@@andremacedo8463 wut? First off, France rejoined nato, second off, the point of NATO was to defend Europe against a soviet attack, not the US lol (alliance was created before ICBMs)
@@andremacedo8463 it was never to defend the US, The US didn't and still doesn't need NATO, NATO has always needed the US for it's protection. The US is completely isolated from the rest of the world, and thus in no immediate threat, but the countries in Europe are in immediate threat to a Soviet/Russian invasion. NATO was always meant to keep the Soviets at bay not protect America
@@kyral2307 There is no special reason that I know. But I know that Bruxelles is not the official capital of the EU. It’s not written in EU treaties, so in theory EU can move to any other country in Europe. Plus, there is EU institutions in other cities that Bruxelles like in Strasbourg or Frankfort.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Very similar, only way you can tell the difference when there's an argument is the fat one with the funny accent is the American. de Gaulle was insufferable, though
@@williammcbride5919 Let me guess you think they just surrender all the time because they didn't France fought hard but if they kept fighting when they got to Paris it would had been bombed and destroyed cause of resistance so they chose the best option for its people but they sill hadn't giving up
@@Salt_Is_Dew bull shite. Resistance was absolutely worthless look it up. Every single Frenchman taking off the damn Beach at Dunkirk returned and fought for the wrong side. Vichy France. Losers
@Pilot JollyRoger tf you’re saying ? Yes the us is one of most powerful nations in the world and invented things such as those you said, but France is the country with the most military victories and we invented a lot of thing such as the cinema, the photograph and many other that are very useful today (helicopters and the metric system (even in the us you use it for science) for examples)
This reminds me of the quote by the American General Norman Schwarzkopf who said "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion."
I don't really know why France is always hating on America I mean it didn't used to be that way France help the Americans during the Revolutionary war they gave us the statue of liberty but ever since 1940s and to currents times they have been hating on America
... I don't know if I should be flattered or offended. Then I remember we French people are too great and mighty (but never arrogant, Baguette no!) to care about other people's opinion of us. 😉
I served with NATO at SHAPE when De Gaulle decided to kick NATO out of France. Can you imagine being in your 20's and living just a few kilometres from Paris itself. I used to play rugby for the British Rugby Club of Paris and was having a whale of a time - Anyone remember the Winston Churchill pub ?? Moving to Belgium was not the same but great memories.
@@antokarman2064 to wreck libya ? how so ? its more the opposite, Usa dragged all thyer ally in theyr last war ( irak, afghanistan ) and thank god our governement wasnt as dumb as the bush one and say no to irak, now the hell holes that we call irak is all on the hand of the freedom giver and great friend of humanity that is Usa lol
Oddly enough though, the FAMAS and other standard issue arms were more or less standardized with NATO. This meant they fired the NATO Standard 5.56mm cartridge and fit the GI standard steel magazines, with all models including and after the FAMAS G1. This means that in a warzone situation, British and American Troops could share ammo and magazines without refit to French counter parts. This may be due in large part to wanting to sell to NATO nations, but it is worth noting that it was NATO standardize.
@@lordbluebaron2270 consider that another non-member (but big arms dealer) Austria, didn't have the GI mag compatibility as standard on their offering (the AUG), even now their compatibility is questionable. So grass isn't always green
I can imagine the reason for this is because France was still part of NATO's military alliance, and would still partake in a war if asked to, so there wouldn't be any reason not to have standardization in their equipment between the rest of NATO, at least in certain respects. I am aware that some of their equipment would not have been able to use universal NATO ammunition, though, in specific circumstances like with the British Challenger 2 that uses a rifled barrel, instead of some variation of the German 120mm smoothbore.
@Stink Meaner Than it should have been called The History Channel - Where the truth if history. But all jokes aside the fact that they had a video about the France withdrawal from NATO yet didn't understand it at all, that is beyond dumb, because they are not trying to be funny either like with the Babylon Bee or the SNL. This is about them trying to teach other people about a subject that they fundamentally do not understand themselves.
"Who could've been from NATO's many member states as long that member state's name began with U and ended with nited States of America" - best line ever
@@CaesarCassius DeGaulle was a petty man, but in this case he was actually in the right for France. He lost nothing as the US would offer the same level of defense regardless, he got a lot of those missiles removed that we peppered the French countryside with and achieved most of his other goals, not least of which was annoying the British. He was petty but he wasn't stupid. Also this particular action was why France was the only European nation that wasn't financially dominated by the US.
At 1:29 I really like the French Secret Plan. Infantry launch a fixing attack while a radar unit flanks around a forest and a battleship comes from around the mountains to destroy an enemy air defense unit. I think the infantry could have handled it alone but hey, we know where the budget is going with those mountain battleships.
Given the French NATO-Commanded troops location during the cold war, the enemy has a forward located air defence unit without support. They gave us the slip once, so best not take any chances, recall the mountain battleship for a flanking manoeuvrer.
In 2004, France moved one step closer to the NATO military structure by assigning personnel to the permanent staffs of SHAPE and its subordinate headquarters, and in 2009 France officially rejoined NATO's integrated military command structure.
I served at SHAPE from 2000 to 2003, and there were during those years quite a number of French officers in the building in various "observer" roles. They attended strategy meetings and voiced their views, but since there were no billets (positions) for French personnel, they had no official say in military matters.
@@jean-robertlombard1416 son égo a été amoché par Poutine durant le G8 en 2007, décision purement politique et capricieuse, faut le comprendre le pauvre petit président...
@@nestpascamillekazeyquiveut9984 I didn't really mean it in the context of "that's really bad," I meant it as a "that's a really important, historical event that I didn't hear about"
@@Mana-xd2tp except for costing america money and costing them time to sort out diplomatic issues within NATO because now there is no common force to fight against and be United against
@@davidgalloway266 he mainly hated being seen as a puppet by the british and the american and wanted to prove that France could take care of it's own problem by their own... sorry we didn't wanted to be your little bitch
@@Mana-xd2tp Nato is still in Afghanistan and protecting the Ukraine. How can it be pointles? The Nato treary has only been activated once. To assist the US in Afghanistan. But watch Putin invade to Baltic states if it vanishes.
Now I know the full story as to why a GI I served with in Germany was moved from France to Germany sometime in 1966. I think the trooper was Larry Holden from Atlanta, Ga
One minor thing I like is that soldiers in these animations are usually depicted with period-correct weapons used by the nations they represent. Like at 1:10, the French troops have MAS-49 rifles, which is what they were using at this time period.
De Gaulle knew what the americans tried to do to France turning it into an american colony, and during the short time they had bases in France they conducted espionage, and the infamous LSD testing they did in the 60's on a small village of old people that killed many of them. It was a big incident and was too much for great Charles De Gaule to have annoying and disrespectful americans on it's soil since they were neutral in the cold war as De Gaulle was promoting a 3rd way of independent nations to not be included in the cold war and potentially ww3.
@@feelsweirdman_1823 Yes actually France was way more present in germany than the USA, and France had many military bases to train germans under their command as with the French would have been the first to be in the front line before the americans
Johnson was a poor sore looser who got his leg in Vietnam and killed more americains than Hitler.
2 หลายเดือนก่อน +5
From De Gaulle's perspective, the Americans were primarily trying to control France: first by sidelining him personally, then by pushing to make France a U.S. protectorate after the war, and finally by reducing France to a secondary role in NATO. This constant effort to keep France subordinate clashed with De Gaulle’s and the French people’s vision of independence, autonomy, and national greatness. So, it’s no surprise that, at some point, he essentially told them to go fuck themselves. When France helped the U.S. gain independence, it didn’t seek control, it simply aided and left. That’s how things should be done.
De Gaulle was also the arrogant prick you had no qualms threatening to *take their ball and go home" if the Americans didn't attempt to halt the Nazi advance on Strasbourg during operation Northwind in 1945. One of the many times Charles de God Awful used foreign blood to protect french 'honor".
@@paulamblard3836 I've no idea what you mean by this. 10,000 Americans died in Op Northwind alone. Many because of De Gaulle and his inability to allow the Nazis to take a strategically insignificant town because it was politically inexpedient for him. A coward who didn't mind paying for French soil with American blood
Fair enough, its also the only country that lived up to the minimal military commitments the past 30 years. Where I live there is a saying 'he who pays the bill is the one that decides'
@@Rh0dan1970 and they're also the ones who've started and lost the most amount of pointless and unwinnable wars. To us in Europe, the US are bullies who think they're the world's policeman, they spend spend spend on military when nobody else is and the reason for that is because we're all focused on things like providing healthcare and education. Sorry America but, your military spending means the country suffers. Much rather have free healthcare than the world's largest army *which seems afraid or incapable of winning real wars*
No idea why he said that considering French soldiers died on american soil for independance and this does not justify having French military bases in the US
@@niksarass 1. Not even remotely to scale, like at all. About 2,100 Frenchmen died throughout the entire War for American Independence, more Americans died on the first day at Omaha Beach alone. I appreciate greatly France's contribution to our victory, but it's a watershed compared to what Americans sacrificed for the French in both WW1 and WW2. 2. The point he was trying to make was that America's contribution to both World Wars is the reason why France even has an independent state of her own, obviously British and Canadian troops played massive roles but it would have been impossible without American assistance. So how dare he demand that the troops who saved his country leave said country when their only purpose there is to protect it, when he wouldn't even have sovereign land if not for them?
@@kidfox3971 Still off topic to my point, but 1. More Frenchmen died in Yorktown and Chesapeake than Americans rebels 2. US had no navy. Without the Chesapeake naval blockade the British could reinforce forever, they were the masters of the sea. 3. Even if numbers were 1000 times that. Still no reason to force the country you help to be a vassal state or accept a military presence once it is freed. If you take the sovereignty you just gave, then you don't give anything. 4. American soldiers sacrifice is admirable, but american leadership were not wanting to give France its sovereignty, they wanted to treat it as a defeated ennemy state under AMGOT, puppet state with french dollars etc. They did not warn Degaulle of Normandy. Did not drop heavy weapons to the Résistance. There was no generosity or sacrifice in it. It was replacing one conquerer with another. So using the sacrifice of american soldiers as a culpability inducing excuse is pretty laughable to me.
@@kidfox3971 You are over romantizing history my friend. The US had been selling strategical materials to the nazi state for years , to the point that Albert Speer said "Had not been for America's help, we could not have invaded Poland". Also in 1925 France has a complete military control over Germany (Ruhr) so Germany couldn't rearm or invade. WW2 couldn't happen, but the US pressured France out of that because they were selling stuff to Germany. US politics is one of the reasons why WW2 happened in the first place. They cannot act like they were friends of France, or saved France , it's like a Fireman that claims he saved your house because he put down a fire he just initiated himself.
Yeah, Johnson, a pure politician, who had only been in the naval reserve during ww2, scolding DeGaulle, ww1 hero injured multiple times, the only succesfull tank commander in 1940 against the nazi invasion, who went against his own govt and declared war should go on after france fall (hence was condamned to death by vichy france in absentia), led the free french, witnessed some of his best friends die under his command... Yeah, that little jab was pathetic.
It's also worth remembering that French nuclear doctrine called for the use of very short-range nuclear weapons (e.g. The Pluton) to prevent or 'disrupt' large Red Army formations just before they could invade French soil. Given where these Red Army forces would have been located, effectively this meant that the first step of France's homeland defence plan involved nuking West Germany. As war plans go, not the toughest sell to the contemporary French defence establishment, but considered a tad problematic for alliance diplomacy!
@@tywinlannister8015 Very possibly, after all up until the 1980s NATO was reliant on smaller scale nuclear forces to offset percieved conventional inferiority. But on the diplomatic front this was 'solved' politically by having 'dual-key' nuclear forces whereby American nuclear weapons were mated to European force structures/delivery platforms like fighter-bombers. In theory both parties had to consent to nuclear use. Obviously there were provisions and loopholes but it was good enough to paint a veneer of legitimacy on the whole thing. With France, this was in no way the case (to this day, unlike the US and UK, France makes no nuclear guarantees tonits neighbours) therefore it would still have been a difficult political subject between allies when undertaking peacetime planning.
As someone who did his military service in Frnace in the late 80's. I can tell you this. during basic training we were told that in case of an invasion of Germany by the Warsaw Pact forces, the entire French army were to be rushed in Germany to join the front. No if, no but. So those Pluton might have been used in Germany but the idea was certainly not to "wait and see" and only fight to protect France territory. Fun fact, I was in light armor reconnaissance regiment and, in case of a global war against the Warsaw pact our losses were projected to be 80% in the first 48h of conflict... Believe what you want but there was never a question about where we were to stand in case of a major conflict between the two blocks. And oh about Germany being turned into a wasteland I can also confirm that it was also considered a given : We were told that a third of all artillery shell of the the warsaw pact were chemical weapons so we wouldhave to fight in NBC gear ( Gaz masks, special overall , pressurized vehicles, etc) .. Thank God this never happened !!
‘Does that include all the ones in the soil as well?’ Gotta admit, that was a sick burn that I have no doubt American press had an absolute field day with
As many French civilians buried in ww2 cemeteries were put there by American bombardments than by German occupation forces during WW2, maybe the Americans could have tought this trough Edited my comment because I hadn't tought of it beforehand
@@parodyclip36 20.000 civilians killed by American bombing and 4500 women rapped, at least those who spoke... Edit : in fact its really 60.000 maybe even 70.000
@@noidea5984 Yeah, cause you know thats totally worse than France being invaded, occupied and a puppet state of nazi Germany where over 100000 people were killed.
@@parodyclip36 Where did you get that idea? The majority of the French deaths on the western front were from Nazi Germany, not America. Out of the 200k military deaths, over 100k were from Germany. Again, where did you get this idea?
I love Johnsons response to the request, an absolute masterstroke. Even if it didn't work it still would have caused such a huge incident it would have made France look extremely ungrateful for all those lives lost
Yes and no. The obvious counter-answer is "US only exists because of France, in the 1st place". Also let's be real about politicians. In both cases, they were interests involved, not just camaradery.
It’s honestly hypocritical cause the US wanted France to be treated as a defeated nation because of the French soldiers that fought on Germanys side. Ignoring all the French soldiers also on the ally’s side
@@gravitykat714 This was 20 years after WW2. And the USA has always payed over twice all of the other nato nations combined. Different US presidents/polititions, and the US public just get ticked at other members expecting to control US spending when they can't meet 2% spend. The USA has never spent less than 3% gdp on defence spending and averages neer 6% since ww2. I value our allies more than most, but when we let the gun nuts or the cheep skates run the show than they screech at nato members, "not meeting g their 2% promised goals and pushing all the cost on the USA." I on the other hand appreciate the warm bodies the French have and that they actually bring their own guns to nato drills. Some other German Nato members allegedly have to borrow equipment all the time, but again Germans have warm bodies too. And I am more worried about a potential 2 front war for the USA, where our pacific allies are more likely to be at a manpower disadvantage, so we need all the Europeans we can get❤️❤️❤️
@@gravitykat714 that's complete and total Bull shit. NO ONE wanted or demanded France be treated as a defeated nation. If that were so, why did Dwight D.Eisenhower and FDR allow the communist De Gaulle to lead the triumphant military parade into Paris???
What's worse is that Denmark resisted the Germans in WWII for a whole FOUR hours. The Danes deserve (and earned) more sarcastic surrender jokes than the French. The French are no longer in NATO but the Danes participation is practically nil. They seldom if ever participate in exercises and their defense budget is absurdly small even by European standards. That's why Denmark can give so much free stuff and services to their citizens because they don't spend it on their defense. They expect other countries (US, UK, Germany) to defend them. It just sickens me to know that Americans and other non-Danish soldiers will die to defend the cowardly, selfish and arrogant people of Denmark.
@@ashjones2627 Yes I had. There's a scene where a Danish sergeant attacks unarmed German prisoners. My thought was, "wow, so brave and tough against a beaten foe, but where was all that bravado when defending his homeland?". The Danes are a happy people and like to brag about all their "freebies", like health care, education, etc... services other countries envy. They can only afford those services though because they spend virtually nothing on "defense". Their prosperity is carried on the backs of NATO members. In numerous "Cold War" board games (particularly from the '80s), the Danish army practically disintegrates on first contact with the Soviets. It's been a long standing knowledge that the Danish Army is the worse and least trained army in NATO. They barely participate in exercises. NATO and other European countries don't criticize them because they're a member. So, here, Denmark gets a "free ride" on their reputation. I have no obligation for sustaining Denmark's self-worth, so I call them what they truly are: selfish arrogant cowards. Their 20th and 21th century history makes it indisputable. Anything other than that is a whitewash. (Really, a FOUR hour war?)
@@neilmanhard1341 I thought it was an interesting film about an aspect of the War that is rarely covered. To your point though, that character does come to respect and even care for the soldiers in his charge. You obviously have quite strong opinions and its not something I know a tremendous amount about. I've never had much contact with Denmark or Danes. Where are you from out of interest?
As a Frenchman… I didn’t know we rejoined nato lol. We learn in history classes that De Gaule removed us from NATO as teens; but tbh I always saw NATO as a club we were just slightly part of but not real members. I saw that lately with the map of current NATO members because of the Ukraine war, and I was like… wait, when did we become full time members again? Heading to Google to see under which president
Sarkozy rejoined the NATO with a simple purpose! Win a re-election by getting rid of Gadhaffi with the help of NATO because he has a dirt of illegal campaign money which helped Sarkhozi win against Segolene Royal. But didn’t do him any good as he did ended up losing his re-election against Holland and and worst of all that secret of dirty money wasn’t buried with Gadhaffi but ended up in the hands of Mediapart and Sarghozy is fighting with the French Justice alone without the help of NATO! British and American leaders always betrayed French leaders, first Louis XVI to the mercy of the guillotine and now Nichola Sarkhozy to the walls of prison cell. Quelle justice Française.
If I remember well, de Gaulle said "France was treated like a doormat" by American troops (traitée comme un paillasson). Just to give you an idea of how he thought of them.
And you know why he said that? Because the Allies massively carpet bombed Normandy(the doormat) to make their way to Germany, killing as many people as Germans did in an invasion and the occupation taken together. So in his mind, French paid a big enough price without having to kiss butts for decades after the liberation.
LBJ's real quote was, "Ask him about the cemeteries Dean!" In reference to the secretary of state, who didn't want to ask France about the cemeteries but had to because that was his job. The quote in the video comes from Dean Rusk.
WWII vet returns for visit: FR customs: have you been to France before, as old solider is looking for his passport. Solider: yes FR customs: then you know you should have your passport ready. Solider: Last time no body ask for one. I was too busy killing NAZIs and French collaborators
Bill Mauldin did a political cartoon on this subject. It showed DeGaulle standing before the crosses of an American war cemetery, asking, “Why do you Americans always stay where you’re not wanted.”
“So long as that country started with U and ended with Nited states of America.” You know I have a feeling that that the country being said here is the United Kingdom
French: “We what all foreign troops off our soil.” US: “Does that includes the ones in the cemeteries?” As knowing some French people, that would hurt a lot, since the respect they have for those those graves is astounding. They have more respect for those memorials than most Americans do. They built a memorial for the 51st Highlanders that stayed behind in Dunkirk to allow french troops to be saved. They showed more care for those soldiers than the British did. I have nothing it respect for our French brothers 🇺🇸🤝🇫🇷
In France you cannot go in any old little town without seeing a memorial about war with all the name of the people that died, usually they are at the "center" of the village.
@@shamanamana5429 that's not only the case in France. In the German village I grew up in is also a memorial listing all the soldiers from that village that have fallen WW 1 & 2. Even inside the church are plates listing the fallen soldiers of WW1. Almost every village here has these kind of memorials and every year on the Sunday two weeks before the first advent we have our Remembrance Day.
@@charlesvan13yeah but no France have the strongest army of the European Union and have nuke so they can totally survive without nato and If France quit again NATO they will keep good commercial relations with USA and other country and the economy of France don’t really be touch because France is the 4th weapons seller in the world and with the economic force of the euro no problems with the economy (in history France is a very good ally with USA so they will have good relations) Sorry for bad English I’m French
@@mcrepe6995 I'm fine with the US leaving Nato. The US doesn't need it. It's the small countries that do, and they constantly complain. The US has 60% the capability of Nato as a whole, not counting nukes. The French constantly complain, but they have needed the US twice. So leave!!
@@charlesvan13 …. If USA leave NATO all the other countries in Eastern europe will think « I don’t need NATO i should ally with Russia because Russia is ´powerful’ and I’m near it » so maybe you fine if US leave NATO but that not good. And in NATO there is not really small countries .I want to know about what they complains in NATO because there is nothing to complain in NATO can you give some examples please ? USA do not do all the power in NATO Even if you remove the USA in NATO all the others members combined are very powerful FINAL : All the members of NATO need NATO , the USA don’t do a exception USA need NATO and all other countries in NATO need nato
Yes the answer is obvious. In France De Gaulle is revered but in US and UK he is regarded as a "Clouseauesque" narcissist who jeopardised D Day and the war effort in general through his obsession with protecting France's international status and empire. The reality during WW2 was that France was a busted flush and De Gaulle should have been an irrelevance but for Churchill promoting him as "the voice of French resistance" if only from his armchair in London. De Gaulle entered France in 1945 as a conquering hero even though he, and what nominal Free French forces there were, contributed bugger all. Thereafter he proved a thorn in everyone's side. Given that Britain and the US effectively won the war in the West it would not seem unreasonable that some 20 years later they would not be "running the show" especially as the US has pretty much always paid for NATO. This continued with DeGaulle blocking the UK's entry to the EU in the late 1960s, his petty minded resistance to the spread of Anglo America culture and his attempts to airbrush France's capitulation and collaboration with Nazism from history. De Gaulle was the ultimate dick.
@@theemirofjaffa2266 It's a Simpson's reference. In which a character called poochie as killed of screen, if you type Simpson's poochie death you'll understand.
These days most of French people don't care, but the move by Sarkozy to rejoin NATO was widely criticized in France at the time, being seen as quite the "atlantist" move.
I spent my mandatory army service for France in ....... Germany, in 1985. Turns out we were out, but the French Forces in Germany existed with our a doubt. It was a logistics battalion, all the offensive units were back in France I guess.
@@kirkc9643 still it seems contradicting as Britain was broke and on the verge of loosing its colonies at this time so it doesn't feel like they should have been a primary command when it came to nato
@@martinmorles1 The british held for months giving their all to defend against the germans, even if the germans managed to land they still wouldve fought in the streets, in the fields, and in the hills. Compare that to the french who surrendered after 6 weeks because they didnt want their "precious" cities to get attacked.
@@ruviklychee4308 Lmao nonsense... the only reason Britain survived WWII is because fortunately for them..... tanks don't float lmao. They weren't any better than the French were against Germany in 1940 considering how easily they got dunked on by the Germans in Norway and how they ran back to their island before the Battle of France was over. They even had to be saved in North Africa at Bir-Hakeim by the Free French for them to finally got their shit together there. The Poles, French, Dutch or whatever wished the battle to save their country was an aerial one like the battle of Britain with a body of water protecting them from the enemy. Geography decided otherwise.
@@ruviklychee4308 It helps when Britain has a natural defense system called "The English Channel" and manned by the biggest navy on earth, while the Nazis barely even have a credible surface fleet to counter Britain's navy...
NATO's plan was to use France as a rug and buffer zone in case of soviet invasion and not use nukes first in this case. French leadership disagreed and said a single soviet soldier on french soil and it's nuclear bombs straight toward Moscow. Obviously it wasn't in the US or UK interests but France didn't care and went ahead developing its own nukes as well anyway.
" when his troops were ordered to leave France, his government's response was does that include those in the cemeteries as well" oof now that I felt it...wow that's guilt Edit: what war did I start below, lol
@@Noobscodee Just like America disrespected France in 1783 by immediately entering into friendly trade relations with Britain instead of an alliance with France. States have no friends only interests
@@kimok4716 the alliance with France in the american revolution was purely an alliance of convenience against a mutual enemy. I mean I'm sure France figured that a republic in the long run wouldnt want to be perma bessies with a even stronger monarchy than the one they just broke off from. I will totally grant you that France deserves more credit from Americans for the help tho. Definitely would have lost if not for them and theyre barely mentioned
3 years later in 1789 and France was bankrupt due to the royalty not paying more taxes, peasants unable to pay the increases, and terrible crops that cost double what they did a few years prior. All of their own doing. Anyone with a brain at the time would rather make trade deal instead of make an alliance with France.
"Each side had their own more rebellious members. In the case of the West this was France" Sweden supporting the Viet Cong during the Vietnam war: "Am I a joke to you?"
@@EndOfSmallSanctuary97 What, by pretty blatantly spying on the Germans for the benefit of the Allies? Hitler had them by the short and curlies (already economically because Germany effectively controlled all of Europe's coal supplies and it gets cold oop north), they weren't in a position to stop selling him iron ore; but they certainly didn't have to *like* it.
@@broadbandislife By selling Germany resources used for war, they were supporting Germany, yes. Their personal feelings regarding this are not relevant to the facts of the situation.
My understanding was that he was... gifted and not at all hesitant to make people aware of it. But I did learn this form the internet a decade ago, so grain of salt.
@@alejandrojoserodriguezarre45 Nah Charles was just a winy lad. Won ww2 because of US and UK and they even allowed to be considerd a equal power despite him not being able to do amything about it had they decided other wise. The US and UK gave him so much ( which he did indeed fight for) and allowed France to keep its position as main power on the European continent. I understand why he is loved. But often times i watch anything with him in it after WW2 he just reminds me of a walking, talking Napoleon complex. To be clear tho for any french readers. He is of course still a hero. And more of a man than i ever will be, but compared to how he behaved to allied nations that gave him so much.that is just how he comes across.
De Gaulle never liked the idea of having the french army controlled by a foreign nation. Also never liked to see foreign troops sitting and claiming land in french territory. From a Military stand point, completely understandable.
@@talleman1 he didn't actually. Quite the contrary. He thought France could do well all on its own and gave colonies anytime he could. Even a lot of countries asked to integrate into the republic like Gabon, which had millions of inhabitants, he refused everytime.
@@talleman1 He continued the war in Algeria, a war he wasn't convinced about and was against even, and this for 2 reasons : First, he has been put in power by the Generals who were wanting to keep Algeria and if he had talked about his idea (the independance of Algeria) France would have know a military putsch followed by a civil war in France. The second one is the nuke research of France was ALL in the Algerian desert, in 1960 France joined the little circle of nuke nations by exploding an A bomb and few months later, did the H bomb on her own. It took years to take the nuke thing from Algeria to the french atoll in the pacific. Instead of speaking slightly on a complex subject, it would be better to open some historical books.
Yeah because France was so useful in ww2 with there awesome wisdoms and strategies 🥴 legit idiots imo.. he was butthurt that he was not in charge that all it was
Actually, he was right in the end, Nato countries have become too dependent on others, and have used it as an excuse to not commit to defense spending. Look at Germany and the non functional air arms, and totally defunk navy and army. UK have the same problem, most European nations have non functional armies, navies and airforces and would not be able to defend themselves against a aggressor with intent (industrial nation scale attack scenario) So yes, France was correct in a sense, of pulling out.
@@trla6505 other say it's because american politicians are paid and lobbied by the military industry Also France and eastern europe have armies that fonction for the most part ( the former because they try to police french speaking africa because there are french companies there and the latter because they are threatened by Russia). Also France and the UK are nuclear power and that normaly is enough to deter invasion. The main role of an army in NATO is to intervene abroad and that also applies to the US.
Realistically speaking, which threat does Germany, or Western Europe need to defend against with arms? From my subjective perspective, almost all armed conflicts ot the last 20 - 30 years were either a nato country invading another state (Iraq, Kosovo, etc.) or an civil war that is usually is fueled by foreign interests. Neither cases are something a functional nay, air force or army would help against.
@@wyattmcgee1 yup very little. Let me list off the small contributions. Cash, Guns, uniforms, food, training, military commanders like Rochambeau, Massive aid during Yorktown, they won Chesapeake Bay (the most vital battle of the war), and they also declared war with their spanish Allies tying down a significant portion of the U.Ks forces. The French also helped post independence leading the world in recognizing the U.S and immediately starting trade with them. (Something that was very important if you look at what happened with Mexico post independence) All in all these are very minor contributions.
It would have taken somewhat longer perhaps, but the issue was really no longer in doubt once France had joined. Saratoga was the beginning of the end either way. Without France Cornwallis would have successfully retreated from Yorktown, but doing do would have left the entire South in the hands of the rebels. Britain could not have afforded to retake it. It was just a matter of time.
Sometimes I feel like I learn a lot more watching history TH-camrs that I did actually learning from history class back in school. I don't at all remember reading this back in school at all as well as many other big historic events. I'm very thankful to history TH-camrs like yourself
Because Australia was getting shafted by the French,they were selling them outdated overpriced diesel operated subs,like some con artist,but I can’t believe that the Aussie government accepted this deal in the first place.
@@raydawson2767 Actually Australia has an history of hating anything nuclear related. So they are the one who asked for diesel subs. And those were not overpriced, but issues happened during the building of the subs that made the price rise. But yeah the main problem is why did they signed in the first place, if it was to change their mind several years later. They say it's because of security concerns because China became a threat but seriously ? Nobody in Australia in 2010 (don't remember the exact year) could tell that China would become dangerous to Australia ?
@@nostrill512 I do recall seeing a report on sky Australia saying that China may attack Australia or at least claim it,it was to do with Australia cutting off China’s coal and iron ore supplies.
@@raydawson2767 Yeah, I guess they knew, but then they should have taken necessary actions earlier, that means before accepting a contract for diesel subs, by getting a contract for nuclear subs. The US would have accepted all the same in 2010, or they could even at least ask the french. Maybe the french would have say no because of nuclear proliferation issues, but the Australian government didn't even ask for it, which is understandable considering Australian history, but then they shouldn't have break the contract. Of course, if they realised they made a mistake and thought that nuclear subs were worth losing french trust, then they were right to do it, but they have to accept the backlash. Sad considering the relationship was finally getting better after the rainbow warrior story. Most likely the real reason is that the Australian needed the AUKUS alliance but the Americans put the condition of buying their subs, and Australians couldn't say no… If that's the truth, then USA are really ready to anything for their military industry, cause I think if they was a referendum about leaving NATO in France right after the crisis then it would have been a yes for 70% of the French at least (right after the crisis but most likely all the way until Ukrainian invasion)
This is the most frustrating channel to watch. So entertaining and interesting, yet so short. I want a half hour episode, nevermind ten minutes. By the time I’ve overcome the anxiety of only having three minutes of unadulterated joy, it’s already over.
Will you do a video about Romania leaving the Warsaw Pact? I find it fascinating that Romania was so outwardly rebellious against Moscow, but was never punished like Hungary or Czechoslovakia.
I read an explanation saying that Romania was poor and underdeveloped so it would have never been a model for other populations. They are also not slavic. Czechoslovkia is culturally closer to Russians, so the example could have spread. Another reason for me is that Ceaucescu controlled better the country, and was more in control of the army than Hungarian and Czech governments. The army would have fought whereas Czechoslovak army didn't move.
Hungry and Czechs wanted social -political change: private businesses , free movement etc. Romania was and stayed as dictatorship and leaving Warsaw Pact was to strength only dictatorship.
One very important thing missing (like in all History Matters video including France) is that de Gaulle had a very bad impression of american intervention in WW2. He had to fight both Roosevelt and Eiseinhower who both tried to instore puppet states or military administration in France despite French troops being treated as allies.
@@rj8288 Considering Vichy France was basically disarmed, not much (besides maybe bombers shot down by AA). The only fighting force Vichy had left was its navy, which was either bombed by the British or sabotaged by the French (see Operation Anton).
@@rj8288 not much because most of the LVF were either in Germany or in the Eastern Front. Hitler wanted to keep armed Frenchmen to a bare minimum, he knew that most of the soldiers who joined the LVF (later renamed the SS Charlemagne) only joined him because they hated communists, not because they liked him. Hitler was still wary of France especially after the battle of Bir-Hakeim where outnumbered French troops held the line against Rommel and his Italian allies.
I was in a C suite staff meeting and we were discussing our Canadian operation. Our global VP of procurement was from Lyons France. He scoffed and asked what was so great about Canada. I spoke up and said “well, for one thing it has the world’s largest French speaking population that never surrendered to Germany. Twice.” They still talk about that meeting. He never spoke to me again.
Most military victories in history, also France only surrendered to Germany once, and France has the most French speakers, everything you said was factually incorrect. He probably never spoke to you again because he understood that you are a ignorant French hater.
But pretty easy to get back at : "well yes, if you pay for the transport with the money you made during the war, and exchange them with our own soldiers buried on your soil."
The French were not convinced that the USA, which controlled NATO's nuclear warheads, would risk New York to save Paris, if push came to shove. They also realized that staying in NATO would result in American weapon sales causing French military manufacturers to wither away. The French have an independent nuclear force, and still have a very healthy military and civilian aviation industry.
Italy - *Has largest communist party behind the iron curtain from 60’s-70’s Also Italy- “Happy Fourth of July for no cultural reason! Amerriicccaaaaaa!!” France - “We don’t like anybody”
@@JanusTheOld In ancient Egypt a common farmer had rights and could even sue a lord of sorts (expect the pharaoh). Also while true, us Europeans did not try to uphold such rights to many other humans for centuries. But I feel you! Love French history
@@michelangelomissoni945 are you comparing ancient Egypt and 20th USA-Europe post war relations , on behalf of USA economical and ideological imperialism ?
“And the leader can be from any of these countries, so long as it starts with a U and ends with a nited States of America... and the deputy always seems to be from the UK... this upset the French... “ Of course it did. A British, American pastime is upsetting the French.
@@Entasis5555 Entasis was criticizing Qanno's weak assed analogy, which YOU took literally. Are YOU that dumb? Miller's Analogy Test failure, I detect in you.
@@yzfool6639 I was talking about the idea of moving the graves of the american soldiers here in France to 1SLUGGO1 because it's stupid af to think the quote from OP was an option. It's called sarcasm and some noobs think it's 1st degree gtfo
the French is a love hate kind of relationship, but in the end if they need our help they have it and if the USA needs their help we have it. the two nations are very much connected by history.
@@forthefunofit3230 The US helped a lot to free France back in WW1 and WW2 that should make it even. If you really think about it that investment is probably the biggest in return value in human history is still paying dividend.
Fun fact about the "what about the dead soldiers buried in france ?" comeback from the US defense secretary, the US cemetery in normandy might be french soil but is concidered a special, perpetual concession to the US (before you go and try something stupid, no, it doesn't get the extrateritoriality perk)
@@dominiquebeaulieu i believe you have written this response to the wrong comment for i cannot contextualy rationalize your answer to what I've written.
I honestly think they were in the right mind, like imagine just a american general in a war be like "Yeah hey frenchman, uhhm your troops there? yep under my command now lmao"
There is pros and cons to this. For instance one pro is greater operational flexibility where they can react independently and, hypothetically, react quickly to the changing battlefields. The down side is potential of communication breakdown which can be devastating. British Artillery are told to bring the thunder down on certain coordinates. Unfortunately for the poor Frenchmen who just took that position, the lack of direct command means there is a chance that the message that the position was taken may end up reaching allied command too late which can result in friendly fire
This is of course just examples of what can go right and wrong. In the end, it is up to individual nations to decide their plan of attack when it comes to this and accept the consequences
Unified command over troops from different nations is usually a bad idea. For instance, it led to the Sebrenica disaster, with the Central Command suddenly deciding to stiff the Dutch troops and not give them any support when they called for it. Why? No-one knows, but there was nothing the Dutch could do about it. Central Command put the Dutch in a verloren position and left them to rot.
@Caratacus That certainly isnt the case today, if it even ever was.. Junior partner implies the EU countries dont have a say or cant devert from the direction the usa is going. this is nonsense.The usa is by far the most important power in nato, but that doesnt make the other countries ''junior'' partners..
Fun fact : NATO use to have its HQ in Paris and when France withdrew, the building where was the HQ is now a university
It's a better use of that building.
@@andremacedo8463 wut? First off, France rejoined nato, second off, the point of NATO was to defend Europe against a soviet attack, not the US lol (alliance was created before ICBMs)
Wait, why was Brussels than choosen as de-facto capital of the EU? I always thought it was because it was already housing NATO?
@@andremacedo8463 it was never to defend the US, The US didn't and still doesn't need NATO, NATO has always needed the US for it's protection. The US is completely isolated from the rest of the world, and thus in no immediate threat, but the countries in Europe are in immediate threat to a Soviet/Russian invasion. NATO was always meant to keep the Soviets at bay not protect America
@@kyral2307 There is no special reason that I know. But I know that Bruxelles is not the official capital of the EU. It’s not written in EU treaties, so in theory EU can move to any other country in Europe. Plus, there is EU institutions in other cities that Bruxelles like in Strasbourg or Frankfort.
Because it is almost impossible to fit an American Ego and a French one in the same room together
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Very similar, only way you can tell the difference when there's an argument is the fat one with the funny accent is the American. de Gaulle was insufferable, though
@@williammcbride5919 Let me guess you think they just surrender all the time because they didn't France fought hard but if they kept fighting when they got to Paris it would had been bombed and destroyed cause of resistance so they chose the best option for its people but they sill hadn't giving up
@@Salt_Is_Dew bull shite. Resistance was absolutely worthless look it up.
Every single Frenchman taking off the damn Beach at Dunkirk returned and fought for the wrong side. Vichy France. Losers
@@williammcbride5919 hey who is the country with the most battle victories ? And why is America indépendant and not British ?
@Pilot JollyRoger tf you’re saying ? Yes the us is one of most powerful nations in the world and invented things such as those you said, but France is the country with the most military victories and we invented a lot of thing such as the cinema, the photograph and many other that are very useful today (helicopters and the metric system (even in the us you use it for science) for examples)
"The Supreme Allied Commander could come from any country beginning with a U..."
Uganda: So you're saying there's a chance
Uruguay has entered the chat
USSR?
Uzbekistan calls dibs
@@Astromamut no one has killed more communists than a communist government so it actually makes sense
@@Astromamut USSR requested to join your Faction (289)
This message has been detected as spam
Do you want to block USSR?
[Block] [Ignore]
This reminds me of the quote by the American General Norman Schwarzkopf who said
"Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion."
That was precisely what I had been thinking of too.
That's an amazing quote! Thanks for sharing!
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me" - usually attributed to Patton
It was so the French could surrender under their own terms as soon as the first bullet was fired.
Blind patriotism is not always a good idea, ask Pat Tillman.
"So long as that country started with U and Nited States of America" this is why i love this channel
I laughed waaaay to hard at that.
Ukrainited States of America
I don't really know why France is always hating on America I mean it didn't used to be that way France help the Americans during the Revolutionary war they gave us the statue of liberty but ever since 1940s and to currents times they have been hating on America
@@henrysmart6854 Suez Crisis?
Thanks for typing my thoughts exactly. Saves me the trouble.
"Why did France Leave NATO?"
Because leaving NATO sounds like the most French thing to do so they did.
I love your videos, keep up the great work pogchamp
... I don't know if I should be flattered or offended. Then I remember we French people are too great and mighty (but never arrogant, Baguette no!) to care about other people's opinion of us. 😉
Ah yes
France apparently is incompetent after one surrender.
I am so sick of this as an American.
L'otan
@@CoffeeSuccubus The truth hurts.
1:13 in the top left corner: *Concerned French Noises*.
Man I love this channel.
@@henrysmart6854 Guess I'm a loser then.😁
@@henrysmart6854 Farmers: I'm the lowest of the low
@@henrysmart6854 I'm delighted to announce that your username is totally the opposite of what you just have said.
@@henrysmart6854 zoo owners: I'm going to jail
@@henrysmart6854 I guess you're a animal hater then....
I served with NATO at SHAPE when De Gaulle decided to kick NATO out of France. Can you imagine being in your 20's and living just a few kilometres from Paris itself. I used to play rugby for the British Rugby Club of Paris and was having a whale of a time - Anyone remember the Winston Churchill pub ?? Moving to Belgium was not the same but great memories.
@@donny1437 From about April 1966 in France to April 1967 and then another year in Belgium, Mons.
Thank you for you’re service
Simp@@Drheims
@@NgolaNalane communist
France withdrew because Bisonette wasn't commander
So true!
@Anonymer Nutzer bro that's the patron
There a happy ending France rejoin NATO in 2009, well kind of.
Well France hate USA and ussr
Here is someone I never would've expected here. I used to watch your channel all the time dude. Have a good one.
As a German, that title evoked a lot of sudden emotions in me before realising that this didn't, in fact, happen last week or something.
This would never happen now
@@alexandrevincenot6546 I know. But shock is always faster than reason.
As an American I was pretty concerned as well lol. A NATO without France is difficult to imagine.
Well, they sought help from nato to wreck libya and they got their wish granted so why would they opt out of nato now?
@@antokarman2064 to wreck libya ? how so ?
its more the opposite, Usa dragged all thyer ally in theyr last war ( irak, afghanistan )
and thank god our governement wasnt as dumb as the bush one and say no to irak, now the hell holes that we call irak is all on the hand of the freedom giver and great friend of humanity that is Usa lol
“Does that include those in the cemeteries as well?”
Ok that sounds like it was an effective guilt-inducing response
It definitely was, and it was very powerful
Fooken gut-punch. I actually flinched
Yeah that was one hell of a response
LBJ was quite skilled in comebacks
Well, they should have responded the same and told to give their independence back to british while they were at it:D
Oddly enough though, the FAMAS and other standard issue arms were more or less standardized with NATO. This meant they fired the NATO Standard 5.56mm cartridge and fit the GI standard steel magazines, with all models including and after the FAMAS G1. This means that in a warzone situation, British and American Troops could share ammo and magazines without refit to French counter parts. This may be due in large part to wanting to sell to NATO nations, but it is worth noting that it was NATO standardize.
No shit. What’s next, grass is green?
@@lordbluebaron2270 consider that another non-member (but big arms dealer) Austria, didn't have the GI mag compatibility as standard on their offering (the AUG), even now their compatibility is questionable. So grass isn't always green
G2 was rare, so no default NATO compatibility.
I can imagine the reason for this is because France was still part of NATO's military alliance, and would still partake in a war if asked to, so there wouldn't be any reason not to have standardization in their equipment between the rest of NATO, at least in certain respects. I am aware that some of their equipment would not have been able to use universal NATO ammunition, though, in specific circumstances like with the British Challenger 2 that uses a rifled barrel, instead of some variation of the German 120mm smoothbore.
Preety sure the orginal FAMAS didn't use NATO mags, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden also used 5.56 NATO while not in NATO
Sounds like a way of staying in the club but avoiding those interminable committee meetings. We've all felt that. :)
lmao why is this so accurate
The video is wrong, it dosn't understand the cause, it was because of the gold.
@Stink Meaner Than it should have been called The History Channel - Where the truth if history.
But all jokes aside the fact that they had a video about the France withdrawal from NATO yet didn't understand it at all, that is beyond dumb, because they are not trying to be funny either like with the Babylon Bee or the SNL. This is about them trying to teach other people about a subject that they fundamentally do not understand themselves.
Oh.... Im sorry, were you talking about me
@Stink Meaner No socialists are incapable of being funny. Liberals on the other hand, are famous for their humour.
"Who could've been from NATO's many member states as long that member state's name began with U and ended with nited States of America" - best line ever
I feel like the Second Seat should have belonged to a nation that ended in “Nited Kingdom”. Just to keep the pattern going.
Wrong. Best line ever was Does that include the ones in the cemeteries? Exposed DeGaulle for his pettiness
@@CaesarCassius DeGaulle was a petty man, but in this case he was actually in the right for France. He lost nothing as the US would offer the same level of defense regardless, he got a lot of those missiles removed that we peppered the French countryside with and achieved most of his other goals, not least of which was annoying the British. He was petty but he wasn't stupid. Also this particular action was why France was the only European nation that wasn't financially dominated by the US.
@@CaesarCassius 100% fact.
yup, but if tank war erupts across the flatlands of poland and germany, I think I would feel safest with a german in chief...
france: my friends i am very honored to be apart of thi-
britain: is also in nato
france: yeah this sucks i'm leaving
France and Britain totally have a Yandere relationship with each other.
@@gerardmontgomery280 Mega tsundere really. I've read doorstopper studies on the topic.
The fuck do you mean with your tsundere and yandere shit, French and English hate each other and that's all. There is no secret love or anything.
@@PrimarchRoboleonFrenchyman Actual behaviour over _centuries_ disagrees.
@@PrimarchRoboleonFrenchyman yeah yeah keep dreaming😏
At 1:29 I really like the French Secret Plan. Infantry launch a fixing attack while a radar unit flanks around a forest and a battleship comes from around the mountains to destroy an enemy air defense unit. I think the infantry could have handled it alone but hey, we know where the budget is going with those mountain battleships.
Given the French NATO-Commanded troops location during the cold war, the enemy has a forward located air defence unit without support.
They gave us the slip once, so best not take any chances, recall the mountain battleship for a flanking manoeuvrer.
Ok I understand now😂😂😂😂
2:13 "I Have to go now, my planet needs me"
Note: France died on the way back to his home planet
Rip Poochie
That's a Simpson easter egg ! Nice.
Hey Bill, or was it Jeff?
Damn I forgot, he was only in one episode.
@@Marinealver I want to say Roy but I honestly don't know
Boy i really hope someone got fired for that blunder!
In 2004, France moved one step closer to the NATO military structure by assigning personnel to the permanent staffs of SHAPE and its subordinate headquarters, and in 2009 France officially rejoined NATO's integrated military command structure.
"Thanks" to the traitor Sarkosy.
@@jean-robertlombard1416 Well, I suppose we'll always have the revolutionary war to look back on.
I served at SHAPE from 2000 to 2003, and there were during those years quite a number of French officers in the building in various "observer" roles. They attended strategy meetings and voiced their views, but since there were no billets (positions) for French personnel, they had no official say in military matters.
Now most french want to leave NATO, again
@@jean-robertlombard1416 son égo a été amoché par Poutine durant le G8 en 2007, décision purement politique et capricieuse, faut le comprendre le pauvre petit président...
"5 or 10 years"
France: No, how about 50
🤣
Now really, who cares? Communism is dead.
@@rj8288 Communism might be dead, but Russia and China are still illiberal as fuck and looking towards expanding once more.
@@rj8288 what about china ?
so r the in now ?
The fact you spend time making their eyebrows raise and half squinted eyes is not talked about enough. You’re a fucking legend
I don't wish to know about his lovemaking abilities.
@@G6JPGthat was a really clever response, and it’s a shame not many saw it :
@@cactusking4045 Thank you!
@@G6JPG 😂😂😂😂
Since I didn't think this ever happened, I thought it just did, and nearly had a heart attack XD
What would be the issue with it? France leaving NATO wouldn't mean a France without allies and vice versa.
@@nestpascamillekazeyquiveut9984 I didn't really mean it in the context of "that's really bad," I meant it as a "that's a really important, historical event that I didn't hear about"
@@codeviper8665 yeah; I've had days like that too... T-T
Same
Same
I want to shake James Bisonette’s hand and thank him for supporting this channel
Also Kurzgesagt
✋
@@jamesbissonette8002 ♥️♥️♥️
Spinning Three Plates is my hero/heroine
Also Kelly moneymaker
"Why did France leave NA- **Charles de Gaulle**
Yeah no surprise
He never forgave the US and Britain for saving France.
He was ahead of his time. NATO is pointless as fuck now.
@@Mana-xd2tp except for costing america money and costing them time to sort out diplomatic issues within NATO because now there is no common force to fight against and be United against
@@davidgalloway266 he mainly hated being seen as a puppet by the british and the american and wanted to prove that France could take care of it's own problem by their own... sorry we didn't wanted to be your little bitch
@@Mana-xd2tp Nato is still in Afghanistan and protecting the Ukraine. How can it be pointles? The Nato treary has only been activated once. To assist the US in Afghanistan. But watch Putin invade to Baltic states if it vanishes.
Now I know the full story as to why a GI I served with in Germany was moved from France to Germany sometime in 1966. I think the trooper was Larry Holden from Atlanta, Ga
When you uploaded this I was like: *Did I miss some news that I shouldn't miss?!*
Sammeee xD
duude I thought France left NATO now for a second because I never heard of that and got a heart attack
My heart skipped a beat.
With the border skirmish with the U.K. at Jersey, I thought the same!
HM: Why did France leave NATO?
Me: *Forgets this is history matters not news matters,* wait whut?
One minor thing I like is that soldiers in these animations are usually depicted with period-correct weapons used by the nations they represent. Like at 1:10, the French troops have MAS-49 rifles, which is what they were using at this time period.
Plus AMX-13 right behind 'em
@@demoscassi8055 And accurate ranks, ships, etc. Lot of dedication put in these videos.
@@buckdanny9062 Unlike some other pop history channels...
@@RhodokTribesman does it start with a i and end with nfographic show ?
@@AuxenceF Haha, right on the money. I'm glad I'm not the only one
France: "we want all foreign troops off of French Soil"
America: "does that include those in French cemeteries?"
Damn that's sassy
De Gaulle knew what the americans tried to do to France turning it into an american colony, and during the short time they had bases in France they conducted espionage, and the infamous LSD testing they did in the 60's on a small village of old people that killed many of them. It was a big incident and was too much for great Charles De Gaule to have annoying and disrespectful americans on it's soil since they were neutral in the cold war as De Gaulle was promoting a 3rd way of independent nations to not be included in the cold war and potentially ww3.
@@ommsterlitz1805 France was still part of nato, if ussr attacked France would not be neutral
@@feelsweirdman_1823 Yes actually France was way more present in germany than the USA, and France had many military bases to train germans under their command as with the French would have been the first to be in the front line before the americans
@@ommsterlitz1805 yes so they were not neutral 👍🏼very cool
Johnson was a poor sore looser who got his leg in Vietnam and killed more americains than Hitler.
From De Gaulle's perspective, the Americans were primarily trying to control France: first by sidelining him personally, then by pushing to make France a U.S. protectorate after the war, and finally by reducing France to a secondary role in NATO. This constant effort to keep France subordinate clashed with De Gaulle’s and the French people’s vision of independence, autonomy, and national greatness. So, it’s no surprise that, at some point, he essentially told them to go fuck themselves.
When France helped the U.S. gain independence, it didn’t seek control, it simply aided and left. That’s how things should be done.
History Matters: "Why did France withdraw from NATO?"
History Matters: "It was in 1966"
Me: "Ah, so de Gaulle being de Gaulle"
Yep, not being a pawn of the americans. A great leader
(we need more french president being De Gaulle. Our political system was build around the idea to have a De Gaulle as president.)
De Gaulle was also the arrogant prick you had no qualms threatening to *take their ball and go home" if the Americans didn't attempt to halt the Nazi advance on Strasbourg during operation Northwind in 1945.
One of the many times Charles de God Awful used foreign blood to protect french 'honor".
@@Outlast25 by "foreign", you mean "the part of the France out of the europe" ?
@@paulamblard3836 I've no idea what you mean by this. 10,000 Americans died in Op Northwind alone. Many because of De Gaulle and his inability to allow the Nazis to take a strategically insignificant town because it was politically inexpedient for him.
A coward who didn't mind paying for French soil with American blood
**concerned French noises**
*nervous frog voice*
Sounds like surrendering as soon as possible
@@hydradominatus3641 surrender jokes so old lmao, get over it
@@mashedpotatoboy7160 oldies but goldies
@@hydradominatus3641 All right, give your independence back to Britain and the Louisiana Territory and the Statue of Liberty back to France.
"So long as that member state began with a U and ended with nited States of America"
That was the funniest part of the entire video 😂😂
😅 lol
Makes sense though. We are the best and most powerful
@@poop75018 We're the humblest too.
@@libtardgunlover762 funny joke lol
I love learning history and these videos you get me laughing all the time! while also teaching me historical events =]
take a look at " oversymplified "
"so long as that member state began with a U and ended with nited states of America" Instant subscribe
Welcome to the chaos.
Fair enough, its also the only country that lived up to the minimal military commitments the past 30 years. Where I live there is a saying 'he who pays the bill is the one that decides'
@@Rh0dan1970 and they're also the ones who've started and lost the most amount of pointless and unwinnable wars.
To us in Europe, the US are bullies who think they're the world's policeman, they spend spend spend on military when nobody else is and the reason for that is because we're all focused on things like providing healthcare and education. Sorry America but, your military spending means the country suffers. Much rather have free healthcare than the world's largest army *which seems afraid or incapable of winning real wars*
@@rickybojangles162 nothing is free in life free healthcare isn’t free you or other people in the country pay for it in there taxes
@@rickybojangles162 We have started and lost literally 1 pointless war, I'd say we are way behind the European countries in that endeavor.
De Gaulle : Get your American troops out of France
America: The dead ones too?
I am laughing so hard 😂
"Ouais! Every last of them!"
Pro gamer move.
He should have responded with: "Of course, we'll remove ours from your soil too."
De Gaulle should have replied with: "No, those can stay as long as the 2000 frenchmen that died in America in 1776 can stay there too."
Knowing De Gaulle he would definitely say yes
"Does that include those in the cemeteries as well"
wow that is a dark quip 1:56
yeah, that was pretty savage.
No idea why he said that considering French soldiers died on american soil for independance and this does not justify having French military bases in the US
@@niksarass 1. Not even remotely to scale, like at all. About 2,100 Frenchmen died throughout the entire War for American Independence, more Americans died on the first day at Omaha Beach alone. I appreciate greatly France's contribution to our victory, but it's a watershed compared to what Americans sacrificed for the French in both WW1 and WW2.
2. The point he was trying to make was that America's contribution to both World Wars is the reason why France even has an independent state of her own, obviously British and Canadian troops played massive roles but it would have been impossible without American assistance. So how dare he demand that the troops who saved his country leave said country when their only purpose there is to protect it, when he wouldn't even have sovereign land if not for them?
@@kidfox3971 Still off topic to my point, but
1. More Frenchmen died in Yorktown and Chesapeake than Americans rebels
2. US had no navy. Without the Chesapeake naval blockade the British could reinforce forever, they were the masters of the sea.
3. Even if numbers were 1000 times that. Still no reason to force the country you help to be a vassal state or accept a military presence once it is freed. If you take the sovereignty you just gave, then you don't give anything.
4. American soldiers sacrifice is admirable, but american leadership were not wanting to give France its sovereignty, they wanted to treat it as a defeated ennemy state under AMGOT, puppet state with french dollars etc. They did not warn Degaulle of Normandy. Did not drop heavy weapons to the Résistance. There was no generosity or sacrifice in it. It was replacing one conquerer with another. So using the sacrifice of american soldiers as a culpability inducing excuse is pretty laughable to me.
@@kidfox3971 You are over romantizing history my friend. The US had been selling strategical materials to the nazi state for years , to the point that Albert Speer said "Had not been for America's help, we could not have invaded Poland".
Also in 1925 France has a complete military control over Germany (Ruhr) so Germany couldn't rearm or invade. WW2 couldn't happen, but the US pressured France out of that because they were selling stuff to Germany. US politics is one of the reasons why WW2 happened in the first place.
They cannot act like they were friends of France, or saved France , it's like a Fireman that claims he saved your house because he put down a fire he just initiated himself.
“Does that include the ones in the cemetery too?” Damn that hits hard😢
Yeah, Johnson, a pure politician, who had only been in the naval reserve during ww2, scolding DeGaulle, ww1 hero injured multiple times, the only succesfull tank commander in 1940 against the nazi invasion, who went against his own govt and declared war should go on after france fall (hence was condamned to death by vichy france in absentia), led the free french, witnessed some of his best friends die under his command...
Yeah, that little jab was pathetic.
@@MN-vz8qm pathetic, yep
@@MN-vz8qm indeed he was
@@MN-vz8qm Johnson asked it on behalf of the dead soldiers, not himself.
@@rick7424 No, this useless corrupt politician, maybe responsible of the murder of JFK, was just being a D
It's also worth remembering that French nuclear doctrine called for the use of very short-range nuclear weapons (e.g. The Pluton) to prevent or 'disrupt' large Red Army formations just before they could invade French soil. Given where these Red Army forces would have been located, effectively this meant that the first step of France's homeland defence plan involved nuking West Germany. As war plans go, not the toughest sell to the contemporary French defence establishment, but considered a tad problematic for alliance diplomacy!
Considering the deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe at the time, Germany would have become a nuclear wasteland regardless.
@@tywinlannister8015 Very possibly, after all up until the 1980s NATO was reliant on smaller scale nuclear forces to offset percieved conventional inferiority. But on the diplomatic front this was 'solved' politically by having 'dual-key' nuclear forces whereby American nuclear weapons were mated to European force structures/delivery platforms like fighter-bombers. In theory both parties had to consent to nuclear use. Obviously there were provisions and loopholes but it was good enough to paint a veneer of legitimacy on the whole thing.
With France, this was in no way the case (to this day, unlike the US and UK, France makes no nuclear guarantees tonits neighbours) therefore it would still have been a difficult political subject between allies when undertaking peacetime planning.
As someone who did his military service in Frnace in the late 80's. I can tell you this. during basic training we were told that in case of an invasion of Germany by the Warsaw Pact forces, the entire French army were to be rushed in Germany to join the front. No if, no but.
So those Pluton might have been used in Germany but the idea was certainly not to "wait and see" and only fight to protect France territory.
Fun fact, I was in light armor reconnaissance regiment and, in case of a global war against the Warsaw pact our losses were projected to be 80% in the first 48h of conflict...
Believe what you want but there was never a question about where we were to stand in case of a major conflict between the two blocks.
And oh about Germany being turned into a wasteland I can also confirm that it was also considered a given : We were told that a third of all artillery shell of the the warsaw pact were chemical weapons so we wouldhave to fight in NBC gear ( Gaz masks, special overall , pressurized vehicles, etc) ..
Thank God this never happened !!
@@marcmarco5373 Thank God indeed, I do not think there would be a civilization left to speak of otherwise.
I would not be shock if France had nuclear wepons point at Berlin and London at all time... Just in case.
"I want all American forces out of this country!"
"Including the ones in the cemeteries?"
Oof, that is one hell of a rebuke.
Should have answered "yes"
Well the one who died where heroes
Not the others
American burried in France, are burried in American cemetery....which are American properties !
the french that died for your independance war will return to france too then 😉
@@yak48 Not legally they're not.
‘Does that include all the ones in the soil as well?’
Gotta admit, that was a sick burn that I have no doubt American press had an absolute field day with
Imagine not wanting to be an U.S. puppet what a shame
As many French civilians buried in ww2 cemeteries were put there by American bombardments than by German occupation forces during WW2, maybe the Americans could have tought this trough
Edited my comment because I hadn't tought of it beforehand
@@parodyclip36 20.000 civilians killed by American bombing and 4500 women rapped, at least those who spoke...
Edit : in fact its really 60.000 maybe even 70.000
@@noidea5984
Yeah, cause you know thats totally worse than France being invaded, occupied and a puppet state of nazi Germany where over 100000 people were killed.
@@parodyclip36
Where did you get that idea?
The majority of the French deaths on the western front were from Nazi Germany, not America.
Out of the 200k military deaths, over 100k were from Germany.
Again, where did you get this idea?
I love Johnsons response to the request, an absolute masterstroke. Even if it didn't work it still would have caused such a huge incident it would have made France look extremely ungrateful for all those lives lost
Yes and no. The obvious counter-answer is "US only exists because of France, in the 1st place".
Also let's be real about politicians. In both cases, they were interests involved, not just camaradery.
It’s honestly hypocritical cause the US wanted France to be treated as a defeated nation because of the French soldiers that fought on Germanys side. Ignoring all the French soldiers also on the ally’s side
@@gravitykat714 This was 20 years after WW2. And the USA has always payed over twice all of the other nato nations combined. Different US presidents/polititions, and the US public just get ticked at other members expecting to control US spending when they can't meet 2% spend. The USA has never spent less than 3% gdp on defence spending and averages neer 6% since ww2. I value our allies more than most, but when we let the gun nuts or the cheep skates run the show than they screech at nato members, "not meeting g their 2% promised goals and pushing all the cost on the USA." I on the other hand appreciate the warm bodies the French have and that they actually bring their own guns to nato drills. Some other German Nato members allegedly have to borrow equipment all the time, but again Germans have warm bodies too. And I am more worried about a potential 2 front war for the USA, where our pacific allies are more likely to be at a manpower disadvantage, so we need all the Europeans we can get❤️❤️❤️
@@viewer-of-contentas is often said, after WW2 the United States purchased an alliance to stand in front of it in any future conflict.
@@gravitykat714 that's complete and total Bull shit. NO ONE wanted or demanded France be treated as a defeated nation. If that were so, why did Dwight D.Eisenhower and FDR allow the communist De Gaulle to lead the triumphant military parade into Paris???
0:40 Nato mustering to hold the line, defending the free World. Norway deciding to invade Sweden.
They found the commie in ikea. Had no choice
Lol
hoi 4 in the nut shell
They were hiding weapons of mass destruction.
That would only happen if we win the winter olympics. So we never win.
The French where sick of all the "surrender" jokes in Nato so they up and left.
They... surrendered
What's worse is that Denmark resisted the Germans in WWII for a whole FOUR hours. The Danes deserve (and earned) more sarcastic surrender jokes than the French. The French are no longer in NATO but the Danes participation is practically nil. They seldom if ever participate in exercises and their defense budget is absurdly small even by European standards. That's why Denmark can give so much free stuff and services to their citizens because they don't spend it on their defense. They expect other countries (US, UK, Germany) to defend them. It just sickens me to know that Americans and other non-Danish soldiers will die to defend the cowardly, selfish and arrogant people of Denmark.
@@neilmanhard1341 Don't think I've ever heard anyone go after the Danes quite so passionately.
Have you ever seen the film Land of Mine?
@@ashjones2627 Yes I had. There's a scene where a Danish sergeant attacks unarmed German prisoners. My thought was, "wow, so brave and tough against a beaten foe, but where was all that bravado when defending his homeland?".
The Danes are a happy people and like to brag about all their "freebies", like health care, education, etc... services other countries envy. They can only afford those services though because they spend virtually nothing on "defense". Their prosperity is carried on the backs of NATO members.
In numerous "Cold War" board games (particularly from the '80s), the Danish army practically disintegrates on first contact with the Soviets. It's been a long standing knowledge that the Danish Army is the worse and least trained army in NATO. They barely participate in exercises.
NATO and other European countries don't criticize them because they're a member. So, here, Denmark gets a "free ride" on their reputation. I have no obligation for sustaining Denmark's self-worth, so I call them what they truly are: selfish arrogant cowards. Their 20th and 21th century history makes it indisputable. Anything other than that is a whitewash. (Really, a FOUR hour war?)
@@neilmanhard1341 I thought it was an interesting film about an aspect of the War that is rarely covered. To your point though, that character does come to respect and even care for the soldiers in his charge.
You obviously have quite strong opinions and its not something I know a tremendous amount about. I've never had much contact with Denmark or Danes.
Where are you from out of interest?
As a Frenchman… I didn’t know we rejoined nato lol. We learn in history classes that De Gaule removed us from NATO as teens; but tbh I always saw NATO as a club we were just slightly part of but not real members. I saw that lately with the map of current NATO members because of the Ukraine war, and I was like… wait, when did we become full time members again? Heading to Google to see under which president
under Sarkozy
Sarkozy rejoined the NATO with a simple purpose! Win a re-election by getting rid of Gadhaffi with the help of NATO because he has a dirt of illegal campaign money which helped Sarkhozi win against Segolene Royal. But didn’t do him any good as he did ended up losing his re-election against Holland and and worst of all that secret of dirty money wasn’t buried with Gadhaffi but ended up in the hands of Mediapart and Sarghozy is fighting with the French Justice alone without the help of NATO! British and American leaders always betrayed French leaders, first Louis XVI to the mercy of the guillotine and now Nichola Sarkhozy to the walls of prison cell. Quelle justice Française.
You didn't have to France never left NATO.
@@augustinf The military structure command, yes. France did not leave Nato.
@@augustinf I am also pretty sure I remember seeing frenchmen patched during KFOR and were given awards for KFOR, before 2009. A decade before.
2:00 lowkey that's a really good response
If I remember well, de Gaulle said "France was treated like a doormat" by American troops (traitée comme un paillasson). Just to give you an idea of how he thought of them.
And you know why he said that? Because the Allies massively carpet bombed Normandy(the doormat) to make their way to Germany, killing as many people as Germans did in an invasion and the occupation taken together. So in his mind, French paid a big enough price without having to kiss butts for decades after the liberation.
@@M-J-qn8td yep, totally agree with you
How many Frenchman does it take to defend Paris..... Don't know, the French hasn't been able to defend Paris by themselves
@Brian Baff You Jo Sm and Dennis Simo, 3 ignorant jerks that think the Simpson's are historical reference.
Yeah? ... And De Gaulle can go F his rotten corpse!
LBJ's real quote was, "Ask him about the cemeteries Dean!" In reference to the secretary of state, who didn't want to ask France about the cemeteries but had to because that was his job. The quote in the video comes from Dean Rusk.
thx 4 tha info!!!!11
WWII vet returns for visit:
FR customs: have you been to France before, as old solider is looking for his passport.
Solider: yes
FR customs: then you know you should have your passport ready.
Solider: Last time no body ask for one. I was too busy killing NAZIs and French collaborators
We should of brought them back home. It would of been the most American thing to do at that point. Out of total respect for the ones who died
Bill Mauldin did a political cartoon on this subject. It showed DeGaulle standing before the crosses of an American war cemetery, asking, “Why do you Americans always stay where you’re not wanted.”
@@xusmico187 what the fuck is a "SOLIDER" someone who solid things?
“So long as that country started with U and ended with Nited states of America.”
You know I have a feeling that that the country being said here is the United Kingdom
But the second in command
nope
a wise man once tells "the power of evil will rise for 1000 years, then or 100 and finally the last ten. "
It's the United Arab Emirates
2:12 Did you guys reference Poochy from itchy and scratchy leaving the show?
Note: French died on the way back to their home planet
And I directly went looking on the internet news like : what the hell did Macron just do?
Got scared for a min though
I also thought wtf macron. I thought he is going to war with britain because of jersey
@@Knightfire66 Lol going to war for fishes, c'mon
@@0GarbageChannel0 lol they went to war for way less... were talking about britain and france.
@@Knightfire66 This is XXIth century bro
why its not like its a massive deal the us is like 60% of nato
French: “We what all foreign troops off our soil.”
US: “Does that includes the ones in the cemeteries?”
As knowing some French people, that would hurt a lot, since the respect they have for those those graves is astounding. They have more respect for those memorials than most Americans do.
They built a memorial for the 51st Highlanders that stayed behind in Dunkirk to allow french troops to be saved. They showed more care for those soldiers than the British did. I have nothing it respect for our French brothers 🇺🇸🤝🇫🇷
In France you cannot go in any old little town without seeing a memorial about war with all the name of the people that died, usually they are at the "center" of the village.
As a french i confirm it. There is really a lot of memorials all around the country and many children love learning more about War Heroes.
@@shamanamana5429 that's not only the case in France. In the German village I grew up in is also a memorial listing all the soldiers from that village that have fallen WW 1 & 2. Even inside the church are plates listing the fallen soldiers of WW1. Almost every village here has these kind of memorials and every year on the Sunday two weeks before the first advent we have our Remembrance Day.
There is no relation. Otherwise, they would have passed from the German occupation to the American's one.
Yet the Americans have almost no monuments to the Frenchmen who died for their independence. How quickly the Yankees forgot.
So its basically France just being France
And USA just being USA
@@pastek93
This difference is that France needs Nato, the USA doesn't.
The US military budget is greater than all other Nato countries combined.
@@charlesvan13yeah but no France have the strongest army of the European Union and have nuke so they can totally survive without nato and If France quit again NATO they will keep good commercial relations with USA and other country and the economy of France don’t really be touch because France is the 4th weapons seller in the world and with the economic force of the euro no problems with the economy (in history France is a very good ally with USA so they will have good relations)
Sorry for bad English I’m French
@@mcrepe6995
I'm fine with the US leaving Nato.
The US doesn't need it. It's the small countries that do, and they constantly complain. The US has 60% the capability of Nato as a whole, not counting nukes.
The French constantly complain, but they have needed the US twice. So leave!!
@@charlesvan13 …. If USA leave NATO all the other countries in Eastern europe will think « I don’t need NATO i should ally with Russia because Russia is ´powerful’ and I’m near it » so maybe you fine if US leave NATO but that not good. And in NATO there is not really small countries
.I want to know about what they complains in NATO because there is nothing to complain in NATO can you give some examples please ?
USA do not do all the power in NATO
Even if you remove the USA in NATO all the others members combined are very powerful
FINAL : All the members of NATO need NATO , the USA don’t do a exception
USA need NATO and all other countries in NATO need nato
I asked my friends if they knew France once "left" NATO
They said: "Really? Why? Charles de Gaulle?"
God it's just hilarious how quick they think that
de Gaulle translates to "The Gall" as in "the gall of the asshole".
Ancient name for France was Gaul.
@@laniejuanitawhitehurst1624
And they've had plenty of gall ever since :-)
Yes the answer is obvious. In France De Gaulle is revered but in US and UK he is regarded as a "Clouseauesque" narcissist who jeopardised D Day and the war effort in general through his obsession with protecting France's international status and empire. The reality during WW2 was that France was a busted flush and De Gaulle should have been an irrelevance but for Churchill promoting him as "the voice of French resistance" if only from his armchair in London. De Gaulle entered France in 1945 as a conquering hero even though he, and what nominal Free French forces there were, contributed bugger all.
Thereafter he proved a thorn in everyone's side. Given that Britain and the US effectively won the war in the West it would not seem unreasonable that some 20 years later they would not be "running the show" especially as the US has pretty much always paid for NATO. This continued with DeGaulle blocking the UK's entry to the EU in the late 1960s, his petty minded resistance to the spread of Anglo America culture and his attempts to airbrush France's capitulation and collaboration with Nazism from history.
De Gaulle was the ultimate dick.
@@Kaiserbill99 thanks, didn’t know this fact
De Gaulle: "France must to go now."
*Note: Charles De Gaulle died on the way back to his home planet*
Well done sir. God bless poochy
Seen this joke before but still didn't get it.
@@theemirofjaffa2266 It's a Simpson's reference. In which a character called poochie as killed of screen, if you type Simpson's poochie death you'll understand.
Does anyone remember the time when De Gaulle hid in Britain like a coward pooping his pants?
@@Kratos-005 Does anybody remember the time when hitler hid in his bunker like a coward and pooped his pants?
These days most of French people don't care, but the move by Sarkozy to rejoin NATO was widely criticized in France at the time, being seen as quite the "atlantist" move.
being real, what decision in france isn't widely critized by french people at the time
Everything the French government does is widely criticized nowadays
@@PyroFloe the french political class is a band of bumbling buffoons so it's not terribly surprising
@@PyroFloe This is kinda the purpose of democracy and free press, isn't it?
@@modernpragmatism yes, French people complain about any new changes, everything.
I enjoyed this.
When I conquer the world, I will cite this video as a source of inspiration.
You did this to yourself.
Okay Putin!
De Gaulle joyfully tottering off with a nuclear missle on his shoulders is my new all-time favorite moment (1:21)
UK and US watching on in disapproval
I'm still partial to Elizabeth II rappelling down an airship in the Falklands myself.
@@yeetjones927 cus they didnt want France to be a nuclear power
@@dr.pop2562 beaxouse they knew France was gonna use them for shit reasons
@@yeetjones927 Still no one got nuked afaik.
"Say the line, History Matters..."
"James Bissonette..."
"YAAAAAAAAAAAAY"
So they left because they disagreed on the " we are all equals... but some are more equals than others" part. Totally understandable.
Banned in America for being Communist Propaganda...
Banned in Russia for being Capitalist Propaganda...
They were onto something
@@juggernautstyle3944 *ribbit's proudly*
If u want equal say - then put up equal pay - just like any other legitimate business deal
I can completely understand their decision and I don't really understand if they were complaining about NATO why they didn't complain about the EU
@@lonesurvivalist3147 Beacuse the Eu isn't as hypocritical, is worthwhile and mutually beneficial.
I spent my mandatory army service for France in ....... Germany, in 1985. Turns out we were out, but the French Forces in Germany existed with our a doubt. It was a logistics battalion, all the offensive units were back in France I guess.
Was that in Saarland?
@@smalltime0 Freiburg im Breisgau
@@hamrite wow, unexpected
Last time I was this early, France was still the leader of the League of Nations
Last time I was this early, Franz Ferdinand was still alive
Last time I was this early, the German Empire was still Prussia
Last time I was time I was this napolean had taken toulene
Last time I was this early, Marie Antoinette still had her head
Last time I was this early, hakkapeliittas were still fighting in Poland.
"The second allied commander who could be from any other member, but in reality just Britain"
No wonder france left
Yeah, imagine the two main countries who freed France from the Nazis being in charge. What would they know?
@@kirkc9643 still it seems contradicting as Britain was broke and on the verge of loosing its colonies at this time so it doesn't feel like they should have been a primary command when it came to nato
@@martinmorles1 The british held for months giving their all to defend against the germans, even if the germans managed to land they still wouldve fought in the streets, in the fields, and in the hills.
Compare that to the french who surrendered after 6 weeks because they didnt want their "precious" cities to get attacked.
@@ruviklychee4308 Lmao nonsense... the only reason Britain survived WWII is because fortunately for them..... tanks don't float lmao. They weren't any better than the French were against Germany in 1940 considering how easily they got dunked on by the Germans in Norway and how they ran back to their island before the Battle of France was over. They even had to be saved in North Africa at Bir-Hakeim by the Free French for them to finally got their shit together there. The Poles, French, Dutch or whatever wished the battle to save their country was an aerial one like the battle of Britain with a body of water protecting them from the enemy. Geography decided otherwise.
@@ruviklychee4308 It helps when Britain has a natural defense system called "The English Channel" and manned by the biggest navy on earth, while the Nazis barely even have a credible surface fleet to counter Britain's navy...
Here before spinning three plates
NATO's plan was to use France as a rug and buffer zone in case of soviet invasion and not use nukes first in this case. French leadership disagreed and said a single soviet soldier on french soil and it's nuclear bombs straight toward Moscow. Obviously it wasn't in the US or UK interests but France didn't care and went ahead developing its own nukes as well anyway.
I’m with France on this one, the amount of disrespect and lack of regard for lives is astonishing, Shame on you NATO.
@@gameover9390 You understand nuclear war would've been a far worse lack of regard for lives, yes?
@@maregondrako Obviously, but it still fucked to use an entire nation as a shield
@@gameover9390staging area, not shield. That’s what poland is for
No, there was no plan to do that, what are you buffering against with France? There’s nothing behind France until Spain joins in the 80s
" when his troops were ordered to leave France, his government's response was does that include those in the cemeteries as well" oof now that I felt it...wow that's guilt
Edit: what war did I start below, lol
@@Noobscodee Just like America disrespected France in 1783 by immediately entering into friendly trade relations with Britain instead of an alliance with France. States have no friends only interests
@@Noobscodee Yeah exactly, I could only imagin how guilty they felt afterwards
@@kimok4716 Bro that was 300 years ago
@@kimok4716 the alliance with France in the american revolution was purely an alliance of convenience against a mutual enemy. I mean I'm sure France figured that a republic in the long run wouldnt want to be perma bessies with a even stronger monarchy than the one they just broke off from. I will totally grant you that France deserves more credit from Americans for the help tho. Definitely would have lost if not for them and theyre barely mentioned
3 years later in 1789 and France was bankrupt due to the royalty not paying more taxes, peasants unable to pay the increases, and terrible crops that cost double what they did a few years prior. All of their own doing.
Anyone with a brain at the time would rather make trade deal instead of make an alliance with France.
"Each side had their own more rebellious members. In the case of the West this was France"
Sweden supporting the Viet Cong during the Vietnam war: "Am I a joke to you?"
Was Sweden part of NATO at the time though? I thought they were unaligned.
@@maddie9602 he said "The West" in that sentence, not NATO
They have a habit of doing stuff like that. Like when they supported Nazi Germany during WW2.
@@EndOfSmallSanctuary97 What, by pretty blatantly spying on the Germans for the benefit of the Allies? Hitler had them by the short and curlies (already economically because Germany effectively controlled all of Europe's coal supplies and it gets cold oop north), they weren't in a position to stop selling him iron ore; but they certainly didn't have to *like* it.
@@broadbandislife By selling Germany resources used for war, they were supporting Germany, yes. Their personal feelings regarding this are not relevant to the facts of the situation.
"Does that include the ones in the cemeteries as well?"
Lyndon B Johnson did have a reputation of having the biggest balls around...
Charles de Gaulle*
My understanding was that he was... gifted and not at all hesitant to make people aware of it. But I did learn this form the internet a decade ago, so grain of salt.
He isn't called El BJ for nothing
@@alejandrojoserodriguezarre45 Nah Charles was just a winy lad. Won ww2 because of US and UK and they even allowed to be considerd a equal power despite him not being able to do amything about it had they decided other wise. The US and UK gave him so much ( which he did indeed fight for) and allowed France to keep its position as main power on the European continent. I understand why he is loved. But often times i watch anything with him in it after WW2 he just reminds me of a walking, talking Napoleon complex. To be clear tho for any french readers. He is of course still a hero. And more of a man than i ever will be, but compared to how he behaved to allied nations that gave him so much.that is just how he comes across.
It seems he had forgotten that without France's aid, Britain would have won the War of Independence
Loads of people in this comment section now think that France is not in NATO. Could’ve added a ‘temporarily’ in the title, considering the audience
Didn't even temporally pull out either.
The day James Bisonette wont be named out anymore as a patreon supporter, it will be a new History Matters video of "Why"... xD
2:35 YES! Finally Obama and Sarkozy are drawn in History Matters art style.
I didn’t realize that was Obama good catch.
Sarkozy should of had high heels, being complexed on his size he wore some
@@samdumaquis2033 he aore high heels? based frenchie
I think Obama was already styled in the Electoral college video.
@@quidam_surprise I’ll check that later good memory
De Gaulle never liked the idea of having the french army controlled by a foreign nation. Also never liked to see foreign troops sitting and claiming land in french territory. From a Military stand point, completely understandable.
And from a politically point of view too. The end of WWII operations, the AMGOT and the Suez canal affair proved him he was right at 90%.
He sure likes trying to control others people's countries and failed.
@@talleman1 he didn't actually.
Quite the contrary. He thought France could do well all on its own and gave colonies anytime he could.
Even a lot of countries asked to integrate into the republic like Gabon, which had millions of inhabitants, he refused everytime.
@@talleman1 He continued the war in Algeria, a war he wasn't convinced about and was against even, and this for 2 reasons : First, he has been put in power by the Generals who were wanting to keep Algeria and if he had talked about his idea (the independance of Algeria) France would have know a military putsch followed by a civil war in France. The second one is the nuke research of France was ALL in the Algerian desert, in 1960 France joined the little circle of nuke nations by exploding an A bomb and few months later, did the H bomb on her own. It took years to take the nuke thing from Algeria to the french atoll in the pacific.
Instead of speaking slightly on a complex subject, it would be better to open some historical books.
Yeah because France was so useful in ww2 with there awesome wisdoms and strategies 🥴 legit idiots imo.. he was butthurt that he was not in charge that all it was
Dude you’re so cool
Thanks for all this random information that I 100% use
Well now this is happening again.
There so dramatic man. There doing it because there French
@@greene6826 they are*
or they're*
@@Thomas_LB in his case, I think it would be better if he doesn't use contraction...
I wish. Why we keep working with this brain dead organisation is beyond me.
Actually, he was right in the end, Nato countries have become too dependent on others, and have used it as an excuse to not commit to defense spending. Look at Germany and the non functional air arms, and totally defunk navy and army. UK have the same problem, most European nations have non functional armies, navies and airforces and would not be able to defend themselves against a aggressor with intent (industrial nation scale attack scenario) So yes, France was correct in a sense, of pulling out.
Good for them honestly. The military industrial complex wastes so many tax dollars here in the states.
Well many of the germans taxes goes in stupid stuff/and have a lots of debts because they throw their money out
@@joeyenniss9099 some say it's because they have to defend Europe
@@trla6505 other say it's because american politicians are paid and lobbied by the military industry
Also France and eastern europe have armies that fonction for the most part ( the former because they try to police french speaking africa because there are french companies there and the latter because they are threatened by Russia). Also France and the UK are nuclear power and that normaly is enough to deter invasion. The main role of an army in NATO is to intervene abroad and that also applies to the US.
Realistically speaking, which threat does Germany, or Western Europe need to defend against with arms? From my subjective perspective, almost all armed conflicts ot the last 20 - 30 years were either a nato country invading another state (Iraq, Kosovo, etc.) or an civil war that is usually is fueled by foreign interests. Neither cases are something a functional nay, air force or army would help against.
Lost it at the part with Ceausescu galloping around Bredjnev
How do you know it’s not Gheorghiu-Dej dancing around Khrushchev though? :p
@@Jokkkkke well Ceaușescu was the rebellious one so in the context we can assume it was him.
@@lucianoprea983 gheorghiu dej a fost la fel de rebel
@@lucianoprea983 that’s not exactly true though. Gheorghiu-Dej is the one who demanded the Soviets leave Romania, which they did in 1962
You mean Brezhnev?
Love that American Ego "does that include those in the cemetery as well" like America would have gained independence without French aid.
They would have. France actually did very little.
@@wyattmcgee1 yup very little. Let me list off the small contributions. Cash, Guns, uniforms, food, training, military commanders like Rochambeau, Massive aid during Yorktown, they won Chesapeake Bay (the most vital battle of the war), and they also declared war with their spanish Allies tying down a significant portion of the U.Ks forces. The French also helped post independence leading the world in recognizing the U.S and immediately starting trade with them. (Something that was very important if you look at what happened with Mexico post independence) All in all these are very minor contributions.
France wouldn’t have gotten independence from Germany if the Americans didn’t help
It would have taken somewhat longer perhaps, but the issue was really no longer in doubt once France had joined. Saratoga was the beginning of the end either way. Without France Cornwallis would have successfully retreated from Yorktown, but doing do would have left the entire South in the hands of the rebels. Britain could not have afforded to retake it. It was just a matter of time.
Sometimes I feel like I learn a lot more watching history TH-camrs that I did actually learning from history class back in school. I don't at all remember reading this back in school at all as well as many other big historic events. I'm very thankful to history TH-camrs like yourself
1:45 - "This all culminated in a small diplomatic row with the USA"
Sept 2021 - *AUKUS arrives*
Bruh moment
Because Australia was getting shafted by the French,they were selling them outdated overpriced diesel operated subs,like some con artist,but I can’t believe that the Aussie government accepted this deal in the first place.
@@raydawson2767 Actually Australia has an history of hating anything nuclear related. So they are the one who asked for diesel subs. And those were not overpriced, but issues happened during the building of the subs that made the price rise. But yeah the main problem is why did they signed in the first place, if it was to change their mind several years later. They say it's because of security concerns because China became a threat but seriously ? Nobody in Australia in 2010 (don't remember the exact year) could tell that China would become dangerous to Australia ?
@@nostrill512 I do recall seeing a report on sky Australia saying that China may attack Australia or at least claim it,it was to do with Australia cutting off China’s coal and iron ore supplies.
@@raydawson2767 Yeah, I guess they knew, but then they should have taken necessary actions earlier, that means before accepting a contract for diesel subs, by getting a contract for nuclear subs. The US would have accepted all the same in 2010, or they could even at least ask the french. Maybe the french would have say no because of nuclear proliferation issues, but the Australian government didn't even ask for it, which is understandable considering Australian history, but then they shouldn't have break the contract. Of course, if they realised they made a mistake and thought that nuclear subs were worth losing french trust, then they were right to do it, but they have to accept the backlash.
Sad considering the relationship was finally getting better after the rainbow warrior story.
Most likely the real reason is that the Australian needed the AUKUS alliance but the Americans put the condition of buying their subs, and Australians couldn't say no… If that's the truth, then USA are really ready to anything for their military industry, cause I think if they was a referendum about leaving NATO in France right after the crisis then it would have been a yes for 70% of the French at least (right after the crisis but most likely all the way until Ukrainian invasion)
This is the most frustrating channel to watch. So entertaining and interesting, yet so short. I want a half hour episode, nevermind ten minutes. By the time I’ve overcome the anxiety of only having three minutes of unadulterated joy, it’s already over.
HALF HOUR? It wouldn't be the same if you diluted the three minutes down into a watery thirty.
I love your channel and your videos … I love History … Thank you very much
Will you do a video about Romania leaving the Warsaw Pact? I find it fascinating that Romania was so outwardly rebellious against Moscow, but was never punished like Hungary or Czechoslovakia.
I read an explanation saying that Romania was poor and underdeveloped so it would have never been a model for other populations. They are also not slavic. Czechoslovkia is culturally closer to Russians, so the example could have spread. Another reason for me is that Ceaucescu controlled better the country, and was more in control of the army than Hungarian and Czech governments. The army would have fought whereas Czechoslovak army didn't move.
Also the Romanians had a huge reserve of 3 million men to defend the country. An invasion by the Warsaw Pact just wasn't worth it
Hungry and Czechs wanted social -political change: private businesses , free movement etc. Romania was and stayed as dictatorship and leaving Warsaw Pact was to strength only dictatorship.
One very important thing missing (like in all History Matters video including France) is that de Gaulle had a very bad impression of american intervention in WW2. He had to fight both Roosevelt and Eiseinhower who both tried to instore puppet states or military administration in France despite French troops being treated as allies.
And just how many US troops were killed by Vichy France in the invasion of North Africa in 1942?
@@rj8288 france didnt kill any us troops my guy what are you talking about !!!
@@rj8288 Considering Vichy France was basically disarmed, not much (besides maybe bombers shot down by AA). The only fighting force Vichy had left was its navy, which was either bombed by the British or sabotaged by the French (see Operation Anton).
@@rj8288 bruh vicy France had basically no power and most French tried to help the americans
@@rj8288 not much because most of the LVF were either in Germany or in the Eastern Front. Hitler wanted to keep armed Frenchmen to a bare minimum, he knew that most of the soldiers who joined the LVF (later renamed the SS Charlemagne) only joined him because they hated communists, not because they liked him.
Hitler was still wary of France especially after the battle of Bir-Hakeim where outnumbered French troops held the line against Rommel and his Italian allies.
0:47
One of the best lines James Bissonete has sponsored
I was in a C suite staff meeting and we were discussing our Canadian operation. Our global VP of procurement was from Lyons France. He scoffed and asked what was so great about Canada. I spoke up and said “well, for one thing it has the world’s largest French speaking population that never surrendered to Germany. Twice.” They still talk about that meeting. He never spoke to me again.
Don't forget Canada has a bigger economy than France with a lesser population.👍👍👍👍
SAVAGE!! 😂😂😂
Buuuuuuurn. Now of course that claim would have had a little more weight if they weren't literally an ocean away from any war but still.
The only thing is Canada is cocooned by Atlantic ocean and Pacific ocean
Most military victories in history, also France only surrendered to Germany once, and France has the most French speakers, everything you said was factually incorrect. He probably never spoke to you again because he understood that you are a ignorant French hater.
I think James Bizenette is the most crucial part of this production. As always
Nah
How about Rob Waterhouse?
Everyone mentions James Bisonette but Mark Asazna deserves more love
"I have to go now, my planet needs me."
*Returns to planet Francia.*
I was hoping for jokes based on this awesome Simpsons reference...thankyou!
;)
"Does that include those in the cemeteries as well"
God damn.
That was savage! lmao
But pretty easy to get back at : "well yes, if you pay for the transport with the money you made during the war, and exchange them with our own soldiers buried on your soil."
@@popkhorne5372 that's also a long ass winded response. It would bomb.
@@CatnamedMittens rethorically speaking tho, it works. But its true it would be better if shorter.
@@popkhorne5372 I mean, yeah... if it weren't for the fact that the French GAVE the Americans the land to bury their dead there...
“Does that include the ones in the cemeteries as well” is a hard asf line
The French were not convinced that the USA, which controlled NATO's nuclear warheads, would risk New York to save Paris, if push came to shove. They also realized that staying in NATO would result in American weapon sales causing French military manufacturers to wither away. The French have an independent nuclear force, and still have a very healthy military and civilian aviation industry.
Italy - *Has largest communist party behind the iron curtain from 60’s-70’s
Also Italy- “Happy Fourth of July for no cultural reason! Amerriicccaaaaaa!!”
France - “We don’t like anybody”
haha exactly
Except for ourself ! haha ! Nah just joking, we hate each others too.
Amazing Stupidity. Declaration of Human Rights, you have heard about it ? What is written in French Buildings ?
@@JanusTheOld In ancient Egypt a common farmer had rights and could even sue a lord of sorts (expect the pharaoh). Also while true, us Europeans did not try to uphold such rights to many other humans for centuries.
But I feel you! Love French history
@@michelangelomissoni945 are you comparing ancient Egypt and 20th USA-Europe post war relations , on behalf of USA economical and ideological imperialism ?
"Does that include those in the cemetary as well?"
There's not much you can't say against that
@@jorenvanderark3567 "Our soldiers wouldn't be there if you had put up a fight in 1940"
@@blackmesa232323 You know that France loosing in 1940 has nothing to do with France not putting up a fight?
@@blackmesa232323 Way before that, if France had moved in when Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland in 1936, that would've been the end of Hitler.
@@fahimrind9714 or even actually marching deeper into strategic key points in the Rhineland instead of that embarrassing Saar offensive
@@jorenvanderark3567 America no question the resistance was garbage and more often than not killed themselves out of ideology.
"LE 2009"... I see what you did there... Nice touch xD
- a french speaking viewer ^^
De Gaulle be like: *happily walks away while carrying nuclear missile
Should've give him the garden backrgound and make him jump for this scene 1:22
Bro my favorite youtube channel at all he is not just teaching history his inspiring many people
“And the leader can be from any of these countries, so long as it starts with a U and ends with a nited States of America... and the deputy always seems to be from the UK... this upset the French... “
Of course it did. A British, American pastime is upsetting the French.
Because it is so easy to do.
Reality check. It upsets everybody in NATO, except the US and UK. Ask Canadians what they think of their troops being commanded by British officers.
@@adrien5834 "Ree! I get but hurt over jokes on the Internet!"
@@arkad6329 lol, what? That was a joke? Damn, you suck.
To be fair the deputy has been German a few times
Thanks for the info. 👍
I love that line, "does that include the ones in the cemeteries, too?"
Well, ask Lafayette ;)
@@quentinarrius Why? Did Lafayette's grave get moved when France left NATO?
@@uni4rm you think we moved any graves? are you that dumb?
@@Entasis5555 Entasis was criticizing Qanno's weak assed analogy, which YOU took literally. Are YOU that dumb? Miller's Analogy Test failure, I detect in you.
@@yzfool6639 I was talking about the idea of moving the graves of the american soldiers here in France to 1SLUGGO1
because it's stupid af to think the quote from OP was an option. It's called sarcasm and some noobs think it's 1st degree gtfo
the French is a love hate kind of relationship, but in the end if they need our help they have it and if the USA needs their help we have it. the two nations are very much connected by history.
All because of the American revolution and the legendary Marquis De Lafayette.
--And thankfully by a huge expanse of ocean!!
yeah and the US should repay what the french LOST during the war against england....
@@forthefunofit3230 The US helped a lot to free France back in WW1 and WW2 that should make it even. If you really think about it that investment is probably the biggest in return value in human history is still paying dividend.
@@gravitykat714 and the king of France Louis the 16ème, he sort of lost his head because of that so that's a bit of an investment on his behalf!
Fun fact about the "what about the dead soldiers buried in france ?" comeback from the US defense secretary, the US cemetery in normandy might be french soil but is concidered a special, perpetual concession to the US
(before you go and try something stupid, no, it doesn't get the extrateritoriality perk)
The Soviet soldiers buried in Eastern Europe waren't so lucky thought.....
OK, let's put French military bases and nuclear weapons in the US. We got a deal?
@@dominiquebeaulieu i believe you have written this response to the wrong comment for i cannot contextualy rationalize your answer to what I've written.
France leaving NATO seems like Justice league without Batman, and NATO without USA is like Justice league without Superman 🤣🤣
I honestly think they were in the right mind, like imagine just a american general in a war be like "Yeah hey frenchman, uhhm your troops there? yep under my command now lmao"
There is pros and cons to this. For instance one pro is greater operational flexibility where they can react independently and, hypothetically, react quickly to the changing battlefields. The down side is potential of communication breakdown which can be devastating. British Artillery are told to bring the thunder down on certain coordinates. Unfortunately for the poor Frenchmen who just took that position, the lack of direct command means there is a chance that the message that the position was taken may end up reaching allied command too late which can result in friendly fire
This is of course just examples of what can go right and wrong. In the end, it is up to individual nations to decide their plan of attack when it comes to this and accept the consequences
Unified command over troops from different nations is usually a bad idea. For instance, it led to the Sebrenica disaster, with the Central Command suddenly deciding to stiff the Dutch troops and not give them any support when they called for it. Why? No-one knows, but there was nothing the Dutch could do about it.
Central Command put the Dutch in a verloren position and left them to rot.
@Caratacus please do not talk about a subject you know nothing about
@Caratacus That certainly isnt the case today, if it even ever was.. Junior partner implies the EU countries dont have a say or cant devert from the direction the usa is going. this is nonsense.The usa is by far the most important power in nato, but that doesnt make the other countries ''junior'' partners..