Support my channel by downloading War Thunder : gjn.link/KnowledgiaWTBonus and get a premium tank, aircraft or ship and three days of premium time. Thank you so much for watching!
I love all your videos I follow you when you had less than 1000 subscribers I hope that one of my favourite youtube channels will grow up as it is until now.
Thank you to have said that jokes about French aren't true, I agree, it's a total defeat on the startegical plan for France, they had everything to push them back (more golds, well equipped soliders, good tanks (B1, good tanks only during invasion, but after, German tanks became more powerful), but French commanders would take decision in 24h & french tanks were mostly not equipped of a radio while the German commanders would take a decision in max. 2 hours, and all their tank were equipped of a radio, this is just impossible..). Concerning the traitor : Maréchal Pétain , yes he dealt with Hitler and surrendered France (not the people who was very mad, french resistance which played a main role in liberation of France..), but he allowed to no kill french Jews, he exchanged with German foreign Jews, soo, he's not a complete traitor but I personally hate him. This traitor and stupid generals ruined the picture we had of France before, a glorious country with most of battles won in the history, ruler of Europe for years and so on...
Why did the French surrender in ww2 leaving 400.000 British on French territory alone , against the Germans ?? Surely that is the biggest letdown by any country towards their allies. Only 42.000 British & commonwealth allies , the rest were in Africa & elsewhere. If not for the brave civilians in their little river boats crossing the sea , a dangerous sea that wreaked havoc on many fleets attempting to invade the island, yet they managed to bring almost everyone , except the dead obviously, back to the British island. Why did the French commanders decide to surrender instead trying to fight off the Germans ? Why didn't they at least give the British warning, so they had time to take British soldiers off France and back to Britain ? I can't find anything that explains why. It wasn't as if the French had been fighting years & were tired , or worn out, it was barely a year & only a few months fighting before the French surrendered....
France was not a superpower.Their population was just barely half of Germany’s and had not match for Germany’s economic and industrial power since early 20th century.
@@AFT_05G Yet they also had colonies in lots of places and navy at the time,which assured it wouldn't starve of resources. That is why you could claim that
Polish Officer, many of whom went through military studies in France, were furious. They said that France hid in the tunnels of their Maginot Line like rats.
@Chaplain Bob Walker B. Th. I can see your point, but you're completely missing out on three other points here: 1. Nazi Germany was the main threat for Britain and France as they were overpowered by their opponents militarily, and Soviets could be seen as a check to get Germans from both sides. 2. They were also more criminalised by the Allied because they had been appeased in the case of Czechoslovakia, but didn't stop their aggressive expansionism. 3. There was, in fact, a plan to quickly invade the Eastern Bloc after WW2 ended, but since WW2 was a very bloody war and many countries had their supplies and resources overrun, it never happened. We should also note that Soviets helped end the Nazis, as well as making Poland an indepent country despite its ideology.
@Polish Hero Witold Pilecki Not discussing your pathetic zionist-like brainwashed perception of history, but just stressing out that "Nazi Germany" is used to refer to the time where Germany was being led by the Nazi party. Just like you would say Ancient Greece to point to the Ancient time, or Edo Japan to point to the Edo period. Nazi Germany, 3rd Reich.. Points to a temporal and political setting, and is not a term to diferentiate movements inside a country, or its base of support.
Hitler offered peace for Britain many times. Hitlers main goal was to invade the soviet union and destroy communists. Also to humiliate the French to get revenge for WW1 and the aftermath, but thats beside the point.
@Polish Hero Witold Pilecki Ok, obviously you're really passionate about that topic. But most of your arguments are simply not true or slightly altered in order to match this "betrayal myth". France was never able to carry out an invasion of West Germany right from the start. Their World War I-like organisation, equipment and strategy meant to first carry out a general mobilisation, which would have taken them at least 3 to 4 weeks to get it done and be ready for the real war. This was the case for most countries of that time. They were indeed only able to "progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets" due to point 2. of the agreement -> Saarland. An artillery ratio 4:1 only helps, if there are soldiers operating these weapons. Weapons in stock don't count. And even more important was the establishment of a supply chain (ammunition, troops, material, repair crews, etc.), which could not work without the remaining French forces that were still to be mobilized. Same goes for Great Britain, that was only able to use a very small expedition army, because it was sent to France in advance before thestart of the war. Their mobilisation did also take a while and they were never able to sent real reinforcements to France, before German forces did already occupy France. When the Soviets started to invade Poland from the opposite direction on September 17th, all efforts by France to help out Poland were in vain (but they were at least ready to do so at this point in time). Germany was in a huge advantage, because they prepared everything way ahead. They wanted to surprise all of their enemies. By the time France used ALL of their available offensive capable forces (the ones they were able to spare, while the main forces were used to man the fortifications along their defensive line), just to capture and occupy the tiny little Saarland according to point #2. After that, there was little to no solution to supply their troops, if they would have continued further into German territory. Chances were, that they would have lost all of their troops in this weakend state and would have actually lost this war by beeing reckless. Maybe they were also not risky enough. All of their army, airforce and their general doctrine was designed for a defensive World War I - 2.0 scenario. They put almost no effort into offensive invasion-like strategies, organisation and equipment. When France was ready to really fight the Germans, the war with Poland was already finished. No French (nor Polish) strategist expected that to happen. Actually, no strategist outside of Germany expected that to happen. Even German generals were surprised how effective this tactic was. Blitzkrieg and a super-quick revolutionary way to use panzer divisions by themselves in combination with fast mobile units was new and was never seen before. France did know about new ideas and a concept for new strategies like that, but didn't expected Germany to actually be ahead in this area. Didn't help that French general staff did consist of old WWI veterans with little interest in new ideas and without flexibility in that regard (there were young French soldiers supporting a new doctrine, but they didn't really listen to them). The continuous fight between the French government and the French army for years before start of the war didn't help either. That Germany bluffed was also part of their strategy. It was a gamble and could have failed. France had no idea they would actually meet empty German defense forts (Siegfried line). With the intel they've gotten, no general would have send French troops into this expected death-trap. That these defenses were weak and even not really operational was unknown. It's unfair to render judgment with the information we've gotten after the war. France didn't knew all of this back in the day. Of course France would have done things differently, if they would have gotten all of this intel. And maybe it would have been possible to defeat Germany early, like many people claim. But it is still debatable, if Germany would have lost a two-front-war at this point in time. This really depends on the strategies that would have been used - on all sides. There are too many variables to determine this fictional outcome. Yes, 110 French and British divisions were held at bay by 23 German divisions on the west front. For comparison: France used 12 divisions to man the Maginot line. And these 12 divisions were expected to hold against an even larger number of German divisions trying to break through this line. It has been stated, that all 80 German divisions would not be enough to break through the maginot line. Therefore they used a plan to go around this line of fortresses. In full defensive parameter, these 23 German divisions should be enough to hold their position against an even greater number than these 110 divisions for a reasonable amound of time, even for a couple of weeks, maybe even months. You can see similar situations in World War 1. And don't forget that Germany did a lot of damage to France too. Unfortunately, horrible things happend to French citizens as well. This wasn't Poland-exclusive.
Poland killed 17 thousand Wehrmacht soldiers in 36 days (472 people a day). France and allies killed 46 thousand Axis soldiers in 43 days (1070 people a day).
@@Mentol_ Poland was outnumbered 2 to 1 during it's invasion (1 million soldiers to 2 million soldiers) while France and the allies had almost equal numbers to Germany during the invasion of France (135 divisions to 141 divisions) and you didn't add about 1,500 - 2000 soviet casualties in invading Poland from the other side. France also had greater numbers of casualties.
@@kimok4716 The French Italian border was 515km and was mostly made up of highly defensible terrain in the alps, the German French border was 450km which had massive fortifications along its entire length and the french Belgian border was 620km and was the only indefensible area. That was a total of 1585km where only 39% was difficult to defend. The Polish German border was 2816km long and the only part that was defensible was around 541km of the slovak border which had the Carpathian mountains, the polish soviet border was around 1,407km long and none of it had defensible terrain, it was open flat lands just like most of the german border. So Poland had to defend 4223km so 2.6 times more and 88% of it was difficult to defend compared to 39% with France. Moreover the only part of Poland that wasn't attacked was the tiny sliver of land which was Romania's border. France had an ocean that took up almost all of its western border and a large border with spain and switzerland it didn't have to defend.
Germany had started the war with zero reserves in ammunition and had exhaused most of their entire stocks in 2 weeks of fighting in Poland. For that reason alone the allies would've easily won in a offensive.
Scam from beginning... Look geographically last 30years, same thing, same plan... But in slow motion, difrent game and tactics... If you put frog in hot water, jumps... If you little by little going to hot water thay not jump, cook a live... Same with peoples in group react like frog nerv system.
Agreed. Even if the British and French weren't ready for war, they could've swarmed over the German border with the superior numbers and firepower available to them when war first broke out and taken, the Saarland, the Rhine, and most of Western Germany before the Germans could get enough forces to push them back and even if they did, the Germans would suffer heavy losses in doing so and be stuck fighting a 2 front war that they'd lose in the end. Of course, most of Britain and France's political and military leadership were a bunch of weak willed wimps who seemed to think that losing even one single man would cause their empires to collapse. While war is obviously Hell, sometimes it's needed to stop evil from running wild and murdering the innocent, it's too bad Britain and France's leaders at the time didn't realize this.
France started the war with lots of man power and reserves but I doubt they could take on Germany and we see they tried what they did in 1910s but failed
Scam from beginning... Look geographically last 30years, same thing, same plan... But in slow motion, difrent game and tactics... If you put frog in hot water, jumps... If you little by little going to hot water thay not jump, cook a live... Same with peoples in group react like frog nerv system.
Imagine the suffering that could have been avoided if the Allies didn't declare war at all and let Germany have Danzig. The war would have been contained to the eastern front and Germany would have been victorious.
@@taigen2348 You know that suffering would be greater if Germany didn't have to fight allies? Especially for Jews, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks and other Slavs.
@@AlwaysRM_ Russia would be saved Bolshevism, the Nordic character of Russia would have been maintained instead of the mongrelization that happened in real life. There are 0 records of what most people call "General plan Ost" so we do not know to what scale German colonization of the east would be but one thing is for certain slavs would not be exterminated. It would likely look like an ethnic map of the Austro-Hungarian empire with German settlements dotting the vastness of Russia. Many Russians, Ukrianians and Balts fought with the Wehrmacht and SS and they certainly weren't just fighting to be exterminated and oppressed. If you don't know anything about National Socialist racial theory then you probably think Hitler saw Germans as the master race and everything else below it when in reality it is the ' Aryan' race in which they spoke of which includes all Indo-European ethnicities from Ireland to the Urals. Aryan is just the non pc term for Indo-European.
Easily? Please. All that would have happened was that Poland would have lasted slightly longer after Germany sends a few divisions to the west. But Poland is no Russia/USSR. They were falling quickly even before the USSR entered the war. No battleplan survives contact with the enemy either. Attacking a fortified position usually means heavy casualties for the attacker, especially with WW1 tactics. There is a reason why Germany didn't attack the maginot line. Could France have won? Sure with heavy casualties, but it is in no way guaranteed.
@@Mr33500 If France commited for a large offensive the German lines could have collapsed too fast, allowing the French to take the Rhur and thus crippling Germany's industry permanently. Some two thirds of their steel industry and coal production was there. Without it, Germany's losses would be permanent
It all could have ended during ww1 when Germany (while winning) offered peace without winners, so everything remains as it was before the war. But British and American bankers spent too much money on the war and wanted some return.
@@Testimony_Of_JTFand then a war between the east and west would ensue and possibly be even more destructive. You forget the USSR had invaded Poland, Finland, the Baltic countries and Romania even before they were at war with Germany. Thats 6 countries. Russia was probably even more aggressive than Germany but had the sweet distraction of the German terror to get away with their ambitions
Britain and France: Czechtovakia don't worry we will defend you Czechtovakia: thanks guys Germany: give me Czechtovakia and I will stay peaceful Czechtovakia: my friends will help me Britain and France: we don't know who this guy is
@@drhill1331 yeah, but germany wasn't ready too so mabye they would just withdraw their soldiers from rhienland, and the war would just begin later and france could be more prepared.
Does people always forgot Siegfried Line is a thing? French has outdated military doctrines where they still using Great War doctrines, where most of battle are just trench warfare and grinding enemies manpower. It's not a blind gamble that Germany took, but a calculated one, based on French and Brits behaviour.
@@sivamynthannadesamoorthy9393 quite,the urss was almost defeated and the destruction that suffered ensured a western supremacy, the soviet german war was bound to happen, but the allies expected fascism to destroy communism not to attack them
@Karl Quetzacoatl ,,Peace is a value pricy and desired. Our generation, blooded in wars, surely deserves peace. But peace, like all things in this world, has its own price - high, but measurable. Here in Poland we don't know a ,,peace at all costs"! There is only one thing, in life of people, nations, and countries, that remains priceless. That thing is honour!" - Joseph Beck, 1939
@@Admiral45-10 and honorary Joseph Beck started the war with those words and after this speech immidiatly escaped from the country "have fun guys, I'm out of it!"
Foxalau yup this video was like one of those “documentaries” on tv where they just state the same 2-3 facts over and over again instead of actually discussing the subject matter. Pretty poorly researched. Nothing in there that people with a little interest in history not know already.. the very question that is the title of the video wasn’t even answered.
The jokes about the French are not from Germans in 1939. On the contrary, the Germans respected France a lot, even after the defeat. The jokes are really recent, from the Americans because France didn’t want to invade Irak based on a lie.
This pisses me off. Regardless if it's in the past already, the Allies had the numbers advantage. They should've attacked, regardless of what an old general stuck in his defensive ways thinks. Even if he was a Great War hero, they should've attacked and pushed as far as they could.
It would have even helped if they just sent a bunch of guys with guns in there to walk in one direction and try to kill every german soldier in their way
Their plan was to starve germany. So they stayed on defense on the maginot line and defensive positions on french-belgian border (and later on belgian and dutch rivers). Its actually not a bad plan, but they were not as fast, weren't familiar to new equipement and doctrine and senior officers were still in the great war mindset. They were willing to bomb soviet oil and grain infrastructure because Stalin was supplying germany in exchange for cash and scientific cooperation. The same could be said about Italy, as attack it and its colonies was a indirect way to isolate germany and suffocate them. So then weren't shy about attacking, but they wanted to choose who, how and when to attack. The germans on the other hand knew they would be blockaded and would starve since a war with the soviets was "inevitable", so their only strategy was to win fast and dont drag the conflict like the second reich was dragged. This is why they were willing to try new things and tatics and "created" the blitzkrieg, short and fast concentration of war to creat power punches to fast KO their enemies. When they met a enemy that wasn't going to be defeated in one punch things got bad and thats how you get an eastern front. Other problem is when you cant project power to hit your oponent like the UK and USA
@@luisfernandosantosn They didn't create the blitzkrieg, thats a French term for what happened in Poland. Internal records show that germany thought war with france would take a long time. Blitzkrieg is a post hoc explanation for why france fell so quickly.
@@timluo61201st: blitzkrieg is german 2nd: I know it was not a conscious creation thats why I used quotation marks. 3rd: yes, they were surprised by their swift victory, but this dont change the fact that they aimed to a strong and fast break on the french lines, they didn't wanted another war of attriction (this was the allied plan). They were surprised on how fast that happened, because the french army was well drilled and equiped and the germans were very critical of their own performance on Poland. Their only hope was to break the deadlock before it started.
@@luisfernandosantosn No, the tactics are german, but the name was made by the allied press. The germans called the blitzkrieg with a technical term, something like "mobile warfare" in german.
If it weren't for french politicians and generals the french army would have easely crushed Germany like it was a joke, but it didn't went like this, because of Paul Reynaud weak government adding to this a weak and instable Third Republic, the French Army was highly controlled by the politicians Who knew nothing about war Generals Who could have ended ww2 in sept 1939 were kept back by a shitty government hesitating and talking peace in war time, the French Army was superior in number to the german army and the french equipment was equivalent to the Nazi's one, even the French air force was superior to the luftwaffe in the beginning of the war a German general quoted it took 3 german airplanes to gundown a french one, giving this add a lot of hope to win a war yet it was not the french army Who was the downfall of France it was Paul Reynaud himself all of his mandate as President of the Council of Ministers (Prime Minister at the time) was dedicated to maintain peace, with such a leader France was doomed to loose blame it on Paul Reynaud for blocking Army High Command decisions and not on the French army itself, the french army made a formidable work holding back the Germans at Dunkerque and they hided most of their guns and equipment after the Armistice, most of the french navy refused to surrender and tank divisions stationed in Algeria held back Rommel Panzers from invading completely all of Africa, without the french army Dunkerque would have been a bloodbath for the UK ref and it could have meant worse for the UK rather than joking about french soldiers being cowards thanks them for saving Britain's ass and delaying a full scale invasion of the british isles, if it weren't for the french soldiers the UK would have known a worse fate than in history books. Even when they knew they lost the war, they fighted at full extent the Germans around Dunkirk just to save their british friends, that is pure bravery and admirable behavior not cowardise.
I don’t think you find the British joking about French cowardice. It’s mostly an American joke. We shared the tragedy of WWI. And there were many British troops defending the circle around Dunkerque who died or were captured. And many French troops were evacuated to fight another day in the Free French forces. Your comments are a bit too narrow in facts. Both countries shared an horrific experience and losses in WWI and should be understood in wishing to do anything for peace. The French loss was purely due to completely inept government and leadership which was paralyzed. If the French army had been properly led it could have changed the entire outcome.
@@phbrinsden it is a pity that the the spirit of élan displayed by the French army of August and September 1914 was not present in September 1939. The 1.6 million dead of the Great War had so effected latter political thinking and paralysed French Command.
Paul Reynaud was elected by French people right? France betrayed Czechoslovakia and later Poland. It just show how the mighty have fallen in their decadence...
@@brunolapierre7565 The US was busy trying to ignore yet another world war, while the Soviets were getting ready to fuck over Poland. Key thing here is that France said they'd get involved, STARTED to get involved, then half-assed it and left Poland to get fucked over by both Germany and the Soviet Union. Poland's defense plan was also partly informed by the assumption that France the UK would actually follow up on their previous promise to actually commit to a proper offensive if Germany attacked. If they'd known from the start that France was going to cancel the Saar Offensive before it'd even really gained any momentum, the might've held out a good bit longer (at least until the Soviets came in to fuck them over as well).
@RatkillerNick and what of the USSR? Once Germany is dealt with, how do you deal with the fact that Poland is now completely under the control of Russia? Go to war with them too? What of Japan? What of Italy? The war was inevitable.
@@XXXTENTAClON227 USSR waited 2 weeks before entering Polish teritory, because it didn't 100% believe Germans, that Britain and France won't interfere. If France and Britain joined the war (not only on paper, but with their armies and fleets), after 2 weeks Poland would be still in control over the majority of Polish teritories (with fortifications on eastern border). We don't know, what would other countries do, but you can't expect them to follow the same pattern in different circumstances. Stalin might have waited for Poland, Germany and France exhaust themselves and then invade all of Europe. Italy didn't declare war on Poland and I doubt they would if France made military advances. Franco would be propably still neutral, unless he wanted to invade France after the war with Germany (I doubt). Japan would still be trying to be the superior power in Asia and in the Pacific and would eventually have war against the USA.
@@michamarkowski2204 I get what you mean. I think the sad reality is that Britain and France just couldn’t find the motivation to go gung-ho into warfare for another country. I know they waited two weeks, but that isn’t a long time in war, especially when you have no idea whether or not they’re invading or not. It would take more than 2 weeks to invade and defeat Germany too. I think the real betrayal would’ve been of Britain and France didn’t even declare war. Their declaration of war started the bloodiest conflict in human history, and while it was probably motivated by the fact that Hitler was relentlessly breaking promises and treaties, it was also in retaliation to Poland being invaded. Remember, Britain didn’t really have an army. They had the best navy, but not the best army. That was the Nazis, Soviets and French. And you were being invaded by two of them. Calling Britain and France traitors undermines the fact that they ultimately sacrificed over a million lives just after recovering from the first war, even though this was Polands view on Britain: “Poland's view of Britain was then generally ambivalent. France or even Germany was then the primary focus of British friendship and attempts to gain protection. The first Polish embassy in London was established only in 1929.” I also want to add that Britain enforced a naval blockade the day after declaring war on Germany. The RAF also started raiding German warships. It is a misconception that both countries did nothing, because there was a severe shortage in modern equipment amongst France, Britain and Belgium. This meant that sending more soldiers than they did was pointless, as they would’ve just been battered even against less than half of a defender like Nazi Germany, and they wouldn’t of had the equipment to do anything. I know that France stopped Britain from bombing in fear of retaliation, but I want you to remember we’re looking at it in retrospect, it’s not unnatural of them to still be hopeful of peace. I mean, what if the Cold War never saw restraint? The world would’ve ended.
@@XXXTENTAClON227 "It would take more than 2 weeks to invade and defeat Germany too." Sure, but I only said, that after 2 weeks Poland would control most of Polish territory. "And you were being invaded by two of them." Yes, in a scenario, where France stood still. We don't know, what would happen, if France and Britain would make a move. "Calling Britain and France traitors undermines the fact that they ultimately sacrificed over a million lives" Lol no. France and Britain had a big role in WW2 and no one denies that. But it doesn't change the fact that both Britain and France didn't keep their end of the bargain. If Britain and France never wanted to help Poland, they could have said so. But in such case Poland would join either Stalin or Hitler (more propably) and western powers wouldn't want that. "It’s not unnatural of them to still be hopeful of peace." Yeah, sure. After seeing what Hitler did in previous years? When you see a bully doing everything he wants, breaking rules with no punishment whatsoever, why would you think he would stop? What would give you such idea? You'd have to be naive and/or dumb. "I mean, what if the Cold War never saw restraint? The world would’ve ended." No, the world would go on, but without most of us.
Simple answer maginot line, and the allies never cared about poland it was just an excuse. Proof they didnt care about poland. Who cracked the enigma machine. Which squadron was one of the squadrons had the highest kills in battle for britian but not allowed in the victory parade. Who did they blame for market garden failure...
idiotic - Poland was a very difficult ally. Highly nationalistic, secretive, un co-operative. Would Poland have jumped to anyones rescue? I flipping doubt it
@@mutleyeng whawhat? This is the funniest explanation I ever saw on that matter. The Brits knew about Geemany's planned attack and they did not even share that information. They wanted the war to stall and sign a peace treaty after some time passed. They are the biggest smartasses of that war but for anyone who delves into history it's clear that they were also the bad guys of that war. You don't make an alliance if You are not willing to keep Your word. It's cowardice and it's dishonorable. Politics does not remember. History and people do.
Imagine if france takes them down just after they invaded poland, or eve worse, get into a 2 front war and being defeated by poland and france. that would have been such a Big fail 😂
A huge miss for America since they would have been too late for the war, unless Russia decided to take advantage of the chaos. Without the Economic boom after WW2, we wouldnt be the super power we currently are.
@@flyingfetus4364, well....we are not competing with you. You guys only exist due to your expansionism. Once that is of the table you will fall down to solid ground like a bird without wings. We are already almost the same with the GDP - but without all the conflicts and wars around the globe and besides....live in Europe is much nicer then in the US (Ask Any US citizen who lived and worked in Europe - in civilian sector).
Exectly same is happaning today with Russia! nobody wants war, and EU powers are letting Russia do as they want! Chechnya, Georgia, Russia, you name it!
I don't think you have to worry about a third world war though, mainly because if Russia would go on a full-scale war they would have 0% war support since almost no person would want a third iteration of the great war therefore there would probably be massive protests and the soldiers won't be loyal also since who today would like to die in a war?
Chechnya was part of russia .If there is an agressive player in the world thats US and NATO . Russia cant sustain a big war .Real threat is China not Russia
@@mightyelf2660 Such a naiv thought (soldiers won't be loyal also since who today would like to die in a war?) Look like you dont know Russian, and ecpecialy Russian solders. I never said enything about third world war, but what Russia is doing today is very similar to what Germany did in 1939.. Other powers protest, as they do, but nothing else.
@@vasilijesamardzic4151 And it still is a part of Russia, no? That's what I was saying, Russia presents almost no threat, while China could be considered a threat, but it actually doesn't matter, because as I said there is no desire for war at all. Also, USA and NATO are aggresors? Why do you think so? In my opinion, the US is actually a defender of democracy and world peace.
Well, this is a bitter topic in Poland. Polish society really hopped allies will fulfill their obligations in 1939. From the military point of view - yes, probably attack from the West would end the war in 1939. I don't think USSR would attack Poland on 17th/09/39 if allies joined war earlier. There was just no political will - just very short-sighted crisis management. From the Polish perspective, this war had many similar bitter turning points. Like Tehran, Jalta and Potsdam conferences when the Polish borders were changed and Poland - and other countries in central Europe - were left in the communist block (it was agreed by Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin). That wasn't the democratic decision of any of these nations. Communist governments were simply installed. In consequence 400 000 guerrilla soldiers from Home Army (there were also other guerrillas in Poland) were prosecuted - many of them imprisoned, tortured and/or killed by Soviets. Ah, and many of 200 000 Polish soldiers fighting on West (and in Africa) were forced to move back to this new Poland. Unfortunately, these and similar turning points are being used now in conservative and isolationistic narratives by the Polish government. I hope this and future generations will always choose to be open, stay united and work together - in my opinion, it's the best way to prevent future wars.
Sadly, the only ally of Poland at that time was just Hungary. Hungary was part of the Axis powers but they never made the decision to invade Poland nor fired a single shot.
"Fulfill their obligations" how exactly? By throwing a bunch of unprepared divisiosn without hevay artillery and engineers into the teeth of the Siegfried Line in a re-enactment of the french offensives of 1914? What would that have achieved, exactly? The Allies joined the war a day in. Nobody with two braincells to rub together could have expected them to immediately launch an all-out attack in the middle of their following mobilization. Indeed, pre-war planning foresaw no french or british offensive actions within the first month of the war breaking out, simply because they'd take that long to get everything into place. Only turns out that nobody foresaw the Germans overrunning all of Poland within that month.
What do you mean? France DID attack Germany in 1939. Mark Felton has a video on this topic. France entered German territory and was outnumbering germany, but was scared off by a few machine guns.
I don't think they were scared off. I think they were told to stop their attack and return. WW2 was desigend to destroy Europe! After WW2 mass-immigration from all sort of countries started. Look at Europe now. It has become a shithole.
The reason France's invasion of Germany failed was quite simple: there just weren't any German forces for the French to surrender to! That's why they had to wait another year.
@@DamonNomad82 wow you should be a comedian or something what an original and funny joke! Seriously though France has won the most battles in world history.
İn 1939 Germany had a population about 80 million with Germans in the Austria and Sudetenland,on the other hand France’s population was just half of that.They already exhausted their manpower when they mobilized 5 million men for armed forces.
Amazing. The video completely ignores the fact that it was Anglo-French strategy to win the war by blockading Germany and depriving it of iron ore and oil.
It also puts as (one) of the reasons the lack of willingness to going to war of the high tops... Seriously, since when politicians care about the nameless soldiers?
Tbf it was noted by French soldiers when Wellington and Blücher defeated Napoleon at Waterloo he rode away from the battle crying. Not exactly the morale boost you want from a general after defeat
What if after the German and soviet pack to divide Poland, the soviet attack Poland first instead of German. Would the allies declared war on soviet? And not against German?
Not a chance. The British more warned Germany against any further expansion than guaranteed Poland against anyone. The Allies were nothing if nor pragmatic, and the last thing they wanted was the Soviets threatening Allied holdings in the Middle East and India, which the British had long feared.
probably Poland would resist better than against Germany... Stalin had killed lot's of officers and red army was in really bad condition, what the war with Finland had showed few months later.... Besides polish had preapared for the war with Russia much more and longer than for the war with Germany, they had some fortifications in the east... They had also quite a lot of cavallery which would made better in the east (where there were little or no roads, than in the west of Poland)...
While France and Poland had signed treaties in case any European power attacked either one of them, it was stated pretty explicitly in the secret protocols that this meant Germany. France and Britain had no way to support Poland unless they marched their troops through Germany or send an invasion fleet including carriers into the Baltic.
hakimi mastor no they wouldn’t have. France and Britain didn’t do anything, when The Soviet’s took Ukraine, Belarus(Belorussian), and the three Baltic countries.
Pretty simple: Most of their coal reserves and thus industries was close to the German border. They were denied occupation of the Western Rhine bank during Versailles. France had suffered horrendous manpower losses in WW1, so they went for a defensive strategy aimed at funneling the Germans through Flanders thus violating Belgian territory, pulling in the British to offset the manpower difference and then starving out the German warmachine through a blockade. They just believed it impossible to move tanks through the Ardennes..?
8:05 Aykchually, at the start of WW2 both Hurricanes and Spitfires were to be a replacement for much older Gloster Gladiator units. Spitfire was better, but more difficult to produce, also harder to repair, this is why Hurricanes fought the Battle Of Britain as a first line fighter too, and even stayed as a fighter bomber well into late WW2. Oh, and it would be worth mentioning that by the appeasement at all costs, Britain and France allowed Germans to acquire a materiel for arming about 40 additional divisions in Czechoslovakia after final occupation of Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939. And that was also 40 friendly divisions they allowed to be struck from their strength.
Partly the French and British were conditioned by the results of WW I.....the realization they could win again in the long run if they fought a war of attrition....1942 was earmarked at the earliest time they could engage in what they considered a winning offensive...this was not unreasonable except the Germans were not going to give them that time...but even the Germans were stunned by the quickness of their victory....nobody including the Germans realized just how much warfare had changed in just 20 years....
The tactics the french and the british were using in 1939 wouldn't have had the extraordinary effects some are dreaming of... They were using WWI tactics, advancing at the speed of the infantry men... most of french artillery was tracted by horses and it was able to support troops for about 5 or 10 km at best. Then it means that every 5 kms, allies would have stopped their offensive, even if it has worked. Then it needed time to prepare the next following offensive, just like in 1918. When the French attacked in Saarland, they wanted to see if it was able to work. They advanced only 10 km in a week. French and British estimated it was good and efficient and that when they would be READY for the great offensive in 1941, they would do the same. French army and british one was not ready for Blitzkrieg, and if UK had been a continental power neighbour of France, Wehrmacht would have taken London even faster than Paris. Thanks to the Channel, UK has not been able to be invaded... But a little thing which has its importance, french weak air force with french so called cowards fighters, destroyed more german planes in six weeks of the battle of France with less fighters and older planes, than RAF in 3 months of Battle of Britain during the blitz... I let you imagine what could have happened if those "cowards" French had NOT destroyed those german planes... I'm fed up with this rewritten History. with the game of "IF", if Coward Chamberlain had listened French in 1938, France allied with UK and Czech army would have defeated Germans. I would recall than 1/3 of the tanks which invaded France in 1940 were all czech pz 35 and Pz 38 ! To finish, the french land army lost in six weeks of incredibly harsh and violent fight : 90.000 soldiers, which is even worse than Verdun ! French tank weren't that superior to german tanks : no radio, a single man turret crew, slow if better armour and better gun... French didn't loose by cowardice, they lost because the strategy of the Germans was far superior than the allies one... Russia has been saved only because it's 24 times bigger than France. Something to tell too : France about 40 millions people in 1940, Germany over 70 millions. Who has the superiority in men ? German industry has always been stronger than french one. Maybe excepted after WWII... Lying about the french soldier on 1940, or even spitting on him won't change the fact. The french soldiers did their best, and, simply, it wasn't sufficient, like Czechs, Polish, Belgians, British, Danish, Norwegians, Yougoslavians, Greeks and even Russians did in 1939-1942.
You right.I love how some peoples are believing to myth of “France was superior in everything,but they lose because of tactics.” But that peoples don’t know there were 80 million Germans with Austria and Sudetenland by 1939 against 40 million French and that French industry was just between third and half of German industry on paper.
@@erichvonmanstein1952 totally right... French and British changed totally their economy in economy of war, and Germany didn't change their economy that way (which was a big mistake), Germans changed their economy in totall war in the end of 1943 (too late, the war had known 2 turn points : Stalingrad and after Koursk, Ele alamein is also a turn point, but the superiority of the british navy in mediterranea was too much for Afrika korps, even if Rommel had managed to win in El Alamaein, his troops were exhausted, 80 to 90 % of his tanks were out of order or destroyed, his communication lines were streched at their max, the italian navy wasn't bringing the minimum necessary to feed axis soldiers and guns, 2/3 of the italian cargos were sank by british and other allies)... French industry has become a true force because of De gaulle after 1958 : aeronautic was already strong before but totally disorganised, it's De Gaulle with its industrial plans which has done a great effort... and German industry had collapsed in the end of WW II, also germany had been destroyed like North East of France had been after WW I... Germany and France after 1958 worked also very harsh TOGETHER. Western Germany was missing eastern part of its territory, she needed to become a new "good" country, Germany brought to france a certain organisation to improve its industry, France brought it's great diplomacy and the "picture" of a good country... In 1939, France could have won if we had a churchill as UK prime ministre and De gaulle as President du conseil ... They were the 2 of the Men in the western allies that wished a toital war and a complete victory over Nazis... ALL others even in UK leaders were not truly involved in the war : Chamberlain has come in war in "moonwalk", with his eyes closed and his hands tied in his back. There aren't blinder people than the one who doesn't want to see. Anglo saxons finally were very happy to see France fall in 1940... They prepared even the AMGOT, a thing which is not less than an occupation of France by Allies... it hasn't happened only because De Gaulle was here and managed to put 1,5M of french soldiers on 1st line (1st army on the front of the Rhine, and many troops on the atlantic ports where German garrisons applied last Hitler orders : fight and keep the front without spirit of surrender nor retreat.)
Nice Video but there is a mistake in the map! You forgot Memel north of east prussia, wich did belong in September 1939 to the german empire. It was given back in march 1939.
Not a single word about how divided the politics were in France in the years before WOII except that they didn't want to start a new war, it was way more complicated than what was explained in this video
Basically in the end, the Allies were lazy. Except for the Scandinavian campaign, they just sat on their bottoms and waited for invasion. That is pretty sad...
France 40M citizens vs Anshluss 83M citizens, that mean France had no more reserve. France cant really move too cause 300 000 italians soldiers waited an occasion, and Franco in Spain wasnt really a friend of France. France was surronded by fascists countries in 1939, with a tiny population bleed by ww1
History would be different if the UK and France defended Czechoslovakia in 1938 and if Poland actually supported us. We had enough soldiers and tanks and artillery equipment to stop Germans. After 24h mobilisation we had over 1 250 000 soldiers. Women were protesting and screaming in front of parliament "We will give you our sons, you give them guns!"
But their economy and population was frickin weak in 1939.Just look at how many French and German at that time and how many industrial things did they produced?Germany hugely outclassed France at power of nation.
Soviets try to reach an alliance with the western powers* France and Britain denies them* Germany and Soviet Union sign a non aggression pact* France and Britain: *surprised pikachu face*
Hindsight is 20/20. France and Britian's reasons for not immedately attacking probably made sense at the time. But knowing what we now know about just how shakey the German economy was, how under-supplied their army was in 1939, and the attrocities they were inflicting on the Polish people I think it's safe to say that not immedately taking the fight to them, even if Britian and France were underprepared as well, was an especially poor and tragic decision.
I remember reading a Hitler quote where he said that if the French had opposed the remilitarization of the Rhineland there was nothing the Germans could have done. They had basically no air force at all at that time. But no French politician wanted to be responsible for starting another war with Germany
In fact what happened was a kind of poker game from Hitler's part. He made sure that his huge propaganda about having much more forces than he had in reality fell into French ears.
Why didn't they attack the Germans? BECAUSE THEY NEVER HAD THIS INTENTION. The attack on Poland (as well as the surrender of Czechoslovakia) was to give France and Great Britain time to rearm and reorganize own army. The condition of Poland's alliance with France and England was that Poland had to oppose Germany armedly, then the Allies would help. The best military solution for Poland was the withdrawal of all armies behind the Vistula and there one could defend itself much more effectively and much longer. However, then Germany could occupy Silesia and Greater Poland and recognize that they have already achieved military goals and, given that Poland would not take military action, England and France would not have to declare war. This is the right betrayal - Poland was deceived with illusory promises of armed assistance, while Polish armies fought in disperse INSTEAD TO OPTIMALLY, to fulfill allied commitments. Why did Hitler attack Poland first? Because he knew that the French would not fight. If he attacked France first, Poland would fulfill its allied commitments.
Germany had enough resources and forces after annexing Austria, Sudeten Land and Czechoslovakia to stop the French. The only thing you are forgetting about the French offensive, is that the longer it continued and greater penetration into Germany was achieved, that would have brought Germany and the USSR even closer in their relations against the West. This was the primary reason why neither France nor Britain declared war on the USSR despite that it too invaded Poland.
after WW1 Germany shouldn't have been allowed to produce a strong military force and the oversight in the treaty should have been a lot more stronger which would have prevented the war
This was part of the plan. Poland was to be the anvil and France and Britain the hammer that would strike from the rear. But if course... they chickened out. One thing that was not mentioned, is that if U.K. and France has committed a full on assault from the West, Stalin would not have invaded on the 17th. He also waited to see what the allied resolve was before committing. He too didn't want to provoke the two big colonial powers.
If Kwamis & Miraculous introduced themselves to French kids to turn 'em into magical kids in 1930s-1940s era like how Plagg introduced itself to Adrien or how Tikki introduced itself to Mari, probably French govt would hire these kids with their kwamis to make a special secret elite fighters against German invasion by using their Miraculous powers.
I think the situation in France was similar to that in Italy, the soldiers were not cowards and weak, the problem was the bad decisions of the governments.
If France and UK helped Poland in 1939, WW2 would end in 1939-1940 yet and avoid millions of victims. Good Job Allies! You let millions of people to die and suffer through next 6 years..
Do you have any idea how stupid what your asking is? “Hey France, I realise you lost 1.8 million dead out of a population of 33 million... wanna do it again for a country that’s done nothing for you?”
@@lesdodoclips3915 do you have any idea how stupid what u are writing is? It wasnt only about Poland, it was about entire world, and millions of people Beside this, if they didnt want to help so why were they providing Poland and signing treaties about helping each other. It was much better just to say 'Poland youre alone, we wont help you', If they said it, Poland would totally change their generalship about waging that war, and they even had a chance to win these EVEN against 2 superpowers. And at the end, who said that France will again lose 2mln people? French and Polish army together were way more stronger then Germany, so they wouldn't stand a chance *EDIT* 'has done nothing for you' hmm.. Napoleonic wars and fighting together against Russia (Duchy of Warsaw etc.) .. saving Europe from bolveshiks in 1920... saving Europe in 1683 from turkish hmm yeah, Poland had definetly did nothing for France and Europe.
@@adammm_w saving europe? Oh. Your one of those clowns. Poland NEVER saved Europe. At Vienna they made up a third of the army and arrived late. Not only that, by so what if Vienna fell? France was always the great power. And no, the polish soviet war didn’t save Europe, the soviets had just came out of a civil war, and let’s not forget Poland is just as responsible for the war as the soviets
Just because: 1. Memories of the First World War and its horrors. 2. Incompetence of military and especially political leaders. 3. Unlike 1914, no spirit of revenge on Germany. 4. Delay on military tactics (like all European countries until 1942 and Stalingrad). 5. Important movements for pacifism. 6. Poor Franco-English coordination. 7. German-Soviet Pact and loss of an ally in the East …… All this means that this war could not be won.
The french plan didn't expect Poland to fall so fast. Their plans was that Poland would buy a few months in order to france to prepare its offensive.When germany invaded poland, it took 3 weeks. First France had to mobilize. In peace time, france had 22 full strenght divisions, the rest being obtained through mobilization, which took 2 weeks, the plan logically starting with defensive units. France then advanced in front of the siegrid line into germany, but by then it was already too late and Poland was falling appart. The issue then was that if France tried to pierce throught the siegfried line, it would have ammunition issues (we are in 39 then, and france wasn't ready purely on the material side). For example, artillery pieces had order to fire at maximum 3 rounds per day, in order to avoid emptying the stockpile. Had the french forced their way through the siegfried, the germans would then turn back their forces on exhausted french forces and won the war by october 39.
Interesting that Hitler was too scared of the soviet union casing him to choose not to take all of Poland and the 3 Baltic states, instead choosing to negotiate for a peace deal when the soviet union would have most likely not retaliated. Certainly, people today like to downplay the significance of the small French invasion of Germany prior to invasion of Poland, however this was certainly more real to the German upper management at the time. Likely increasing the effort for a significant shorten war preparations and strategic time-space planning
you got to be kidding.... what's in a frog army pack:: 1/2 bottle of vinegary wine.... chunk of moldy white cheez... large white pillow case (for surrender)...
Correction, at 9:27: "France capitulated..." in fact it was armistice. Ok, the final result was the same, Germany occupied France, but: capitulation is an military decision, armistice is an politic decision. In detail, during last crisis meeting in middle of June 40 at Bordeaux with Pétain (politic), de Gaulle (military) and Churchill (UK Prime Minister), Pétain asked to de Gaulle (which was Colonel and politically appointed General to respect protocole and discuss at this meeting) was what his plan, de Gaulle propose to do the same that russian army against Napoléon: leave the field to the enemy by practicing the scorched earth policy by a retreat in north africa, recompose the troops and, helped by the british army, attack again to reconquer french territory. Churchill disagreed saying that, once France will be defeated, the next target of Germans will be UK and he need all forces to defend his own territory. Then de Gaulle said that others countries around the world could help France as during WWI (Australia, India, Canada...). Pétain was not convinced by this overly ambitious plan and preferred to give up the fight, asking to de Gaulle to declare capitulation which de Gaulle totally refused. So Pétain said "if it's not capitulation, it will be armistice (stop of fights)". Once de Gaulle understood that Pétain's decision will be irrevocable, he took a boat on 17 June to London and asked the day after to read a message to the BBC saying (essentially) "one France is over but another France is free": it was "the call of June 18" (L'appel du 18 juin). The armistice will be signed between Pétain's government and Germans the 22 of June 1940.
Support my channel by downloading War Thunder : gjn.link/KnowledgiaWTBonus and get a premium tank, aircraft or ship and three days of premium time. Thank you so much for watching!
I love all your videos
I follow you when you had less than 1000 subscribers I hope that one of my favourite youtube channels will grow up as it is until now.
Your maps are awesome!
Can you create a video about the tocharian people? Please!
Thank you to have said that jokes about French aren't true, I agree, it's a total defeat on the startegical plan for France, they had everything to push them back (more golds, well equipped soliders, good tanks (B1, good tanks only during invasion, but after, German tanks became more powerful), but French commanders would take decision in 24h & french tanks were mostly not equipped of a radio while the German commanders would take a decision in max. 2 hours, and all their tank were equipped of a radio, this is just impossible..).
Concerning the traitor : Maréchal Pétain , yes he dealt with Hitler and surrendered France (not the people who was very mad, french resistance which played a main role in liberation of France..), but he allowed to no kill french Jews, he exchanged with German foreign Jews, soo, he's not a complete traitor but I personally hate him.
This traitor and stupid generals ruined the picture we had of France before, a glorious country with most of battles won in the history, ruler of Europe for years and so on...
Why did the French surrender in ww2 leaving 400.000 British on French territory alone , against the Germans ??
Surely that is the biggest letdown by any country towards their allies.
Only 42.000 British & commonwealth allies , the rest were in Africa & elsewhere.
If not for the brave civilians in their little river boats crossing the sea , a dangerous sea that wreaked havoc on many fleets attempting to invade the island, yet they managed to bring almost everyone , except the dead obviously, back to the British island.
Why did the French commanders decide to surrender instead trying to fight off the Germans ?
Why didn't they at least give the British warning, so they had time to take British soldiers off France and back to Britain ?
I can't find anything that explains why.
It wasn't as if the French had been fighting years & were tired , or worn out, it was barely a year & only a few months fighting before the French surrendered....
How many superpower countries you challenge?
Germany: all of them.
France was not a superpower.Their population was just barely half of Germany’s and had not match for Germany’s economic and industrial power since early 20th century.
@@AFT_05G Yet they also had colonies in lots of places and navy at the time,which assured it wouldn't starve of resources. That is why you could claim that
Bakit ka andito heneral luna?
@@madamowten3742 ikaw bakit andito ka kabo?
@@madamowten3742 uklei dalli fang zedel
France : hides behind the maginot line
Germany: I'm gonna do what's call a pro gamer move
Belgium : ahh shit , here we go again
Polish Officer, many of whom went through military studies in France, were furious. They said that France hid in the tunnels of their Maginot Line like rats.
Why da FUCK do you always ignore us???
@@luxembourgishempire2826 ikr
Luxembourgish Empire What the hell is Luxembourg?
@Chaplain Bob Walker B. Th. I can see your point, but you're completely missing out on three other points here:
1. Nazi Germany was the main threat for Britain and France as they were overpowered by their opponents militarily, and Soviets could be seen as a check to get Germans from both sides.
2. They were also more criminalised by the Allied because they had been appeased in the case of Czechoslovakia, but didn't stop their aggressive expansionism.
3. There was, in fact, a plan to quickly invade the Eastern Bloc after WW2 ended, but since WW2 was a very bloody war and many countries had their supplies and resources overrun, it never happened. We should also note that Soviets helped end the Nazis, as well as making Poland an indepent country despite its ideology.
This man used all of his willpower to stretch the video to 10 minutes
😂
Such a fascinating what-if scenario. Seems like these getting more popular by the day... Great vid!
Is that good though? A lot of people are resenting cellphones
It's not what-if. This is what happened.
Germany: hipity hopity I own your property.
Thats how the Danes felt when they went to bed in Denmark and woke up under Nazi Germany
Hipity hopity you are my property
I see what u did hire, u took comment from "hip hop vs deus vult hop" video
@Polish Hero Witold Pilecki
Not discussing your pathetic zionist-like brainwashed perception of history, but just stressing out that "Nazi Germany" is used to refer to the time where Germany was being led by the Nazi party.
Just like you would say Ancient Greece to point to the Ancient time, or Edo Japan to point to the Edo period. Nazi Germany, 3rd Reich.. Points to a temporal and political setting, and is not a term to diferentiate movements inside a country, or its base of support.
Soviet Union: You mean "our" property?
M-maybe if we let the germans have paris and london they will no longer want war
?
I get your reference
Watch “The Greatest Story Never Told” on Bitchute.
Hitler offered peace for Britain many times. Hitlers main goal was to invade the soviet union and destroy communists. Also to humiliate the French to get revenge for WW1 and the aftermath, but thats beside the point.
Probably,but Hitler's main goal is to defeat the Commies...
"The french had four to one advantage in artillery"
Germany : "I like those odds"
@Polish Hero Witold Pilecki Ok, obviously you're really passionate about that topic. But most of your arguments are simply not true or slightly altered in order to match this "betrayal myth".
France was never able to carry out an invasion of West Germany right from the start. Their World War I-like organisation, equipment and strategy meant to first carry out a general mobilisation, which would have taken them at least 3 to 4 weeks to get it done and be ready for the real war. This was the case for most countries of that time. They were indeed only able to "progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets" due to point 2. of the agreement -> Saarland.
An artillery ratio 4:1 only helps, if there are soldiers operating these weapons. Weapons in stock don't count. And even more important was the establishment of a supply chain (ammunition, troops, material, repair crews, etc.), which could not work without the remaining French forces that were still to be mobilized.
Same goes for Great Britain, that was only able to use a very small expedition army, because it was sent to France in advance before thestart of the war. Their mobilisation did also take a while and they were never able to sent real reinforcements to France, before German forces did already occupy France.
When the Soviets started to invade Poland from the opposite direction on September 17th, all efforts by France to help out Poland were in vain (but they were at least ready to do so at this point in time).
Germany was in a huge advantage, because they prepared everything way ahead. They wanted to surprise all of their enemies. By the time
France used ALL of their available offensive capable forces (the ones they were able to spare, while the main forces were used to man the fortifications along their defensive line), just to capture and occupy the tiny little Saarland according to point #2.
After that, there was little to no solution to supply their troops, if they would have continued further into German territory. Chances were, that they would have lost all of their troops in this weakend state and would have actually lost this war by beeing reckless. Maybe they were also not risky enough. All of their army, airforce and their general doctrine was designed for a defensive World War I - 2.0 scenario. They put almost no effort into offensive invasion-like strategies, organisation and equipment. When France was ready to really fight the Germans, the war with Poland was already finished. No French (nor Polish) strategist expected that to happen. Actually, no strategist outside of Germany expected that to happen. Even German generals were surprised how effective this tactic was. Blitzkrieg and a super-quick revolutionary way to use panzer divisions by themselves in combination with fast mobile units was new and was never seen before. France did know about new ideas and a concept for new strategies like that, but didn't expected Germany to actually be ahead in this area. Didn't help that French general staff did consist of old WWI veterans with little interest in new ideas and without flexibility in that regard (there were young French soldiers supporting a new doctrine, but they didn't really listen to them). The continuous fight between the French government and the French army for years before start of the war didn't help either.
That Germany bluffed was also part of their strategy. It was a gamble and could have failed. France had no idea they would actually meet empty German defense forts (Siegfried line). With the intel they've gotten, no general would have send French troops into this expected death-trap. That these defenses were weak and even not really operational was unknown. It's unfair to render judgment with the information we've gotten after the war. France didn't knew all of this back in the day. Of course France would have done things differently, if they would have gotten all of this intel. And maybe it would have been possible to defeat Germany early, like many people claim.
But it is still debatable, if Germany would have lost a two-front-war at this point in time. This really depends on the strategies that would have been used - on all sides. There are too many variables to determine this fictional outcome.
Yes, 110 French and British divisions were held at bay by 23 German divisions on the west front.
For comparison: France used 12 divisions to man the Maginot line. And these 12 divisions were expected to hold against an even larger number of German divisions trying to break through this line. It has been stated, that all 80 German divisions would not be enough to break through the maginot line. Therefore they used a plan to go around this line of fortresses.
In full defensive parameter, these 23 German divisions should be enough to hold their position against an even greater number than these 110 divisions for a reasonable amound of time, even for a couple of weeks, maybe even months. You can see similar situations in World War 1.
And don't forget that Germany did a lot of damage to France too. Unfortunately, horrible things happend to French citizens as well. This wasn't Poland-exclusive.
STUKA GOES BRRRRRR
German reich: Danzig or w-
France: Rhine or war
German reich:
What if France will have that focus in the next expansion
@@popescusilviu5466 They do, it's called "France natural borders."
@@Reichsritter So Paris is German now ?
@@Reichsritter "soon",lmao you tried many times you always failed
@@Reichsritter your stupidity was tho
France: *Invades Saar land*
France: *Retreats from Saar land*
France: The war is over gg guys we did it
yay guys now our flag is white guys
"No need to thank me"
@@julienjulienjulienjulienjulien thanks
@@MeuzeAnthem you weren't supposed to do that
@@julienjulienjulienjulienjulien "Reality can be wathever i want"
Well Poland despite being disanvantsged 10 to 1 encricled still lasted longer than the French
Not true, check your facts.
Besides the French also fought on two fronts
Poland killed 17 thousand Wehrmacht soldiers in 36 days (472 people a day). France and allies killed 46 thousand Axis soldiers in 43 days (1070 people a day).
@@Mentol_ Poland was outnumbered 2 to 1 during it's invasion (1 million soldiers to 2 million soldiers) while France and the allies had almost equal numbers to Germany during the invasion of France (135 divisions to 141 divisions) and you didn't add about 1,500 - 2000 soviet casualties in invading Poland from the other side. France also had greater numbers of casualties.
@@kimok4716 The French Italian border was 515km and was mostly made up of highly defensible terrain in the alps, the German French border was 450km which had massive fortifications along its entire length and the french Belgian border was 620km and was the only indefensible area. That was a total of 1585km where only 39% was difficult to defend.
The Polish German border was 2816km long and the only part that was defensible was around 541km of the slovak border which had the Carpathian mountains, the polish soviet border was around 1,407km long and none of it had defensible terrain, it was open flat lands just like most of the german border. So Poland had to defend 4223km so 2.6 times more and 88% of it was difficult to defend compared to 39% with France. Moreover the only part of Poland that wasn't attacked was the tiny sliver of land which was Romania's border. France had an ocean that took up almost all of its western border and a large border with spain and switzerland it didn't have to defend.
Germany had started the war with zero reserves in ammunition and had exhaused most of their entire stocks in 2 weeks of fighting in Poland. For that reason alone the allies would've easily won in a offensive.
Scam from beginning... Look geographically last 30years, same thing, same plan... But in slow motion, difrent game and tactics... If you put frog in hot water, jumps... If you little by little going to hot water thay not jump, cook a live... Same with peoples in group react like frog nerv system.
Agreed. Even if the British and French weren't ready for war, they could've swarmed over the German border with the superior numbers and firepower available to them when war first broke out and taken, the Saarland, the Rhine, and most of Western Germany before the Germans could get enough forces to push them back and even if they did, the Germans would suffer heavy losses in doing so and be stuck fighting a 2 front war that they'd lose in the end.
Of course, most of Britain and France's political and military leadership were a bunch of weak willed wimps who seemed to think that losing even one single man would cause their empires to collapse. While war is obviously Hell, sometimes it's needed to stop evil from running wild and murdering the innocent, it's too bad Britain and France's leaders at the time didn't realize this.
France started the war with lots of man power and reserves but I doubt they could take on Germany and we see they tried what they did in 1910s but failed
Fashyball Lol,manpower?Do you know how many French were at that time compare how many German?German population was twice as large as France’s.
@@AFT_05G And about 90% of that army was massacring Poland , they left the borders unprotected.
Imagine what scale of suffering could have been prevented if the Allies attacked in 1939... 😥
Scam from beginning... Look geographically last 30years, same thing, same plan... But in slow motion, difrent game and tactics... If you put frog in hot water, jumps... If you little by little going to hot water thay not jump, cook a live... Same with peoples in group react like frog nerv system.
Imagine the suffering that could have been avoided if the Allies didn't declare war at all and let Germany have Danzig. The war would have been contained to the eastern front and Germany would have been victorious.
@@taigen2348 You know that suffering would be greater if Germany didn't have to fight allies? Especially for Jews, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks and other Slavs.
But... What about Russia?
What would Russia do?
@@AlwaysRM_ Russia would be saved Bolshevism, the Nordic character of Russia would have been maintained instead of the mongrelization that happened in real life. There are 0 records of what most people call "General plan Ost" so we do not know to what scale German colonization of the east would be but one thing is for certain slavs would not be exterminated. It would likely look like an ethnic map of the Austro-Hungarian empire with German settlements dotting the vastness of Russia. Many Russians, Ukrianians and Balts fought with the Wehrmacht and SS and they certainly weren't just fighting to be exterminated and oppressed. If you don't know anything about National Socialist racial theory then you probably think Hitler saw Germans as the master race and everything else below it when in reality it is the ' Aryan' race in which they spoke of which includes all Indo-European ethnicities from Ireland to the Urals. Aryan is just the non pc term for Indo-European.
Knowing what happened during the WWII, how many people died, it's so frustrating to hear that it all could easily ended in 1939.
it would have been the same outcome too
Easily? Please. All that would have happened was that Poland would have lasted slightly longer after Germany sends a few divisions to the west. But Poland is no Russia/USSR. They were falling quickly even before the USSR entered the war.
No battleplan survives contact with the enemy either. Attacking a fortified position usually means heavy casualties for the attacker, especially with WW1 tactics. There is a reason why Germany didn't attack the maginot line. Could France have won? Sure with heavy casualties, but it is in no way guaranteed.
@@Mr33500 If France commited for a large offensive the German lines could have collapsed too fast, allowing the French to take the Rhur and thus crippling Germany's industry permanently. Some two thirds of their steel industry and coal production was there. Without it, Germany's losses would be permanent
It all could have ended during ww1 when Germany (while winning) offered peace without winners, so everything remains as it was before the war.
But British and American bankers spent too much money on the war and wanted some return.
@@Testimony_Of_JTFand then a war between the east and west would ensue and possibly be even more destructive. You forget the USSR had invaded Poland, Finland, the Baltic countries and Romania even before they were at war with Germany. Thats 6 countries. Russia was probably even more aggressive than Germany but had the sweet distraction of the German terror to get away with their ambitions
Britain and France: Czechtovakia don't worry we will defend you
Czechtovakia: thanks guys
Germany: give me Czechtovakia and I will stay peaceful
Czechtovakia: my friends will help me
Britain and France: we don't know who this guy is
Who in the world is Chechotovakia
“Mag-uh-not” lmao. Its “maj-ih-no”
DNtertainment thank you
I scrolled specifically for a comment mentioning this. Lol. Thank you for pointing that out. That's pretty dumb.
Typical american,bastardising all languages, including English
Actually it should he pronounced Mag-i-not, because France will NOT invade
Mag-uh-not all day everyday.
If only france declared war on germany right after they reinforced the rhienland.
They would of fell faster then they did in real life. France was nowhere near ready for war in 1936
@@drhill1331 yeah, but germany wasn't ready too so mabye they would just withdraw their soldiers from rhienland, and the war would just begin later and france could be more prepared.
@@drhill1331 Adolf hitler send clear orders that if the french attacked his troops had to retreat immediately .
Does people always forgot Siegfried Line is a thing? French has outdated military doctrines where they still using Great War doctrines, where most of battle are just trench warfare and grinding enemies manpower. It's not a blind gamble that Germany took, but a calculated one, based on French and Brits behaviour.
@@drhill1331 Jezus how could anyone still believing and writing those bullshites ? France was more ready than Germany like 100 times
in conclusion: they were still hoping for their original plan, a soviet german war that would destroy both nations.
Nehuen Carbonel Saar offensive. This is a bs video.
@@lvpo8866 they mention the saar offensive so your point being?
Thats literally happenend in Stalingrad
@@sivamynthannadesamoorthy9393 quite,the urss was almost defeated and the destruction that suffered ensured a western supremacy, the soviet german war was bound to happen, but the allies expected fascism to destroy communism not to attack them
It did destroy Germany (and did hurt teh Soviet union hard)...
Thats the evidence that even pacifism could be very bad and tragic in his effects
@Karl Quetzacoatl
,,Peace is a value pricy and desired. Our generation, blooded in wars, surely deserves peace.
But peace, like all things in this world, has its own price - high, but measurable.
Here in Poland we don't know a ,,peace at all costs"!
There is only one thing, in life of people, nations, and countries, that remains priceless. That thing is honour!" - Joseph Beck, 1939
@@Admiral45-10 and honorary Joseph Beck started the war with those words and after this speech immidiatly escaped from the country "have fun guys, I'm out of it!"
@@Skorpion1991 ...but with that statement Hitlerist expansion was halted. England and France wouldn't stop Hitler, if Poland accepted German demands.
repeating what you've already stated to make the video longer is kind of scummy
The channel quality is getting worse recently
Foxalau yup this video was like one of those “documentaries” on tv where they just state the same 2-3 facts over and over again instead of actually discussing the subject matter. Pretty poorly researched. Nothing in there that people with a little interest in history not know already.. the very question that is the title of the video wasn’t even answered.
Honestly I don't like the Art style of his videos
Not really "scummy" I think that's the wrong term
@@katieee4915 It's not his fault that TH-cam has shitty ad policies and scummy is just to over exaggerated and ridiculous.
The jokes about the French are not from Germans in 1939. On the contrary, the Germans respected France a lot, even after the defeat. The jokes are really recent, from the Americans because France didn’t want to invade Irak based on a lie.
This pisses me off. Regardless if it's in the past already, the Allies had the numbers advantage. They should've attacked, regardless of what an old general stuck in his defensive ways thinks. Even if he was a Great War hero, they should've attacked and pushed as far as they could.
It would have even helped if they just sent a bunch of guys with guns in there to walk in one direction and try to kill every german soldier in their way
Their plan was to starve germany. So they stayed on defense on the maginot line and defensive positions on french-belgian border (and later on belgian and dutch rivers). Its actually not a bad plan, but they were not as fast, weren't familiar to new equipement and doctrine and senior officers were still in the great war mindset.
They were willing to bomb soviet oil and grain infrastructure because Stalin was supplying germany in exchange for cash and scientific cooperation. The same could be said about Italy, as attack it and its colonies was a indirect way to isolate germany and suffocate them. So then weren't shy about attacking, but they wanted to choose who, how and when to attack.
The germans on the other hand knew they would be blockaded and would starve since a war with the soviets was "inevitable", so their only strategy was to win fast and dont drag the conflict like the second reich was dragged. This is why they were willing to try new things and tatics and "created" the blitzkrieg, short and fast concentration of war to creat power punches to fast KO their enemies. When they met a enemy that wasn't going to be defeated in one punch things got bad and thats how you get an eastern front. Other problem is when you cant project power to hit your oponent like the UK and USA
@@luisfernandosantosn They didn't create the blitzkrieg, thats a French term for what happened in Poland. Internal records show that germany thought war with france would take a long time. Blitzkrieg is a post hoc explanation for why france fell so quickly.
@@timluo61201st: blitzkrieg is german
2nd: I know it was not a conscious creation thats why I used quotation marks.
3rd: yes, they were surprised by their swift victory, but this dont change the fact that they aimed to a strong and fast break on the french lines, they didn't wanted another war of attriction (this was the allied plan). They were surprised on how fast that happened, because the french army was well drilled and equiped and the germans were very critical of their own performance on Poland.
Their only hope was to break the deadlock before it started.
@@luisfernandosantosn No, the tactics are german, but the name was made by the allied press. The germans called the blitzkrieg with a technical term, something like "mobile warfare" in german.
If it weren't for french politicians and generals the french army would have easely crushed Germany like it was a joke, but it didn't went like this, because of Paul Reynaud weak government adding to this a weak and instable Third Republic, the French Army was highly controlled by the politicians Who knew nothing about war Generals Who could have ended ww2 in sept 1939 were kept back by a shitty government hesitating and talking peace in war time, the French Army was superior in number to the german army and the french equipment was equivalent to the Nazi's one, even the French air force was superior to the luftwaffe in the beginning of the war a German general quoted it took 3 german airplanes to gundown a french one, giving this add a lot of hope to win a war yet it was not the french army Who was the downfall of France it was Paul Reynaud himself all of his mandate as President of the Council of Ministers (Prime Minister at the time) was dedicated to maintain peace, with such a leader France was doomed to loose blame it on Paul Reynaud for blocking Army High Command decisions and not on the French army itself, the french army made a formidable work holding back the Germans at Dunkerque and they hided most of their guns and equipment after the Armistice, most of the french navy refused to surrender and tank divisions stationed in Algeria held back Rommel Panzers from invading completely all of Africa, without the french army Dunkerque would have been a bloodbath for the UK ref and it could have meant worse for the UK rather than joking about french soldiers being cowards thanks them for saving Britain's ass and delaying a full scale invasion of the british isles, if it weren't for the french soldiers the UK would have known a worse fate than in history books.
Even when they knew they lost the war, they fighted at full extent the Germans around Dunkirk just to save their british friends, that is pure bravery and admirable behavior not cowardise.
I don’t think you find the British joking about French cowardice. It’s mostly an American joke. We shared the tragedy of WWI. And there were many British troops defending the circle around Dunkerque who died or were captured. And many French troops were evacuated to fight another day in the Free French forces. Your comments are a bit too narrow in facts. Both countries shared an horrific experience and losses in WWI and should be understood in wishing to do anything for peace. The French loss was purely due to completely inept government and leadership which was paralyzed. If the French army had been properly led it could have changed the entire outcome.
Honestly, if France invaded when Poland was invaded, Germany would get the bulk of the surrender jokes.
Yeah, in the 1930's France was cursed with bad politicians
@@phbrinsden it is a pity that the the spirit of élan displayed by the French army of August and September 1914 was not present in September 1939. The 1.6 million dead of the Great War had so effected latter political thinking and paralysed French Command.
Paul Reynaud was elected by French people right? France betrayed Czechoslovakia and later Poland. It just show how the mighty have fallen in their decadence...
Loved hearing about the effect of the Mag Inn Nott line.
Map is false, tschech was part of german Reich when German attacking Poland
Non, seulement les Sudètes, le reste de la république Tchèque était un protectorat . Les deux cartes peuvent se défendre.
It was a protectorate, not a part of Reich
And even the slowakian Army took part in attacking Poland and Russia.
its czech and it was not integral part of the reich, but protectorate
It was a Protectorate, not Germany proper
video idea: why the allies did not declare war on the soviets when the soviets entered poland
Because Poland didnt declare Soviet Union as war enemy.
BaD mAn because they weren’t suicidal
soviets wanted to annex their half of poland, germans wanted to take and remove the polish from their half.
They knew if they declare war of Sovites they have all the resons to aly with Germans against alies
because the soviets would have joined the germans
7:15 why are you pausing (getting silent for few seconds) with no reason?, also why have you started repeating stuff?
Hmm I wonder why the video is almost exactly 10 minutes long? Strange indeed.
@@Benamon9 new YT rules. They have to make 10 min or algoritam smash his videos.
Hot take: The best summary for this is "France fell because they betrayed Poland"
@@brunolapierre7565 The US was busy trying to ignore yet another world war, while the Soviets were getting ready to fuck over Poland.
Key thing here is that France said they'd get involved, STARTED to get involved, then half-assed it and left Poland to get fucked over by both Germany and the Soviet Union.
Poland's defense plan was also partly informed by the assumption that France the UK would actually follow up on their previous promise to actually commit to a proper offensive if Germany attacked. If they'd known from the start that France was going to cancel the Saar Offensive before it'd even really gained any momentum, the might've held out a good bit longer (at least until the Soviets came in to fuck them over as well).
@RatkillerNick and what of the USSR? Once Germany is dealt with, how do you deal with the fact that Poland is now completely under the control of Russia? Go to war with them too? What of Japan? What of Italy? The war was inevitable.
@@XXXTENTAClON227 USSR waited 2 weeks before entering Polish teritory, because it didn't 100% believe Germans, that Britain and France won't interfere. If France and Britain joined the war (not only on paper, but with their armies and fleets), after 2 weeks Poland would be still in control over the majority of Polish teritories (with fortifications on eastern border). We don't know, what would other countries do, but you can't expect them to follow the same pattern in different circumstances. Stalin might have waited for Poland, Germany and France exhaust themselves and then invade all of Europe. Italy didn't declare war on Poland and I doubt they would if France made military advances. Franco would be propably still neutral, unless he wanted to invade France after the war with Germany (I doubt). Japan would still be trying to be the superior power in Asia and in the Pacific and would eventually have war against the USA.
@@michamarkowski2204 I get what you mean. I think the sad reality is that Britain and France just couldn’t find the motivation to go gung-ho into warfare for another country. I know they waited two weeks, but that isn’t a long time in war, especially when you have no idea whether or not they’re invading or not. It would take more than 2 weeks to invade and defeat Germany too.
I think the real betrayal would’ve been of Britain and France didn’t even declare war. Their declaration of war started the bloodiest conflict in human history, and while it was probably motivated by the fact that Hitler was relentlessly breaking promises and treaties, it was also in retaliation to Poland being invaded. Remember, Britain didn’t really have an army. They had the best navy, but not the best army. That was the Nazis, Soviets and French. And you were being invaded by two of them. Calling Britain and France traitors undermines the fact that they ultimately sacrificed over a million lives just after recovering from the first war, even though this was Polands view on Britain:
“Poland's view of Britain was then generally ambivalent. France or even Germany was then the primary focus of British friendship and attempts to gain protection. The first Polish embassy in London was established only in 1929.”
I also want to add that Britain enforced a naval blockade the day after declaring war on Germany. The RAF also started raiding German warships. It is a misconception that both countries did nothing, because there was a severe shortage in modern equipment amongst France, Britain and Belgium. This meant that sending more soldiers than they did was pointless, as they would’ve just been battered even against less than half of a defender like Nazi Germany, and they wouldn’t of had the equipment to do anything. I know that France stopped Britain from bombing in fear of retaliation, but I want you to remember we’re looking at it in retrospect, it’s not unnatural of them to still be hopeful of peace. I mean, what if the Cold War never saw restraint? The world would’ve ended.
@@XXXTENTAClON227 "It would take more than 2 weeks to invade and defeat Germany too."
Sure, but I only said, that after 2 weeks Poland would control most of Polish territory.
"And you were being invaded by two of them."
Yes, in a scenario, where France stood still. We don't know, what would happen, if France and Britain would make a move.
"Calling Britain and France traitors undermines the fact that they ultimately sacrificed over a million lives"
Lol no. France and Britain had a big role in WW2 and no one denies that. But it doesn't change the fact that both Britain and France didn't keep their end of the bargain. If Britain and France never wanted to help Poland, they could have said so. But in such case Poland would join either Stalin or Hitler (more propably) and western powers wouldn't want that.
"It’s not unnatural of them to still be hopeful of peace."
Yeah, sure. After seeing what Hitler did in previous years? When you see a bully doing everything he wants, breaking rules with no punishment whatsoever, why would you think he would stop? What would give you such idea? You'd have to be naive and/or dumb.
"I mean, what if the Cold War never saw restraint? The world would’ve ended."
No, the world would go on, but without most of us.
There's no way they're going through the ardennes, let's defen-
Oh hey we just lost Paris.
Germany's map there looks so scary like a 1 horned demon with big eating mouth eating Czech republic.
😂😂😂
Silesians in the north, Austrians in the south. No way Czech could avoid occupation.
Simple answer maginot line, and the allies never cared about poland it was just an excuse.
Proof they didnt care about poland.
Who cracked the enigma machine.
Which squadron was one of the squadrons had the highest kills in battle for britian but not allowed in the victory parade.
Who did they blame for market garden failure...
robert goodman An excuse for what?
We dont care so we'll just go to war? you are deluded
idiotic - Poland was a very difficult ally. Highly nationalistic, secretive, un co-operative. Would Poland have jumped to anyones rescue? I flipping doubt it
@@mutleyeng Yeah, like what if Germany invaded France? Poland would have sat on its ass and twiddled it's thumbs.
@@mutleyeng whawhat? This is the funniest explanation I ever saw on that matter. The Brits knew about Geemany's planned attack and they did not even share that information. They wanted the war to stall and sign a peace treaty after some time passed. They are the biggest smartasses of that war but for anyone who delves into history it's clear that they were also the bad guys of that war.
You don't make an alliance if You are not willing to keep Your word. It's cowardice and it's dishonorable. Politics does not remember. History and people do.
Thankyou for resisting the urge to make baguette memes when looking at the French military, great video!
Imagine if france takes them down just after they invaded poland, or eve worse, get into a 2 front war and being defeated by poland and france.
that would have been such a Big fail 😂
A huge miss for America since they would have been too late for the war, unless Russia decided to take advantage of the chaos. Without the Economic boom after WW2, we wouldnt be the super power we currently are.
@@a.soraparu773 Thats right. and europe would still be powerful and competing with america, making the us isolationist for who knows more time
Its what should of happened
@@flyingfetus4364, well....we are not competing with you. You guys only exist due to your expansionism. Once that is of the table you will fall down to solid ground like a bird without wings. We are already almost the same with the GDP - but without all the conflicts and wars around the globe and besides....live in Europe is much nicer then in the US (Ask Any US citizen who lived and worked in Europe - in civilian sector).
And Imagine all the lives that would be saved if the war only lasted 1 or 2 weeks...
Exectly same is happaning today with Russia! nobody wants war, and EU powers are letting Russia do as they want! Chechnya, Georgia, Russia, you name it!
I don't think you have to worry about a third world war though, mainly because if Russia would go on a full-scale war they would have 0% war support since almost no person would want a third iteration of the great war therefore there would probably be massive protests and the soldiers won't be loyal also since who today would like to die in a war?
Chechnya was part of russia .If there is an agressive player in the world thats US and NATO . Russia cant sustain a big war .Real threat is China not Russia
@@mightyelf2660 Such a naiv thought (soldiers won't be loyal also since who today would like to die in a war?) Look like you dont know Russian, and ecpecialy Russian solders.
I never said enything about third world war, but what Russia is doing today is very similar to what Germany did in 1939.. Other powers protest, as they do, but nothing else.
@@vasilijesamardzic4151 And it still is a part of Russia, no? That's what I was saying, Russia presents almost no threat, while China could be considered a threat, but it actually doesn't matter, because as I said there is no desire for war at all. Also, USA and NATO are aggresors? Why do you think so? In my opinion, the US is actually a defender of democracy and world peace.
Gio good point I didnt look at it that way.
Well, this is a bitter topic in Poland. Polish society really hopped allies will fulfill their obligations in 1939. From the military point of view - yes, probably attack from the West would end the war in 1939. I don't think USSR would attack Poland on 17th/09/39 if allies joined war earlier. There was just no political will - just very short-sighted crisis management.
From the Polish perspective, this war had many similar bitter turning points. Like Tehran, Jalta and Potsdam conferences when the Polish borders were changed and Poland - and other countries in central Europe - were left in the communist block (it was agreed by Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin). That wasn't the democratic decision of any of these nations. Communist governments were simply installed. In consequence 400 000 guerrilla soldiers from Home Army (there were also other guerrillas in Poland) were prosecuted - many of them imprisoned, tortured and/or killed by Soviets. Ah, and many of 200 000 Polish soldiers fighting on West (and in Africa) were forced to move back to this new Poland.
Unfortunately, these and similar turning points are being used now in conservative and isolationistic narratives by the Polish government. I hope this and future generations will always choose to be open, stay united and work together - in my opinion, it's the best way to prevent future wars.
Sadly, the only ally of Poland at that time was just Hungary. Hungary was part of the Axis powers but they never made the decision to invade Poland nor fired a single shot.
@@tomc6255 also Italy didn't decleare war on us. Mussolini was rejecting any sue for entering the war.
"Fulfill their obligations" how exactly? By throwing a bunch of unprepared divisiosn without hevay artillery and engineers into the teeth of the Siegfried Line in a re-enactment of the french offensives of 1914? What would that have achieved, exactly? The Allies joined the war a day in. Nobody with two braincells to rub together could have expected them to immediately launch an all-out attack in the middle of their following mobilization.
Indeed, pre-war planning foresaw no french or british offensive actions within the first month of the war breaking out, simply because they'd take that long to get everything into place. Only turns out that nobody foresaw the Germans overrunning all of Poland within that month.
What do you mean? France DID attack Germany in 1939. Mark Felton has a video on this topic. France entered German territory and was outnumbering germany, but was scared off by a few machine guns.
I don't think they were scared off. I think they were told to stop their attack and return. WW2 was desigend to destroy Europe! After WW2 mass-immigration from all sort of countries started. Look at Europe now. It has become a shithole.
The reason France's invasion of Germany failed was quite simple: there just weren't any German forces for the French to surrender to! That's why they had to wait another year.
@@DamonNomad82 wow you should be a comedian or something what an original and funny joke!
Seriously though France has won the most battles in world history.
If Napoleon was the ruler of France, it would have taken a few days.
Otto Von Bismarck made sure that wouldn't happen.
İn 1939 Germany had a population about 80 million with Germans in the Austria and Sudetenland,on the other hand France’s population was just half of that.They already exhausted their manpower when they mobilized 5 million men for armed forces.
The real reason ... the French white flag factories weren’t ready, they were making a stockpile ....
Wow you should be a comedian
3 separate TH-cam commercial breaks and your sponsor break made this tough to watch.
Amazing. The video completely ignores the fact that it was Anglo-French strategy to win the war by blockading Germany and depriving it of iron ore and oil.
It also puts as (one) of the reasons the lack of willingness to going to war of the high tops... Seriously, since when politicians care about the nameless soldiers?
@@asasas9146 Well, the blockade strategy was designed to avoid a re-run of WWI slaughter. Of course, it didn't work.
@@emmetoconnor5105 From a practical perspective sure.
That's why the Germans invaded Denmark & Norway: to block allied access to the Baltic to guarantee iron ore supply from Sweden.
Too bad that this still makes them traitors
Basically a summary of the video is, the allies overestimated germany, government were too afraid to take actions.
If Napoleon saw France being defeated so desisivly by the Germans he would start crying
Tbf it was noted by French soldiers when Wellington and Blücher defeated Napoleon at Waterloo he rode away from the battle crying. Not exactly the morale boost you want from a general after defeat
@@XXXTENTAClON227 true
What if after the German and soviet pack to divide Poland, the soviet attack Poland first instead of German. Would the allies declared war on soviet? And not against German?
GB, Poland and France should of declared war on anyone attacking any of the three.
Not a chance. The British more warned Germany against any further expansion than guaranteed Poland against anyone. The Allies were nothing if nor pragmatic, and the last thing they wanted was the Soviets threatening Allied holdings in the Middle East and India, which the British had long feared.
probably Poland would resist better than against Germany... Stalin had killed lot's of officers and red army was in really bad condition, what the war with Finland had showed few months later.... Besides polish had preapared for the war with Russia much more and longer than for the war with Germany, they had some fortifications in the east... They had also quite a lot of cavallery which would made better in the east (where there were little or no roads, than in the west of Poland)...
While France and Poland had signed treaties in case any European power attacked either one of them, it was stated pretty explicitly in the secret protocols that this meant Germany.
France and Britain had no way to support Poland unless they marched their troops through Germany or send an invasion fleet including carriers into the Baltic.
hakimi mastor no they wouldn’t have. France and Britain didn’t do anything, when The Soviet’s took Ukraine, Belarus(Belorussian), and the three Baltic countries.
Make a video about “Why was Maginot Line built?”
Pretty simple: Most of their coal reserves and thus industries was close to the German border. They were denied occupation of the Western Rhine bank during Versailles. France had suffered horrendous manpower losses in WW1, so they went for a defensive strategy aimed at funneling the Germans through Flanders thus violating Belgian territory, pulling in the British to offset the manpower difference and then starving out the German warmachine through a blockade. They just believed it impossible to move tanks through the Ardennes..?
8:05 Aykchually, at the start of WW2 both Hurricanes and Spitfires were to be a replacement for much older Gloster Gladiator units. Spitfire was better, but more difficult to produce, also harder to repair, this is why Hurricanes fought the Battle Of Britain as a first line fighter too, and even stayed as a fighter bomber well into late WW2.
Oh, and it would be worth mentioning that by the appeasement at all costs, Britain and France allowed Germans to acquire a materiel for arming about 40 additional divisions in Czechoslovakia after final occupation of Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939. And that was also 40 friendly divisions they allowed to be struck from their strength.
Partly the French and British were conditioned by the results of WW I.....the realization they could win again in the long run if they fought a war of attrition....1942 was earmarked at the earliest time they could engage in what they considered a winning offensive...this was not unreasonable except the Germans were not going to give them that time...but even the Germans were stunned by the quickness of their victory....nobody including the Germans realized just how much warfare had changed in just 20 years....
The tactics the french and the british were using in 1939 wouldn't have had the extraordinary effects some are dreaming of... They were using WWI tactics, advancing at the speed of the infantry men... most of french artillery was tracted by horses and it was able to support troops for about 5 or 10 km at best. Then it means that every 5 kms, allies would have stopped their offensive, even if it has worked. Then it needed time to prepare the next following offensive, just like in 1918. When the French attacked in Saarland, they wanted to see if it was able to work. They advanced only 10 km in a week. French and British estimated it was good and efficient and that when they would be READY for the great offensive in 1941, they would do the same. French army and british one was not ready for Blitzkrieg, and if UK had been a continental power neighbour of France, Wehrmacht would have taken London even faster than Paris. Thanks to the Channel, UK has not been able to be invaded... But a little thing which has its importance, french weak air force with french so called cowards fighters, destroyed more german planes in six weeks of the battle of France with less fighters and older planes, than RAF in 3 months of Battle of Britain during the blitz... I let you imagine what could have happened if those "cowards" French had NOT destroyed those german planes... I'm fed up with this rewritten History. with the game of "IF", if Coward Chamberlain had listened French in 1938, France allied with UK and Czech army would have defeated Germans. I would recall than 1/3 of the tanks which invaded France in 1940 were all czech pz 35 and Pz 38 ! To finish, the french land army lost in six weeks of incredibly harsh and violent fight : 90.000 soldiers, which is even worse than Verdun ! French tank weren't that superior to german tanks : no radio, a single man turret crew, slow if better armour and better gun... French didn't loose by cowardice, they lost because the strategy of the Germans was far superior than the allies one... Russia has been saved only because it's 24 times bigger than France. Something to tell too : France about 40 millions people in 1940, Germany over 70 millions. Who has the superiority in men ? German industry has always been stronger than french one. Maybe excepted after WWII... Lying about the french soldier on 1940, or even spitting on him won't change the fact. The french soldiers did their best, and, simply, it wasn't sufficient, like Czechs, Polish, Belgians, British, Danish, Norwegians, Yougoslavians, Greeks and even Russians did in 1939-1942.
You right.I love how some peoples are believing to myth of “France was superior in everything,but they lose because of tactics.” But that peoples don’t know there were 80 million Germans with Austria and Sudetenland by 1939 against 40 million French and that French industry was just between third and half of German industry on paper.
@@erichvonmanstein1952 totally right... French and British changed totally their economy in economy of war, and Germany didn't change their economy that way (which was a big mistake), Germans changed their economy in totall war in the end of 1943 (too late, the war had known 2 turn points : Stalingrad and after Koursk, Ele alamein is also a turn point, but the superiority of the british navy in mediterranea was too much for Afrika korps, even if Rommel had managed to win in El Alamaein, his troops were exhausted, 80 to 90 % of his tanks were out of order or destroyed, his communication lines were streched at their max, the italian navy wasn't bringing the minimum necessary to feed axis soldiers and guns, 2/3 of the italian cargos were sank by british and other allies)... French industry has become a true force because of De gaulle after 1958 : aeronautic was already strong before but totally disorganised, it's De Gaulle with its industrial plans which has done a great effort... and German industry had collapsed in the end of WW II, also germany had been destroyed like North East of France had been after WW I... Germany and France after 1958 worked also very harsh TOGETHER. Western Germany was missing eastern part of its territory, she needed to become a new "good" country, Germany brought to france a certain organisation to improve its industry, France brought it's great diplomacy and the "picture" of a good country... In 1939, France could have won if we had a churchill as UK prime ministre and De gaulle as President du conseil ... They were the 2 of the Men in the western allies that wished a toital war and a complete victory over Nazis... ALL others even in UK leaders were not truly involved in the war : Chamberlain has come in war in "moonwalk", with his eyes closed and his hands tied in his back. There aren't blinder people than the one who doesn't want to see. Anglo saxons finally were very happy to see France fall in 1940... They prepared even the AMGOT, a thing which is not less than an occupation of France by Allies... it hasn't happened only because De Gaulle was here and managed to put 1,5M of french soldiers on 1st line (1st army on the front of the Rhine, and many troops on the atlantic ports where German garrisons applied last Hitler orders : fight and keep the front without spirit of surrender nor retreat.)
Nice Video but there is a mistake in the map! You forgot Memel north of east prussia, wich did belong in September 1939 to the german empire.
It was given back in march 1939.
@daniel halachev no
Not a single word about how divided the politics were in France in the years before WOII except that they didn't want to start a new war, it was way more complicated than what was explained in this video
hardest task ever:
take paris before france surrenders
but France didn't surrender before Paris was taken. What are you on about?
Basically in the end, the Allies were lazy. Except for the Scandinavian campaign, they just sat on their bottoms and waited for invasion. That is pretty sad...
"Peace in our time" = Western Europe's "trading real estate for time" (Napoleon leaps out of his tomb and screams: "Cowards!.")
Napoleon was the aggressor of his time so in a way he has more in common with Hitler than the allies.
Thank you. I never heard this viewpoint before.
Me playing hoi4 driving my forces through Germany in 1938 instead of 1939
Poland : Actually we have blue in our flag, it stands for loyal allies.
France, UK : And where it is?
Poland : Exactly.
France 40M citizens vs Anshluss 83M citizens, that mean France had no more reserve.
France cant really move too cause 300 000 italians soldiers waited an occasion, and Franco in Spain wasnt really a friend of France.
France was surronded by fascists countries in 1939, with a tiny population bleed by ww1
History would be different if the UK and France defended Czechoslovakia in 1938 and if Poland actually supported us. We had enough soldiers and tanks and artillery equipment to stop Germans. After 24h mobilisation we had over 1 250 000 soldiers. Women were protesting and screaming in front of parliament "We will give you our sons, you give them guns!"
Very good video. It helps dispel myths about the weakness of the military of France. Great insight on the politics of the year of 1939.
But their economy and population was frickin weak in 1939.Just look at how many French and German at that time and how many industrial things did they produced?Germany hugely outclassed France at power of nation.
No, it's very bad video, the french army *WAS* weak, all this wave of mythbuster polluted history.
Love your knowledgeable videos, keep it up, just make sure they are truthful as possible, so as to not fool people. Bless.
Soviets try to reach an alliance with the western powers*
France and Britain denies them*
Germany and Soviet Union sign a non aggression pact*
France and Britain: *surprised pikachu face*
Hindsight is 20/20. France and Britian's reasons for not immedately attacking probably made sense at the time. But knowing what we now know about just how shakey the German economy was, how under-supplied their army was in 1939, and the attrocities they were inflicting on the Polish people I think it's safe to say that not immedately taking the fight to them, even if Britian and France were underprepared as well, was an especially poor and tragic decision.
Finland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg:
(1939-1940)
*"Am i a joke to you?!"*
Why Finland?
@BMC Only Denmark did that
I remember reading a Hitler quote where he said that if the French had opposed the remilitarization of the Rhineland there was nothing the Germans could have done. They had basically no air force at all at that time. But no French politician wanted to be responsible for starting another war with Germany
In fact what happened was a kind of poker game from Hitler's part. He made sure that his huge propaganda about having much more forces than he had in reality fell into French ears.
Ok, you lost me when you called it the "maggonot line" @5:38
I have to say, you are really good at sneaking your ads in
Why didn't they attack the Germans? BECAUSE THEY NEVER HAD THIS INTENTION. The attack on Poland (as well as the surrender of Czechoslovakia) was to give France and Great Britain time to rearm and reorganize own army.
The condition of Poland's alliance with France and England was that Poland had to oppose Germany armedly, then the Allies would help. The best military solution for Poland was the withdrawal of all armies behind the Vistula and there one could defend itself much more effectively and much longer. However, then Germany could occupy Silesia and Greater Poland and recognize that they have already achieved military goals and, given that Poland would not take military action, England and France would not have to declare war.
This is the right betrayal - Poland was deceived with illusory promises of armed assistance, while Polish armies fought in disperse INSTEAD TO OPTIMALLY, to fulfill allied commitments.
Why did Hitler attack Poland first? Because he knew that the French would not fight. If he attacked France first, Poland would fulfill its allied commitments.
next knowledgia video: how to pronounce the Magginnott line
Top 10 unanswered polish questions
Germany had enough resources and forces after annexing Austria, Sudeten Land and Czechoslovakia to stop the French. The only thing you are forgetting about the French offensive, is that the longer it continued and greater penetration into Germany was achieved, that would have brought Germany and the USSR even closer in their relations against the West. This was the primary reason why neither France nor Britain declared war on the USSR despite that it too invaded Poland.
**says everything as wrong as possible**
approx 1.5 mins - your advert, approx 4mins - youtube advert, approx 7 mins, another youtube advert. All in a 10 minute video. Jesus.
I have a French Army joke.
1942, ad in a Paris newspaper.
French rifles for sale!
Never used, once dropped.
2004 called and they want their joke back
Stupid joke
after WW1 Germany shouldn't have been allowed to produce a strong military force and the oversight in the treaty should have been a lot more stronger which would have prevented the war
“French tanks were good and even better.”
Meanwhile in War Thunder...
This was part of the plan. Poland was to be the anvil and France and Britain the hammer that would strike from the rear. But if course... they chickened out.
One thing that was not mentioned, is that if U.K. and France has committed a full on assault from the West, Stalin would not have invaded on the 17th. He also waited to see what the allied resolve was before committing. He too didn't want to provoke the two big colonial powers.
I'm not german, but I've watched enough ww2 videos to know luftwaffe isn't pronounced luftwof
Good video tho
If Kwamis & Miraculous introduced themselves to French kids to turn 'em into magical kids in 1930s-1940s era like how Plagg introduced itself to Adrien or how Tikki introduced itself to Mari, probably French govt would hire these kids with their kwamis to make a special secret elite fighters against German invasion by using their Miraculous powers.
Very nice vid. But the maps could be lighter in colour sometimes they look a bit too dark
It’s the “MA-gi-NO” line. At least from all the historians I’ve listened to.
I think the situation in France was similar to that in Italy, the soldiers were not cowards and weak, the problem was the bad decisions of the governments.
fun fact the french were so bad that when they invaded the saar land one machine gunner held out for 2 hours
Two Words:
*_Le Surrender_*
Kwamis should have introduced 'emselves to French kids in 1930s-1940s era.
Not funny
Do what if Czechoslovakia did not surrender Sudetenland to Germany in fall of 1938. VERY interesting topic.
Even worst.
At the end of the war our ally Stalin took all of Poland and Czechoslovakia anyways.
If France and UK helped Poland in 1939, WW2 would end in 1939-1940 yet and avoid millions of victims.
Good Job Allies! You let millions of people to die and suffer through next 6 years..
You are correct but Poland was Catholic! That was the reason to get rid of Poland! Nobody likes Catholics.
Do you have any idea how stupid what your asking is?
“Hey France, I realise you lost 1.8 million dead out of a population of 33 million... wanna do it again for a country that’s done nothing for you?”
@@lesdodoclips3915 you are Clueless
@@lesdodoclips3915 do you have any idea how stupid what u are writing is?
It wasnt only about Poland, it was about entire world, and millions of people
Beside this, if they didnt want to help so why were they providing Poland and signing treaties about helping each other.
It was much better just to say 'Poland youre alone, we wont help you',
If they said it, Poland would totally change their generalship about waging that war, and they even had a chance to win these EVEN against 2 superpowers.
And at the end, who said that France will again lose 2mln people?
French and Polish army together were way more stronger then Germany, so they wouldn't stand a chance
*EDIT*
'has done nothing for you'
hmm.. Napoleonic wars and fighting together against Russia (Duchy of Warsaw etc.) .. saving Europe from bolveshiks in 1920... saving Europe in 1683 from turkish hmm yeah, Poland had definetly did nothing for France and Europe.
@@adammm_w saving europe? Oh. Your one of those clowns. Poland NEVER saved Europe.
At Vienna they made up a third of the army and arrived late. Not only that, by so what if Vienna fell? France was always the great power.
And no, the polish soviet war didn’t save Europe, the soviets had just came out of a civil war, and let’s not forget Poland is just as responsible for the war as the soviets
Good job on the video!
Just because:
1. Memories of the First World War and its horrors.
2. Incompetence of military and especially political leaders.
3. Unlike 1914, no spirit of revenge on Germany.
4. Delay on military tactics (like all European countries until 1942 and Stalingrad).
5. Important movements for pacifism.
6. Poor Franco-English coordination.
7. German-Soviet Pact and loss of an ally in the East ……
All this means that this war could not be won.
The french plan didn't expect Poland to fall so fast. Their plans was that Poland would buy a few months in order to france to prepare its offensive.When germany invaded poland, it took 3 weeks.
First France had to mobilize. In peace time, france had 22 full strenght divisions, the rest being obtained through mobilization, which took 2 weeks, the plan logically starting with defensive units.
France then advanced in front of the siegrid line into germany, but by then it was already too late and Poland was falling appart.
The issue then was that if France tried to pierce throught the siegfried line, it would have ammunition issues (we are in 39 then, and france wasn't ready purely on the material side). For example, artillery pieces had order to fire at maximum 3 rounds per day, in order to avoid emptying the stockpile.
Had the french forced their way through the siegfried, the germans would then turn back their forces on exhausted french forces and won the war by october 39.
Germany and the Soviet Union have 1 thing in common
*Invading poland*
They had detachable peniuses that were lost during WWI....what’s sad is they’re still looking for them.
All this looks like the USSR’s accusation of war.
Interesting that Hitler was too scared of the soviet union casing him to choose not to take all of Poland and the 3 Baltic states, instead choosing to negotiate for a peace deal when the soviet union would have most likely not retaliated.
Certainly, people today like to downplay the significance of the small French invasion of Germany prior to invasion of Poland, however this was certainly more real to the German upper management at the time. Likely increasing the effort for a significant shorten war preparations and strategic time-space planning
The french still had PDSD from the Franco-Prussian war
:)
iena
you got to be kidding....
what's in a frog army pack::
1/2 bottle of vinegary wine....
chunk of moldy white cheez...
large white pillow case (for surrender)...
The price of cowardice.
Let your allies down, and you too will be invaded. You can't play the game of war if you don't want to fight.
They actually didnt want to play the game of war so i dont think you understand this
@@ibrahimelamrani5927 why declared war then?
@@Juan-wx5xz because if they didnt they would be invaded and france was to pussy to just follow the damn plan
@@ibrahimelamrani5927 France wouldnt have been invaded if they remain neutral.
@@Juan-wx5xz they would
France hoped Germany command is as intelligent as HOI4 AI
Correction, at 9:27: "France capitulated..." in fact it was armistice. Ok, the final result was the same, Germany occupied France, but: capitulation is an military decision, armistice is an politic decision.
In detail, during last crisis meeting in middle of June 40 at Bordeaux with Pétain (politic), de Gaulle (military) and Churchill (UK Prime Minister), Pétain asked to de Gaulle (which was Colonel and politically appointed General to respect protocole and discuss at this meeting) was what his plan, de Gaulle propose to do the same that russian army against Napoléon: leave the field to the enemy by practicing the scorched earth policy by a retreat in north africa, recompose the troops and, helped by the british army, attack again to reconquer french territory. Churchill disagreed saying that, once France will be defeated, the next target of Germans will be UK and he need all forces to defend his own territory. Then de Gaulle said that others countries around the world could help France as during WWI (Australia, India, Canada...). Pétain was not convinced by this overly ambitious plan and preferred to give up the fight, asking to de Gaulle to declare capitulation which de Gaulle totally refused. So Pétain said "if it's not capitulation, it will be armistice (stop of fights)".
Once de Gaulle understood that Pétain's decision will be irrevocable, he took a boat on 17 June to London and asked the day after to read a message to the BBC saying (essentially) "one France is over but another France is free": it was "the call of June 18" (L'appel du 18 juin). The armistice will be signed between Pétain's government and Germans the 22 of June 1940.
Anime scene:
French: What is this technique?
Germany: Blitzkrieg!
They did though but they quickly withdrew
They had a fear the enemy would retaliate , so they didn’t even launch many artillery strikes, IN A WAR.