In 1945, why did Britain and France nearly go to war?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ค. 2024
- In 1945, British tanks rolled into Syria knowing that, if they encountered French troops that refused to back down, they would have to fight their former ally. But why? How had relations between these two countries collapsed to this point, and why was this all happening in Syria in the first place?
TikTok: / dougajames
Twitter: / douglas33689714
Ben G Thomas: / bengthomas
Joe's Channel: / @joe_brennan_
If you think I've got something incorrect, please leave a (pleasant) comment about it down below, I'll check it out. If you do so, make sure to use some sort of reliable source, in oppose to a generic website/TH-cam video/Wikipedia. If I conclude that I was wrong, I'll pin a comment about it, or just pin your comment.
Chapters:
0:00 Intro
0:28 The Channel's Future
0:48 Prelude
4:10 The Allied Invasion
7:18 Lebanese Crisis
11:49 Building Tensions (again)
18:32 The Crisis
22:07 The Aftermath
26:20 Conclusion
PUBLIC SCRIPT:
docs.google.com/document/d/1P...
Music attributions:
Bittersweet by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.filmmusic.io/song...
License: creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Morgana Rides by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.filmmusic.io/song...
License: creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Dark Times by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.filmmusic.io/song...
License: creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Stay The Course by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.filmmusic.io/song...
License: creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Thunderbird by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.filmmusic.io/song...
License: creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Sources:
Barr, James, A Line in the Sand, (London: Simon and Schuster UK, 2012)
Bell, P. M. H., France and Britain 1940-1994: The Long Separation, (London: Longman, 1997)
Cohen, Michael J., Churchill and the Jews, 2nd edn (London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003)
Gaunson, A.B., The Anglo-French Clash in Lebanon and Syria, 1940-45, (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1987)
Seeley, J. R., The Expansion of England, 2nd ed., (London: Macmillan and Co., 1909)
Thomas, Martin, The French empire at war, 1940-45, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998)
Thomas, Martin, ‘France and its colonial civil wars, 1940-1945’ in The Cambridge History of the Second World War: Volume II Politics and Ideology ed. By Richard J. B. Bosworth, Joseph A. Maiolo, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)
Woodhouse, C.M., Britain and the Middle East, (Genève: E. Droz, 1959)
Do check out the public script in the description for a fully referenced document that includes a couple of extra fun bits of information I couldn't fit in the video!
...
Do you know Jesus Christ can set you free from sins and save you from hell today
Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven
There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today
Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell
Come to Jesus Christ today
Jesus Christ is only way to heaven
Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void
Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today
Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today
Romans 6.23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Jesus
As with the end of WWI, nothing quite caps off the most devastating conflict of the age like "Hey, how about a little more war?"
Reality is Sardonic. Best sense of humor there is. I am dying laughing at this video for example. I had no idea this was happening at the time. France and England wanting more... With each other. Great stuff.
Meanwhile: Soviet Union is persecuting countless Eastern European peoples and fighting insurgent conflicts that will last for years in Ukraine and the Baltics
Yeah the UN can really pat themselves on the back for being a force for peace during this time smh
Because the British started both ones
WW2 after France’s great showing in WW1 was an embarrassment to a proud nation, they had to have someone to blame and naturally we will never be forgiven being their oldest adversaries, as shown recently with the D Day celebrations where our flag was omitted.
@@blitzy3244yes because of course the Brits assassinated Franz Ferdinand and then forced an impossible ultimatum on Serbia, after which they concocted a false flag operation to excuse their invasion of Poland…
…I’m sorry to disappoint you but a bloke called Archie Duke did NOT shoot an ostrich because he was hungry…
I don't think I'd learned about this before. Thanks.
Me neither.
& I loved it, but have to research some, as I'm not fully convinced about the "weak" arab influence in all this fully-Colonial Intrigue !
Now I understand why Roosevelt disliked De Gaulle and wanted to shut him out during the war.
Canada ejected De Gaulle and I’m rather proud of it.
It's not because Roosevelt was the banks' puppet and de Gaulle was not?
Because he was an english lapdog, Gaulle did nothing wrong.
@@fenixman2bro forgot to watch the video.
@@fenixman2de Gualle hated the English and kept them out of the EEC.
Didn't think very highly of de Gaulle with out hearing this. Now even less
Why ?
He reestablished french sovereignity. That's the main reason the allies considered him a pain in the ass. Especially as he made their plan to establish an occupation goverment fail. Whatever you may think of him, he fought hard for what he fought were french best interests.
Don't forget that while France was temporarily weakened by occupation, it's potential power was in the same league than UK. So De Gaulle demands are not withouth basis. Especially, after the multiple betrayals of the english at the begenning of the war. And given that almost all opprtunities to stop Hitler before were blocked by the british. They made Stresa a failure, and they are the ones that made Munich possible.
Churchill is responsible for a huge famine in Bengale that killed millions. And the americans nuked Japan knowing it was militarily useless.
Churchill was convinced by eugenism.
And while you accuse De Gaulle of imperialism which is true, you ignore the American, Soviet, and to a lesser degree english imperialism in the same era.
The British attack on the French Fleet in 1940 is well known and documented . Lesser know was the British invasion of French controlled Island of Madagascar in 1942 . The Japanese bombers that sunk the Repulse and the Prince of Wales took off from French airfields in Indo China . It was feared that the Vichy would give the Japanese authority to use the Island as a submarine base .
Another hidden event from WW2 that involved the French was , Marocchinate the name given to the atrocities committed by French Moroccan troops in Italy .
When Roosevelt , Churchill and Stalin met at Yalta , De Gaulle was not invited . The big three decided that postwar Germany should be divided into three Zones , Russian , American and British ( BAOR ) no French. That infuriated the Grande Charles who insisted that they had a part . Russia agreed providing it came from UK and USA Zones . When the Brits wanted to rekindle German Industry , particularly steel production , it was the French that held it back . Too much emphasis is placed upon the Marshall Plan , whose real aim was to stop communism . Read what the man responsible has to say , George Kennan .
You’ve forgotten the Australian campaign that defeated the French in Syria and Lebanon in 1941.
I believe Churchill championed French inclusion in post war talks. For example, the French Sector in Berlin was carved out of the British Sector.
Churchill was a lifelong Francophile - he retired there. Also he had proposed an Act of Union in 1940 to keep the French in the war, and was the earliest -though largely unrecognised- proponent of a United Europe.
@@bob_the_bomb4508 Churchill did indeed want a closer knit union with Europe , not a Federal one . France is a beautiful country with great variety thanks to thee Alps , and the Med . Thats why it was a popular retreat for the English before and after WW1.
@@bob_the_bomb4508Churchill championed French inclusion in paying the $$$ for occupation, really. Japan was already left to the United States, and Britain did not want to concede more of its influence in Europe to America and the Soviet Union, two bigger and better land empires. France was the logical ally against them.
The french were in zero capaciry to tell the japs what they could or could not do.
Even less than the brits who were far more important in that part pf the world than they would like to admit
Even when they totally outnumbered the japs... like during tje Singapore glorious battle...
As Churchill once said when asked, " What was the greatest cross you had to bear during WW2 ? ", his answer was " The Cross of St Lorraine " ...
Lies. His largest cross to bear was the 24 carat gold cross his Jewish financers bought him to ensure Britain sacrificed all of it's wealth to drag Germany down with it into it's ethnically cleansed modern version
Churchill once again proved to be one of the biggest traitors to his people and of the worst dictators there ever were. If he had just accepted those germany's peace offers, we wouldn't have gone through such numbers of deaths solely for that trίbe 😒😒😒
Edward Spears said this, not Churchill
I just think it’s very funny that France wanted to keep Syria so it could continue to look like a major power and not weak when in fact was weak and not a major power. You can try to bet against reality, but reality always wins.
The greatst delusion of the french was to believe that the english (and american) would be better allies to them and would help against Germany.
As opposed to who? France didn’t fall because of a lack of allies. It’s widely understood that it was more powerful (in theory) than the Germans when they were invaded. The issue was their inability to modernize, horrible bureaucratic dysfunction that equally caused horrendous fractures in the military… all the way from the low ranking officers, still being selected by familial ties- something many other nations had began to faze out post WWI- to the highest level officers being figureheads stuck in the area of non-mobile warfare. The French fell because their leaders failed them. Not because their allies failed them. As much as I love De Guille, he forgot that France had fallen many times, and that the allies were giving them many handouts, acting like he was saving the allies while in exile, not vise versa.
@@samgerman2883Bro French were Second Grade power in Front of Britain , Germany, US and Soviet Union
For example in 1938 industrial potential
US = 28%
Germany= 12.7%
Britain = 10.7%
Soviet Union = 9.9%
France = 4.2%
Industrially French were weak and thier population was also lagging behind
They didn't have the Vast Manpower , Natural resources like British Empire as well as the Industrial Potential of Britain and Germany
I can't think of any major contribution the French made to fighting Germany. As individuals and units they displayed skill and bravery. As nation, they were a negligible participant.
France wanted to keep syria for the same reason britain wanted france out: OIL FIELDS!
A little stab in the back of France... whats wrong with that???
There is a really SIMPLE reason, after the defeat of Vichy Syria, Syria had DEMOCRATIC elections, however France WANTED to RE COLONISE THEM..and the British opposed this in orderto support the democraticly elected Syrian Government. France did not have any ability to fight any way and it is a sign of Gallic arrogance that the British which BOUGHT De Gaulle to power and provided MOST assistance, more than the USA to the French, turned on the British IMMEDIATELY the French , under De Gaul, decided they had won WW2 and were going to take back all their colonies even thought the people of those countries did not want them back, Vietnam for instance!
Frances' inability let go lead to Vetinam, and the stability of USA still hasn't recovered from the us vs them party politics that event snowballed into Americana
Are we pretending that the British were not colonisers, now? Seriously, now...
@@adrien5834 The British STOPPED it though and set goals for independence, so why are you waffling about irrelvancies? The recognised it was wrong! Do you?
@@patrickmexiquinn Whoever you are you are totally incorrect and it was as early as 1976 that Vietnam actually put our feelers towards allying itself as a US supporter and for this their then head of state travelled to the US in 1978. That contradicts your story hugley BUT the reader can check out the truth for themselves.
@@HenriHattar It's irrelevant to point out your hypocrisy? I'm sure you think so.The British were maneuvering for advantage, nothing more. They cared not a jot for the freedom of the people of Syria.
There’s a lot of little rivalries in this world: Tehran vs Istanbul, Moscow vs Kyiv, Seoul vs Tokyo. But in my opinion there is no rivalry as old or as bitter as the hatred that exists between the French and British peoples.
Hatred between the interests of the powerful in both regions. The people do what they are told by those more educated than them.
Lies they are none it s all old story and history
i think the roman persian one was longer
Not British but English, definitely not Scotland who partnered France in joint attacks on England. Why is it the Scottish and Irish are always treated as victims when they were the aggressors. After all, the Scots are Irish and in common with the rest of the Irish were invading England or Britain as it was then. St Patrick was a monk in Ellesmere Port, kidnapped and taken as a slave. The Scots eventually took over Northern Britain and continued their attacks on England from there. Many years later the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons and Jutes invaded and Romans and Norman's followed. Incidentally a lot of the people (ancient Britons) fled to Wales and other extreme areas, so in a way the Welsh are the original English. Now there's food for thought, Taffys!
The hatred was more on the part of the English monarchy and ruling class, because they were of French origin themselves. The Norman kings were obsessed with their properties in Normandy, Anjou and France generally. Kings of England and later Great Britain claimed also to be kings of France and had the fleur-de-lis on their coats of arms right up to the formation of the United Kingdom in 1801. That obsession looks as irrational as the Tsars' (and Putin's) with the Ukraine.
In his memoirs Churchill quipped that of all the crosses he had to bear the Cross of Lorraine was the most heavy. He actually entertained having De Gaulle arrested.
Wish he had. De Gaulle was nothing but a scumbag.
Why didn't he then?
The only reason why de Gaulle had so cowardly abandoned Algeria afterward was that he was afraid of looking inept and stupid in the eyes of the world, after the dog's breakfast he had made over his handling of French Indo-China, (Vietnam).
The feeling was equal with the Americans too. De Gaulle was insufferable. Even Canada kicked him out of the country after shooting his mouth of, saying "Vive le Quebec Libre", suggesting Quebec was not free. David Irving investigates and points out the wartime assassination attempt on De Gaulle in sabotaging his aircraft, probably by British Intelligence. Oddly, De Gaulle and Antony Eden were friends despite De Gaulle's shenanigans. What a shame, because the moment Eden became PM, the two of them screwed everything up with the Suez crisis.
If Churchill had arrested De Gaulle, he would have got a statue in every British town !
Churchill quipped both very positive and negative about De Gaulle. De Gaulle cryptically alluded to their relationship if I recall as, When I am right I get mad when he is wrong he gets mad. So we are often mad at each other! De Gaulle was in a corner so he had to fight while Churchill was in the middle so he had to be diplomatic.
De Gaulle was infuriatingly arrogant, touchy, haughty and arrogant, endowed with the worst Gallic characteristics. He supported the attempts by France to hold on to its Colonial Empire in the Middle East, Africa and Indochina.
He actually put an end to Algeria war and give them their independence. He did not want to keep the colonies and was perfectly aware that it was time to let them go. When it come to colonial empire, take a look at Great Britain history and their colossal Empire. De Gaulle was not arrogant, touchy or haughty, he was proud to be a French, proud of his history and love is country more than his own citizens. He was the best leader France have ever had since Napoleon Bonaparte. Both De Gaulle and Churchill had strong character and a little bit of temper, but they respect each other.
I thought he was trying to pull out of north africa?
John what you just described is just a normal Frenchman
those are the best Gallic characteristics, it is the reason their food and wine are so good
@@marcelb7259 "He actually put an end to Algeria war and give them their independence."
Honestly, this was more pure pragmatism than a matter of ideology. The writing had been on the wall for a while by that point. Maintaining French presence in Algeria was not possible. It would have been too expensive and would have weakened the country far beyond what Algeria could bring.
"He did not want to keep the colonies and was perfectly aware that it was time to let them go."
By 1958 yes, but back in 1945, that was an other story, as his policivy in Indochina show. He wanted to restore French sovereignty on that old colony and he ordered it so in 1945. Also, the man who started the war in 1946, admiral D'Argenlieux, was a fervent Gaullist, although it isn't sure if he specifically acted on De Gaulle's order. It is however worth to point out that, before D'Argenlieux took over the Indochina question, Leclerc was there and De Gaulle did ordered him, at some point, to consider independance, at least as a way to maintain dialogue with the Vietminh.
I think De Gaulle, at least for a moment after that war, believed that he could maintain France prestige and place as an international power through the old colonial. But the defeat of his constitutional project in 46, the disastrous resolution of the Indochina war, the war in Algeria raging on, the Suez crisis and his return to power in 1958 trully changed the paradigm.
British army units played a significant role in the liberation of Paris, yet De Gaulle insisted that the first victory parade was American and Free French only.
The Brits only contribution to the liberation of Paris was landing in Normandy and fighting their way across northern France. Ike did not really want to go into the city as it might soak up too many resources... but due to the popular uprising he ended up having to. 4ID opened the way, French 2nd AD disobeyed orders and attacked from the wrong direction, got hung up and lost a lot of people. Finally pushed into the city. De Gaulle wanted two Divisions to secure the city and Ike said no, but he had the 28th ID march through the city as a show of force and then go back into the attack on the other side. De Gaulle was a major pain in the ass, but they needed someone to counter the French Communists...if De Gaulle was even half as wonderful as he thought he was, no one would remember Jesus...did one good thing; kept France from going communist.
The British were very much third class participants…
I recently read a book by Paddy Ashdown covering the resistance movement around Bordeaux in which the British SOE was heavily involved. At the war`s end De Gaulle was presented to members of the resistance. He totally blanked the British in the line-up whilst bigging up the French efforts.
@@aconsideredopinion7529 Nice try at trolling but the British were first among equals in that campaign. French completely insignificant as their army had been in 1940. Americans were good but overrated.
@@Curmudgeon2In other words, the Brits’ ahem “only contribution” was doing most of the donkey work for France and the US to take the glory? Nice try troll…
You don't need enemies when you're allied with france...
What about about the british attacking France in peace in 1755, letting down the great alliance in 1711/1712 (dutch and austrian garrisons refusing to let the retreating troops to come in), leaving the spaniards protecting their retreat from Toulon in 1793, letting the french behind in Dunkirk....
@@oliviervece6121🏳️🏳️🏳️
the same could be say about the British
@@oliviervece6121 😂😂Excuses Excuses French boy, you are embarrassed because Britain gave France one last big f*ck you. 😂
@@kiankier7330 - yes, or the US.
Normally, I don't watch videos this long, but this was great. Keep it up.
The French Government was in Vichy (without De Gaulle) through much of WWII. The Vichy Government actively opposed the British (and Allies), whether in Africa, the Middle East, Madagascar or Far East (they even facilitated the Japanese attacks on Malaya and Burma). The French people were badly let down by their leadership, which appears to have learnt nothing (again).
Vichy was right
French surrender was the right decision and opposing the allies was in the French national interest
Wrong, Vichy was neutral until the British attacked the French Navy at Mers-el-Kébir.
"The Vichy Government actively opposed the British" is a blatant lie, and can easily be fact-checked on any wiki, really.
After the british betrayal at Mers-El-Kebir (which they still sometime try to portrait as justified, like the Copenhagen bombings), all Vichy did was send some bombers over Gibraltar, and that was their strongest offensive operation against Great-Britai. Vichy declared its neutrality and defended its territory, that is all...
The plain fact, which is omitted in this video because it very much sees things from a Brit perspective, is that de Gaulle and Pétain (head of the Vichy gov't, and before that, PM of France during the May/June 1940 invasion by the Germans, until he handed in the surrender of the French army to the Germans) were *competing* over which of them should be seen as the true representative, the legit leader of France and the French nation. de Gaulle claimed that Pétain and the Vichy men were traitors, and by 1944 he could certainly claim that history had proved him right.
Most people in France since WW2 (no, I'm not French but I know the country) would consider Vichy a bastard government that had no real claim to speaking for France, just like Lord Haw-Haw did not represent the British.
That was a great video, it found the length to be great, details are important. I just subscribed, keep going!
Excellent work Doug. Very interesting. It was well-presented, with a riveting script and relevant photos and reminders of the characters, really quite professional. I've subscribed and hope you do more!
Excellent video Doug, thank you!
Funnily enough, I was reading about thos for the first time the other week...
Great video, just subscribed.
De Gaulle's last laugh in 1965 he announced selling US dollars for gold thus leading the United States officially off the gold standard basically defaulting on its debt. And here we are at the economic end game.
Tbf the signs of the US abandonning Gold standart was already present, De Gaulle France mostly just did a nominal "f*** you" to the US rather than help its economical decline, they didnt even stop using the Dollar in itself nor stock them again afterward, they just converted what little dollars they had on hands to gold and then kept on going as usual
It was 1971 not 1965
@@brucenorman8904 While true by Nixon in 71, De Gaulle In a press conference in Paris, on the 4th of February 1965, President Charles de Gaulle advocated the return of the world's money system to the gold standard. Following this speech, France announced that it would convert some of its dollar reserves into gold.
💯
Being on the Gold Standard is what prolonged the depression of the 1930s. Gold isn't magic; money is valuable if you use it to stimulate your economy and generate something valuable. Britain ran its war on credit from May 1940 onwards because caving to Nazi Germany was unthinkable.
This is a really fantastic presentation. Thanks for sharing.
Excellent video, something I'd never heard of before.
First time I have come across your channel. Impressive coverage of a topic I have never encountered. I consider myself a student of international relations and war history. This was all news to me, and I find it a well informed piece. Thanks for covering it.
A really very interesting video. Thanks for sharing. Well worth the ten additional minutes. 😊
Doug - you make the videos you want to make and the audience (with me included) will find you - this was a story I had never encountered before and I thoroughly enjoyed it
Great video!
de Gaulle didn't become President until 1959. In 1945 he was only Chairman of the Provisional governemnt.
He had a great influence among the peoples.
What a well researched and interesting video. I’ve learned a lot. Not too long for me 👍
Superbly presented. The French tried to do the same when they reentered Vietnam, formerly French Indo-China, in 1946. The RAF Squadron my father was a part of was transferred from Burma to Vietnam as a peace keeping force in 1945. There were too few of them, so a number of Japanese soldiers were kept on as unarmed police auxiliaries under British control. They weren’t allowed to beat the civilian population as they had done previously and he maintained that his experience of the Vietnamese was very positive. He and his mates could freely wander into the villages and towns and were quite welcome. The problems began when the French returned. They immediately started beating the civilian population, which British MPs and servicing personnel tried to prevent, but much occurred behind closed doors.
His Squadron handed everything over to the French (aircraft and ground support equipment) and then departed for home and the rest is history, but he always maintained to the best of his knowledge that the Vietnamese were a friendly people.
Almost no other history-focused (English) channels cover this rather convoluted period of history, but I'm glad to have found your video! Subscribed!
Superb video Doug. This is a piece of post war history that I was completely unaware of. Looking forward to any future uploads you've got planned.
I was pleasantly surprised when I found a video from Doug A James in my inbox. Brilliant video. I am developing a fascination with world war 2 after my recent dive into the Cold War, fascinating stuff. Reminds me of the tension seen between France and NATO in the sixties.
First time on this channel. Gotta say, great video and I really appreciate the sources in the description.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed! Do check out the public script in the description too for a few extra fun details in the footnotes!
Thank you for the self relflection and citation on the making of this documentary. That was as enlightening as your detailed account of this little known aspect of WWII.
Well Done. Excellent research.
This was highly informational
Very interesting. Thank You
Well this was new to me, well done, very well put together
Happy to see you still using this channel.
In a random given year, why did France and Britain nearly go to war.
The french answer of levantine countries independance could be understand at a larger scale.
In deed, all countries near of French Syria and Leabanon are English or under English influence. So French défend only their own interests. De Gaulle said :" In international relationships, there is no friendship, only common interest"
20 minutes isn't long. I think you did an excellent job explaining the insident and the build up to it.
I didn't know anything about it before so it was very interesting thank you.
Thought I was watching the Beeb. Excellent production, good sir, bravo👏
Thank you for this insight into a mostly forgotten chapter of history.
This video makes me appreciate Churchill even more, not only was his country and Commonwealth at war, but he had to keep an eye on some of his 'allies' as well.
Really great video Doug! I learned a lot of new things from it. :)
The short answer:
France and England have been warring off and on since England and France have been things. Them getting along is a very modern thing, and historically very tenous.
I'm not certain, but I'd imagine we are currently experiencing the longest gap between an English/French war in either country's history.
Before the Romans and Saxons there wasn't that much difference between the two, Brittany is actually named after the Celtic British who fled from Saxons to Gaul.
The adage, "You are never too old to learn" is true for me in this video. I am old, but I never knew of this particular piece of history.
Yet another example of just how disastrous and stupid the Sykes-Picot agreement was.
Most expediecies are given time and retrospective wisdom
True, while promising the same area to the Arabs and the Zionists, a triple lie. Very few regimes allowed themselves to such multiplicity, secrecy and disregard for human life in history, and we are watching the consequences on TV these days.
How do you figure? Sykes-Picot has nothing to do with French control. They were determined to control the Levant. Look at the Treaty of Sevres in 1920.
@@ElGrandoCaymano Sykes-Picot had everything to do with French Control. It was what the agreement was all about, giving the British control of Palestine, Jordan and Iraq and the French control of Lebanon and Syria. It also of course led to the complete [expletive deleted] up that the world is still dealing with today!
@@ronwilson9815Yes. It’s not about whether UK or France was *more* imperialistic, it’s about how appalling it is that they were *both* so imperialistic. Why should we even *care* which of them was even worse than the other?
Very interesting. Something i didn't know about and great to learn.
What a superb mini documentary. I'm glad I came across your channel.
I consider myself a fairly well read expert on matters concerning WWII. this is the first time I've heard of this event. it truly makes my day when I learn stuff like this. thank you!
Adored the video and have subscribed. It’s not a part of history often covered as it’s overshadowed by WW2 on things like ‘The History Channel’
I like the way you said…”staunch allies “ 😂😂
Well that wouldn't have lasted long, would it?
Wonder if De Gaulle would have buggered off to England again?
Thanks
Keep it up mate
Thanks for a bit of history that I never new about.
Blowing up the French navy had something to do with it, but the British had little choice. The French Admiral Darlene could have scuttled the fleet, turned it over to the British, or sailed it to America. The US Admiral King could have done something with those ships.
Why should the French be concerned about destroying the navy of "german puppets"? De Gaulle and others should have praised the UK for its quick thinking in making sure that the German Led-French Government didn't have a navy to help Hitler take the rest of Europe unopposed.
Cheap attempt to justify war crimes... most of French fleet remained in France/Toulon, they never gave it to Germans (eventually scuttled). It was that hideous British attack (worse than Pearl Harbor) that almost forced France into Axis, not prevent it.
🇬🇧UK : hey psst.. buddy. How about one last war together huh ? 😏
🇫🇷France : u already know bro ! 😝
There was so much more going behind the war that we will never know. Great video. My opinion: 10 minuets too short, 30 minuets too long, 20 minuets shall be-ith the proper amount for the video.
As others have said, I usually balk at videos this long and which stray from the title slightly at the beginning, I'm glad I persisted. This should be taught in schools.
The French capitulated in 1940 so no French involvement until France was liberated in 1944, in fact France actively opposed Britain hence the destruction of the French fleets by the British. So not really good allies after all.
Well, the Vichy opposed GB. Sort of.
I found this interesting and learning something new. My father and uncle Syd was there for the Syrian campaign in the 2nd3rd Field Regiment 2nd AIF but in reserve. So saw no action there. Unlike in the Pacific.
Respect to your uncle and father. It must have been galling (no pun intended) to have to go to a country and fight our erstwhile allies, and then have no-one ever speak about the incident ever again, so stop the French throwing a hissy fit again.
@@WanderlustZero I do respect my dad, mum and all my uncles they all served. Dad always said he had a good war. Meaning he didn't get hurt or psychology injuries, no PTSD etc. Another person don't believe me or he thinks dad a psychopath. But dad never use physical punishment on me, he always made me feel shame when I was naughty. So dad says he had a good war and puts it down to superior training. In Townsville they called for volunteers so dad and Syd joined and ended up in 2nd7th Independent Company. For 45 years dad was wearing the wrong ribbons when he finally sent away for his medals he was told he wasn't entitled to the North Africa Star. Its because he didn't see action in Syria, I think someone stuff up and they are telling him porkies that he's not entitled to it. Dad was upset about that, cause some joined the Commandos after basic training where this would have shown he joined up earlier and was in the Middle East. He always sung Legon Of The Lost most popular song after Lilly Mallane over there. He also had great respect for the Japs.
Great video 🎉
I really enjoyed this
Wow every day’s a school day. I knew nothing about any of this. Fascinating.
While Churchill and de Gaulle certainly had their share of disagreements as politico-military leaders, they didn't lose their respect for each other as men; Churchill, in his memoirs, refers to the 1945 Syria episode as an "uneasy interlude", and he says that de Gaulle responded to it in a statesmanlike manner, which makes the possibility of an Anglo-French armed clash seem rather unlikely, to say the least.
great video, thank you for sharing. though i disagree with the end statement. history is there to be judged, that's how we improve
How utterly fascinating! I didn't know about any of that - I doubt many people did
Good history revealed... I didn't know this
And look at Lebanon now. From 70% Christian to Muslim dominated, and their wealth collapsed as well.
That has nothing to do with France or degaulle . Its a Palestine Israel thing. Tje lebanese civil war was in the 70s.
It does though. France is the reason why it stayed majority christen @@Twasforthevine
@@JacobFraps ah i thought the original poster was blaming France for Lebanon's current misery.
Whose wealth? Also, so what?. They govern themselves, that's a good thing for every nation.
If you want to see what happened to Lebanon Google Bridget Gabrial she escaped with her life.
I find all these little side stories within World War II fascinating. I love learning about the complex dynamics within the Allies
Stop counting words. Great content will suck you in. The more the merrier. Loved the work.
I mean, there's no love lost for Churchill from me, He and DeGaulle probably deserve each other. I think people are forgetting that Britain also stubbornly hung onto Hong Kong so they could prolong some vestiges of the withering Empire. On the Battlefield though, DeGaulle proved himself in 1940 , pushing the Germans back at Montcornet and even repulsing Rommel's Panzer Division at Arras (and this is with employing outdated tactics, before they had come to grips with combined arms tactics / blitzkreig) I guess DeGaulle did pull off a commendable caricature of the Michelin Man in his declining Political Years..
The poison of colonial rivalry, and the Vichy legacy. Churchill lost power in July 1945 but Britain hadn't started the process of decolonisation, with the French going on to fight wars in Vietnam, and Algeria and Britain in Malaya, Aden and Kenya.
Wrong they had started the process of decolonisation, India became independent by 1947, it did not happen in a vacuum, the brits had to negotiated it.
Don't forget the British intervention in French Indo-China during the power vacuum caused by the Japanese surrender. Truman was all for handing over European colonies to the Chinese sphere of influence.
Malaya wasn't a colonial war, not really. It was a Chinese minority Communist insurgency,, with very little support amongst the ethnic Malayans
Britain message was: do as i say not as i do...
Britain only gave up on india because it did not have the power to keep india as a colony.
Keep the empire was still a major objective.
That is interesting, but confusing because France asked Briton to help them with Vietnam. This was something that I did not know about. Thank you.
Britain had suppressed the Viet Minh and restored order, before leaving so the French could roll in. On handing over, General Gracey told his counterpart 'They've had a tough time. Go easy on them'
So of course the French started just driving through towns and villages machine-gunning everything in sight -_-
Very interesting, with the timing seeming perfect (for me, at least)
That De Gaulle character- he had some front - the lanky lodger is what I like to call him.
The French, we hate being occupied by a foreign power and being treated like less than second class citizens in our own country.
Also French, but we want to keep occupying foreign countries and treating them as less than second class citizens in their own countries.
Same as Netherlands and Belgium.
@@DD-qw4fz and UK (except that, since 1066+, we've never suffered the ignominy of being occupied, being an island)
Britain (Boris etc): "We want to be able to say "F*-K you, there's notihng for you to say about our laws and institutions" to the EU and everybody else.. That's the meaning of true sovereignty.""
Britain (Boris and others): "How dare China impose their own laws on Hong Kong?? That place used to be OURS! We want to have a say!"
@@Muddy283 Your prime minister i from India !
He's a British citizen and BORN IN THE UK you dolt. How can people still be like this, how much more of more of a Brit does he have to be? Does he need pasty skin and no rhythm? @@druisteen
Well done
I was professor you got
A+
Winnie seemed to live above his means. No possibility he could be beholden, is there ?
I can recommend Richard James book "Australia's war with France" about the Syria/Lebanon campaign in 1941.
The Australians suffered 1500 casualties at the hands of the French but were treated with contempt by both British General Jumbo Wilson who considered them undisciplined and De Gaulle despite capturing Beirut to enable his grand entrance to the city.
The campaign on top of the farcical Battle of Dakar impacted in a bad way the Australian relationship with both the British and French.
Doug, as you "I suppose" must know, after the fall of France in June 1940 The so-called free French were totally reliant on British arms & support, if there was a disagreement over Syria, at the least there would only be a Little a/ pushing and shoving b/ light firing over each others heads b/ extreme screaming from De Gaulle & other French leaders. But certainly not War
Why so called ? And using allied arms and support is nothing unusual. The USA had done so in ww1 for a variety of things if memory serves.
And later from 7 September 1940 with the first Convoy FS1 the British were also on a life line from the USA in the so called Battle of the Atlantic ,US also supported Russia with loads and loads of weapons with the artic convoy, Crazy times
Nobody realized that much closer Libya had oil until 1958 .
An excellent and well put documentary
I enjoyed the memory of Churchill, when he said 'of all the crosses I had to bear, the cross of Lorraine was the heaviest'. Another story was told by an interpreter at the Foreign Office. Churchill had called for de Gaulle to attend at Downing St. The interpreter was tasked to be present.Churchill started his talk. The interpreter interpreted - return translated as 'my general, I have asked you to come here...' Churchill interrupted with a growl. 'I didn't call him 'my general' -& I didn't 'ask' him to come here!' At this point, the interpreter fled in tears. It took a while to find a replacement interpreter. When one was found, he entered the office, to find de Gaulle & Churchill, each with a glass in hand, chatting in French (in which language Churchill was fluent) sitting by the fire like old friends!
Despite their differences and heated arguments directly with each other, it's clear Churchill and De Gaulle considered each other friends and allies.
The Anglo-French friendship is forever!! ❤
Not so sure of the friends part of friends and allies.
Great video! Got to admit that De Gaulle generally (!) seems to have been a pain in the arse. It's interesting to consider Churchills motivation for returning France as a major power - I suppose he felt that there was a need for a counterweight to Germany and an ally against Russia (?). Interesting. I'm really greatful for the depth of research that you went to the short superficial videos all the time are very annoying.
Are you sure De Gaulle was a General when he fled to London. I thought he was a Colonel when the French capitulated.
France: Why are you fostering a coup in the Levant to erase French influence and replace it with Britain's?
Britain: We are not attempting to interfere with Syria and Lebanon!
France: Really? Because everything you're doing seems to result in the weakening of France's position, and strengthen your own. Isn't that funny?
Britain: We swear it's all just a coincidence if it looks that way. I mean, we have centuries of history of doing exactly that, but it's not the case this time!
Perfidious Albion going to perfidy a little more.
This is very Black Adder. Love it!
French influence? Culinary for sure. How did French influence work for them in Algeria and Indo China?
@@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qethe french took those countries out of the middle age. Really Nothing else.
@BStrapper Thanks for the timeline. French should have retired their colonial designs. Learned this the Hard way.
De Gaulle is living proof that human shite can be stacked over 77 inches high.
And Churchill over 50 inches large
@@RsgNoisewhataboutism shows a lack of intelligence
@@KingAgniKai commenting on yt also ✌️
De Gaulle was a lot of things, but surely not human shit, he organized all the french resistance, and that's how the D-Day was so successfull. I think that this video is great but surely don't show all the little details, cause basically it's saying France played like bastards, while they had reasons to put so much efforts on it. England was tempted to take the old french colony, and the US wanted france to became their puppet state after the war. If it wasn't for a strong character like De Gaulle France would have been shared between the US and the UK, at least by their influence.
As an English & history (B.A.) scholar of WW2 history, your research is as better than anyone else's, finding even more facts than I've enjoyed before. Excellent work, & may you prosper from this adventure!
Thank you! I did an English and History degree as well strangely enough!
Absolutely brilliant presentation. New subscriber here.
To ignore that it was an Australian campaign shows the intellectual limits of the presentation and its bias.
@@seanlander9321This doco is really about the actions of 1945. Which I didn't know about. 2nd AIF was part of British and Free French (a lot of French legation officers) invasion 1941 it even included the Arab Legion from Trans Jordan. The doco mentioned it 4 minutes in and some of the photos I am sure from the Australian War Museum. My father was in 2nd3rd Field Regiment 2nd AIF that's 25pounders lucky dad wasn't in Sir Roland Cutler mob. Culture got his VC cause he was the only one to survive their forward observation post losing his legs.
Dam auto correct. Even when you type it in correct you move on the dam thing changes it on you. So I'm not only stupid thing making typos and spelling mistakes.
@@JamesKelly-fj8zi The British, Indian and Free French were part of the Australian force. The command, finance and logistics were Australian. The Free French refused to fight. Cutler lost a leg.
@@seanlander9321 I knew I had something wrong a bit more than I expected.
french bashing all in one vid, Nice one
I'm surprised that the USA didn't tap France on the shoulder and threaten to withdraw the Marshall plan funds as they did with the Dutch over Indonesia.
The same ostensible logic applies.
"No more empire, mkay"
If only they did. Perhaps Vietnam would have been less bloody - albeit, the main motive there was communism.
US policy has always been somewhat schizophrenic if you believe their reasons at face value though.
Well, the USA were eyeing over France and its empire all along (just like the Brits), they even went to the level of spending years forming US men that would be officials in France in a US imposed militaristic colonial state for the French people (check AMGOT France) thankfully De Gaulle was here and managed to counter the US plan, giving a tap on their shoulder wouldn’t only be dumb but would also discredit the USA themselves as they had their own colonies around the world, in the Caribbean and the Pacific (and still do to this day).
@@brunol-p_g8800LOL since when did the US government care about hypocrisy or irony during the Bretton Woods years? The real reason they didn't pressure France too much was the desire to sweeten the deal in allowing the formation of a West German nation. Basically "go along with our cold war plans in Europe and we'll look the other way for now". On top of that, many advisors in the presidential cabinet during the postwar years despised the UK more than France for having a competing, if not waning, global empire. Dismantling that was more of a priority than intervening in French internal issues.
The us feared a communist takeover in France more than they feared a communist takeover in Vietnam. That was why the US used the Marshall plan - not out of any brotherly love.I’m quite surprised the French didn’t go all founding fathers after either WW and just default on their debts especially after the US started backing out of its Versailles commitments to France but expecting France to honour theirs to the US.
There's a prevalent yet unfounded idea that the US said 'jump' and everyone replied 'how high?' It's a caricature of international relations, propagated by the numbskulls who are film screenwriters and authors of fiction novels as well as genuine dictators who wield such power domestically and disseminate propaganda: 'No, it's the US that strong arms everyone. Not me.' The stooges repeated it.
It ignores each party had a say.
Upon the elections of '46 the Fourth Republic had 15 parties in the legislature, meaning everyone formed coalitions. The largest was French Communist Party (PCF) with 28.5% of the legislative seats. It formed a tense three-party ruling coalition with the leftist French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO), the third largest party with about 18% of the seats. The tension was the SFIO refused to support the PCF leading the government. The third member of the coalition was Popular Republican Movement (MRP), a schizophrenic party, with 26% of the seats. Though nationalist and even right of centre, the MRP found common cause with the left because it too supported mass nationalisation of business. The MRP was de Gaulle's party nominally until he had a falling out with it and formed his own Gaullist party.
In March '47 the PCF and SCIO argued over military spending for Indochina, which the communist's opposed. Then a dispute over wage freezes arose between the two in May. Again, the PCF opposed. This led to a schism between the two parties, the PCF's ministers being kicked out of their posts, and a collapse of the three-party coalition. Uproar. General strikes.
The Marshall Plan was announced in June. Stalin rejected the Marshall Plan for the USSR and fomented a mass movement against it in Europe led by the communist parties.
A new coalition formed with the SFIO, MRP (without De Gaulle and his loyalists), and group of parties known as the Radicals (of the Left) who were of the right - French context where 'the right' historically was monarchist. This was known as the Third Force.
Of the three options, Communists, Gaullists, and Third Force, the US decided the third was the least worst of bunch. But the Third Force was no pushover. It understood that it had the US over a barrel. 'You going to work with the Communists or the Gaullists? You know you can't do so and we know you can't do so. You're stuck with us.'
A stand off. Who would blink first?
The Third Force launched the Monnet Plan, a programme of massive government investment and economic modernisation focused on infrastructure and industry. As this was inflationary, it reduced the quality of the people's lives and furthered dissent. Using its right of approval for projects, the US tried to force the Third Force to spend some money on social welfare programmes to counter the Communists, but the Third Force stuck to its guns.
The US blinked.
Each party had some power, but neither had a totalitarian's power. With the smooth came the rough, and each had to put up with both.
The Americans were motivated to ‘persuade’ the Dutch about Indonesia after the Dutch reneged on every agreement with Australia to have their colony returned to them. It was their own treachery that sank the Dutch, not American.
That picture you showed late in the video of Arab leaders and Brits is a picture taken either during or right after WWI. T. E. Lawrence is clearly seen. With a picture like that if someone recognizes any of the people you'll have folks swearing that Lawrence is a WWII persona. I understand that you wanted to make an impression on people but you should have included a disclaimer on the screen of what and who the picture was about. All in all though, a good video. Thank you.
interesting, thanks
Wow, this comment section is just a concentration of anti-French Anglos...
The anglos are always salty and arrogant whenever it's not about them and that's a fact