted away.
The panic also spread to the SS Totenkopf division that was almost overrun by the British attack.
Those German marching songs have a certain inspiring effect!!.
The thing that never gets mentioned is that France was a paper thin margin away from having a civil war when the Germans marched in.
No "coordinated" response was ever possible.
Whilst this is overall very good, it does completely underplay the effect of the British Counter attack at Arras on the German High Command and in particular Hitler. Without this counter attack is questionable whether the Dunkirk evacuation would have been such a success .
Why does no one say that Germany stood alone? Italy wasn't in the war until France was losing. I'm glad Snow pointed out that the UK had a bunch of countries to call on for help, not alone.
Can't wait for your channel to produce a video about the BEF 1940 debacle… but who am I kidding, you'll never make one.
The propaganda around the "Dunkirk miracle" is basically a celebration of abandoning one's allies and giving up the fight. I could never understand how the Brits can be so proud of celebrating that. Do they even know what truly happened on their side in the days preceding Operation Dynamo?
EDIT - Late May 1940 chronology :
May 20th and 21st 1940 : without informing the French, the British began planning for Operation Dynamo under the leadership of Vice Admiral Bertram Ramsay. The BEF sent Brigadier Gerald Whitfield to Dunkirk to start evacuating unnecessary personnel. Overwhelmed by what he later described as "a somewhat alarming movement towards Dunkirk by both officers and men", due to a shortage of food and water, he had to send many along without thoroughly checking their credentials. Even officers ordered to stay behind to aid the evacuation disappeared onto the boats.
May 22nd 1940 : General Weygand presents to the French Prime Minister Reynaud and British Prime Minister Churchill a plan aimed at avoiding the annihilation of the Franco-British forces trapped in Flanders before launching a counter-attack . The British Expeditionary Force BEF and the remnants of the 1st French Army are to retreat from positions along the Scheldt to the coast, near the Franco-Belgian border while the remnants of the Belgian Army would retreat to the Yser, while the Franco-British forces would launch a strong offensive southwestward, aiming to break through the German corridor and shatter their isolation. Both French and British representatives accept Weygand's plan.
May 23rd 1940 : far from being able to launch an attack from Arras towards the south, the British divisions under Gort narrowly avoid encirclement by evacuating the city during the night despites Churchill's order to follow Weygand's plan. Due to this withdrawal, the planning of the Allied counteroffensive is postponed.
May 24th 1940 : General Gort contacts the French headquarters to cancel the BEF's ongoing preparations to join Weygand's offensive and organizes a hedgehog defense by deploying two divisions and an armored brigade along the waterways of the North in order to protect his retreat to Dunkirk. The southwestward offensive of the French 10th Army under General Robert Altmayer on the Somme, between Peronne and Amiens, now without hope, is halted.
May 25th 1940 : British troops start to evacuate Dunkirk at Gort's orders, approximately 7700 British soldiers flee France before the end of the day. Weygand realizes that he can no longer launch a counterattack and orders his northern armies to retreat with the objective to establish a solid bridgehead supported by the sea, but the Belgians, who were supposed to support the French flank, are overwhelmed by the German army.
May 26th 1940 : just before 7PM, Churchill ordered Dynamo to begin, by which time 28,000 men had already departed.
May 27th/31st 1940 : Gen. Molinié's 40 000 men and 50 tanks held up 4 infrantry divisions and 3 panzer divisions (160 000 men and 880 tanks) of the German Army and secured the BEF's retreat. According to Churchill's memoirs, the French gallantry allowed an additionnal 100 000 BEF troops to evacuate.
June 1st 1940 : the chaotic rout of the BEF under Gort's command from France had convinced Churchill that he was undesirable as a field commander, and he was side-lined to non-combatant posts. Gort was appointed an ADC General to George VI on the day of his return to England from France on 1 June 1940
Sources :
Harman, Nicholas (1980). Dunkirk: The Necessary Myth
Frieser, K-H. (2005). The Blitzkrieg Legend
Churchill, Winston (2003). "Wars are not won by evacuations, 4 June 1940, House of Commons".
Blaxland, Gregory (1973). Destination Dunkirk: The story of Gort's Army.
Kershaw, Ian (2008). Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions That Changed the World, 1940-1941
What an ignorant crock! The decision to save the BEF at Dunkirk (along with the success of the Battle of Britain) were propaganda "miracles" which kept Britain in the fight. If the BEF had been captured in France it's likely nobody would have argued against making peace with the Nazis at that point... and the British were actually successfully holding their allocated positions in Belgium until the flanks around them collapsed...
@@pavlovsdog2551 We have two different versions of what happened there.
The British version : "the British were actually successfully holding their allocated positions in Belgium until the flanks around them collapsed"
The Belgian version :
"The surrender had become inevitable following the sudden withdrawal of the British Army towards Dunkirk during the Battle of the Lys."
History has chosen to blame the French for everything. It is crazy, isn't it??????
@@phlm9038 The British and Belgian versions are not incompatible. Ultimately, it was the fault of the French... 😉
@@pavlovsdog2551 😉I would have liked to know which one of the two was the right one though, between the British and the Belgians. Let's forget the French.
@@phlm9038 As I said, they aren't incompatible. The British fell back from their successfully defended positions along the Dyle when the French flank collapsed, and the Belgians surrendered after it became obvious the British were making for the exit...
The 1940 libel case brought by the British liaison officer to King Leopold, Sir Roger Keyes, indicates that the Belgian Army had been placed under French command, and the orders from the French HQ required a retreat from the (fortified) Scheldt line to the (poorly prepared) Lys line in preparation for an attack southwards to link up with the main French Army. The Belgians did not believe they were capable of mounting the anticipated attack. The Belgian positions on the Lys were poorly provisioned, crowded with refugees, and under constant air attack, and when the Germans appeared about to break through the line, the decision was made to surrender "before a debacle took place"...
The only mention of the British was that the Belgians were concerned they might complicate the anticipated British attack to the south due to their own likely inability to maintain contact with the more mobile British forces, and that "the capitulation of the Belgian Army would be inevitable" should a break in contact between the two armies arise...
Air power not armour was the deciding factor. Control of the air stopped allied efforts to destroy the bridges at the break through. Guderian was flattered by the luftwaffe.
Agreed. The Luftwaffe had huge air superiority in numbers and doctrine, and they used it effectively.
@@colinhunt4057 It was so important that the allies knew they couldn't invade the continent until they had air superiority themselves.
@@fosterfuchs Agreed. That Allied air superiority was the result of two things: 1. the diversion of most of the Luftwaffe to the east to support Operation Barbarossa in 1941; 2. the increasing shortage of fuel to conduct air operations of any kind. The latter point may have been the predominant one. At times Germany was so short of aviation fuel that it was unable to get much of the fighter defences into the air in defense against Allied air raids. At the time time, early 1943, operations of the U-Boat fleet were increasingly crippled by a shortage of diesel fuel.
In the face of increasing numbers and strength of Allied air forces in the West, the Luftwaffe was never able to assert air superiority over any theatre of operations in the West or the Mediterranean from early 1943 onward. What had worked for Germany in 1939-41 was simply no longer possible anywhere.
It was a combined arms effort. The Luftwaffe was important both for it's support of the German ground forces, and for it's interdiction of Allied forces, but the powerful mobile ground forces were also crucial for creating the surprise breakthrough in the Ardennes, and exploiting the initial success...
@19:20 Don't forget the RAF !!
Strangely omitted from this script is Churchill's decision to entirely remove the RAF fighter cover from France, thereby leaving any French and BEF troops to the mercy of the Luftwaffe. Although his decision was logical, it precipitated the despair of the French army's defence resolve. With great bravery, French soldiers protected the BEF as they evacuated to Dunkirk. Also omitted is the RAF bombing and destroying French navy ships in French channel ports and comandeering those in British ports. Again, logical, yet underlining once again the bravery and integrity of those thousands of French soldiers who fought on to help the BEF escape.
You don't reinforce failure. Bleeding away the strength of the RAF to prop up failing France - when the French themselves weren't sending up aircraft in significant numbers - would have been madness.
Churchill had already concluded that "French resolve" wasn't worth a candle, and the suggestion that this decision "precipitated" anything which wasn't already brewing due to prior humiliating French failures is ludicrous...
Some French did bravely choose to continue the struggle against Nazi aggression, while others chose to collaborate with the enemy placing British security at risk -- and paid the price...
The French had lots of aircraft of their own, many languishing on airfields with knee high grass or still stored in crates.
The French government, the French People, and the French Army could not get themselves into a warlike mindset to fight the Boche tooth and nail as they did in 1914. The Frenchman of 1940 was a different person than the nationalistic, pugnacious Frenchman of 1914. Still shell-shocked, horrified, and traumatized from the mass slaughter of WW1 that sent 700,000 Frenchmen to their graves, leaving hundreds of thousands left wounded, maimed, and scarred for life, the Frenchman of 1940 did not have any fight in him.
The problem were the men in the French government, constantly quarreling with themselves. The problem were the old men running the French Army. These old generals should have long been retired instead of thinking in 1940 that it was still 1916 to 1917. Just better, dynamic, inspired French military leadership with younger, stronger, resolute, aggressive generals might have resulted in driving the German Army in retreat back across the borders with Adolf Hitler asking for an armistice.
not 700k but 1,397 k soldiers and 300k civillians died during WW1. On a population of 41 million in 1914. France had to wait 1950 to have the same population as pre-WW1, while Germany managed to gain 5 millions inhabitants betwenn 1910 and 1940, from 64 to 69 millions. And nobody believed that another was possible, hence why they preffered to give away Czechoslovaquia to Germany than declaring war to them. And you had to that some right-wing political group that promised a civil war if France attacked Germany, or helped Spain.
Completely True. De Gaulle had written a thesis on the evolution of the War and the army in 1932, and urged the old generals to apply new maneuver tactics like tanks followed by infantry. But they barely listened, the latter didn't have enough influence yet.
In retrospect, it's a horrifying thought that the Allies could've ended the war so much sooner, or at least that France might have never fallen. It wouldn't even have taken much to contain the German offensive, relatively speaking. Instead, we got the Second World War.
Just imagine if France contained the German offensive. Even if an armistice is signed, Germany would never have risked invading the Soviet Union with the Franco-British in the west. With the Royal Navy not distracted by Europe, Japan could never hope to take on the two largest navies on the planet. Granted, the war in China continues, with all the horrors therein.
It's all speculative, all a What If, but still...yeah. Hard to think about.
@@Cailus3542 You understand all this. Today even the Germans brag that 1940 France could have beaten them. Astonishingly, the Germans today admit that France had the better army but that they (the Germans) had the better mindset. The analysis is more specific: squabbling, ineffectual French politicians mired in factional politics, and old, ossified, outdated, and unimaginative French Army generals who held their positions due to high social class standings and family and political connections. France was poorly served by her civilian and military leaders.
Imagine if younger generals controlled the French Army. Even given France's polarized, paralyzed, factionalized government, younger dynamic French Army generals would have been far more alert to German intentions, would have positioned the French Army far more effectively in the right place at the right time with the right forces. The German Army could have been stopped in their tracks as soon as they entered French territory, preventing them from spreading out to commence the blitzkrieg. The German Army could have been driven back into Belgium and thence into Germany. From this point France and Britain could have forced an armistice from Hitler. This armistice would have been on advantageous terms, not as much as WW1 but enough to bottle up Germany.
Interesting, I thought we were in this together with the Brits in 1939 and 1940. In 1918 we won together, but in June 1940, apparently, only the French were routed by the Germans. What happened to the 1940 Brits? Surely, they were victorious against the Krauts, were they not?
Enjoyed the video, but I would have like a little more insight into why the British were so slow footed to see what was happening in the Ardennes. The problems with the chain of command, who was really in charge? Didn’t DeGuelle want to fall back and keep fighting? Why was this not done? I has hoping for more than a reading the standard history.
Agree completely. It was a well made little video, but brought no new or particularly insightful analysis to bear. A rote recitation of well known facts.
Maurice Gamelin was the general responsible for the French army, its deployment and operations.DeGaulle was nobody, merely being the commander of the 4th French heavy armoured division.
Im sorry to burst your bubble, but if you expect this British history channel to give you an unbiaised report of the BEF's shortcomings in France in 1940, you're gonna have a bad time !!
Thank you, excellent documentary !
Didn't mention the Germans were on amphetamines.
You don't mention that many British and American soldiers were also on amphetamines, as supplied by the army, later in the war.
@@jens-kristiantofthansen9376 ummmm not true but nice try ❤
@@kerryfry1857 umm yes, it is actually true. A ten second search will confirm that for you.
Yet another clickbait title. You make some good videos, but this one is really just a shallow summary of how France collapsed, with little consideration of the reasons for it. Calling the video "The Real Reason..." isn't just misleading; it's an outright lie. I'm unsubscribing until you start using titles that accurately represent the content.
Agreed. A rote recitation of the well worn facts.
It's a 'popular' history programme and not aimed at anal pedants like yourselves. Toodle-loo!
Imagine the horror and dismay of those who did spot the germans advancing toward the ardennes and in return what they got was dismissal........ So i wonder if the warnings were taken seriously how things could had played differently. That gap on the Ardennes was not impossible but rather not tried until than, the impossible turned to be beyond possible and decisive.
Achtung!! Awesome ❤
Just to clarify: France and GB never had any plans to help Poland in 1939. The halted French "invasion" was halted not because of collapse of Poland. It was during the conference in Abbeville Sept. 12th 1939 that France and GB agreed not to help Poland militarily - despite the existing treaties. Warsaw capitulated two weeks later...
So you say.
France literally declared war on Germany and launched an invasion of the German soil the very moment the Germans set foot in Poland, while the French army wasn't even ready for such an operation. However by the second week of the invasion of Poland the Germans had already reached their goals and seized half of the Polish territory, by which time the USSR entered the scene and seized the other half in about a week. The fall of Poland was so quick that the french offensive in Germany became useless as soon as it had began, all the french got time to do was to reach the Siegfried Line and get stuck in front of its defenses.
The sad truth is that Poland was lost anyway, the unholy alliance between the Nazis and the Soviets signed out of the blue only 2 weeks before invasion, had made it clear that Poland would be crush in case of a combined invasion. Even if France had supernaturally succeeded in taking out the Germans from the affair, the USSR would have had free hands to invade all of Poland anyway.
It's such a shame that the main reason that France and Britain threatened Germany with war was to stop any invasion of Poland and yet people still try to minimise that fact. We couldn't do anything really to stop the Germans and the bluff was called, so to say "France and GB never had any plans to help Poland in 1939" is a slap in the face.
You should actually read the terms of the treaty. Military aid was not promised, only that Britain & France would, if Germany invaded Poland, declare war. Which, of course, they did.
The idea was to deter further German military aggression, and avert a wider European war.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Agreed, the invasion of Poland by the Soviets has often been downplayed due to Operation Barbarossa and the huge losses suffered by the Russian soldiery and civilians murdered by the Nazis. It seems convenient to forget the atrocities carried out by the Soviets against the Poles including those buried at Katyn Forest . Ultimately, in my opinion, it was the Ribbentrop - Molotov Pact which started WWII as Hitler knew he was only going to be fighting on one front at least until he felt safe enough to attack his erstwhile ally.
Don't forget one thing: France sacrificed itself to save you, the Allies. Our soldiers fought bravely during this war, giving the Allies the opportunity to stay hidden or flee from the fighting area.
There is truth in your comment ,not Saying there isn't...However The British Army sacrificed a significant number of troops on the perimeter to make sure the Bulk of the others got away..
French troops fired on and killed many Americans during the Torch landings.
Sound on this is all over the place
Actually in 1940 most german tanks were mostly panzer iis and iiis there were relatively limited stocks of panzer ivs avaliable and they still had numerous panzer 1s but they were being rapidly withdrawn from Frontline usage.
Actually, the German tank force involved 523 Panzer Is, 955 Panzer IIs, 349 Panzer IIIs, 278 Panzer IVs, 106 Panzer 35(t)s and 228 Panzer 38(t)s.
The last two types, of course, being Czech vehicles.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 of course forgot about the 38t and 35t they still had lots of those especially the 38t.
@@poil8351 The Germans seem to have found the 38t expecially useful, as the chassis was still being used for tank destroyers late into the war.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 yep the mighty hetzer tank destroyer.
The Brit army collapsed as well, but they could do a runner at Dunkirk. Here is what the Brit, army left for the Germans, 2,472 pieces of artillery, 20,000 motorcycles, nearly 65,000 other vehicles, 416,000 long tons (423,000 t) of stores, more than 75,000 long tons (76,000 t) of ammunition, and 162,000 long tons (165,000 t) of fuel.
I watched a program on Dunkerque where the BEF soldiers expected to booed when arriving in the UK but they were cheered FED and given Tea by steadfast citizens of the UK who were determined (although they didn't know it at the time) to resist till the end when Hitler shot himself in Berlin.
And the Nazis were DESTROYED..
It took a lot Blood Sweat and Tears and ginormous losses by the Soviet Union to destroy this monster..
None of that would have mattered if not for Lend-Lease by the United States.
chris: Look around you, do you like what you see is happening in your country?
British soldiers are on record that had they known what would happen to Britain they would have sided with Germany. As a matter of fact 1 million European volunteers fought on the German side during WWII.
The true monsters were the war mongers Churchill, Roosevelt, and later Stalin. Let's not forget the war criminal Eisenhower and his Rhine Meadows Camps.
Yes, when I was working as a GP, one of the lady helpers at the surgery told me that as a young girl in Dover she remembered the wounded coming in a train from the station.Girls through flowers to them
The French had lots of aircraft, tanks, artillery & men, but lacked the coordination to use them adequately?
I am currently watching this with gritted teeth, as most times I watch stuff with Dan Snow, while decent enough in shallow terms it usually has glaring errors. It doesn't bode well when at the start of the video BLITZKRIEG is plastered across the screen. It's amazing how long propaganda (both allied and german) that used this concept survived. I may update this comment when I finish depending on the result.....
Update: Shallow enough to not really get much wrong. Only criticism would be the portrayal of the French military in some sections, especially not really going into more detail with Fall Rot's and the Maginot's relatively successful holdout until encircled right before the signing of the Armistice.
Seven minutes in and we’ve seen the use of blitzkrieg before it was commonly used and also a statement that the Germans fielded lots of Panzer IIIs and IVs. The vast majority of the armour were actually Panzer Is and IIs.
And another myth slips in that Hitler was responsible for the halt before Dunkirk rather than his generals.
Oops another one. The evacuation wasn’t a haphazard bunch of civilians volunteering to ferry troops home but a planned operation where the Royal Navy commandeered the vessels.
Overall I worry that these myths will become accepted as fact if quality channels don’t fact check them properly.
Quite right. They halted because they were running out of fuel. The break was simply a convenient moment only for Hitler to suggest to the British government that they make peace.
I would think it was the horrific losses they suffered in world war one
Met very nice titled British horticulturist in Savannah, GA who was a girl through WWII.She visited France @decade after end of War. She had an interesting observation from "a string bag of fruit on a train"
there's no nice way to say it - the French leadership and tactics failed miserably. Now, as then, all over the West, weak men have led to bad times but there's no Churchill to save the day
Churchill saved nothing besides Britain. The Holocaust happened while most of the British military hid away on their island, waiting for the Russians to do the heavy lifting in defeating the Nazi armies. Churchill was very lucky that Hitler decided a cross-channel invasion would be too costly in terms of troop and equipment losses.
Please educate yourself : the Brits also failed miserably, it was a shared effort ;)
"Following the period of the "Phoney War", the Wehrmacht's attack and breakthrough in the Ardennes in May 1940 succeeded in splitting the Allied Armies and surrounding the French First Army and BEF. General Gort, commander of the BEF, took the unilateral decision to abandon his orders received from the British Government for a southward attack to be made to support the French Army, instead on 25 May 1940 ordering a retreat by the BEF northwards to the French coast without informing his allies."
"Gort went on to serve in various positions for the remainder of the war, but the chaotic rout of the BEF under his command from France had convinced Winston Churchill, the newly installed British Prime Minister, that he was undesirable as a field commander, and he was side-lined to non-combatant posts."
The French cannot bear this part of their history and their character being recalled.
what an idiotic ignorant comment to make
@@philippebonnet9793 And that's only the beginning...
I'd go so far as to say that the comprehensive French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War also couldn't be borne by the French. That led directly to the First World War which of course led directly to the Second. The French have always had alligator mouths and tadpole arses.
@@jaym8027 What is your source of information? A goodie bag? The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was one of the key events that led to World War I. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, were assassinated on 28 June 1914 in Sarajevo by Bosnian Serb student Gavrilo Princip.
@@phlm9038 That's a childish analysis of the events precipitating the First World War.
The tactics were not new; it was basically a rerun of the Schlieffen plan from WWI. What was new was the technology to make the plan work the second time around.
There was an internet joke about a guy complaining that he'd been blocked on Facebook again. He said he was arguing about sports with a Frenchman who asked if he knew who won the first Tour de France. The guy said "apparently, the 5th Panzer division was not the correct answer..."
You can always tell the people who know nothing about World War 2 by their French jokes.
I'm an American and both my grandfathers fought in it, for the record.
This is so true.
Merci pour la participation de vos aieux dans la libération de mon pays .❤
That's great so what is your expertise? you are using a logical fallacy. both my grandparents where in ww2 too and so were many others.
It's not a claim to expertise. It's to pre-emptively let people know I'm not French.
Thank you for the respect shown, it's honestly a painful stain on the history of our country, which despite many shameful attitudes during this war (collaborationist state and treatment of the colonial soldiers included), but does not deserve the constant bashing coming from the anglo-saxon world.