Nebula with 40% off annual subscription with my link: go.nebula.tv/realtimehistory Watch 16 Days in Berlin: nebula.tv/videos/16-days-in-berlin-01-prologue-the-beginning-of-the-end
I disagree. IMO the whole campaign can be distilled down to France being massively outgeneralled by the Germans. Their army was fine (apart from big picture general-rank-level policies like heavy short ranged tanks for infantry support etc.), their navy and air force was top shelf. Cultural explanations are BS, the rural Frenchmen having grown up in the interwar years were not soft and hated the boches' guts.
Oh, absolutely. The Chieftain has some fascinating videos on the interwar development of armor doctrine by the main belligerents, and the French one is mind-blowing. Other aspects of French doctrine really didn't pan out either, and the social divisions within the nation did not help the fighting spirit at all.
@@0giwan I saw a great documentary on inter war aircraft development in France. As well as highlighting the miss steps that were made, the documentary went into the reasoning behind those decisions. They really didn't have a hope by the time the Germans got upperty.
@@vortex1603 Sure, but its also true that even at the time they had plenty of historical examples of armies surprised by the position of an enemy force that moved trough dificult terrain. They should have known better.
@@RafaelSantos-pi8py They werent stupid, they knew the germans could cross the ardennes. They just didnt expect the speed and the scale of how they did so, and were too slow to react.
@@garage3022 I didn't say they were stupid , i said they were incompetent , such as "didnt expect the speed and the scale of how they did so (the germs), and were too slow to react".
8:47 Minor mistranslation from Frieser, Karl-Heinz; I'm guessing the French general said something to the effect of "Vous êtes bien trop rapide, beaucoup trop rapide pour nous. C'est tout". The "c'est tout" was mistranslated as "it's everything" but I think it's meant as "that's it" or "that's all [there is to that]". Either way... you can feel the defeated tone of the general... like "we weren't ready for this, it's not what we planned for at all"
It's a translation error by the German-to-English translator. Frieser's original German version correctly ends the quote with "Das ist alles", which has the same metaphorical meaning of "that's all there is to it" as the French original.
4:48 The French actually had a small strategic reserve of 7 divisions. Unfortunately, during the breakout at Sedan they were sent to the south of Sedan instead of to it's west where they would have been more useful.
7th Army contained six divisions, was a very powerful mobile force, and Gamelin sent it north to the Netherlands on day zero - I think this is what you meant.
New Blitzkrieg tactic. Planes + armored divisions. No chance. Russians were crushed during 2 years with a territory 10 times larger than France in the European part of USSR, and with a population of 188 million, almost 3 times German population, who was 70 million. Many forget, too, that French population in 1914 and 1940 was only 40 million. Most biggest WW1 battles were French victories, like the carnage of Verdun. French WW1 casualties were tremendous. 1,4 million killed, 4,5 million wounded. For a population of 40 million. Entire generations. Not to mention the enormous civilian casualties and destructions. Most northeastern, France was like the surface of the moon in 1918, after dozens millions shells fired. When English and German territories were left almost intact after this carnage. France had been bled by WW1, even if she was on the victorious side. It's one of the reasons of the 1940 failure, only 22 years later.
Radio and tactical airpower are two keys to early German victories that are largely, and consistently, overlooked. For example every German tank had at least a radio receiver. Allied tanks, even the Soviets during Barbarossa, where still communicating with runners and flags. When the Allies expanded their use of radio and refined their use of tactical airpower, the Germans lost.
The german army was not supiror to the tactics and will of their enemies one could say. They just had a tech advantage almost crashing their economy to feed the military.
you mean when the americans brought their 2nd generation aircraft and radios... europe had none of that. alexander grahm bell of bell telephone was american....meanwhile even poor americans had telephones in their homes in the 1910s and listened to FDR in their homes during the 1930's while europe listened to grammaphones and mostly used the post for communications as everything else they couldn't afford. yeah mass production every farm with 50+ acres had a tractor and a ford motor vehicle next to the house. even the germans still used horses to pull artillery and infantry
Let's be clear. The Germans didn't lose for that reason. They lost because they solid everyone. Britain, isa, France. And fighting in multiple theaters of war. 1v1 even USA didn't stand a chance. Which is why is usa stole their scientists at the end of the war
When you compare 1914 vs 1940, one appreciates the coolness of the French Command, even at the face of setbacks such as the Battle of the Frontiers and the long retreat from Belgium. Unity of command, steady heads and also a bit of grit.
And no modern tanks, trucks and planes in 1914 to give the germans the speed and shock power to replace the cavalry that machine guns and modern artillery made obsolete in a matter of weeks during that bloody summer.
Yet that same French Command was composed entirely of WW1 veterans, many of them highly decorated. These people had all seen the wrong end of a cannon. It is not the courage or grit of the Gamelins that is in question, but the simple competence of those who rose to the top in a peacetime army culture that overvalued "cran" (roughly, guts), unquestioning adherence to the chain of command and a boastful patriotism - and undervalued technical knowledge, flexibility and imagination. There's a lesson there.
@@kenoliver8913 I totally agree with you. My input was solely related to a single aspect of a very complex scenario, but what you mention is quite relevant. To support your claim in terms of battlefield technologies and awareness; for example the French High Command was very interested in how the Spanish Civil War was fought, but drew the wrong lessons (very slow tank attacks supported by infantry and not appreciating the value of close air support). Instead of the cult of the offensive of 1914, this was a cult of the defense, but to a calcified level. Independent tank divisions were seen as anathema by some (not all). And at the civilian government, instead of the unified government of WWI, the French had a divided government, which included brazen traitors and acolytes of the Germans, just to see the left wing being ruined.
France had 102 (?) divisions , the Belgians had 22 (?) and the BEF had 10 to 13 . The French solders fought well , but lost because the French Generals were beyond useless . In particular , Gamelin believed it would take 10 days for the German Army to get through the Ardennes , so he moved his best troops to west coast to link up with the Dutch and Belgians on the west coast . As such , there was no reserve . Gamelin set up his HQ near Paris , a 100 miles from the front , and relied on dispatch riders for communications . French Generals were required to follow a central chain of command , and were not allowed to make decisions on their own . So in a nut shell , there was a complete intelligence , communications and command structure failure by the French Generals . Also , in order to maintain their neutrality prior to May 10th , 1940 , the Belgian's refused to co operate with the French . .
I think it’s convenient to say the army fought well and blame some Old worn out generals. But analysis misses key points. 1) the German army had a strong aggressive and unifying ideology 2) French army was badly politicized and divided. Socialist pacifists had a strong influence among troops. Bloch who was there saw this. 3) German army had a major victory in their pocket -Poland- and this experience is highly motivating. 4) command system was too Slow. Goes way beyond poor generals.
@@edmundcowan9131well you think very bad and you should start to read historians instead of some politicians. The soldier is not to blame. But the upper generals are. Gamelin in particular.
My grandfather who served in a French anti-aircraft unit shot down two Messerschmitt BF109. He noted in a diary the movements of his regiment during May and June, a diary that I am lucky to have, with a few photos including one English (unidentified) bomber destroyed in a field near the Belgian border. in two months the Germans lost more than 1000 planes, which they will lack for the Battle of England. I like to think that my grandfather contributed in his modest way to the final victory of the allies In his own words, seeing entire villages in flames was a terrifying vision. His unit was demobilized at the armistice, he was not a prisoner of war. And he lived a happy life after that terrible times.
The English also lost about 450 planes while defending France and they had a huge problem with fighter aircraft until the end of July i believe. Luckily the higher ups figured it out last minute and started producing them in greater quantities
The 2nd BEF evacuation is discussed in Major General Julian Thompson's book " Dunkirk : Retreat to Victory " Which explains the Battle of France from the BEF perspective . Also , Historian James Holland has the only complete explanation of the famous halt order I've ever read . However , I've pieced together the halt order elsewhere in the discussions here. 16:21 Circa May 26 - 28th , 1940 - British War Cabinet Crisis . The initial estimate given to the British War Cabinet was that only 45,000 solders could be evacuated . Facing the lost of most of the BEF , Lord Halifax wanted to explore negotiating terms with Hitler , via the Italians . Over the next few days , there were a series of heated meetings with the war cabinet . Churchill did an end round on Lord Halifax and was able to convince the 25 member outer cabinet to keep fighting . .
@@realtimehistory 17:04 " Churchill has ordered 300,000 fresh British troops to France ... " Jessie , Could you check this ? After the sickle cut , there were over 140,000 BEF solders remaining south of the Somme , including the 51st Highland Division and the 1st armoured division that disembarked at Cherourg between May 15th to 19th . General Allan Brooke arrived at Cherbourg on June 13th , to be in charge of 4 fighting BEF divisions , but by this time the 51st Highland Division had already been captured . Over the phone , Brooke was able to convince Churchill to initiate the second BEF evacuation . . .
@@landsea7332 'Brooke was able to convince Churchill to initiate the second BEF evacuation.' True, but only after meeting with General Weygand, who told him on 14 June that the French army was no longer capable of 'Organised resistance.'
A great video. A story of the Battle of France that often gets overlooked is the Siege of Calais, where a small and under equipped British force, supported by men of the French Army and Navy, delayed the advance of the German 10th Panzer Division on Dunkirk.
And Lille, on the road to Dunkirk, where the remnants of the french 1st army, encircled, fought for a week, blocking the logistical route to Dunkirk, until they had exhausted their supplies.
Well, " small and under equipped British force" is their fault alone. In 1940 Britain was the largest Empire in the world, with the largest military spending as well. So why would they be small and under-equipped?
@@andrew3203 Why would they be small and under-equipped? What an uneducated question. Possibly because they had a huge Empire to defend across the globe. You forget that in 1940 the British Army was in Singapore/Malaysia, Arabia, East Africa, North Africa, India, etc. It's called the "British Expeditionary Force", not "The Entire British Military". Do you know what 'Expeditionary' means? Probably not so I'll get the definition for you: "“the ability to deploy task-organised forces on short notice to austere locations, and capable of conducting operations immediately." They couldn't just fast-travel troops from Malaysia along with tanks, aircraft and artillery in 30 days. Even if they could, then who would defend Malaysia? Think about it.
Its worth pointing out that De Gaul was broadcasting from London, because he escaped a French arrest warrant on the RAF plane allocated to Churchill. With the resignation of the French Prime Minister he lost his authority as Deputy Defence Minister and his right to liaise with the British Government. That the French High-Command wanted to arrest him as soon as that happened is a measure of the severity of French political in-fighting that had taken place during this phase of the war.
To understand the situation in which France was in May 1940, I can only recommend a video on TH-cam "L'appel du 18 juin" by Cinéma Cinémas, with subtitles.
Wikipedia says "In both the Polish and French campaigns, the Panzer III formed a small part of the German armoured forces. Only a few hundred Panzer III Ausf. As to Fs were available in these two campaigns, with most being armed with the 37 mm (1.46 in) main gun." So if there were 50mm armed tanks, they were in the minority.
The German armour was completely outclassed by the French Char B, unfortunately the French did not deploy them in concentrations to have a great effect. Char B was a very underrated tank in the early stages of the War.
It shows that the Germans didn't plan to conquer the world, but merely to end a war that was declared on them by France. Churchill the drunk on the other hand wanted blood and more war.
@@thebog11- 50mm guns were fitted to the Pz III only after the France campaign. Vaguely recall reading that there were a few prototypes (as few as three) so fitted towards the end of June before the end of the campaign but it’s very unlikely they saw frontline service.
We have to go back to 1919 and the Treaty of Versailles, when the French claimed that the only way to prevent Germany to invade them again was a permanent occupation of the Rhineland, which was denied to them by the Allies because too harsh. In order to convince the French to give up this clause, the USA promised France they would help if Germany invaded again. That's why Reynaud asked Roosevelt for help. The answer was no.
@@phlm9038 They even promised a defensive alliance, but that was never put into place because the US never ratified the treaty... So the main clause to protect France was lost.
@@phlm9038, there was a little more to it, as history always proves, some agreements made at the end of some wars are not always very clear, and the US at the time had a large number of German supporters, and some were in Congress at the time, so the Presidents hands were somewhat tied, the American people at the time still remembered the first world War and didn't think it was our fight, so getting involved was not popular in the US, which is why some believe is the reason why the US Government allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, so they could have a reason to enter the war.
Not enough order crucial facts.Methamphetamine was the main reason for the German speed and for them not losing the war due to the tactics in this battle
@@Rowlph8888 the Germans actually seen the downfall of using amphetamines after France , soldiers took to long to recover etc. But the yanks gave their men triple the dose and extended its use , firstly in North Africa
One of the best facts: Gamelin played war games and concluded an attack through the Ardennes will be too slow because the troops need rest. But the Germans took methamphetamine so they could skip sleeping for several days and achieved their crucial element of surprise. Conclusion: France got beaten by Meth.
A soldier who consumes meth needs much more rest than a normal soldier. The special forces that attacked Fort Ében-Émael took meth so they could fight for 18 hours without rest. But after that, she needed a week to recover Meth was used only by special forces, and rarely by drivers. The same is true for allies
We’ve experimented with stimulants. I used ephedrine when I was in the US Army but it made me sweat too much using up my water too quickly plus when I came down it was tough.
1914: "Pfft. What are the Germans gonna do? Go through Belgium?" 1940: "Pfft. What are the Germans gonna do? Go through Belgium?" 1944: "Pfft. What are the Germans gonna do? Go through Belgium?"
A few items of interest which the video did not mention. 1. Maurice Gamelin has to bear the lion's share of losing the battle. The French army was supposed to have a reserve force. If available, it would move in as a concentrated force to stop any German breakthrough in its tracks. This reserve was Girard's 7th Army. However, the 7th Army was diverted into an utterly useless diversion on the left flank of the BEF to attempt to aid the Dutch. It was incapable of doing so because of blocked roads and last minute planning. And as a result, the 7th Army achieved nothing whatsover when it should have been the French Army's reserve blocking Kleist's panzers struggling their way through the Ardennes. 2. The Germans used a secret weapon called Pervitin. This was the chemical which enabled German soldiers to go days without sleeping or eating very much and fighting in heavy combat continuously. This was much of the reason for the speed and ferocity of the German attack. Pervitin is a drug we now know as meth-amphetamine. After the campaign, the Wehrmacht suffered some 40,000 fatal casualties from drug withdrawal.
Thank you, you're the only person who mentioned the methamphetamine, which was the most impactful action in this battle.It doesn't matter how efficient, single-minded and committed that the tyranny Germany was under gave the officers compared to the Brits and the French, if they didn't have the methamphetamines they would not have been able to get the speed to demoralise the French or encircle them in time Without the meth Germany would have been firebombed in the Ardennes and it would have been the decisive blow to an eventual defeat as the allies pushed them back in the long-term, without the need for USA to enter the war
Kinda crazy how this was such a total defeat for France that it legit overshadows the millennium of battles before this lol. This was all about strategic and tactical brilliance+momentum as the French actually had more tanks too. Looking forward to this one!
@@georgefalcon14 And according to Eastory, a YTber whom make a mapping video about Western Front 1940, they distributed their tanks across their infantry, just like the Poles did a year ago when Germany invades them!!
@@quangminhnguyen2504To be fair, by this point in history the French were complacent, horrible communication at the front to the commanders, loose formations with the tanks used, and English & French generals who hated eachother, not much the grunt can do with all this against them.
Welllll.... there was 1870 too. And that with 16 mobile divisions less and still at great speed. From a logistical point of view, might even be the more impressive of the two.
@@FrancisFjordCupola Certainly! The post-Napoleonic Era Prussians were a much improved machine after the reforms following 1806, although 1940 is arguably the most famous collapse of all time given the expectation that they would not only hold their own but invade Germany as what was considered the pre-eminent military power of the continent.
fun fact: This is the soft launch on a 1940 series on this channel. Much like with our 1943 videos, we will release them regularly in 2024 and 2025 and then combine them into a multi hour documentary later on. Our 1943 "supercut" will drop in April btw.
“Without Dunkirk, there would not have been June 6, 44” Charles of England. “The heroic resistance of the French army saved the British army, allowing England to continue the war” Winston Churchill.
8:45 I'm a French speaker and "It's everything" was probably mistranslated from "c'est tout" which yes is its literal translation but what it means is "that's all" which would make a lot more sense in the context of the quote
Probably the greatest military disaster we ever had. As bad as the Beresina was, it did not bring neither military occupation ( except for a very brief period in 1815) nor eternal dishonor and last longing military humiliation. Merci d'avoir rappelé que beaucoup de français se sont quand même battu avec courage ! 😁👍
"Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success." -- Erwin Rommel The German's only advantage in 1940 was air superiority. And that's more than enough to win.
Air power was important but the French HQ relying on dispatch riders was disastrous . After the Germans got through the Ardennes and across the Meuse the French and British were shocked by the speed on the German advance .They believed they had more time to organise a counter attack
The Germans went around the Versailles treaty. Then used tanks and aircraft in a first ever combined arms attack. The french held a basically static line helped German planners to go around them . The French used tanks for troop support instead of using them for a attack. Anti tank weapons weren't great and German tanks moved faster than artillery which was not as mobile. Hence disaster.
This is genuinely sad to look at. Poland held out for 35 days despite being attacked from both sides after the 17th day and France held out for only 10 days more despite superior strategic position.
Germany engage twice as many troops and divisions as in Poland, France also has a second front in the Alps and colonies to hold. France chose not to fight needlessly in a large metropolis like Paris so as not to destroy it, unlike Warsaw which suffered greatly. The capture of a well-defended Paris would have taken weeks (look at Lille). A more than shaky comparison
What confuses me most about World War II is how the Germans were able to defend France in 1944/45 better than the French in 1940, even though they were in a worse position. The Germans defended France better than the French
@@jaaackaissa1633 This is totally false, from the Battle of Falaise and during the summer of 1944 until October it was a walk in the park, almost the entire territory was liberated by the Allies with the exception of pockets of resistance on coastal towns. In 1940 the Germans stopped at the Loire and their logistics were at maximum capacity. The Allies are just stopped by their logistics, the German defense is toughening in Alsace and Lorraine, annexed territories which they judge to be part of their national territory
@@pujo6532 I do not agree with you. How much territory did the allies control in the first six weeks? How many divisions did they destroy in the first six weeks? The period of time that the military campaign took after the landing of Normandy until the Allied forces entered German territory: days: 250 days. weeks: 35 weeks. months: about 8 months. The Germans had much greater logistical problems than the Allies, Allied bombing and French resistance attacks Because of it, the trip of the SS Das Reich division to Normandy took 9 days instead of two days
@@jaaackaissa1633 bruh, the allied front comes from a bridgehead of a few kilometers in the middle of the Norman bocage facing excellent divisions of the SS and the Wehrmacht, the front is ultra tight with a density of troops which limits any breakthrough. Once this is achieved after Cobra and Falaise it is a walk in the park and a speed of progression as rapid or even faster than the Wehrmacht in 1940 without its major clashes like Arras, Stonne, Lille, Dunkirk. France must defend the entire eastern border and the Alps, facing it in 1940 almost the entire Wehrmacht and all the Panzer divisions which, after taking Sedan, pour out onto plains suitable for motorized and armored missions. Stop comparing the incomparable and respect the soldiers of 40 who paid the dear price to defend their country
As the famous Wehraboo Sir Alan Brooke said "The success they have achieved is nothing short of phenomenal. There is no doubt that they are most wonderful soldiers."
I think it is fair to say the primary agent in German success was in effective command and control. This was likely helped by the allies absolute lack of command and control at that point in the war
The French C3 was indeed a shambles. The British C3 wasn’t so bad - they’d been working on it since September 39 - but they made the colossal mistake of advancing to defend Belgium with zero prior planning, thereby ripping up all the complex arrangements.
Exceptional command and control but also freedom of tactical initiative that made the German army extremely flexible assessing the local tactical situation.This tactical initiative will progressively vanish during the war making the German army slow, non reactive and in constant retreat.
Exactly. In october 1936, King Leopold III reaffirmed that Belgium would remain neutral if a new war embraced Europe. To achieve this end, the Belgian government is attempting to withdraw from various alliances and denounced the agreements made within the framework of the Franco-Belgian military agreement. It was a shock for the french goverment. This led to the hasty construction from 1937 to 1940 of a defense front along the Belgian border, but nothing in comparaison beetwen the Maginot Line which took 10 years of construction.
@@sylvananas7923 That is prob true, but what is very often overlooked is that there was a small amount of fortifications all along up to the channel coast that ran parallel, of French guns and emplacements, just not nearly as much as the Maginot line.
@@ChrisCrossClash Oh yeah, people ofte, say that the maginot only bordered germany but it's false, it went from the italian border all the way up towards belgium, but the heaviest fortifications were facing Germany as they were expected to be the next threat to come
The British being mad about the Belgians surrendering is hilarious lol. The British fleeing and leaving her French allies to be occupied makes this so ironic
Yep, they would have a different attitude if it was their territory from being invaded like the USA. Easy to talk smack when you have an ocean between you and the enemy.
1) The BEF in France numbers at its height a little less than 300,000. The French Army over 3 million. 2) A lot more than 3000,000 troops were pulled off the beach and mole at Dunkirk. Shall I tell you why? Because almost 150,000 of the troops pulled out of Dunkirk were FRENCH.
@@Coconutscott Actually in Greece and Crete not only did the British inform the local Governments, but were specifically advised to withdraw as the situation was untenable. The Greeks were absolutely aware that the British were leaving.
To quote a German Professor, the Germans had an inferior military, inferior in numbers, inferior in quality. Most German tanks were tracked machine guns. Most effective weapon was the 88 mm artillery. What they had was superior strategy, dynamic leadership. The Manstein Plan had surprise, deception and speed. The Germans won the Battle of France in 3 days & 3 nights when the crossed River Meuse and reached Sedan.
@@RouGeZH Germany had fuel for a few weeks of war. Lucky their armor uses gasoline that could be filled at French gasoline stations. Ammo and bombs for a few weeks of hi intensity war.
This is grossly exagerated but i agree that the war was nearly lost in three days unless a miracle.Germany had a superior airforce,the best anti aircraft and the most efficient radio communications.They had a war experience which has been crucial to promote the best officers in charge and reform the incompetent ones.It had greatly helped them to improve their logistics,tactics and capacities of combined manoeuvers.An invasion on western front in 1939 would have failed without the experience gained notably in Poland. France had superior artillery,more powerful tanks but in lower numbers(FT17 are totally obsolete and not meant at all to serve on front line).They had well trained active troops,pilots and decent reserve,usually better trained than their german counterparts.France had also many awesome prototypes and new weapons from all kind with a technical edge. I would be more cautious to compare the generals.All the great generals from the french expeditionnary force come from the 1940 army.Replace Gamelin by Prételat and the german would have failed to cross la Meuse which mean loosing the war.
@@Doverlicht You are right... the humiliating defeat of WWI and the Germans think different. They got rid of the old geezers and got innovators. Manstein was their great strategist. Guderian developed threir mobile armored war concepts. The airfare had great developers. Navy had Donitz. However, they lacked in the concept of Grand Strategy that involves politics, economy and war as last resort.
1. French army didnt have the stomach for a fight 2. British and French armies were reacting in terms of WWI type strategies. Their tanks supported their infantry, not the other way around 3. They believed the Germans would attack in a predictable manner, which they did not 4. Neither Britain nor France had any truly adequate preparations, nor took the risk of a German attack seriously. Neville Chamberlain even asked Montgomery, a division commandee at the time when visiting the front "do you really think they'll attack?" 5. Complete ineptitude in air power. Britain's best squadrons being stationed in Britain at the time could've been put to better use in France, although the fact that they were in England meant they later saved the English from invasion. 6. Complete lack of modern communications equipment and tactical handling of their armies in the field, which the Germans had no such weakness
While I agree with most of your points, the first part of point number 5 is just plain incorrect. The RAF in France was hampered by mutliple factors such as operating out of makeshift and unsuitable airfields with poor logistical support, but the MOST important factor was that they were defending on foreign territory and under foreign command and control (or more accurately complete LACK of command and control). The absence of French interwar air defence planning and expenditure meant that unlike during the "battle of Britain" where our defending air forces were excellently managed and marshalled through the use of the British developed "Dowding system", the allied air forces in France 1940 were operating using the same failed "standing patrol" strategy that had seen the Polish air force wiped out in days. The feeding of more and more RAF fighter squadrons into France was a simple waste of resources that would NOT have had ANY effect on the ground war and would have denuded the UK's own defence, as was well known by ACM Dowding.
Let me point out a small mistake: As far as I am aware, the Panzer III model mainly used during the invasion of france was Ausf. E. The panzer III has not been equipped with a 5cm gun before Ausf. F. Hence, most of the Panzer III used in France must have been equipped with the 3.7 cm.
The full run of 96 Pz III Ausf E built between Dec 1938 till Oct 1939 were wholly equipped with the 3.7cm KwK L 46.5. 435 Pzkfpw III F were produced between Sept 1939 and July 1940. Of that number 335 were armed with the 3.7cm KwK L 46.5 but 100 were uparmed with the 50mm KwK L 42 with external mantlet, before production started to transition to the Ausf G in April 1940, so a sizeable minority of Pz IIIs that took part in the French campaign were equipped with the 50mm.
Great video. For anyone who finds the fall of France fascinating, check out the episode "France Falls" of the (superb) "World at War" documentary; you can find it on TH-cam. It provides context and firsthand interviews and accounts of the state of the French nation and army at the start of the war.
Well done. Concise yet fairly comprehensive. You have taken pains to pronounce French and German names and locations correctly. - Thankyou for this presentation.
One of the worst defeats in history becomes more about how Hitler allowed the British to escape at Dunkirk. France was routed in 6 weeks and Britian was driven off of the continent.
"Hitler allowed the British to escape" did he? That's not what his direct "Fuhrer order" that he issued to OKW (German armed forces high command) said, I'll even provide you with the preamble to his order. The Leader And Supreme Commander Of The Armed Forces. OKW Headquarters. 24th May, 1940. 7 copies Directive No. 13 1. The next object of our operations is to annihilate the French, English, and Belgian forces which are surrounded in Artois and Flanders, by a concentric attack by our northern flank and by the swift seizure of the Channel coast in this area. The task of the Air Force will be to break all enemy resistance on the part of the surrounded forces, to prevent the escape of the English forces across the Channel, and to protect the southern flank of Army Group A. It appears you have NO idea of what you're talking about !!!
Great job as always. I would really like to see you guys delve into the end of the Holy Roman Empire. There is so little out there about that important event.
in 1938, General André-Gaston Prételat conducted wargames at Sedan. "The result was a defeat of so comprehensive a nature that the wisdom of publishing it was questioned lest morale be damaged." Prételat estimated that the Germans would take 60 hours to reach the Meuse and take one day to cross it. This estimate was to prove inaccurate by just three hours; the Germans achieved the Meuse crossing after just 57 hours.
That is absolutely true. In fact, if I recall correctly, there was actually a retreat for one of the generals that had no lines of communication. Communication and the lack there of what is a major factor.
At around th 13:40 mark our narrator explains why the Germans paused their attack, at Dunkirk. He leaves out the most interesting explanation... Speed... Amphetamines... The spearhead soldiers had appeared tireless because they were hopped up on amphetamines. Amphetamine high comes to an end, and then you crash. Amphetamines left those soldiers exhausted
Modern war in a nutshell. You either achieve total victory in a few weeks or get mired in a long meatgrinder that pressures all facets of your society.
Crazy to think of how the french were part of so many wars and decisice moments in militairy history like the celts fighting the romans in bibracte, carl the great forming a imperium, battle of agincourt, the 100y wars against england, the napoleonic wars, the franco- prussian war and finally the first world war. They did this all while being widely known tough and proud warriors. Just to get demolished by the Wehrmacht in 46 days. No wonder they were spiritually weak after that and nowadays everybody thinks they're cowards raising the withe flag as soon as seeing enemies.
When the French and British bark behind the fence and do nothing as Poland is partitioned. Even with their numerical superiority, the static nature of the allied military doctrine juxtaposed to the German military leadership was adaptable, competitive and cunning. This also severely crippled their ability to mount an effective counter offensive. Luckily the miracle of Dunkirk saved a massive chunk of the British army. Excellent breakdown and i always love this channels dedication to accurate and in depth history ❤
The French did nothing when Poland was invaded because they couldn't. The French started to be reasonably well re-equiped only in the spring of 1940. Before that point, they were utterly unprepared, lacking just about everything necessary for a strong offensive and even more so sustained operations. The re-equipment and reorganisation process in the French army was 1 to 2 years late, and when the Germans attacked on 10th May, the French army was right in the middle of that process, with units receiving new tanks and aircraft every week, with ongoing training etc. The French HC had estimated that process would be complete by mid-1941. Between April and June 1940, French war production managed to exceed that of the Germans in tanks and aircraft, but it was too late, they could not be delivered to units in time, units had no training time on their new machines and vast quantities of brand new machines just remained in army depots and were then snatched by the Germans after the campaign. The Allied numerical superiority was meaningless as there was no unified command and they weren't working together.
When looking at the forces what really stands out to me is that Germany has MASSIVE advantage in air power. Which is much more important than infantry, tanks or artillery. So it might actually not be much of a mystery or hard to figure out why Germany succeeded.
Classic analysis. Nothing to complain about overall. However, you should have emphasized one point much more. In Sedan, the French divisions corresponded to the last ones of the French Army, in terms of combat capacity (age of troops, reservists, equipment, etc.). Facing them, the Germans have intelligently placed their elite units (the GrossDeutschland for example). Add to that the incompetence of General Huntzinger, and the massive presence of the Luftwaffe, and it is a miracle that the Germans took so long to break through.
Exactly this. Huntzinger deserves huge blame. The defenses weren't completed at that area. And he sent his local reserves to protect his right flank, instead of the center at Sedan itself which was being attacked.
@@pax6833 Exactly. And out of sympathy, I will not quote his remark when one of his subordinates suggested that he send some aerial reconnaissance missions to the Ardennes...
Great video, one of the best detailed description about battle of France which i have seen👍👍👍its such a shame that you cant post all your videos because youtube demotizes them, its absurd, its ridicilous!!! Thats history! I hope this will change one day, awesome job guy's.
The battle of France was a stunning humiliation for the French and British. That they could turn it into a movie of 'Romantic defeat' in Dunkirk is unbelievable.
@@kansazkid in Churchill's words, wars are not won by retreat. A superior force in numbers, equipment and resources was spectacularly defeated by an smaller, less well equiped, but better lead, innovative and proactive force. That is the achievement!
@@kalomboCA retreat can prevent you from losing the war though. Dunkirk was an amazing success for what it was trying to achieve and in preventing the capture of the BEF allowed Britain to stay in the war which was key to the Allies eventual victory.
@@CB-fz3li "in preventing the capture of the BEF allowed Britain to stay in the war which was key to the Allies eventual victory" Even that was not guaranteed. Britain was running out of resources and didn't know how long they could go on fighting : "The date 22 August 1940 is one of the most significant yet least famous in British history. It is the day on which the war cabinet faced the fact that Britain would shortly cease to be an independent power in the world. Whatever the outcome of the battle being fought by the Spitfires and Hurricanes of RAF Fighter Command in the skies over Kent and Sussex, within three or four months either Britain would become a dependency of the United States or it would have to seek peace from a victorious Germany. The reality of Britain's position in the summer of 1940 was very different both from the contemporary rhetoric and the subsequent mythology. This complete collapse of British power was well hidden from the public behind an outward show of independence and determination....". "1940 Myth and Reality" by Clive Ponting. In others words, if the United States had refused to financially help the UK, the latter would have been forced to seek for peace with Germany.
8:24 "Their eyes glow with hate when they speak of England" i do confirm this statement being true, at least for some french soldiers. My great grandfathers who fought as tanker and artillery officer in the french army both hated the Brits more then they hated the Germans.
Can we appreciate the insanity of the Marshall actually believing is that the union with the United Kingdom was actually them trying to make a play for French colonies. The absolute arrogance of French leadership never ceases to amaze.
I blame the incompetence of the French politicians to fully commit to the war like in 1914. France lost a perfect chance to invade Germany while it was engaged in Poland, and then led their army disastrously. France was as ready to war than as in 1914, but unlike then, the French Government betrayed it's own people. I have no doubt that France could have stopped the German advance if properly led.
@@SaintThomasAquinas1 I don't know why interesting videos are always ruined by such comments. You should read "1940 Myths and Reality" by Clive Ponting and I am sure you would laugh less 😅.
Neither the French nor the British were ready for an offensive war in 1939. They still had WW1 in mind. For the French, WW1 was "la der des der" (the last one). The British had the "appeasement policy" between the two world wars. The French began the Saar offensive in September 1939 which lasted 10 days but they stumbled on the Siegfried Line, the equivalent of the Maginot Line in Germany. On 17 September, Gamelin gave the order to withdraw French troops to their starting positions. The last of them left Germany on 17 September, the day of the Soviet invasion of Poland. The French lost about 2,000 troops during this operation due to the fact that the Germans had placed mines everywhere.
To bookend Marc Bloch's STRANGE DEFEAT, I highly recommend Ernest May's STRANGE VICTORY (2000). May's thesis can be summed this way: the Allies, and especially the French, badly misjudged German intentions. And the misjudgment proved to be fatal. I think RTH's video captures some of that misjudgment in its analysis.
This is a remarkably complete account of the FALL OF FRANCE, including correct and revealing information on who really balked the panzers short of Dunkirk. I became aware of the story after reading Ernest R. May's STRANGE VICTORY (strange in that the Germans prevailed over superior quantity and quality of French and British men and equipment). I also grew up in the 60s and 70s when memories of Dunkirk were fresh on everyone's mind. The epic British movie THE SNOW GOOSE for that era is on TH-cam. It's interesting that the Germans lost 45,000 KIA in the campaign --- almost exactly the same number of KIA they lost in 1944 as they retreated across France back to their borders under American, British, and Canadian assaults, including massive bombing. They held the 2,000,000 French, Belgian, and Dutch prisoners until the Germans surrendered in 1945. Thus inflicting a horror of separation on Frenchmen from their families that lasted five years. The Germans needed to feel the horror of war on their soil by Allied bombing and Soviet occupation to remind them of how the terror they inflicted on the peoples they attacked feels when inflicted on them.
Obwohl ich diesen Feldzug mir schon mehrmals angeschaut habe, ist es immer noch schockierend wie die Franzosen so deklassiert worden. Immerhin haben sie sich den Verlust ihres militärisches Ansehen gut verdient.
Ach ja? Wo ist die Ehre und das Ansehen des Deutschen Heeres.geblieben? Begraben unter ungezählten Kriegsverbrechen und der Unterwerfung unter den Wahnsinn Hitlers der Deutschland in die totale Niederlage und grösste Katastrophe unserer Geschichte führte.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Nebula with 40% off annual subscription with my link: go.nebula.tv/realtimehistory
Watch 16 Days in Berlin: nebula.tv/videos/16-days-in-berlin-01-prologue-the-beginning-of-the-end
It was baffling how the wehrmacht broke through the Maginot line at Sedan
The Maginot Line didn't reach to Sedan. That's why the Germans struck there.@@martinsto8190
The French soldiers were right, the war was being waged by Rich men in England. Their name is Rothschild.
@@martinsto8190 1940，there are 10000 residents at Sedan
I wish this episode was part 1, of 4 one hour long episodes. 28min is just too short. For this reason I will be giving this video a miss.
This episode could've been three hours long, there's so much to pick through about the 1940 invasion of France.
Amen to that.
I disagree. IMO the whole campaign can be distilled down to France being massively outgeneralled by the Germans. Their army was fine (apart from big picture general-rank-level policies like heavy short ranged tanks for infantry support etc.), their navy and air force was top shelf. Cultural explanations are BS, the rural Frenchmen having grown up in the interwar years were not soft and hated the boches' guts.
@@tacticalclochardyour brain can’t comprehend another level to that so you just go with the one your brain dosent have trouble understanding
Oh, absolutely. The Chieftain has some fascinating videos on the interwar development of armor doctrine by the main belligerents, and the French one is mind-blowing. Other aspects of French doctrine really didn't pan out either, and the social divisions within the nation did not help the fighting spirit at all.
@@0giwan I saw a great documentary on inter war aircraft development in France. As well as highlighting the miss steps that were made, the documentary went into the reasoning behind those decisions. They really didn't have a hope by the time the Germans got upperty.
"That terrain is impassable. Our enemy will never come trough there!" Famous last words of a lot of imcompetent generals.
Easy to say now when the war is over, armchair historian.
@@vortex1603 Sure, but its also true that even at the time they had plenty of historical examples of armies surprised by the position of an enemy force that moved trough dificult terrain. They should have known better.
@@RafaelSantos-pi8py They werent stupid, they knew the germans could cross the ardennes. They just didnt expect the speed and the scale of how they did so, and were too slow to react.
@@garage3022 I didn't say they were stupid , i said they were incompetent , such as "didnt expect the speed and the scale of how they did so (the germs), and were too slow to react".
" The Ardennes is a safe place for our troops to relax and refit ". Americans in December 1944.
8:47 Minor mistranslation from Frieser, Karl-Heinz; I'm guessing the French general said something to the effect of "Vous êtes bien trop rapide, beaucoup trop rapide pour nous. C'est tout". The "c'est tout" was mistranslated as "it's everything" but I think it's meant as "that's it" or "that's all [there is to that]". Either way... you can feel the defeated tone of the general... like "we weren't ready for this, it's not what we planned for at all"
As somebody whose native language is French, I totally confirm what you're saying
They were so rigid in their doctrine and battle plans that they caused the "surrender memes" practically on Day 1
@@ForelliBoy2000 years of history down the drain. Now they’re cowards who surrender at the first opportunity, on the Internet.
It's a translation error by the German-to-English translator. Frieser's original German version correctly ends the quote with "Das ist alles", which has the same metaphorical meaning of "that's all there is to it" as the French original.
En effet, "C'est tout" se traduit mieux par "That's all".
4:48 The French actually had a small strategic reserve of 7 divisions. Unfortunately, during the breakout at Sedan they were sent to the south of Sedan instead of to it's west where they would have been more useful.
7th Army contained six divisions, was a very powerful mobile force, and Gamelin sent it north to the Netherlands on day zero - I think this is what you meant.
Fascinating that iconic WW1 sites like Somme, Marne and Verdun got overrun and fell so quickly
New Blitzkrieg tactic. Planes + armored divisions. No chance. Russians were crushed during 2 years with a territory 10 times larger than France in the European part of USSR, and with a population of 188 million, almost 3 times German population, who was 70 million. Many forget, too, that French population in 1914 and 1940 was only 40 million. Most biggest WW1 battles were French victories, like the carnage of Verdun. French WW1 casualties were tremendous. 1,4 million killed, 4,5 million wounded. For a population of 40 million. Entire generations. Not to mention the enormous civilian casualties and destructions. Most northeastern, France was like the surface of the moon in 1918, after dozens millions shells fired. When English and German territories were left almost intact after this carnage. France had been bled by WW1, even if she was on the victorious side. It's one of the reasons of the 1940 failure, only 22 years later.
Radio and tactical airpower are two keys to early German victories that are largely, and consistently, overlooked. For example every German tank had at least a radio receiver. Allied tanks, even the Soviets during Barbarossa, where still communicating with runners and flags. When the Allies expanded their use of radio and refined their use of tactical airpower, the Germans lost.
The german army was not supiror to the tactics and will of their enemies one could say. They just had a tech advantage almost crashing their economy to feed the military.
and mass consumption of Methamphetamine
you mean when the americans brought their 2nd generation aircraft and radios... europe had none of that. alexander grahm bell of bell telephone was american....meanwhile even poor americans had telephones in their homes in the 1910s and listened to FDR in their homes during the 1930's while europe listened to grammaphones and mostly used the post for communications as everything else they couldn't afford. yeah mass production every farm with 50+ acres had a tractor and a ford motor vehicle next to the house. even the germans still used horses to pull artillery and infantry
Let's be clear. The Germans didn't lose for that reason. They lost because they solid everyone. Britain, isa, France. And fighting in multiple theaters of war. 1v1 even USA didn't stand a chance. Which is why is usa stole their scientists at the end of the war
Solo'd*
Your graphics of various armor side by side are very helpful in visualizing what they are using.
thanks. a new thing we tried out. Also to show the size differences etc.
@@realtimehistoryit’s very helpful. Not something I’ve seen done on other documentary channels but I really like it!
@@realtimehistory how important a role did the German fear of the British naval guns ability to fire 20-30 miles inland and destroy the panzers play?
Yes old man
Wtf?@@Sjsjsjsjsjks1
I clicked on and liked this video faster than it took the Germans to reach the French coast.
Me too
Cringe joke
Yes, the old blitzclick trick!
Cringe
Blitzclick☝️😅😅😅😅
16 days in Berlin was amazing. Please get Nebula and watch it! Beautiful.
I know, I know, I keep putting it off
When you compare 1914 vs 1940, one appreciates the coolness of the French Command, even at the face of setbacks such as the Battle of the Frontiers and the long retreat from Belgium. Unity of command, steady heads and also a bit of grit.
And no modern tanks, trucks and planes in 1914 to give the germans the speed and shock power to replace the cavalry that machine guns and modern artillery made obsolete in a matter of weeks during that bloody summer.
Hard agree.
Coolness for incompetence?
Yet that same French Command was composed entirely of WW1 veterans, many of them highly decorated. These people had all seen the wrong end of a cannon. It is not the courage or grit of the Gamelins that is in question, but the simple competence of those who rose to the top in a peacetime army culture that overvalued "cran" (roughly, guts), unquestioning adherence to the chain of command and a boastful patriotism - and undervalued technical knowledge, flexibility and imagination. There's a lesson there.
@@kenoliver8913 I totally agree with you. My input was solely related to a single aspect of a very complex scenario, but what you mention is quite relevant. To support your claim in terms of battlefield technologies and awareness; for example the French High Command was very interested in how the Spanish Civil War was fought, but drew the wrong lessons (very slow tank attacks supported by infantry and not appreciating the value of close air support). Instead of the cult of the offensive of 1914, this was a cult of the defense, but to a calcified level. Independent tank divisions were seen as anathema by some (not all). And at the civilian government, instead of the unified government of WWI, the French had a divided government, which included brazen traitors and acolytes of the Germans, just to see the left wing being ruined.
France had 102 (?) divisions , the Belgians had 22 (?) and the BEF had 10 to 13 .
The French solders fought well , but lost because the French Generals were beyond useless .
In particular , Gamelin believed it would take 10 days for the German Army to get through the Ardennes ,
so he moved his best troops to west coast to link up with the Dutch and Belgians on the west coast .
As such , there was no reserve .
Gamelin set up his HQ near Paris , a 100 miles from the front , and relied on dispatch riders for communications .
French Generals were required to follow a central chain of command , and were not allowed to make decisions on their own .
So in a nut shell , there was a complete intelligence , communications and command structure failure by the French Generals .
Also , in order to maintain their neutrality prior to May 10th , 1940 , the Belgian's refused to co operate with the French .
.
I think the French army fought poorly. All of them. There are some exceptions.
I think it’s convenient to say the army fought well and blame some
Old worn out generals. But analysis misses key points. 1) the German army had a strong aggressive and unifying ideology 2) French army was badly politicized and divided. Socialist pacifists had a strong influence among troops. Bloch who was there saw this. 3) German army had a major victory in their pocket
-Poland- and this experience is highly motivating. 4) command system was too Slow. Goes way beyond poor generals.
@@edmundcowan9131well you think very bad and you should start to read historians instead of some politicians.
The soldier is not to blame. But the upper generals are. Gamelin in particular.
@@edmundcowan9131You’re so right.
French military rifle for sale. Never been fired, only dropped once.
Thanks for another fantastic documentary. In all these years there has never been a bad one.
My grandfather who served in a French anti-aircraft unit shot down two Messerschmitt BF109. He noted in a diary the movements of his regiment during May and June, a diary that I am lucky to have, with a few photos including one English (unidentified) bomber destroyed in a field near the Belgian border. in two months the Germans lost more than 1000 planes, which they will lack for the Battle of England. I like to think that my grandfather contributed in his modest way to the final victory of the allies
In his own words, seeing entire villages in flames was a terrifying vision. His unit was demobilized at the armistice, he was not a prisoner of war. And he lived a happy life after that terrible times.
Your grandfather was very blessed. Many French soldiers were not sent home
Its always intereTing hearing the stories of lesser known soldiers
The English also lost about 450 planes while defending France and they had a huge problem with fighter aircraft until the end of July i believe. Luckily the higher ups figured it out last minute and started producing them in greater quantities
Jesse really is one of the best historical presenters on TH-cam - love his presentations - clear, concise and always on point!
Very interesting. Never knew about the 2nd BEF landing.
What is often forgotten/overlooked is another later evacuation of troops from Cherbourg.
yeah the "second" dynamo is also something we learned about during the research for this
The 2nd BEF evacuation is discussed in Major General Julian Thompson's book " Dunkirk : Retreat to Victory "
Which explains the Battle of France from the BEF perspective .
Also , Historian James Holland has the only complete explanation of the famous halt order I've ever read .
However , I've pieced together the halt order elsewhere in the discussions here.
16:21 Circa May 26 - 28th , 1940 - British War Cabinet Crisis . The initial estimate given to the British War Cabinet was that only 45,000 solders could be evacuated . Facing the lost of most of the BEF , Lord Halifax wanted to explore negotiating terms with Hitler , via the Italians . Over the next few days , there were a series of heated meetings with the war cabinet . Churchill did an end round on Lord Halifax and was able to convince the 25 member outer cabinet to keep fighting .
.
@@realtimehistory 17:04 " Churchill has ordered 300,000 fresh British troops to France ... "
Jessie , Could you check this ? After the sickle cut , there were over 140,000 BEF solders remaining south of the Somme , including the 51st Highland Division and the 1st armoured division that disembarked at Cherourg
between May 15th to 19th .
General Allan Brooke arrived at Cherbourg on June 13th , to be in charge of 4 fighting BEF divisions ,
but by this time the 51st Highland Division had already been captured .
Over the phone , Brooke was able to convince Churchill to initiate the second BEF evacuation .
.
.
@@landsea7332 'Brooke was able to convince Churchill to initiate the second BEF evacuation.' True, but only after meeting with General Weygand, who told him on 14 June that the French army was no longer capable of 'Organised resistance.'
I didn't know of other smaller BEF evacuations till Indy Neidell mentioned it. Cause Dynamo is the most famous
A great video. A story of the Battle of France that often gets overlooked is the Siege of Calais, where a small and under equipped British force, supported by men of the French Army and Navy, delayed the advance of the German 10th Panzer Division on Dunkirk.
And Lille, on the road to Dunkirk, where the remnants of the french 1st army, encircled, fought for a week, blocking the logistical route to Dunkirk, until they had exhausted their supplies.
Well, " small and under equipped British force" is their fault alone. In 1940 Britain was the largest Empire in the world, with the largest military spending as well.
So why would they be small and under-equipped?
@@andrew3203 Why would they be small and under-equipped? What an uneducated question. Possibly because they had a huge Empire to defend across the globe. You forget that in 1940 the British Army was in Singapore/Malaysia, Arabia, East Africa, North Africa, India, etc.
It's called the "British Expeditionary Force", not "The Entire British Military". Do you know what 'Expeditionary' means? Probably not so I'll get the definition for you:
"“the ability to deploy task-organised forces on short notice to austere locations, and capable of conducting operations immediately."
They couldn't just fast-travel troops from Malaysia along with tanks, aircraft and artillery in 30 days. Even if they could, then who would defend Malaysia? Think about it.
@@ethanwashington60 I do think about it.
The British could have had 1000 Matilda tanks if they melted down a WW1 dreadnought for the steel.
@@andrew3203lmao you really think you can 1000 tanks out of a single dreadnought? and where are the men to staff them coming from?
Its worth pointing out that De Gaul was broadcasting from London, because he escaped a French arrest warrant on the RAF plane allocated to Churchill. With the resignation of the French Prime Minister he lost his authority as Deputy Defence Minister and his right to liaise with the British Government. That the French High-Command wanted to arrest him as soon as that happened is a measure of the severity of French political in-fighting that had taken place during this phase of the war.
To understand the situation in which France was in May 1940, I can only recommend a video on TH-cam "L'appel du 18 juin" by Cinéma Cinémas, with subtitles.
You guys have really outdone yourself! Congrats on the excellent work.
thank you very much!
If I'm not mistaken, during the battle of France, Panzer III still had a 37mm gun, the 50mm coming after in 1941
Wikipedia says "In both the Polish and French campaigns, the Panzer III formed a small part of the German armoured forces. Only a few hundred Panzer III Ausf. As to Fs were available in these two campaigns, with most being armed with the 37 mm (1.46 in) main gun."
So if there were 50mm armed tanks, they were in the minority.
The German armour was completely outclassed by the French Char B, unfortunately the French did not deploy them in concentrations to have a great effect. Char B was a very underrated tank in the early stages of the War.
It shows that the Germans didn't plan to conquer the world, but merely to end a war that was declared on them by France. Churchill the drunk on the other hand wanted blood and more war.
@@thebog11- 50mm guns were fitted to the Pz III only after the France campaign. Vaguely recall reading that there were a few prototypes (as few as three) so fitted towards the end of June before the end of the campaign but it’s very unlikely they saw frontline service.
@@sirrathersplendid4825Thanks!
Thanks for this amazing content! There are very few history channels this high in quality featuring historical sources, maps etc
I love this channel. I've been wanting for the rest of the Vietnam War Series but you'll drop a banger like this to hold us over
I love the English Channel
"Renauld asks President Roosevelt for help, but receives only empathy."
Excuse me, I believe the correct terminology is "Thoughts and Prayers."
We have to go back to 1919 and the Treaty of Versailles, when the French claimed that the only way to prevent Germany to invade them again was a permanent occupation of the Rhineland, which was denied to them by the Allies because too harsh. In order to convince the French to give up this clause, the USA promised France they would help if Germany invaded again. That's why Reynaud asked Roosevelt for help. The answer was no.
Southern Ireland is the largest exporter of thought and prayers. They've sent loads of thoughts and prayers to Ukraine, the Russians have no chance.
@@phlm9038 They even promised a defensive alliance, but that was never put into place because the US never ratified the treaty... So the main clause to protect France was lost.
US was not in the war at this time
@@phlm9038, there was a little more to it, as history always proves, some agreements made at the end of some wars are not always very clear, and the US at the time had a large number of German supporters, and some were in Congress at the time, so the Presidents hands were somewhat tied, the American people at the time still remembered the first world War and didn't think it was our fight, so getting involved was not popular in the US, which is why some believe is the reason why the US Government allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, so they could have a reason to enter the war.
Real Time History makes their videos easy to understand ,but also exciting. Thank you. Love studying World War II.
Outstanding as usual. Great channel, no bias just the facts. Well researched and of course the narration and commentary is top notch.
Not enough order crucial facts.Methamphetamine was the main reason for the German speed and for them not losing the war due to the tactics in this battle
@@Rowlph8888 the Germans actually seen the downfall of using amphetamines after France , soldiers took to long to recover etc. But the yanks gave their men triple the dose and extended its use , firstly in North Africa
One of the best facts: Gamelin played war games and concluded an attack through the Ardennes will be too slow because the troops need rest. But the Germans took methamphetamine so they could skip sleeping for several days and achieved their crucial element of surprise. Conclusion: France got beaten by Meth.
A soldier who consumes meth needs much more rest than a normal soldier.
The special forces that attacked Fort Ében-Émael took meth so they could fight for 18 hours without rest. But after that, she needed a week to recover
Meth was used only by special forces, and rarely by drivers. The same is true for allies
They also didn’t waited for their artillery
We’ve experimented with stimulants. I used ephedrine when I was in the US Army but it made me sweat too much using up my water too quickly plus when I came down it was tough.
To be fair, plenty have been beaten by meth.
This is among the best documentaries of the battle of france on TH-cam. Thank you for the great content
1914: "Pfft. What are the Germans gonna do? Go through Belgium?"
1940: "Pfft. What are the Germans gonna do? Go through Belgium?"
1944: "Pfft. What are the Germans gonna do? Go through Belgium?"
Belgium: "Please I just want to live in peace, I hate all of you :("
A few items of interest which the video did not mention. 1. Maurice Gamelin has to bear the lion's share of losing the battle. The French army was supposed to have a reserve force. If available, it would move in as a concentrated force to stop any German breakthrough in its tracks. This reserve was Girard's 7th Army. However, the 7th Army was diverted into an utterly useless diversion on the left flank of the BEF to attempt to aid the Dutch. It was incapable of doing so because of blocked roads and last minute planning. And as a result, the 7th Army achieved nothing whatsover when it should have been the French Army's reserve blocking Kleist's panzers struggling their way through the Ardennes.
2. The Germans used a secret weapon called Pervitin. This was the chemical which enabled German soldiers to go days without sleeping or eating very much and fighting in heavy combat continuously. This was much of the reason for the speed and ferocity of the German attack. Pervitin is a drug we now know as meth-amphetamine. After the campaign, the Wehrmacht suffered some 40,000 fatal casualties from drug withdrawal.
Thank you, you're the only person who mentioned the methamphetamine, which was the most impactful action in this battle.It doesn't matter how efficient, single-minded and committed that the tyranny Germany was under gave the officers compared to the Brits and the French, if they didn't have the methamphetamines they would not have been able to get the speed to demoralise the French or encircle them in time
Without the meth Germany would have been firebombed in the Ardennes and it would have been the decisive blow to an eventual defeat as the allies pushed them back in the long-term, without the need for USA to enter the war
Kinda crazy how this was such a total defeat for France that it legit overshadows the millennium of battles before this lol.
This was all about strategic and tactical brilliance+momentum as the French actually had more tanks too. Looking forward to this one!
Yes the French had more tanks, but no radios in the Tanks to coordinate attacks.
@@georgefalcon14 And according to Eastory, a YTber whom make a mapping video about Western Front 1940, they distributed their tanks across their infantry, just like the Poles did a year ago when Germany invades them!!
@@quangminhnguyen2504To be fair, by this point in history the French were complacent, horrible communication at the front to the commanders, loose formations with the tanks used, and English & French generals who hated eachother, not much the grunt can do with all this against them.
Welllll.... there was 1870 too. And that with 16 mobile divisions less and still at great speed. From a logistical point of view, might even be the more impressive of the two.
@@FrancisFjordCupola
Certainly! The post-Napoleonic Era Prussians were a much improved machine after the reforms following 1806, although 1940 is arguably the most famous collapse of all time given the expectation that they would not only hold their own but invade Germany as what was considered the pre-eminent military power of the continent.
Hope you will do a video on the German invasion of Denmark and Norway one day
fun fact: This is the soft launch on a 1940 series on this channel. Much like with our 1943 videos, we will release them regularly in 2024 and 2025 and then combine them into a multi hour documentary later on. Our 1943 "supercut" will drop in April btw.
Excellent video; well researched, credible statistics, varied sources and well composed graphics. Well done 👍
“Without Dunkirk, there would not have been June 6, 44” Charles of England.
“The heroic resistance of the French army saved the British army, allowing England to continue the war” Winston Churchill.
more like Hitler's decision to not encircle Dunkirk while being only 15 miles away from it because he wanted to take Paris instead.
Nice work, would it be possible to have a video on the 14 days of the Battle of the Alps one day to complete this one.
8:45 I'm a French speaker and "It's everything" was probably mistranslated from "c'est tout" which yes is its literal translation but what it means is "that's all" which would make a lot more sense in the context of the quote
Probably the greatest military disaster we ever had. As bad as the Beresina was, it did not bring neither military occupation ( except for a very brief period in 1815) nor eternal dishonor and last longing military humiliation.
Merci d'avoir rappelé que beaucoup de français se sont quand même battu avec courage ! 😁👍
"Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success." -- Erwin Rommel
The German's only advantage in 1940 was air superiority. And that's more than enough to win.
Air power was important but the French HQ relying on dispatch riders was disastrous . After the Germans got through the Ardennes and across the Meuse the French and British were shocked by the speed on the German advance .They believed they had more time to organise a counter attack
The Germans went around the Versailles treaty. Then used tanks and aircraft in a first ever combined arms attack. The french held a basically static line helped German planners to go around them . The French used tanks for troop support instead of using them for a attack. Anti tank weapons weren't great and German tanks moved faster than artillery which was not as mobile. Hence disaster.
How does this guy seamlessly pronounce German and French words so perfectly in the same sentence? CHEEZ man.🔥🔥🔥
Because he's trilingual.
He´s German, so dial your "cheeez" down 50% . And dial it back up when you realize that his command of English is also amazing.
@@powerdriller4124 He's Canadian, actually.
Hes french@@saint4life09
@@bedoof1He's taiwanese
You guys make the best videos. Seriously, it is very much appreciated.
This is genuinely sad to look at. Poland held out for 35 days despite being attacked from both sides after the 17th day and France held out for only 10 days more despite superior strategic position.
Germany engage twice as many troops and divisions as in Poland, France also has a second front in the Alps and colonies to hold. France chose not to fight needlessly in a large metropolis like Paris so as not to destroy it, unlike Warsaw which suffered greatly. The capture of a well-defended Paris would have taken weeks (look at Lille). A more than shaky comparison
What confuses me most about World War II is how the Germans were able to defend France in 1944/45 better than the French in 1940, even though they were in a worse position.
The Germans defended France better than the French
@@jaaackaissa1633 This is totally false, from the Battle of Falaise and during the summer of 1944 until October it was a walk in the park, almost the entire territory was liberated by the Allies with the exception of pockets of resistance on coastal towns. In 1940 the Germans stopped at the Loire and their logistics were at maximum capacity. The Allies are just stopped by their logistics, the German defense is toughening in Alsace and Lorraine, annexed territories which they judge to be part of their national territory
@@pujo6532
I do not agree with you. How much territory did the allies control in the first six weeks? How many divisions did they destroy in the first six weeks?
The period of time that the military campaign took after the landing of Normandy until the Allied forces entered German territory:
days: 250 days.
weeks: 35 weeks.
months: about 8 months.
The Germans had much greater logistical problems than the Allies, Allied bombing and French resistance attacks
Because of it, the trip of the SS Das Reich division to Normandy took 9 days instead of two days
@@jaaackaissa1633 bruh, the allied front comes from a bridgehead of a few kilometers in the middle of the Norman bocage facing excellent divisions of the SS and the Wehrmacht, the front is ultra tight with a density of troops which limits any breakthrough. Once this is achieved after Cobra and Falaise it is a walk in the park and a speed of progression as rapid or even faster than the Wehrmacht in 1940 without its major clashes like Arras, Stonne, Lille, Dunkirk. France must defend the entire eastern border and the Alps, facing it in 1940 almost the entire Wehrmacht and all the Panzer divisions which, after taking Sedan, pour out onto plains suitable for motorized and armored missions. Stop comparing the incomparable and respect the soldiers of 40 who paid the dear price to defend their country
As the famous Wehraboo Sir Alan Brooke said "The success they have achieved is nothing short of phenomenal. There is no doubt that they are most wonderful soldiers."
Clear my calendar, new @realtimehistory dropped
Is there an AI voice reading the quotes in this one? Why not get Jesse to read them out like usual?
This
Superb video. Thank you.
I think it is fair to say the primary agent in German success was in effective command and control. This was likely helped by the allies absolute lack of command and control at that point in the war
The French C3 was indeed a shambles. The British C3 wasn’t so bad - they’d been working on it since September 39 - but they made the colossal mistake of advancing to defend Belgium with zero prior planning, thereby ripping up all the complex arrangements.
Exceptional command and control but also freedom of tactical initiative that made the German army extremely flexible assessing the local tactical situation.This tactical initiative will progressively vanish during the war making the German army slow, non reactive and in constant retreat.
@@tonyhawk94Correct, the secret is called Auftragstaktik.
Great documentary RTH
Congratulations. A very high quality video.
If Maginot Line had extended around the Belgian border, it might be a different story.
Definitely
Exactly. In october 1936, King Leopold III reaffirmed that Belgium would remain neutral if a new war embraced Europe. To achieve this end, the Belgian government is attempting to withdraw from various alliances and denounced the agreements made within the framework of the Franco-Belgian military agreement. It was a shock for the french goverment. This led to the hasty construction from 1937 to 1940 of a defense front along the Belgian border, but nothing in comparaison beetwen the Maginot Line which took 10 years of construction.
The allies shouldn't have commited into Belgium at all and keep defensive lines on the French border, I hate to say it but it's true
@@sylvananas7923 That is prob true, but what is very often overlooked is that there was a small amount of fortifications all along up to the channel coast that ran parallel, of French guns and emplacements, just not nearly as much as the Maginot line.
@@ChrisCrossClash Oh yeah, people ofte, say that the maginot only bordered germany but it's false, it went from the italian border all the way up towards belgium, but the heaviest fortifications were facing Germany as they were expected to be the next threat to come
The British being mad about the Belgians surrendering is hilarious lol. The British fleeing and leaving her French allies to be occupied makes this so ironic
I think it's a kind of habit. The British gave the retreat order without telling the Norwegians during the Norway campaign.
Also Greece. Also Crete.
Yep, they would have a different attitude if it was their territory from being invaded like the USA. Easy to talk smack when you have an ocean between you and the enemy.
1) The BEF in France numbers at its height a little less than 300,000. The French Army over 3 million.
2) A lot more than 3000,000 troops were pulled off the beach and mole at Dunkirk. Shall I tell you why? Because almost 150,000 of the troops pulled out of Dunkirk were FRENCH.
@@Coconutscott Actually in Greece and Crete not only did the British inform the local Governments, but were specifically advised to withdraw as the situation was untenable. The Greeks were absolutely aware that the British were leaving.
Leopold King of the Belgians would make a great subject for a future vid.
To quote a German Professor, the Germans had an inferior military, inferior in numbers, inferior in quality. Most German tanks were tracked machine guns. Most effective weapon was the 88 mm artillery. What they had was superior strategy, dynamic leadership. The Manstein Plan had surprise, deception and speed. The Germans won the Battle of France in 3 days & 3 nights when the crossed River Meuse and reached Sedan.
That professor obviously knew nothing about the each armies strength to call the German army "inferior in numbers and quality".
@@RouGeZH Germany had fuel for a few weeks of war. Lucky their armor uses gasoline that could be filled at French gasoline stations. Ammo and bombs for a few weeks of hi intensity war.
This is grossly exagerated but i agree that the war was nearly lost in three days unless a miracle.Germany had a superior airforce,the best anti aircraft and the most efficient radio communications.They had a war experience which has been crucial to promote the best officers in charge and reform the incompetent ones.It had greatly helped them to improve their logistics,tactics and capacities of combined manoeuvers.An invasion on western front in 1939 would have failed without the experience gained notably in Poland.
France had superior artillery,more powerful tanks but in lower numbers(FT17 are totally obsolete and not meant at all to serve on front line).They had well trained active troops,pilots and decent reserve,usually better trained than their german counterparts.France had also many awesome prototypes and new weapons from all kind with a technical edge.
I would be more cautious to compare the generals.All the great generals from the french expeditionnary force come from the 1940 army.Replace Gamelin by Prételat and the german would have failed to cross la Meuse which mean loosing the war.
@@Doverlicht You are right... the humiliating defeat of WWI and the Germans think different. They got rid of the old geezers and got innovators. Manstein was their great strategist. Guderian developed threir mobile armored war concepts. The airfare had great developers. Navy had Donitz. However, they lacked in the concept of Grand Strategy that involves politics, economy and war as last resort.
Kiitos!
1. French army didnt have the stomach for a fight
2. British and French armies were reacting in terms of WWI type strategies. Their tanks supported their infantry, not the other way around
3. They believed the Germans would attack in a predictable manner, which they did not
4. Neither Britain nor France had any truly adequate preparations, nor took the risk of a German attack seriously. Neville Chamberlain even asked Montgomery, a division commandee at the time when visiting the front "do you really think they'll attack?"
5. Complete ineptitude in air power. Britain's best squadrons being stationed in Britain at the time could've been put to better use in France, although the fact that they were in England meant they later saved the English from invasion.
6. Complete lack of modern communications equipment and tactical handling of their armies in the field, which the Germans had no such weakness
While I agree with most of your points, the first part of point number 5 is just plain incorrect. The RAF in France was hampered by mutliple factors such as operating out of makeshift and unsuitable airfields with poor logistical support, but the MOST important factor was that they were defending on foreign territory and under foreign command and control (or more accurately complete LACK of command and control). The absence of French interwar air defence planning and expenditure meant that unlike during the "battle of Britain" where our defending air forces were excellently managed and marshalled through the use of the British developed "Dowding system", the allied air forces in France 1940 were operating using the same failed "standing patrol" strategy that had seen the Polish air force wiped out in days. The feeding of more and more RAF fighter squadrons into France was a simple waste of resources that would NOT have had ANY effect on the ground war and would have denuded the UK's own defence, as was well known by ACM Dowding.
I don't think that the French rearguard action has EVER been properly acknowledged.
Let me point out a small mistake: As far as I am aware, the Panzer III model mainly used during the invasion of france was Ausf. E. The panzer III has not been equipped with a 5cm gun before Ausf. F. Hence, most of the Panzer III used in France must have been equipped with the 3.7 cm.
The full run of 96 Pz III Ausf E built between Dec 1938 till Oct 1939 were wholly equipped with the 3.7cm KwK L 46.5.
435 Pzkfpw III F were produced between Sept 1939 and July 1940. Of that number 335 were armed with the 3.7cm KwK L 46.5 but 100 were uparmed with the 50mm KwK L 42 with external mantlet, before production started to transition to the Ausf G in April 1940, so a sizeable minority of Pz IIIs that took part in the French campaign were equipped with the 50mm.
Great video. For anyone who finds the fall of France fascinating, check out the episode "France Falls" of the (superb) "World at War" documentary; you can find it on TH-cam. It provides context and firsthand interviews and accounts of the state of the French nation and army at the start of the war.
great documentary series. Just take Albert Speer's account with some grains of salt and generally German officers too.
Well done. Concise yet fairly comprehensive. You have taken pains to pronounce French and German names and locations correctly. - Thankyou for this presentation.
Superb presentation! I'm surprised that I am here commenting as 'early' as I am.
Another fantastic episode.
On another note, no notification and doesn't show up in my subscription list.
Because the belgian king Leopold ordered his army to surrender without bothering to tell anyone else leaving a 100km hole in the allied lines.
This content is worth more than pure gold
One of the worst defeats in history becomes more about how Hitler allowed the British to escape at Dunkirk. France was routed in 6 weeks and Britian was driven off of the continent.
It has no effect on the war
Without America the British could not do anything
@@WingkKong There was the Empire, dear boy.
@@japhfo the truth was the British already has no fighting power after First World War
"Hitler allowed the British to escape" did he? That's not what his direct "Fuhrer order" that he issued to OKW (German armed forces high command) said, I'll even provide you with the preamble to his order.
The Leader And Supreme Commander Of The Armed Forces.
OKW Headquarters. 24th May, 1940. 7 copies
Directive No. 13
1. The next object of our operations is to annihilate the French, English, and Belgian forces which are surrounded in Artois and Flanders, by a concentric attack by our northern flank and by the swift seizure of the Channel coast in this area.
The task of the Air Force will be to break all enemy resistance on the part of the surrounded forces, to prevent the escape of the English forces across the Channel, and to protect the southern flank of Army Group A.
It appears you have NO idea of what you're talking about !!!
@@WingkKong As you wish
Incredible what role the difference in troop morale and confidence played.
I was always fascinated by this part of the war. I just loved the French tanks, especially the S-35.
Great job as always. I would really like to see you guys delve into the end of the Holy Roman Empire. There is so little out there about that important event.
in 1938, General André-Gaston Prételat conducted wargames at Sedan. "The result was a defeat of so comprehensive a nature that the wisdom of publishing it was questioned lest morale be damaged." Prételat estimated that the Germans would take 60 hours to reach the Meuse and take one day to cross it. This estimate was to prove inaccurate by just three hours; the Germans achieved the Meuse crossing after just 57 hours.
Long live Pervitin!
That is absolutely true. In fact, if I recall correctly, there was actually a retreat for one of the generals that had no lines of communication. Communication and the lack there of what is a major factor.
At around th 13:40 mark our narrator explains why the Germans paused their attack, at Dunkirk. He leaves out the most interesting explanation... Speed... Amphetamines... The spearhead soldiers had appeared tireless because they were hopped up on amphetamines. Amphetamine high comes to an end, and then you crash. Amphetamines left those soldiers exhausted
The voiceovers sound just like the briefings on 90s RTS games :D
thanks!!
Brilliant Video once again. Interesting new tank visualisation tool :)
Modern war in a nutshell. You either achieve total victory in a few weeks or get mired in a long meatgrinder that pressures all facets of your society.
I see Real Time History upload a new video.
I then go to Nebula to watch the video there instead.
To quote arnold rimmer, "the side with the shortest haircut always wins"
Crazy to think of how the french were part of so many wars and decisice moments in militairy history like the celts fighting the romans in bibracte, carl the great forming a imperium, battle of agincourt, the 100y wars against england, the napoleonic wars, the franco- prussian war and finally the first world war.
They did this all while being widely known tough and proud warriors. Just to get demolished by the Wehrmacht in 46 days. No wonder they were spiritually weak after that and nowadays everybody thinks they're cowards raising the withe flag as soon as seeing enemies.
Always learn something new!
really nice, this is what i call a history channel 👍
Thanks
This is the best battle of France film doc I have seen, it also includes material probably banned in Britain
When the French and British bark behind the fence and do nothing as Poland is partitioned. Even with their numerical superiority, the static nature of the allied military doctrine juxtaposed to the German military leadership was adaptable, competitive and cunning. This also severely crippled their ability to mount an effective counter offensive. Luckily the miracle of Dunkirk saved a massive chunk of the British army. Excellent breakdown and i always love this channels dedication to accurate and in depth history ❤
Surrendering the initiative is always a bad idea.
A siege mentality is ultimately self defeating.
The French did nothing when Poland was invaded because they couldn't.
The French started to be reasonably well re-equiped only in the spring of 1940.
Before that point, they were utterly unprepared, lacking just about everything necessary for a strong offensive and even more so sustained operations.
The re-equipment and reorganisation process in the French army was 1 to 2 years late, and when the Germans attacked on 10th May, the French army was right in the middle of that process, with units receiving new tanks and aircraft every week, with ongoing training etc.
The French HC had estimated that process would be complete by mid-1941.
Between April and June 1940, French war production managed to exceed that of the Germans in tanks and aircraft, but it was too late, they could not be delivered to units in time, units had no training time on their new machines and vast quantities of brand new machines just remained in army depots and were then snatched by the Germans after the campaign.
The Allied numerical superiority was meaningless as there was no unified command and they weren't working together.
@@Raph1805 👍
"When the French and British bark behind the fence and do nothing as Poland is partitioned"
The fence was 800km wide.
When looking at the forces what really stands out to me is that Germany has MASSIVE advantage in air power. Which is much more important than infantry, tanks or artillery. So it might actually not be much of a mystery or hard to figure out why Germany succeeded.
Classic analysis. Nothing to complain about overall. However, you should have emphasized one point much more.
In Sedan, the French divisions corresponded to the last ones of the French Army, in terms of combat capacity (age of troops, reservists, equipment, etc.).
Facing them, the Germans have intelligently placed their elite units (the GrossDeutschland for example).
Add to that the incompetence of General Huntzinger, and the massive presence of the Luftwaffe, and it is a miracle that the Germans took so long to break through.
Exactly this. Huntzinger deserves huge blame. The defenses weren't completed at that area. And he sent his local reserves to protect his right flank, instead of the center at Sedan itself which was being attacked.
@@pax6833 Exactly. And out of sympathy, I will not quote his remark when one of his subordinates suggested that he send some aerial reconnaissance missions to the Ardennes...
Great video, one of the best detailed description about battle of France which i have seen👍👍👍its such a shame that you cant post all your videos because youtube demotizes them, its absurd, its ridicilous!!! Thats history! I hope this will change one day, awesome job guy's.
The battle of France was a stunning humiliation for the French and British. That they could turn it into a movie of 'Romantic defeat' in Dunkirk is unbelievable.
Getting 300,000 men across the channel off the back of German blitzkrieg offensive whilst also slowing and delaying it is impressive
@@kansazkid in Churchill's words, wars are not won by retreat. A superior force in numbers, equipment and resources was spectacularly defeated by an smaller, less well equiped, but better lead, innovative and proactive force. That is the achievement!
@@kalomboCA retreat can prevent you from losing the war though. Dunkirk was an amazing success for what it was trying to achieve and in preventing the capture of the BEF allowed Britain to stay in the war which was key to the Allies eventual victory.
@@CB-fz3li "in preventing the capture of the BEF allowed Britain to stay in the war which was key to the Allies eventual victory"
Even that was not guaranteed. Britain was running out of resources and didn't know how long they could go on fighting :
"The date 22 August 1940 is one of the most significant yet least famous in British history. It is the day on which the war cabinet faced the fact that Britain would shortly cease to be an independent power in the world. Whatever the outcome of the battle being fought by the Spitfires and Hurricanes of RAF Fighter Command in the skies over Kent and Sussex, within three or four months either Britain would become a dependency of the United States or it would have to seek peace from a victorious Germany. The reality of Britain's position in the summer of 1940 was very different both from the contemporary rhetoric and the subsequent mythology. This complete collapse of British power was well hidden from the public behind an outward show of independence and determination....". "1940 Myth and Reality" by Clive Ponting.
In others words, if the United States had refused to financially help the UK, the latter would have been forced to seek for peace with Germany.
Yes wars are also won by retreat. Napoleon and Germany couldn't defeat russia due to retreat by Russia@@kalomboC
8:24 "Their eyes glow with hate when they speak of England" i do confirm this statement being true, at least for some french soldiers.
My great grandfathers who fought as tanker and artillery officer in the french army both hated the Brits more then they hated the Germans.
If only history had played out differently. I think this world would be much better than it is now.
So well done. Love your voice, perfect combination!
Thanks.
Best channel out there
dont forget : 100 000 Kia and 300 000 wounded in six weeks of fight ! a losses ratio per day upper than Verdun or Stalingrad.
Can we appreciate the insanity of the Marshall actually believing is that the union with the United Kingdom was actually them trying to make a play for French colonies. The absolute arrogance of French leadership never ceases to amaze.
I blame the incompetence of the French politicians to fully commit to the war like in 1914. France lost a perfect chance to invade Germany while it was engaged in Poland, and then led their army disastrously. France was as ready to war than as in 1914, but unlike then, the French Government betrayed it's own people. I have no doubt that France could have stopped the German advance if properly led.
Tbf they’re French so you can’t expect much
@@SaintThomasAquinas1 I don't know why interesting videos are always ruined by such comments. You should read "1940 Myths and Reality" by Clive Ponting and I am sure you would laugh less 😅.
Neither the French nor the British were ready for an offensive war in 1939. They still had WW1 in mind. For the French, WW1 was "la der des der" (the last one). The British had the "appeasement policy" between the two world wars. The French began the Saar offensive in September 1939 which lasted 10 days but they stumbled on the Siegfried Line, the equivalent of the Maginot Line in Germany. On 17 September, Gamelin gave the order to withdraw French troops to their starting positions. The last of them left Germany on 17 September, the day of the Soviet invasion of Poland. The French lost about 2,000 troops during this operation due to the fact that the Germans had placed mines everywhere.
To bookend Marc Bloch's STRANGE DEFEAT, I highly recommend Ernest May's STRANGE VICTORY (2000). May's thesis can be summed this way: the Allies, and especially the French, badly misjudged German intentions. And the misjudgment proved to be fatal. I think RTH's video captures some of that misjudgment in its analysis.
The Alliais didn't lose France. The French lost France.
Correction the French government surrendered not the French people!
@@jamesdean9943 I like that response!
Great video! Love it! Added to my playlist!
This is a remarkably complete account of the FALL OF FRANCE, including correct and revealing information on who really balked the panzers short of Dunkirk. I became aware of the story after reading Ernest R. May's STRANGE VICTORY (strange in that the Germans prevailed over superior quantity and quality of French and British men and equipment). I also grew up in the 60s and 70s when memories of Dunkirk were fresh on everyone's mind. The epic British movie THE SNOW GOOSE for that era is on TH-cam. It's interesting that the Germans lost 45,000 KIA in the campaign --- almost exactly the same number of KIA they lost in 1944 as they retreated across France back to their borders under American, British, and Canadian assaults, including massive bombing. They held the 2,000,000 French, Belgian, and Dutch prisoners until the Germans surrendered in 1945. Thus inflicting a horror of separation on Frenchmen from their families that lasted five years. The Germans needed to feel the horror of war on their soil by Allied bombing and Soviet occupation to remind them of how the terror they inflicted on the peoples they attacked feels when inflicted on them.
Superb content❤
Obwohl ich diesen Feldzug mir schon mehrmals angeschaut habe, ist es immer noch schockierend wie die Franzosen so deklassiert worden. Immerhin haben sie sich den Verlust ihres militärisches Ansehen gut verdient.
Ach ja? Wo ist die Ehre und das Ansehen des Deutschen Heeres.geblieben? Begraben unter ungezählten Kriegsverbrechen und der Unterwerfung unter den Wahnsinn Hitlers der Deutschland in die totale Niederlage und grösste Katastrophe unserer Geschichte führte.
Ty for uploading
The voice over for historic quotes is very distracting. I loved Jesse saying them in the past.
Agreed. Jesse's Xhosa accent during the Boer war episode was amazing
Agreed.