France's Failed 1939 Invasion of Germany | Animated History
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- Support this channel by checking our NordVPN exclusive deal at nordvpn.com/hi...
You can try it risk-free thanks to their 30-day money-back guarantee!
Sign up for Armchair History TV today! armchairhistor...
Promo code: ARMCHAIRHISTORY for 50% OFF
Merchandise available at store.armchair...
Check out the new Armchair History TV Mobile App too!
apps.apple.com...
play.google.co...
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / armchairhist
Sources:
Military History not Visualized. “France Attacks 39: German Assessment of the Saar Offensive 1939.” TH-cam video, 12:01. March 15, 2022. • France Attacks 39: Ger... .
Carswell, Richard. The Fall of France in the Second World War: History and Memory (Germany: Springer International Publishing, 2019).
CLARK, ALLEN F. “Operations in Belgium and France 1939-40.” The Military Engineer 33, no. 191 (1941): 368-373. www.jstor.org/s....
Cornwell, Peter D. The Battle of France: Then and Now (United Kingdom: After the Battle, 2008).
Horne, Alistair. To Lose a Battle: France 1940 (United Kingdom: Penguin Books Limited, 2007), 121.
Kiesling, Eugenia C. “‘If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It’: French Military Doctrine Between the World Wars.” War in History 3, no. 2 (1996): 208-23. www.jstor.org/s....
Shirer, William L. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. United States: RosettaBooks LLC, 2011.
Shirer, William L. The Collapse of the Third Republic: An Inquiry Into the Fall of France in 1940 (Germany: RosettaBooks, 2014).
Vauvillier, Francois., Sumner, Ian. The French Army 1939-45 (1) (United Kingdom: Bloomsbury USA, 1998).
Wilkin, Bernard., Williams, Maude. French Soldiers' Morale in the Phoney War, 1939-1940 (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2018).
Music:
Armchair Historian Theme - Zach Heyde
L. 75 III Clair De Lune (Intro) - Traditional
The Inventor - David Celeste
Battle Hymn of the Republic - The U.S. Army Band
Thunder from the West - Zach Heyde
The Raid - Zach Heyde
Isotopes 1 - August Wilhelmsson
![[UNCUT]"ตุลามรณะ"ย้อนฟังคำทำนาย หมอดูทุกสาย ดวงเมืองร้อน (หมอปลาย ฟองสนาน อ.โอเล่)I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lE5az5VvT9M/mqdefault.jpg)
Support this channel by checking our NordVPN exclusive deal at nordvpn.com/historyvpn
You can try it risk-free thanks to their 30-day money-back guarantee!
Sign up for Armchair History TV today! armchairhistory.tv/
Promo code: ARMCHAIRHISTORY for 50% OFF
Merchandise available at store.armchairhistory.tv/
Check out the new Armchair History TV Mobile App too!
apps.apple.com/us/app/armchair-history-tv/id1514643375
play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=tv.uscreen.armchairhistorytv
Discord: discord.gg/zY5jzKp
Twitter: twitter.com/ArmchairHist
Hmm
Yo
Can you do a video on the Battle of Warsaw?
France Soldiers did cross German lines or closing lines. And Soldiers says : Who wan't Go Home ? What A Shame idiots still Victorys WW1 Believe it.
Like video
Gamelin was really one of the most incompetent generals during ww2 not only did he ruined France attack during the Saar offensive but he also f*cked up during the battle of France, resulting in having his army surrounded and blocked between Belgium and the Netherlands, sacrificing french reserves and ultimately causing the armistice.
If we add to this that he was a defeatist who refused to adapt the French army to modern conflict in the use of tanks, offensive doctrines and aircraft, it's terrifying how he could be in charge of anything, he lost the war on two occasion and almost just by himself.
It's really sad that french soldiers who were willing to fight and proved to be effective only to suffer from their incompetent high command.
Seriously I don't know what's more disgraceful this or Singapore in 1942.
@@frankieseward8667 100% this. World War 2 literally could've ended as it began had the French leadership actually chosen to fight. Germany militarily and economically was weaker than Britain and France, had these nations actually taken the initiative the war would've been just another footnote in European history. Instead it became the most destructive war in the history of anything.
@@frankieseward8667 this because the consequence are far worse, Singapore wouldn't have changed the ongoing of the war but those mistakes really did, losing the offensive and defensive caused the war to be much more worse than it could've been.
Yeah almost like having your entire military command staff being dominated by senile old men that were already getting on in years by the time of WW1, should have retired or forced to retire after the great war.
Had more officers like de gaulle, leclerc, juin and tasingiary been in command (aswell as the french nation actually be willing to fight and not be on the verge of a communist civil war) germany would have been smacked down.
Single handedly responsible for France's poor military reputation for the last 4 generations.
We all heard jokes at the expense of the French. However we must also honor the French soldiers who did fight hard such as Dunkirk. It’s not their fault their leadership was totally incompetent.
France ya mean
Lions and donkeys come to mind but in french. All jokes aside you are correct Expanded History.
Honour the soldier who cannot choose what conflicts he fights, not the higher ups who declare wars
I don't get your logic. Was their leadership imported from a different country?
XDDDDDDD shitty Dunkirk and shitted white flag.
France going into WWI: We must take the offensive at all costs!
France going into WWII: Ummm...maybe a little offensive? But nothing too serious.
Ww1: they shall not pass
Ww2:but they may go around
truth
From the Cult of the Offensive to the Cult of the Trench.
@@przemozzify funny 🙄 🙃
They bleed a lot in WW1 and didn't want a repeat such a short time later
The failed Saarland offensive is the epitome of the saying: "Better for an army of sheep led by a wolf, than an army of wolves led by a sheep."
It was Lion! Not wolf. Wolves eat sheeps not lead.
Have an army of lions lead by a dog and they'll die like dogs have an army of dogs lead by a Lion and they'll fight like lions
Except that's pretty nonsensical because the French flat-out lacked the capability to push harder. Their own mobilisation system was simply not constructed to support such a fast offensive, so they ended up in front of minefields and fortified positions while their engineers and heavy artillery were still forming up in the depots hundreds of miles away. And they couldn't really throw more troops into it, either. Not without crippling their own mid-long-term mobilisation. That's an unacceptable risk to take, especially when you're the one who has the long-term advantage.
@@alexzero3736 so would a lion, frankly
But this is somewhat situational. Sometimes a more cautious stance is in order. Often there is no simple answer to how cautious or aggressive one should be.
It wasn't the individual French soldier that failed. Most were patriotic and determined. It was their leaders that failed.
So were the Italians. Back then you didn't need a lot of training as a foot soldier. Just bravery and good leaders. The technology wasn't as advanced and complicated as today. The rest is experience.
@Tim Onk bro the french army showed incredible bravery in fighting and were fighting the germans with as much ferocity as the french army in ww1
@Tim Onk After Sedan breakought nearly all fights were 4v1 (at least), its not their faults if generals were donkeys, get a brain
@Tim Onk
60,000 killed and 200,000 wounded in 45 days has never been experienced by your country ever.
@KKmies But a lot less shorter and simpler. You can teach them the basics of infantry and send them. Most fought with a rifle and basic equipment. You didn't have to train them on night visions, dozens of different small arms and optronics. They also lacked house fighting and other training. Soldiers carried out orders back then. When you're on a mission today you have to think for yourself what is the best way how to finish a mission. Back then you fought in large armies organized by generals that told you to charge the enemy position.
Napoleon must've been rolling in his grave. Honestly even one of his Marshalls probably could've done the job. Crazy how one nation that was so aggressive, lightning and energetic fighting the entirety of Europe in early 1800s a century later turned very defensive and timid.
Now I'm imagining Davout taking command of an armoured corps. Defeating the Prussians again.
It's an interesting thought experiment.
It's as if France was neutered after Napoleon
what do you mean "even one of his marshalls" ? Maybe read about these marshalls, they are unequalled.
25
if England had not been an island it too would have been defeated in 2 weeks, the English army fled to Dunkirk refusing to embark the French soldiers, it was a Franco-English defeat
Anybody would have done the same after WW1.
To add insult to injury, the average German, for all of their supposed superiority, did have a grudging respect for the French. France had beaten them in WWI and had fought from beginning to end. The German high command knew the risk of their exposed western flank as they focused on Poland. Even a successful occupation of the Rhineland by France might have caused a coup or the fatal split up of German forces.
Germany blew a majority of its ammunition and hardware in Poland. If it was not for the Soviets helping the Germans with supplies; Germany would likely had a protracted war in the battle for France
@@l.b.7543 which would have ultimately increased the length of WWII by at least another year due to delayed operation Barbarossa.
@@thatnnoob6109 Or decreased due to possible Soviet Invasion
France did not beat the Germans lmao the American intervention did. If the Americans didn’t join the French army would have continued taking massive casualties and would have mutinied.
@@PunchySOB yee.
"Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide." - Napoleon Bonaparte
Motto of my life.
I mean, it should be. Because passiveness harmed my life in the past.
That's me
@Hitler Loves Anime lol
Words to live by
The blue in Poland's flag stands for it's faithful allies.
Makes you wonder what could have been if the French leadership chose to actually fight.
The war would have ended in 1942
Plan west
@@halogen92r- Germany would fall in 1940 max with Soviet backstab
@@saldownik ending in 1940 they wouldn't even have time to betray the Soviets, my guess, is that the Soviets will give aid to them
@@halogen92r- ehhh maybe? The soviets did not like the nazis AT ALL they invaded and made treatys with them to buy time to recover from the great purges
This should have been an easy victory for France. Germany's forces where tied down that much in Poland that the French actually outnumbered them, and with the help of all of their military, they could have overran their industrial base in the Rhineland, cut off Germany and made it a very short European war
Instead they got cold feet, retreated, and after doing nothing for 2 years, they were conquered and had to raise their royal flag. What a waste
More like disgrace.
Seriously never get tried of war.
You want peace? Fight for it.
@@frankieseward8667 quick, quote Winston Churchill
@@frankieseward8667 I forgot what he said
@@joshuafrimpong244 the French tanks were better than the German ones too (apart from the single man turret and lack of radios)
Well, to be fair it is something they could not think of, we see it through the modern lens, but at that time the experience of trench warfare was still fresh, coupled with the lack of innovation and improvisation of the French high command... well, we already know what happened
In fact, the Germans knew that the French army present at the border was designed for defense. Between 1929 and 1939, there were two opposing currents in France. Some argued that the French army must be ready at any time to undertake an incursion into Germany, others argued that the job of the French army is strictly to defend France. Public opinion and the majority of French politicians were favorable to the second point of view. Anyway, the Germans had enough spies and they knew that even after the French army entered German territory, they had nothing to fear. The French army had practically no chance to quickly advance to Ruhr because this army was not built nor trained for an agressive offensive operation.
Unfortunately, the Poles did not know this aspect or, if they knew, they imagined that the mere presence of the French army on German territory would scare Hitler. In fact, Hitler knew more about the French army than many French generals.
actually you are wrong on that. the french troops on the german border were designed to intervene in Germany and occupy german territory with high industrial productivity whenever France wanted to, which they also did in the 1920s...
@@willsmithens5529 Wrong again. Tensions leading up to the second world war, especially the Munich Conference, persuaded the French to bolster the Maginot Line as heavily as possible, creating trenches, building forts, etc. The French military was not trained for, nor was it in any position, to mount a full-on offensive against Germany like they were to France. Not to mention Hitler's winning election in 1933 completely kicked out French jurisdiction in the Ruhr... so the idea that French troops were "designed to seize arms industries" kinda just goes down the drain there.
@@willsmithens5529akshually🤓🤓
ah, DUH! he fight them
This makes more sense.
Oversimplified: “The French had launched a small invasion into the Saar land (Saar Offensive), but they obtained mostly defensive positions; and after a while, decided to just turn around and call it a day.”
Oversimplified, WW2 Oversimplified, Pt. 1
I was about to make a reference to this but good to know others watch him.
Still cracks me up after all these years
Simple History: The French only took part in a small skirmish in the Saarland with no effect.
I like Oversimplified, but the issue I have with it is well... it's very oversimplified, summing the entire august coup up as the hardliners (GKChP) trying to take over, only for Yeltsin to say "Yeah, but we have a tank" Excuse me? This is why I hope that he never makes a video on say... Chernobyl, a very complicated event that almost nobody understands the full extent and truth of (Thanks to HBO retelling Soviet-era lies to millions of people) The oversimplification is good for children getting interested in history, but not for teenagers or God forbid, adults. As I stated before, I support what they are doing over there, but it's very oversimplified.
@@isaowater
So your problem with Oversimplified is that he.... Oversimplified things.....
Dude, let's think on this for a second.
The French were traumatised by WWI, especially Verdun.
This trauma was reflected in the little actions French command took that golden moment of opportunity.
In France, we learn that some wanted to fight but many didn't want to relive WWI, sadly WWII came to them...
probably not remotely true, I guess most were eager for round 2, but high command feared for their political careers if they lost too many men too soon.
@@firefox7801 Yes the Germans the losers were less traumatized. Still ready to fight while the victorious allies acted like the traumatized losers.
@Alfonso Fedele Same thing after WW2 the allies were timid except in former colonies except for America. While the brutal soviets still were ready for a fight. Though there is truth in what you say
Sadly after Verdun, they were done!
@@jonathandoe2316 Germany although main aggressor of the war and loser didn't experienced the war on its own soil, and was pretty well off at the end of the war compared to the (pyrrhic) victors, so yes it was less traumatized. This is even truer when comparing Germany to France, France suffered much more from the war than Germany.
It's easy to make fun of France while the UK and US were protected by the sea from the nazis. Russia was protected by massive land distances as well.
It's quite sad that the largest conflict in human history could possibly have been ended within it's opening months. 😕 And it was not tried not due to lack of capability, but instead an over incompetence of commanders. We should remember bravery of french soldiers (when they were allowed to show it) and be able to distinguish it from paranoid caution of their leaders.
French generals during the opening stages are like idiots its like they would want france to lose.
you know who else couldve prevented germany from even leaving its borders? poland. But noo, little poland had to help germany & hungary take on czechoslovakia & not let soviet troops through to protect czechoslovakia. But then they cry on internet how they are the victim.
@@WM-gf8zm do you really think Hitler wouldnt invade anyway?
@@WM-gf8zm it really is sad how people are saying that the war would be prevented by Poland being compliant. Poland took back the territory that was stolen during when they were saving all of hecking Europe from the red menace on the east. Taking a small largely polish part that was either going to Germany and the axis in the future or then to Poland is uncomparable to the atrocities committed by the Germans
@@WM-gf8zm ahh yes, let troops from a foreign country who you went to war with some years ago in, what could go wrong, its not like that allows them to occupy your country completely like what happened in the baltics in 1940
The episode would be most amusing but… the “timidity” of allies resulted in unimaginable atrocities of Germans conducted on Polish civilians and POVs that to this day are overlooked beyond Poland. No wonder that the “west betrayal” is so enrooted in Polish mindset
Yeah man I mean for fucks sake I hate when people suck the dicks of the allies even tho millions of my people were being inslaved killed and culturally destroyed and Warsaw was bombed into complete destruction, god and I thought this video would show me how the French did try to help my people but the only help we were given was germany being bombed with paper
The poles lost twice in the defensive war- once against Germany, and the second resulting in 44 years of communism with the Soviet Union occupying their country
@@l.b.7543 poland is the only country in history that was on total winning side and lost territory industry and people as result of being on the winning side
@@Tensaii1 And then you have Bulgaria, who actually gained territory despite being on the losing side of the same war
@@Tensaii1 you can blame Stalin for that. I don’t think his grudge against the entire country of Poland ever left after his humiliation outside of Warsaw in 1920
In France Gamelin is an insult.
He is considered almost as a traitor
Love the thumbnail design and jokes put into these types of videos. Many history channels take themselves too seriously. These things really make this channel stand out, besides the quality.
@mb Sussy
Yeah, like dabbing his forehead while being unsure of what button to press. It's informative and serious enough, but has some jokes and memes only enough to make it fun without going overboard into the silly.
love how he speaks about the Leaflet Bombers of the RAF
but we shouldn't take the air raid on Wilhelmshaven just 3 days after the war broke out too seriously I guess.....
Real
I love the thumbnails and jokes too
Makes the channel stand out among other history channels
France: Failed in invading Germany
This enraged Napoleon who punished them severely
I understood that reference
Oversimplified
xD
"I understood that refference" read it in Cap's voice
Punishments are fictional. He participated in killing in order to create those who are marketed as part of government,..German government (cause he was forced to).
There was no Germany when Napoleon lived.
“That’s a question for the alternate historians out there.” Griffen read my mind. I was thinking that Cody would have a field day with that scenario.
Memories from WW1 were still fresh in France, where over 1.5 million soldiers died (over 4% of the population). While their timidity was disasterious in hindsight the French generals had no stomach to send a second generation to ruin. An admirable, if misguided, mindset.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Many deaths in WWI were due to foolhardy decisions from the generals and that was well remembered in 1939.
This is the same mindset why France failed to win the FIFA world cup till 1998 and 2018.
I believe it's more about careers than mindset. Gamelen feared to loose his chair, that's why he ordered the retreat and thats he ordered to follow the Dyle plan later ( ambitious plan to defend whole Belgium and France). Only with French defeat becoming clear, he and Daladier were replaced. That Daladier also was very weary about his own chair.
Especially if war wasn't inevitable. No one in their right mind would start another WW1. Hitler at this time was just another political statesman. No one knew of the horrors to come, so war wasn't obviously justifiable.
My family lost three men in 1914-1918(Marne, Verdun & Spanish flu), by 1940 the family had nothing left to give. Pretty symptomatic of France as a whole.
Edit: correction, my family actually gave a 14 year old as a messenger boy to the resistance in 1942 who mercifully survived the war. Still, not quite the same offering as in 1918.
Indeed. France was exhausted from ww1 in a way the British could not imagine. Belgium too.
@@secretname4190 Yes as you say France and belgium had their country occupied and industrial zones wrecked and also had lower populations to begin with. I believe 97% of Belgium was occupied throughout most of the war. How much of France's wealth and industry was seized during the war and made to serve germany instead. Not only did Germany not suffer any occupation but they failed to make their reperation committments which if had been sent might have allowed France and belgium to modernise their industry more effectively like Germany had done after France paid off their 1870 war debt.
To this day, let alone in 1940, there are vast swathes of France's industrial regions were land is unusable because there are still shells and chemical weapons tainting the soil rendering the land unusable.
@@AlexC-ou4ju resistance=cowards
Especially with the knowledge that if the French invaded deep into the German Territory, war would 100% be started, while if they just created a defensive position, it could still be avoidable. No one knew the extent of Hitler's madness in 1939, he was just another political statesman. I think if I was that French General, in that position and having been a WW1 vet, I would probably have made the same decision. Yeah, Germany had Poland, but there was nothing left the French could do short of a total invasion.
How dare you cowards not send your women to rescue brave Poland?
The colors of the Polish flag all represent something:
Red, for the bravery of her people.
White, for the love of their land.
And blue, for the loyalty of her allies.
Ahhh I see what you did there
we dont have blue, but have honor
@@henrystrzel928 indeed
@@henrystrzel928polish honor, migrate everywhere in Europe and refuse migrants in Poland
Na. Red for love & White for bravery
France had one of the strongest army in the world in 1939. What hamstring them the most was their high ranking commanding officers, who were WWI veterans and that did not want another repeat and another generation getting massacred on the field.
Their army was actually stronger than the German one (except for the Luftwaffe who was way ahead of their airforce). The French tank's armor couldn't be pierced by the german tanks of this time (the Pz I and II were most of the backbone of the German army in 1939 and the Tigers and Panthers were still in development).
But in the end this was irrelevant: France would have been defeated no matter what, and so would have been the BEF if it didn't managed to evacuate:
The strenght didn't mattered at all for victory, what mattered was the tactics used.
The germans invented the concept of tank divisions, not the allies that were still seeing them exclusivelu as supports for infantry divisions in order to help them break through enemy defenses.
The germans invented the concept of paratrooper brigades able to deploy behind enemy lines and cut their supplies and retreat, while the allies saw parachutes as a mere way to escape from a burning aircraft.
The Germans invented the Blitzkrieg, whose concept is to overrun the ennemy in a quick and ever moving deployment with no regards of securing the lines, but just moving, encercling, and destroying and ennemy completely disoriented by this neverseen tactic combining airforces, tanks and mobile troops.
So my guess is no: this unprepared offensive for an army that wasn't equiped or trained for a such scale offensive would eventually have been stopped and completely repelled not to say completely destroyed.
the German had the groundbreaking tactics, the allies were here to learn...
@Bastian yeah germany would have been fucked if the french invaded
@@MoreAwsomeMetal The Soviets had the concept of deep battle before the Germans. The Soviets also developed the concept of paratroopers though they didn't put them in practice
@@MoreAwsomeMetal France would have won had they simply extended the Maginot Line to the English Channel. The Germans went around the Maginot because they knew their tactics would get shredded trying to go through the worlds strongest fortifications.
Funny thing that Soviet tanks like T34 or KV1 also were better than German tanks in 1941. But KVs and T34s often found themselves without ammo or gas, encircled...
In another timeline, the French would have played a huge part in victory over fascist Germany. That's not to discredit these soldiers and the freedom fighters, however, but it hurts to be reminded of how something could have been done earlier.
Yep, the nazi terror could have been cut short.
Germany wasn't fascist. They're national socialists. Italy was fascist.
@@vknight7497 Lmao, give that up already nobody is buying that bullshit.
Just like today in Ukraine.
@@RandomGuy9
You mean the russian army lead by the big times nazi Putin ?
Yep, checks out.
Gamelin and Huntziger - a dream duo of French generals. One totally botched the offensive, the other the defense.
Some remarks about the deserted villages mentioned at 15:11. As part of their war preparations the German leadership gave the order to evacuate the Sarre Territory (Saargebiet). Among the evacuees were my paternal grandparents who were sent to a town near Magdeburg. After the Wehrmacht successfully invaded France in 1940, my grandparents returned to their village. But in 1944, when the Allied Forces marched towards the German border, my grandparents were evacuated again. After the war they could finally come home to their village, where they lived until their death in 1993 (my grandfather) and 1998 (my grandmother).
Interesting story
@Hitler Loves Anime probably german
@Hitler Loves Anime German. He clearly states this. Also your username is…akward
@Hitler Loves Anime Not really.
@Hitler Loves Anime stop saying “please reply to me”
15:22
Funny how the Germans had exactly 666 casualties.
Hmmmmm....
Execute order 66...!
A great topic would be the Belgium's obsession with neutrality. The French and British wanted to integrate Belgium into the Maginot or at least station Allied troops inside their Borders.
But once war had broken out in Europe the Belgian King threw out any preemtive cooperation with the Allies and took German promises of Neutrality until the very last moment. That is why the Allies were forced to race into Belgium rather than already be in place when Germany invaded.
But Belgium became neutral in 1936, not 1939...
@@aze94 That is the issue, the french had preplanned the maginot line including belgium. When Belgium got out, the plan felt appart. The french initial plan was to preposition their forces in belgium, while what happened in reality is that they had to wait for germany to invade belgium (and receive authorisation to cross the line) to rush their forces in a chaotic mess.
In this mess the germans found a weak spot and thanks to some particularly brilliant (and independent) commanders, exploited it to the fullest to avoid the main french force, encircle it and destroy it.
France declared war on Germany in September of 1939 so Germany had little alternative but to occupy it. Belgium just happened to be in the way (same as the Netherlands). Greece, Yugoslavia and Norway were all forced into the arena by the Allies and got occupied for their trouble. War is ugly and states wishing to be neutral is a positive thing. Ireland was neutral for instance. They weren't occupied.
@@femmet you sound like searching for excuses for germany... they were the ones starting ww2 by invading poland, then militarily allied with france and britain.
Belgium wasn't neutral in the 1920s when they invaded Germany (Rhineland) together with France and occupied it for several years.
I didn't even know the French tried to invade Germany!
Well done Griffin!
They also did it in 1923, facing defenceless German civilians. Imagine that, they were almost conquered 1914, but though they survived, they were allowed to humiliate the already broken Germans, and invaded hurting civilians. Britain fought the wrong enemy* 1914
@@Fatherland927 what a stupid takeaway, maybe if Germany wasn't invading neutral countries and threatening Britain. Britain wouldn't have had to, also maybe if Germany had just paid back it's debts to France like France had done in 1870 France wouldn't have had to enforce the treaty of Versailles. Germany wasn't broken Unlike Belgium and France it took war to the land of others and they looted it. The French and Belgians were the broken ones. Besides if Britain had sided with the germans in 1914 they would have conquered France and taken all their and Belgian channel ports destroying Britain's last advantage, the royal navy. Germany was the criminal the allies were the police and in 1923 France was just using the court appointed bailifs to get their due. Tired of this Germany was only the villain in WW2 and was innocent in WW1 bullshit.
@@Moroes11 I was German/Norwegian until adopted by an English family who happen to have a grandfather who was BEF, be grateful the British saved France (battle of Mons).
@@Fatherland927 I mean Germans killed 300.000 French civilians, rapped a lot of women especially in Belgium plus destroyed so many cities, that what you get when you make troubles.
You didn't understand with the French but the Soviets atrocities finally cleared your mind
@@Fatherland927
Lol. Never heard of the treaties of Paris in 1814 and 1815? Never heard of the treaty of Frankfurt in 1871?
In 1918, it was just France's turn.
When we were defeated in 1815 and 1871, we suffered extremely harsh treaties. The treaty of Paris in 1815 was the highest payment in regard to the GDP ever imposed on a major European nation. We paid in a couple of years.
The treaty of Frankfurt in 1871 was the highest payment ever imposed on a major European nation at the time. We paid in a couple of years.
In 1918, France was broken, Germany suffered the harsh treaty you deserved (that should have been harsher).
You didn't pay, and you're still crying about it.
That's the difference.
The British didn't save anything. The only reason the British were not annihilated at Mons was the French repositioning. The French victories of la Trouée de Charmes and Grand Couronné made the victory at the Marne possible.
The catastrophically cautious attitude of the BEF at the Marne made a battle that should have ended the war only a defensive victory. Well done.
Same BEF that left the front in 1940 without telling the French and the Belgians (causing the Belgian surrender), that was saved by the French at Lille and Dunkirk and that would later erase the crucial French participation (20,000 killed, including my great grand father you see, 80,000 captured) to their "miraculous" escape.
You must be proud of that.
It’s a shame this offensive didn’t work out, if it continued it could have done a lot of damage to Germany
@Pig 🅥
ffs i wanna know who tf created this bot so i could beat the shoot out of them.
Yh. Too many people have the false narrative that the Nazis were too powerful but it was more the fact that the allies were weak
It didn’t work because the French were a bad fighting force. Stuck with using flags and crap to communicate
@@user-op8fg3ny3j u are wrong allies were not weak
@@user-op8fg3ny3j "When your opponent is making a false move, it is wise not to disturb him." -Napoleon
whoever doing the animations deserves a raise
It helps alot especially with the boring military leaders bit. You basically get little more than a grandiose portrait of these military leaders when reading about this stuff in a history textbook, helps bring it to life.
Bit of an omission re: French fascists not supporting the war. The communists didn't either. nor did any of the Comintern parties across the West. After the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Nazi Germany the word went out to their affiliates that overt criticism of the Nazis was to be ceased, there were to be no further confrontations. Even as Paris fell they were calling it the "Tne Anglo-French Imperialist War" and urged workers to sit it out. Of course once Hitler betrayed Stalin and launched Operation Barbarossa they suddenly changed their tune. only then was WW2 a war against fascism in their eyes.
because they didnt want to start crap till the military and industry was ready.
You lack the full picture, Stalin wanted germany and the allies to fight a deadly war between themselves until the soviet union could pounce and bring world revolution
@@julio1116 that wouldve never happened. Germany was supplied & had trades with US & allied companies such as US Steel and was supposed to take down USSR for them
@@julio1116 Stalin going to Stalin. The traitors in this example are the English and French communists who went along with it, as their countries were facing war and later occupation. Their true allegiances laid with a despot on the other side of the continent rather than their own countrymen.
@@WM-gf8zm The British and French wanted a Soviet-German war desperately, both tried to get actual commitments from the USSR and both send diplomats on the eve of Molotov Ribbentrop to get them involved. Stalin instead left to them fight between each other
Stalin got what he wanted, but he underestimated the german's strength who gave the french a crushing defeat.
Also what a totally backwards view of history, the US tried to cause a soviet german war? Not even close. much of the industrialization that happened in the USSR was thanks to american companies, the US even forgave much of the soviet debt from 600 million to 75 million dollars and began to recognize the soviet union. Ludicrous ideas of capitalist persecution of the USSR in the 30's live solely in soviet propaganda not in history, many goverments lent money to the soviets and opened embassies only to be met by subterfuge and refusal to pay their debts.
The RAF summarised:
RAF: "Can w-"
French government: "No! What if they do the same to us?"
Another Summary :
RAF : Shall we give you a hand and drop bombs on the ennemy ?
French Governement : Yes Please.
RAF : *proceeds to drop leaflets*
French Governement : ???
@@will7816 end the war actually bombing France, unlike Germany:
"wow I'm sure glad I did THIS alliance instead of something else"
After the Saar Offensive, there was about 1 year of war where not much happened. An American journalist dubbed it the Sitzkrieg (instead of Blitzkrieg)
How many times have the americans attacked a country more populated and more indstrialized than themselves ? Just asking
@@selinane2Seli-zw3pz and what does that have to do with the comment? Keep your politics to yourself weirdo
@@selinane2Seli-zw3pzWhat does that have to do with the price of fish?
Thanks for that! I had no idea France could have possibly changed the course of the war with the Saar Offensive (a ‘fight’ I never heard of). No wonder people like DeGaulle were infuriated with the ineptitude of his superiors
saar*, it's a region's name, not a russian royal title :-P
@@doigt6590 thank you! I really didn’t know =/
@@padawanmage71 Tsar offensive lmao
Dude please
@@selinane2Seli-zw3pz Honest mistake. I wasn’t trying to be cute. Haven’t you ever made a mistake by the sound of a word?
@@padawanmage71 Sometimes ignorance is funny
Imagine how different it would have been if the French rushed Berlin while the Germans were busy in Poland.
they would not i think they would push far but lose momentum and germany would be having its army back so i think it would been an stalemate
@@gamerdrache6076 probably not stalemate,they outnumbered the Germans and if the Germans redeploy forces in poland,they will be outnumbered in the two fronts
@@cluemantherandom6020 Germans would have had superior tactics unless government forced a change in leadership of the French Army. But resources would have favored the French and British immensely. Imagine 7 battleships, 19 cruisers, 71 destroyers and 76 submarines joining the Royal Navy. The Bismark wouldn't have been hunted on the sea, that combined Anglo-French armada would have been able to pin it in port.
They would be stuck at Siegfried line
@@fluffskunk probably ye
History is a harsh judge. From the perspective of the commander, he wasn't being timid. He was trying not to overextend his lines. How many stories, how many tales of the battlefield have happened in the reverse? How many times has an officer advanced when they should have dug in? Failure to grasp the possibility of a counterattack has been costly to many a unit. Indeed, we are all armchair historians to call him too cautious.
Sounds like a coward's excuse.
lol. The Germans were "overextending" their lines by blazing through Poland... That's why they were winning. I could understand if the Germans had their army in reserve to fight France, but they were almost all headed east into Poland. That was the opportunity to strike and Gamelin blew it and caused millions and millions more deaths due to cowardice. How many YEARS of bloodshed could have been avoided if he were actually competent?
@@korosuke1788we have the benefit of knowing what happened. It's easy to judge from today's timeline.
I will always love the design of the Adrian Helmet, its a weird metal baseball cap with a fin on top and a pineapple on the forehead, whats not to love?
look like firefighter helmet
@@jonny6616 it's because the firefighter helmet is a variant of the adrian helmet
Stahlhelm is so much cooler imo
It seems like the leaders--who probably fought in the war itself--were so traumatized by the Great War that they were utterly gunshy and unwilling to do what was necessary for victory, while the soldiers--being young men who hadn't seen that horror--were willing and ready to do whatever it took.
The German tactics were too superior the battle hardened Germans from Poland will smash France easily in their own back yard. The French Command’s only weakness was the gap in their defensive line not their retreat.
Except they probably did not really fight in the previous war. Desktop generals.
*Ad* starts 1:58
*Ad* ends 2:37
Thank you! I hate these stupid ads.
That is the equivalent of watching your friend getting torn apart by a bear and instead of killing it with your rifle you poke the bear with the barrel.
France and poland were not really friends though.
I absolutely love these latest vids you're putting up. As a kid I used to draw military soldiers in high detail, would have loved to have been a part of something like this! Keep up the great work Griff & Co.!
Beautiful. Thank you for bringing attention to the often overlooked parts of history
"Lions lead by Donkeys" - but its 17 minutes long and well made.
Belgium pulling out of the Allies prior to ww2 in a vain attempt to appear "Neutral" in the eyes of Hitler certainly didn't help France either, especially since France's plan heavily relied on prepared defensive positions along the Meuse River in Belgium.
To quote General Byng “The man who does something is sometimes wrong, but the man who does nothing is always wrong”
I would love a vid on the Portuguese Colonial War. It's such an awesome and grossly underrated War it would be perfect for your style.
They didn’t lose they merely failed to win
Ah yes oversimplified
The arguments against the Saar offensive working are that: 1. The Germans had more than 23 divisions and the Siegfried line I'm the path of further incursion into Germany, and 2. That Germany could have brought divisions from Poland to fight against the French in a short amount of time due to their railway system. But Gamelan still should have pressed the offensive much more vigorously than he did
The beginning: "The Allies will surely crush the Nazis and save Poland"
Soviet Union: As if that would ever happen
There was also the problem that the French had no offensive combined arms doctrine in place at the time. Even if they had committed themselves to a blitzkrieg- style offensive on Berlin, they lacked the organization and know- how to get it done.
It's doubtful they could've subdued Germany before the Germans returned, and then they'd find their army deep in German territory, cut off, and surrounded.
no fuel amunition or parts were avaible for germans after Poland invasion needed few monthts to recover, also Stalin didnt invade Poland because he waited for frence and uk reaction for invasion, Poland could have fought much longer if not for soviet invasion
DeGaulle submited to his superior what basicaly was the combined arms doctrine and Blitzkrieg, he got his proposal denied due to high command inability and unwilligness to adapt to the era of tanks
Considering how incredibly weak and spread thin the German's on the west were at that time, even mass ww1 style human wave attack would've been enough for the French to overwhelm the defenses, possibly even reach all the way to Berlin (especially since the fighting in Poland was far from completely over).
@@Tensaii1 "no fuel amunition or parts were avaible for germans after Poland invasion"
That's complete and utter bullsh*t.
The German ammunition stocks in 1939 are known, and the Polish campaign diminished them by around 10%. Whoever invented the "Germans had no ammo after Poland" myth is a complete fraud.
@@901Sherman Nope. Nope, the Saar offensive couldn't have been effective. Just read about it. France had 40 millions inhabitants, and was less mobilized than Germany in septembre 1939, while Nazi Germany was 80 millions inhabitants and almost fully mobilized. You can't launch an offensive against a bigger ennemy without heavy preparation, and even that often fail.
Stop playing war in videogames and start studying history
The quality has improved so much since i started watching this channel! love the video and the game keep it all up!
Good job guys always bringing us interesting history videos
I think the allies being too timid to get involved was the German's entire gamble, there wasn't much worry of a French invasion explicitly because nothing happened when Austria and Czechoslovakia fell. The French fell right into their trap.
All the liberals bloodthirsty view of ww2, where a world war seems like no big deal, it costs you nothing to think that way. Send yourself into a nonsense war, started by your own leaders, see how you feel.
That camera angle is hilarious
If there's anything the Red Alert games have taught me is that getting rid of Hitler (in some fashion) just paves the way for Stalin.
Great video as always!
Atleast we have Tanya to one shot everything
@@Luuute "Shake it, baby!"
That's actually very possible. The USA probably stays in Isolation and the USSR could attack west after they build up a enough of a force by 1942 or 1943.
@@Luuute nothing here but us trees
@@scvboy1 That and the only way the US would get involved in this hypothetical Soviet-European War is another Zimmermann Telegram situation (I dunno, we'll call it the Molotov Telegram).
“The French were in high spirits.” It sounds like French should of went on the offensive even if a cautious one instead of not doing much and french morale steadily decrease. If nothing else the french could of damaged German infrastructure and given themselves more territory to conduct a fighting retreat. Also, the German tanks and planes would of had to go that much further. For WWII tanks an extra 200 miles is a lot. I strike thru the lines to the sea would of been out of reach. It would take at least one major stop, regroup, refuel, and maintenance before driving to the sea
"would have" please, instead of "would of".... your argument is much stronger without elementary grammatical errors....
They did. The Saar Offensive was about the biggest they could do without breaking their own ongoing mobilisation effort and crippling their own army in the mid-long term.
Cowardness when it affecting highs ranks officers can do way more damage then any battle. You could almost say that France was betrayed by theirs leader.
France only had half the population of Germany. (ca. .40 million vs 80 million) and only half the air force.
I love how one of the most important factors concerning France is barely mentioned in pop-history.
True, the French had colonies. But the colonies barely had any industry and there was only so many you could recruit from there before there would be issues. If anything, it's surprising that France was able to field an army that came even close to being as big as the German one. Finally, the disproportionate size of their military probably also explains why France had issues with quality and morale in some units (especially the ones defending the Ardennes).
The ones defending the Ardennes were conscripts and were very poorly equipped and poorly trained. How could you properly defend the Ardennes when you only had a rifle against tanks on high speed ? The best French army was stationed exactly on the same place in March but was tricked into Belgium.
1)69 million not 80 million people
2)France had many allies who were the size of France army
3)Germany has weaker tanks, planes
4)Germany was poor than France
5)France had colonies and before the war she took everything she wanted, unlike Germany, which had to negotiate with its future enemy, the USSR
7)In battle of Belgium Alliance lose 3 million army, Germany lose 20 thousands .This is a shame not only for France but also for the Alliance. If you take the mythical 80 million Germans, then add Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands and you will get too unfair a fight. Although France was completely ready, she lost miserably.
@@jonnyanderson8845 Almost everything you said was inaccurate. Here are the numbers:
- Germany had a population of roughly 80 million vs France's 40 million.
- Germany had an economy almost twice the size of France.
- Germany had an average GDP per capita of 5100 dollars vs 4400 for a Frenchman.
I'm including Austria and Sudetenland since these were part of Germany by the time the war broke out, and since Germany recruited from these regions the same way it recruited from everywhere else in Germany proper.
Also, these regions had more industry than all of France's colonies combined. But even if we exclude Austria and Sudetenland, Germany still far outmatches France economically and population wise.
In regards to your other point, Belgium and Netherlands were pretty much crushed before the French army could react properly. Taking out tiny nations and their under equipped and underdeveloped armies doesn't earn you points as some great military juggernaut.
Besides, even if you combine the population and industry of the Benelux countries with France, Germany would still be at an advantage.
In conclusion: The only semi-worthwhile nation Germany defeated was France, a nation that had barely half the population and economy as Germany.
Against everyone else they lost. So much for the invincible Wehrmacht.
(To anyone reading this, don't take my word for it: Just check the population and economy stat out yourself.)
@@romanbarna1316 Oh, this weak Wehrmacht from which 2 empires disappeared (one of which is the largest British in history). The USSR suffered 12 million losses (27 million civilians) of the army against 2.7 million of the Wehrmacht. Only the United States and Great Britain dropped bombs per day on Germany, equivalent to 50-100 nuclear bombs, as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You exaggerate GDP per capita too much, because everything was built on the military industry, unlike France. Germany without an army, with old technologies and corruption became a superpower that immediately declared war on all of Europe. The United States lost 3 times more soldiers in 1 year than with Japan in 4 years, although the United States fought with weak children from the Hitler Youth. Before writing about the incompetence of the French generals, why don't you write about the incompetence of the German generals in the period 1944-45, because even then they had a chance to win the war on 2 fronts, but they spent resources on killing innocent Jews ...
@@romanbarna1316 Once again, I tell you the population of Germany does not play any role here. The role is played by the size of the army and losses. In the battle for Belgium, the Allies lost 3 million troops, and Germany 20 thousand, is it luck?) This is the biggest victory in history, which is silent and more than Kyiv cauldron. For some reason, you have Napoleon a hero, although the population of France was then the largest in Europe and more than that of Russia. The main troops of Napoleon were not French, unlike Germany where 80% were Germans. Why then the USSR boasts of a victory for a couple of dozen years, although their population was 200+ million people.
Video begins at 2:39
Doing the lord's work I see. Thank you 🙏
Thanks
What can you learn from this: Pure defense without (counter-) attacking yourself is doomed to fail.
Gamelin witnessed the rapid collapse of Poland and understood an intact German army would soon be freed to face France alone. It's apparent he believed it wise to retire to prepared positions rather than engage a motivated, well equipped, enemy deep in its home territory. I suspect Gamelin bought into the 1930s hype of air power and believed German industry would be leveled by strategic bombers of the RAF regardless of where he positioned French troops.
On the contrary Gamelin had zero faith in aviation. He believed in massive artillery barrages.
Gamelin decision to withdraw from the Sarra was logical, as France wasn't prepared to launch a massive offensive. But his decisions in 1940 are among the worst of French military history (with 1870 defeat).
@@selinane2Seli-zw3pz I have to say "why the French wasn't prepared in 1939" ? It's not like Hitler was dangerous since 1936-37, the had like 2 or 3 years to prepare, but the did nothing, in 39 they were like a bunch of naked idiots, juste like the British.
About the start of the WW2. Remember, the Soviet Union invaded Poland together with Nazi Germany and treated the local population not better than Nazi's. The Soviet Union was an ally of Hitler. Eventually, Soviets were punished, anyway.
Unfortunately, they where not punished -they where rewarded with ;land lease transfer of goods and technology (including nuclear capabilities) and half of Europe, occupied after war for almost a half century. Their evil system had no Norymberg trails ,as result in many counties we can see symbols of communism in the public space. Good luck walking the street with a swastika on t-shirt, I don't recommend it.
But red commies symbols ,no problem! Results we see today in Ukraine.
15:30 "relatively low number" nop! That's the number of the beast! Who gave that number??
Yup
In France we use to say
''learning tales of world war 2 without world war 1 is like starting a book from the middle''
I feel bad for those French soldiers. They were brave enough to invade Nazi Germany, but their leadership was absolutely useless.
They Woud never have defeated the Nazi Germany lol . Stop dreaming 💀
Griffin Johnsen the Armchair Historian: "That's a question for the alternate historians out there."
Cody Franklin from the Alternate History Hub: *Breaks down wall and catches breath* "OKAY SO WHAT IF IN AN ALTERNATE TIMELINE...?!"
for real though, show us more of the elephant and sloth fight.
its interesting to think what russian, american, or british generals would have done with such an opportunity.
i think either faction's strategy could easily be summed up with "grab them by the dick and twist".
for germany to have its industrial heartland so exposed and for the french to be in such a position as to be able to raze it in what can ostensibly be considered a two week raid is jaw dropping.
Arguably in my opinion the biggest historical what if moment considering that they could've put a quick end to the war in Europe at least.
German generals really liked writing after the war. The French squandering a chance to win easily in 1939 makes for a really good story to sell books, but we'll never know what would have happened if the concerted attack had really come.
French could occupy left bank of Rhine if they did prepare 40 divisions attack as was agreed with Poland, but actually only half of that was doing the Saar offensive. France failed mobilization. With 20 divisions only they could go no further than Saarland and Palantinate.
@Tim Onk my world is real, it s called theorizing and analysys
@@alexzero3736 They agreed to 40 divisions WITHIN A MONTH. Which, uh, means 40 divisions by the time the Germans are already cleaning out the last defenders of Warsaw, and are more than prepared to defend against a 40-division offensive in the west. Nobody expected the Wehrmacht to go and overrun the entirety of Poland in 35 days.
Gamelin is that one guy in a show who could stop the villian and kill him then and there, but hesitates and the villian kills him.
I suppose having seen the immense loss in ww1 the French command were reluctant to risk losing so many men again.
1940? I thought it was 1939, the Saar invasion.
yeah he didn't even got they year right
@@simon2493 He isn't a historian at all, he got a lot of things wrong
WW2 Germany seems to have had some serious plot armor with this guy leading the French.
As a polish person this is a fresh perspective to see. On history lessons, I mostly heard that our allies were just cowards that did nothing but this add some contexts. Shadows of WWI were still present in France, and since France was strongly affected by this conflict this explains their OVER-cautious behaviour. Additionally I didn't knew that France actually attacked Germany on 7th September, that's actually a new thing to me
Yeah I am always bored when I hear polish people spitting on France, not apparently aware that despite the fact that they are now free of the russians, they continue to read the good old soviet anti west propaganda.
I remember seeing a French propaganda film from this time showing the French soldiers stealing German bicycles during this offensive as if it was some kind of great victory they had achieved.
This feels like an Adrian Gray sketch lol
That Thumbnail is just epic 😂
And awesome video by the way😅
The cowardice of the French government in WW2 is beyond appalling. Napoleon would be disgusted with them
If Napoleon was in charge, he would've instantly charge to Berlin.
It depends when, if you’re talking about pre-armistice then yes, but free france definitively had good generals
@@trollege9618 maybe Because Napoleon was not French....
@@Tensaii1 he was ethnically Italian but didn't switch sides. Interesting to note was that the Italians attacked the French border during 1940 too, and was repulsed even after Paris was taken.
@@trollege9618 not to mention Mussolini didn’t attack France until after the Germans broke through the Ardennes so even with the Axis gaining the advantage, the Italians still couldn’t capitalize on it
France was the only country to take military action against Germany in response to the invasion of Poland, the other countries didn't moved a finger, yet France is criticized fro the Saar offensive, it's just amazing...
The funniest fact is that France was deafeted in similar time as Poland. With more soldiers, better weapon, Maginot line, only one enemy and time to prepare xD and of course we have to remember about Vichy :)
The French fought long and hard and I hated hearing jokes about them being a surrendering right away which is not true.You do t really hear those jokes anymore but I remember my uncle telling me he met a lot of French in Vietnam and they were tough.As my uncle told me he hated the jokes and reminded mainly Americans “without France and it’s navy the Revolution may have failed”
Honestly. The french defeat of vietnam was less humiliating than the Americans defeat in vietnam🤣🤣🤣
@@waxerstarwarsexplained550 Add to this the fact that France was not fighting only in Vietnam but all of "Indochina", which was much bigger.
Do not forget that it was the French who saved the English in Dunkirk, however
Failed? Abandoned is a better description. Great stuff....thanks...
I've always said that the French people were much more effective once the leadership was no longer holding them back.
This video is rather disastrous as it perpetuate the myth that the French missed a golden opportunity to end the war in 1939.
No care is given to the actual force ratio at the frontiers in 1939 (the numbers given are mostly wrong), nor at the terrain, nor at the timing of the Polish campaign. The german general's quotes are uncritically accepted without any kind of double-checking.
A full-scale French offensive in the Saar would have been in reality a risky move, at best.
I didn’t know this part of the story. This brings a whole new perspective to the French failure. Shame that this general wasn’t removed from office earlier
Ah yes, the one moment France could have done something
The French soldiers deserved better leadership. They weren't the cowards
You need context. Don’t forget France was destroyed because of the WW1, they didn’t wanted trenches war like the previous war. They also saved Britain at Dunkirk, let’s never forget that
@@user-op8fg3ny3j
Same is true for Italy 🇮🇹 in WWII as well. The few times you see Italians under German command they performed very respectably.
They coud have done what ? Easy to say now with all the knowledge. A part from that you just forget things like the french needed at least three weeks to totally mobilize, so the attack couldn't be more big that this probe, that they have a defensive mindset and tactics since many years due to WW1 and that the only plans were to put the army to the Maginot Line and the northern frontiers in an defensive line...so in fact that probe attack was as much they could improvise with all the curcunstances. Trying to prove something with ''they had x divisions and the germans only Y in that front is ridiculous'' as many of those divisions were not attack formations and were not prepared for that.
@@Balrog2005 Germany’s main force was East invading Poland. The French could have mobilized immediately (the French people were more than willing to go remove Hitler from power) and with the British crossed the border into the Ruhr and paralyzed most of Germany’s industrial capacity. The defensive mindset was due to overly cautious commanders who believed this would be another WW1 with large French systems and massive bloodshed for minimal gain (which is stupid considering they had moved past that in 1918). There is no excuse for their failure, they have no one to blame but themselves.
I never really understand what did people expect Britain to really do to stop the invasion of Poland in 1939 realistically, Britain's biggest trump card it's Royal navy could not stop a land invasion and the British army was tiny and could not reach Poland to aid it. Stopping Germany by Land was only possible by another great land power like France.
They could have dropped, I don't know, real bombs, instead of paper. "That'll show em".
@@wolfbyte3171 Well they wanted too But France said no.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD acually german woudl just shoot them down since at that time germany had air supremacy because there was no battle of london
@@wolfbyte3171 Bomber Command tried several attacks on targets in Germany in '39. They all ended in the respective bomber formations getting massacred to little to no effect.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD How could 40 millions France beat 80 millions nazi Germany in 2 weeks without mobilization ? The time for Germany to beat main Polish armies and call back troops from Poland and Germany.
btw - if you want to do an EQUAL Video in the Versus-Series you should do the battles when finns and germans had to fight each others. These were extremly hard because you had 2 VERY professional armies fighting each other.
The French government surrendered but most of the army never did. They escaped with the British and fought on with support from the British and Americans. French units were key in Africa and Italy and occupied a section of Germany after the War with the other allies.
In fact that's not true at all, most of the army surrendered, thos who join the UK and De Gaulle were very few.
@@jansobieski3127 there were 100,000 french troops under direct US command and and almost twice that under English command. By wars end they had 600,000 French in arms. That is no small number.
@@beaushaver3779 not in 1940, I read de Gaulle's memoirs and in 1940 there were very few soldiers from the French army who join him, they came mostly after 1943.
Napoleon: “without me…
…you Are *NOTHING* “
Well done to cover this 'forgoten' event!
while in hindsight the invasion looked incompetent i could completely seeing "the west" doing this. we seem to be loathe to go all in at once and prefer to hope things will work itself out or talking things through to slow down the problem while still grudgingly trying to look like we're honoring our previous promises 😕
Even me whose a person who loves France and Is part French, I can only be enraged at my own countries humongous blunder here, we squandered a fantastic chance to end the war quickly by fighting as if we had our feet stuck in the mud
The announcer did not properly study the situation at that time, because if they went to the river Rhine, the French would have to go into an urban battle, because in this area there is a densely populated area of 20 million people and they could lose millions of soldiers there.
@@kosarkosar7683 The Armchair historian isn't a historian at all indeed
@@kosarkosar7683 In turn, that would explain why Germany did not succeed in conquering France. Oh wait, they did.
You say that because you know what happened and you didn't have half of your family killed or crippled in WW1, 20 years later. But yes, the high command and politicians in Paris did everything to sabotage themselves, exactly like in 1870 when they denied all the military reforms proposed by Napoléon III and then pushed him to declare war on Prussia.
Always love it when you do stuff that I haven’t even heard of, your videos are always very entertaining to watch for someone as interested in history like me, I was wondering if you could do something on the 1916 Brusilov Offensive during WW1? It’s a very interesting story and I’d love to see you touch on it!
“Should we shoot them?”
“Of course not! They’ll shoot back.”
- Oversimplified French soldiers
if the french had german generals in 1939 the war would have been over in 1940
16:43 - "That's a question for the _alternate_ historians out there."
BTW, if anyone's wondering, the answer to that question is "yes".