After 44 days of fighting, the Battle of France seems to come to an end. For the Germans at least. For the French, the war goes on with Italy. And for us, it goes on as well. These were one of the most exciting videos for us to produce so far. We tried to take the videos to the next level with more and better maps (shoutout to Eastory: everyone who reads this should subscribe to his channel: ) and more animations. In general, we aim to constantly increase our production quality, which we humbly think is succeeding bit by bit. However, this wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for the support of those who financially aid us on www.patreon.com/timeghosthistory or on our own website timeghost.tv. Without them, we wouldn't be doing any of this. If you like what we're doing, please consider supporting us as well! Cheers, Joram
that plane sound in the intro seems a bit wonky, I look forward to new stuff with your new editor edit: make the plane sound end with the boom, so it sounds more like a bombing run/crash
I hope you guys do a series on the evolution of mobile warfare after first world war up to the second world war. By the way, Thank you guys for the videos. They are truly informative and exceptional.
It's fantastic that you put in actual radio broadcasts, they are used brilliantly! I also can't help but admire the dedication of the Polish units that continue the fight from the west.
Well they will continue to fight throughout the whole war, the only nation besides Germany who saw active combat from the first day to the very last of the war
@@hubertozga2588 technically that was the sino japanese war since 1937, japan officially was involved in the 2. WW since dec. 1941, but I see your point and there is an argument to be made.
an excellent episode, very well articulated. If I remember correctly De Gaulle writes "La France n'est pas seule, elle a un vaste empire derrière elle." (France is not alone ... she has a vast empire behind her.); but he will have to start from central Africa, not northern Africa. One of the darkest hours for the Allies, as Churchill says.
Between 18-22 of June the Brits takes 4 Swedish ships that was in Faroe Islands that Sweden has purchased from the Italians. Which will be called "Psilanderaffären"
In WW1, the brits stole a tukish ship the ottomans had bought from Brazil, and that led to the ottomans joining the central powers and Gallipoli.Was probably not worth it. It was the HMS Agincourt BTW, which they also named in a way that spites their own allies.
@@ТомасАндерсон-в1е Polish most important officers included Anders, Rommel (in fact, Rómmel, but still), Berling (some Polish people now call him treator, because hi fought by the side of the Red Army...), Unrug. All of these had foreign ancestry, but none of these sided with Germans.
The Italians were dreadful in WWII. In North Africa they inspired a parody of one of Churchill's most famous phrases. "Never in the field of human conflict has so much been surrendered, by so many, to so few."
During the signing of the ceasefire, a german general is laughing out loud French general : "if you please... we're here to discuss terms of surrender, not to trade insults" German general : "mein appologies sir. I've just read reports of the italian offensive in the Alps"
The battle of the alps was not the comic opera fiasco its often portrayed, our forces did not have the choice of flancking the maginot, and we breacked trhough it, thing that the germans couldnt.
@@martijn9568 yes, but that doesnt mean that the operation was a disaster, as i said, we breacked trhough the maginot in the alps!the germans couldn breack it in more favorable terrain, its just that the biased portrayal of a comic opera was all that italy did during the war and its nothing but brittish propaganda that has endured till today, and the invasion of france had an objective. To recover the province of savoy, the lands of the kings of italy that was stoled by the french.
@@eugenioderevell3826 stoled? It was an agreement between napoleon the 3rd and Victor emmanuel II and also the people voted. It was a willing exchange .
TheStephaneAdam Those losses might soon create a real problem soon for the Germans if they were planning to fight any sustained air campaigns soon in the coming future...
@@gunman47 Oh I'm sure it's going to be fiiiiine. Surely Germany expected those losses and made sure their economy is geared towards war production and the training of competent pilots...
@@TheStephaneAdam No issues at all. Britain will surely come to the peace table now that France is gone. There will be no need for those lost planes, the war is over.
He had certain knack for doing that, despite speech impediment and a voice that should put anyone listening to sleep - guess it's just great writing. He did after all get a Nobel Price in Literature.
@@WorldWarTwo I don't know about a speech impediment - his was an accent typical of the British upper class in the 19th century - he was born in 1874. At school he paid special attention to mastery of English - he lacked aptitude in the Classics which tended to be emphasized, but for a political career it was eloquent English he needed more. Even decades after Churchill's school experiences, Alan Turing came close to being expelled because his Latin and Greek were so bad - he was a mathematical near-genius even at school but in the public school system of England that did not count.
It should be mentioned that losing planes, the machines themselves, aren't that big of a deal. Losing the expert pilots that were flying them however, is very bad.
Luftwaffe lost a lot of trained air crews during invasion lof Low Countries and France BUT German pilots and crews who parachuted out and captured by French after landing safely were released back and they resumed their war duties (in comparison two million French POWs remained as German prisoners and slave labour for five years) Churchill remarked that we had to shoot them all over again over Britain. Especially loss of so many JU-52 transport craft with instructor pilots flying during airlandings over Low Countries was extremey damaging to Luftwaffe
@@frankiefierro7129 Several hundred German paratroopers captured in the Netherlands had been quickly transferred to England and they stayed in captivity for the rest of the war and these élite troops were lost to the German war effort. Probably the British suggestion had the same motive and indeed trained aircrew are precious whereas planes can quickly be replaced.
Cue at least one year of British nostalgia as our poky island nation holds out against the wrath of Nazism alone for the most part ;) On a serious note, I am always deeply humbled by the contributions of citizens of the Commonwealth and other European nationalities who came to our aid at this difficult time. I sincerely hope there is a special episode dedicated to them in the near future. Also, Churchill has been mentioning America a lot lately. Can't imagine why...
"Churchill has been mentioning America a lot lately." I wonder how many viewers gave a knowing smile when that line was uttered. I would like to echo the acknowledgement of the role commonwealth nations played.
We should've accepted peace in 1940 or 1941. The Germans offered multiple times. Instead we followed that warmonger Churchill and his backers, wasting the lives of good men and for what? To hand over half of Europe to the Soviets anyway, to hand over what remained of our national wealth and prestige to the new American Empire? World War One was an even larger mistake for our people but getting involved on the continent yet again really did finish us off as a global power. I've never understood why we'd want to celebrate any of this, I just shake my head. We could have just let the Fascists and Communists fight it out, selling weapons to both sides then dominated whatever weakened side remained. Britain could have made a massive resurgence in global standing. We really were led down the garden path by Churchill and co. I think the cult surrounding him, and the war in general, is there because we simply cannot admit to ourselves that the Second War was a mistake of calamitous proportions.
But Nazism is the only *objectively evil* ideology that got as powerful as Nazi Germany did. At least if you ignore European colonialism... Seriously though. I don't care what you think about Capitalism, Communism, or Colonialism, Nazism is *EVIL.* And one thing people like doing is being the hero against the evil people. Also, The British Empire losing a war? Preposterous! We never have and never will!
Aquila Tempestate What would peace in 1940 on Hitlers terms meen to France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland and the other nations invaded and occupided by the Nazis?
Aquila Tempestate Without Britain, Germany would have probably won WW1... meaning that Germany would have become a powerful global empire, eventually ending up fighting with Britain anyways. Without Britain, either Germany or the Soviet Union (my money on the USSR) would have conquered all of Europe... so Britain would have ended up becoming relatively irrelevant compared to the US or to an even stronger Nazi Germany/USSR in any case.
I've been watching WWI and WWII in real time for the last four years. You slowly get used to that routine. Yet hearing about the invasion of my home city of Dijon right at the start made me shiver. I knew it was the 79th anniversary but clearly wasn't expecting to see it talked about on RU-vid. Everything after that seemed strangely more vivid and real than usual.
History becomes more alive when it's about something personal or close to you. I know how hearing your own city being mentioned can make you realise that. Thanks for sticking with us!
And slightly less than four years later, Chuikov, late of the Stalingrad battle, is sitting in Berlin. German general Krebs has come over to talk terms - it is May 1 and Hitler killed himself the previous day. Krebs proposes a salute to May Day, the holiday of both the German and the Soviet peoples. Chuikov replies that it is a Soviet holiday - 'how it is for you over there is more difficult to say.' Krebs departs and shortly after, kills himself as well.
@@gunman47 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5F6e9mI1bGU.html (Amusingly, that movie was released in 1938 with great fanfare, suddenly disappeared from theaters the day the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed, and then put back in theaters after the German invasion with no announcement as if it had never been absent. You just have to love the commitment of Soviet Communism to truth and free expression. I guess Eisenstein and Prokofiev were lucky they didn't spend that interval in a vacation camp in Siberia!)
@@brucetucker4847 Some Nazis also found the pact disorientating, as they were used to propaganda about the USSR being a Judeo-Bolshevik hellhole. The Wehrmacht propaganda magazine "Signal" ran an article in 1940 on the alleged tradition of Russian-German friendship. Then in its July 1941 issue, things changed...
21-06-1940 Janusz Kusociński Olympics Champion of 1932 was murdered in Palmiry massacre, along with over 358 Polish politicians, lawyers, scholars just in that day.
Even some anti-Semitic Polish fascists were killed - the Germans allowed some space for indigenous fascism elsewhere, notably in France, but in Poland any form of Polish nationalism was unacceptable. Polish collaborators usually claimed to be ethnic Germans.
I'm not British, I'm not European, and I'm not usually emotional, but Churchills excerpt from 4:11 hit real different, especially the last part, I caught some real feels... like holyshit wow.
I am not Brit or nor European either (actually my country -its ex version was attacked by Entante in 1915 due to Churchill's one of ill planned schemes. ) But I admire the man especially his struggle between 1934-45 era. He saw the danger , tried to warn everyone and tried his best to fight with it.
@@mvrosa8704 Bengal Famine caused by severe cyclone season in 1941-1942 which ruined crops in Madras and Bengal , Japanese invasion of Burma and Indochina where usually extra rice stocks imported from before the war (Japanese invasion cut them off) , incompatence of local Raj colonial regime and local Indian and British officials and local Rajas who bungled relief supply organisation and turned to black marketing and wartime shippiing shortage. None of them can be attributed Churchill. It is true he made same rude inconsidered remarks about Gandhi and worsening conditions in Raj but he did not start neither plan nor order it.
Mussolini famously said that he only needed a few hundred heroic dead. So he could sit down at the peace negotiations and stake his claims with 'honour'. I'm very much paraphrasing there. But still. What a crazy world.
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 I know but what I meant was the situation with Austria-Hungary. I wont downplay the war efforts of Italy or Austria Hungary but we gotta be real. They were not really ready for a world war. And Italy had an alliance with Germany before WWI if Im not mistaken. Ty though for reminding me to explain.
Loyal Wehraboo yes Italy and German did have treaty, but only in case of an attack on either party. Neither German or Italy were that prepared for WW2, although Germany had a stronger army they didn't have the resources for a prolonged war; the Italians had neither a strong army or the resources for even a short war.
QUICK SUMMARY 16.6. Soviet troops occupy all three Baltic states. 17.6. German troops in France near the Swiss border, RMS Lancastria is sunk whilst serving as a troopship (3,000 - 5,000 dead). 20.6. Lyons and Vichy fall to the Germans. 21.6. Italian offensive in the Alps begins without much progress. 22.6. The French-German armistice is signed, giving Germany access to all of the French Atlantic and Channel ports, but maintaining a French state to deny the British use of the French colonial forces.. QUICK RECAP 10.6. Norway surrendered to Germany, Italy declared war on France and Britain, Canada declared war on Italy, the Italian invasion of France began. 11.6. Italian Airforce bombed Port Sudan and Aden, the Siege of Malta began, RAF bombs Turin and Genoa, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa declared war on Italy. 12.6. HMS Calypso was sunk by an Italian submarine (39 dead), the Soviet Union sent an ultimatum to Lithuania, demanding territory and a new government. 13.6. Paris was declared an open city. 14.6. French navy shelled Genoa and Vado, Paris had fallen. 15.6. Soviet troops occupied Vilnius.
Germany could produce a lot of more airplanes that the United Kingdom since, and it eventually did in 1943-1944, but they were very lazy in the beginning.
@@brucetucker4847 Hard to wage a total war against countries that have the resources needed for war production within their own borders. Lots of Tanks, trucks, planes and with much larger populations.
Thank you very much! It's the amazing support from our viewers and patrons that makes it possible to use the historical footage! And we're very happy with Indy ;)
June 22 this year will also be the 78th anniversary of the beginning of Germany's invasion of Russia. But, of course, we'll have to wait till next year for the channel to discuss this hahaha
Just before that, on June 19, Soviet archaeologists will exhume the body of Tamerlane, the famous Mongol conqueror, from his tomb in Samarkand. In his casket was found an inscription reading (as translated) "Whomsoever opens my tomb shall unleash an invader more terrible than I."
@@luxembourgishempire2826 Russia, USSR, who cares?! Soviet or tzarist, it basically was still Russian empire, even Soviet anthem stated what USSR was - "Russia has gathered a union to last for ages". Besides there was Russia as a part of USSR - РСФСР (Российская Советская Федеративная Социалистическая Республика) - Russian Soviet Socialist Federate Republic, like all other "republics" incorporated in Soviet "Union".
You could have mentionned that De Gaulle, supported by Reynaud, proposed two options to continue the war : 1) retreat toward Britanny to manage a narrower front, while still being close to the UK allowing reinforcements or evacuting to Great Britain if things went bad. He called it the "réduit Breton" and was favorable to this option. 2) Reform the governement in Algiers, evacuate as many soldiers to North Africa as possible and continue the fight from the colonies, backed by the navy. Actually, several politicians and officers in favor of continuing the war did embarked aboard a ship to Algeria with the mission of preparing the foundations of a new governement there but while they were at sea, they learned about the armistice and when arriving in Algeria they were arrested by Vichy authorities, emprisoned and judged as "cowards and traitors"...
Italy was pretty unlucky geographically to attack anyone since every land neighbour is at least partially protected by mountains. Shame they kept trying, really.
Those same mountains would have provided Italy with a good defensive position from which to srcjre neutrality. So does Mussolini do the right/smart thing? Greedy schmuck.
Lt Gruber tells René that different nationalities and ideologies should not come between "real men" - René feels a cold sweat developing although the phrase "gay panic" has not been invented yet...
I seriously LOVE your show and all the work you are doing. Really even after all this years, my admiration for it haven't change a bit. But, and i don't know if it's just me, i don't see many fights (Battle of Stonne, German Sarre offensive, Lille resistance...) where French soldiers were victorious. I just don't want to see their fight and their sacrifices lost into History and just be remembered as cowards who onky know how to surrender.
Thanks a lot for your kind words! We didn't cover all of them, as there were simply too many to mention and not all were as important to the bigger strategic narrative. Nevertheless, I regret that we didn't cover more (as they all deserve it). Still, believe that we kicked the idea that the French were cowards in the nuts big time. We covered the reason behind Frances fall - the lack of competent leadership and communication, extensively. I hope that makes up for the stuff we didn't cover.
@@DiggingForFacts Indeed, I just hope they won't be overlook. And you can also speak about Monte Cassino, the landing in southern france, Kouffra... (there is some)
RU-vid age-restricted some of our video's, but only about 2 or 3 in total. Many get demonetized. Both are bad for recommendation (thus appearing on the front page)
"...that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.' " I think I've got a tear in my eye, this made me proud to be British! Though I am Croatian.
@@mvrosa8704 Actually, the entirety of the British Empire, from beginning to end, lasted a lot longer than the short-lived 12-year Reich. But it did collapse relatively quickly after the end of WW II.
@@ronaldcammarata3422 I am aware of British imperial history. My comment contrasted Churchills 'thousand year' comment to Hitler's similar comment. The irony is amusing, and the arrogance of both men is notable. Do not forget, if you ever knew, that Churchill knowingly induced a famine in India that killed several million.
@@mvrosa8704 I hope that Indy gets to the TRUTH about the Indian famine, which mostly occurred because Japan controlled Burma and the Phillipines rice harvests and blocked into shipments to India.
During last weeks of France campaign before Armistice , Churchill made several trips to France to keep sagging French goverment to keep in fight. No avail though since defeatists who are a generation older and tired more conservative type politicians and soldiers almost captured French goverment chiefly Weygand and Petain. Reynaud the French PM did his best to keep the war effort going but he was obstructed and cut from his base support at every level (even his mistress Helene du Portes urged him to make peace with Germans) When Churchill left Tours France for last time on 16th June he mumbled while flying back to London "We lost France"
@@FakeAssHandsomeMcGee_ Except unlike Hitler British gave up most of their Empire and independence to colonies. (unlike Germans or French for that matter)
@@merdiolu Gave up their empire how? India and Egypt, for example, were still under British rule. Some more than others. The reason it is no longer an Empire is that it was not able to hold on to it due to being weakened by the war and the rise of the USA. It wasn't out of the kindness of Britannia's heart. You can hear Churchill's goal of a '1000-year Reich' in his speech.
@@FakeAssHandsomeMcGee_ British gave self ruling Dominion status most of their colonies and let Indian National Congress opened up in 1923 and with India Bill in 1935 , subcontinent was slowly gaining path to independence which happened ibn 1947 , they also gave up Egypt and Palastine in 1948 , war and economic slump in post war Britain just accelarated this process. (overseas colonies were not a point of national pride for British society anymore and they were not generating profit economically) After the war French at the other hand started two overseas colonial wars in a desperate attempt to hold overseas territories (IndoChina and Algeria) which wanted independence , lost them and killed a bunch of locals and theier own soldiers in process. Third Reich at the other hand economic woes or not determined to colonise Eastern Europe and Eurasia at the expanse of Slavs and other Asiatic minorities in Caucaus , their path for that as Hitler described to Lord Halifax in 1937 "Shoot Gandhi , then shoot entire Indian Congress , if that does not work shoot one hundred thousand Indians" I prefer Churchill's unrealised empty rheotic of one thousand year Commonwealth (and despite being a Victorian imperialist he gave up power peacefully after losing 1945 elections) to Hitler's One Thosand Year Reich in which Herrenvolk would rule or destroy what they designated as Untermench.
@@merdiolu I know Britain was not Nazi Germany in approach. The point that I was trying to get at in the other comments was the irony in Churchill wanting to free nations but surely did not want to free the ones under Britain's rule. I remember reading about his views on the Egyptian Arabs wanting independence (not pleasant). The Brits did not take kindly to any Indian independence movement, especially Gandhi's, but what can they do to peaceful protesters? Shoot them? For the whole world to see? Britain was not done in Persia/Iran, was against Iranians using Iranian oil to enrich the Iranian people, and took advantage of America's extreme paranoia about Communism to help put an end to that. Don't forget about the Suez Crisis with the British and French invasion of Egypt to take the Suez Canal only to be forced to abandon that plan by the USA. Historians apparently point to that incident and the bowing to US pressure as the moment Britain realized that it was no longer a super power. If the US in its attempt to curb the USSR was not around the Brits would not be done with their land grabbing. They still don't want to give up the British Indian Ocean Territory islands. Sure they may not be a source of national pride by the 40s and 50s, but the territories sure can be strategic and that is important enough for London to take them.
Is there anything that would make it more noteworthy than the events covered during last three weeks? Don't get me wrong, but there is so much stuff left out in these episodes due to time constraints. Mostly they focus on big picture. For example, Betrothal of January or downing of Kalevala are neither mentioned, even if they had quite an impact on internal Finnish developments in 1940.
@@Unknown1355 i don,t get you. Does it bother you somehow. It was addressed to people interested. So if you are not just ignore it. I,m not isulting nobody. It is just informative, related to ww2. It is not silly joke post. I agree there is a lot of topics not covered in episodes. If you want to share post it. I tell you I gladly check the events you mentioned above.
@@ghut487 Oh, sorry. I understood "without any news" to mean lack of coverage in the series and criticism towards the production team. It wouldn't be first time someone has been asking "why didn't you mention XY?" My answer was directed to those kind of people. But it seems you meant to just add these smaller events as they happen. Sorry again, sometimes English isn't that specific about the meaning. (I would've understood perfect "has passed" meaning the event in far past, but imperfect "passed" seems more directed towards the video/action in recent time.) EDIT: mixed up grammatical tenses, corrected.
That doesn't sound like something a Belgian would say. More like "Hey! It's us! They mentioned us!" Or "Yeah, but they were Walloon/Flemish anyways." Edit: Alternatively, "Why didn't he read out loud the number of Belgians? That seems inconsistent, I'm confused." They're a bit like Germans in that.
That'd be very interesting indeed. However, we have limited time in one video and Indy has to make choices. We hope to cover this in a later special on Vichy France.
Its amazing how the Polish Forces fly under the radar when people talk about WW2. More Polish troops evacuated from France (after Dunkirk) than French troops! They just kept fighting the good fight.
@ww2 Regarding the polish and czeck forces that escaped: Please make a special on how these armies were formed. How and by which means did they escape from their occupied countries. Pols had to escape from both germans and soviets Czechoslovakia was occupied 6 months before the war was declared. Which were the routes they used to escape from occupation? Was there an organisation that helped them flee? What was the German reaction? It seems that it was rather ineffective.
Poles who got out in 1939 mostly did so through Romania, before Romania came completely within the Axis orbit. Some Czechoslovaks like Josef Frantisek escaped to Poland when the Germans occupied Bohemia and Moravia. A number of Poles and Czechoslovaks were then smuggled from Romania to Lebanon by the French - Lebanon was then a French colony. The Czechoslovaks joined the French Foreign Legion as the alternative was deportation back to the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. I don't know if the Poles were confronted with the same stark choice. From there they were moved to France and were later allowed to form an air unit.
@@kaczynskis5721 thanks for the info. From your name i understand you are polish. So you must know much about the topic. However, the number of poles that managed to escape seems huge. As we will see later, poles fought in italy and the d=day. In some sources i have seen numbers such as 20=30 thousand men. It seems a huge number considering the fact that they had to escape from a continental country without a coastline that would make the escape easier
Some Poles were recruited into the British army after they hsd been deported from Poland to the Soviet Union. A friend's father joined the 3rd Carpathian Division this way. I think that is the name the unit. He later fought in Iraq, Africa and Italy.
7:28 is not a member of the Vichy French army, he is a member of the Milice (Militia) in 1944 during a round-up of Resistance suspects just before or just after D-Day. The Milice were the most hated French collaborators and if World War Two does special episodes, they might be a good subject.
kaczynski S 🙀 I agree most strongly with you! The Milice was an appalling organisation preying upon the French people at the behest of the Nazis. The enthusiastic manner in which most of the Milice went about their dreadful business is truly horrendous.
The council of ministers rejected the "Franco-British Union" project, agreed to by Churchill during de Gaulle's visit to London in June 1940 following President Reynaud's resignation. The proposal would have taken the act of capitulation out of the hands of the Military, and Pétain in particular, by forming a unified coalition between England and France, but was also seen to have been proposal much too late, anyway. Upon returning to Château du Muguet in Breteau, Charles de Gaulle discovered that Reynaud had resigned, but still vowed to support a "Free France," movement for the eventual restoration of Democracy to the Country, declaring de Gaulle its de facto "President." (Despite officially supporting Pétain as his created his own regime, subservient to the Germans in appeasement, under the current occupational circumstances.) Sentenced to death by Pétain, who was appointed by the council of ministers in Reynaud's place and created his own regime, subservient to the Germans in appeasement, directly following the resignation of Reynaud, de Gaulle would return to France as its "victorious leader," alongside General Leclerc on August 25th 1944. With the help of the United States and its Allied Western coalition following the Normandy invasion, of course. Pétain would be sentenced to death himself in 1945 after a trial for treason, but despite their obvious differences de Gaulle would inevitably sign his official pardon commuting his sentence to life imprisonment.
Soviet Russia: You guys are making fun of us! You must immediately hold elections to bring in people who are nice to us! Don't worry. We'll help you with logistics. Baltic States: Okay. Wait, what? On the other hand, gotta give Churchill's speech thumbs-up! Did he write those himself or what? Like, who comes up with so many great lines over and over and over again? Wow!
It was not the first time Poles fought in exile for their independence. During Napoleonic Wars some of the best foreign detachments of French Army were exiled Polish whom Napoleon championed for their freedom (or acted to appear so , after Treaty of Tilsit he did not give much damn about Poles) and they had a common enemy with French : Russia
Gotta love how the French just got reamed and they're still able to fight the Italians. Also, respect to the Poles who fought on after Poland fell. Their home fell before their will to fight did.
Semi-related, France and Poland lost a military advantage when cavalry ceased to be relevant on the battlefield, it had always made both countries stronger than they should. Also they've allied against Germans many times before, they've never been at war against the other (which is impressive in Europe, specially considering France has been in a ridiculous number of wars), and they were the same county for 2 weeks in the 1500s. Also France was politically involved in 3 counts of fighting for Polish independence, with Napoleon and both world wars, and Poles have fought with and for France throughout history and in some really unexpected places at times, like the Caribbean.
@@Altrantis I had forgotten about the French relationship with Poland. I'm glad somebody did it, even if it was France. I just wish they would have done more to help Poland before Germany invaded France.
@@Altrantis Umm... _when_ actually? Poland and France barely had anything to do with one another before the 19th century (just some royal marriages here and there but with few political consequences and of course French culture was widely acclaimed in Poland but that was about it). During the Napoleonic Wars the Poles did ally with Napoleon but primarily against the Russians rather than Prussians (not even Germans considering that Saxons were staunch allies to Napoleon as well). The Poles hoped to win some French military intervention during either of the two big uprisings but to no avail, chiefly because the role of "the big thing to the right of Germany" was already filled by Russia. In fact, it was only after the Bolshevists took over Russia that Poland could play that part for France-but, as September 1939 proved, no genuine comradeship emerged between the two countries. After the war Poles were mad at the French for abandoning them and stopped considering them their role models, instead fixating firmly on the US (the people of course, not the communist government). After the fall of communism and the thaw in relations with Germany, I would gamble saying that France has been the top one most disliked Western European nation. Both Polish and French politicians seem to harbor a very profound distaste for one another (that can be very clearly seen between PiS and Macron but was apparent even much earlier, during the Chirac rule) and Polish people consider France at best a second-tier economy of Europe, instead opting for the Germanic or Anglo-Saxon model. Which was made apparent after 2004 when millions of Poles went to the UK but just about a few dozen thousand opted for France instead.
All these videos have shown me the truth about how brave and skilled the French soldiers fought instead of the common belief that they surrendered without fighting.
The Siege of Lille in particular is worthy of note. Forty thousand French soldiers held out against seven German divisions, buying an extra three days for the evacuation at Dunkirk, surrendering only when the ran out of ammunition. So impressed by their courage and resilience, the German commander allowed the French garrison to march out of the city in parade fashion into captivity as a mark of respect.
@@Schmidty1 kind off. The Italians declared war on the 10th. I also worded it slightly wrong. Since the only action in the first days were small incursions, skirmishes and air raids. The main offensive started the 21th. Also still before the armistice, but after the French publicly declared they were seeking an armistice.
@@Schmidty1 Germany and Italy were at war with France. The armistice was between France and Germany only. France and Italy continued to be at war because Italy wasn't included in the armistice.
I never really appreciated how hard France fought in WW2. Yeah, the high command was trash but the actual units did as good a job as they could despite the poor command.
About the Soviet bases and agreements with the three Baltics: the Soviet Union had a sort of "master-puppet" relationship with those three countries during the 1920s and 1930s, as even through theoretically independent, a big deal of their trade was with the USSR, which also provided defense for them (in exchange for political concessions). This goes as far as 1920 and 1921 as the peace treaty between Lithuania and the Soviet Socialist Federal Republic of Russia (the biggest of the countries forming the USSR, and together with the Soviet Socialist Republic of Belarus and the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine, a co-founder of the USSR in 1922) established that the SSFR of Russia would not only recognise the independence of Lithuania abandoning territorial claims, but also if a war between Lithuania and a third country was declared, Soviet Russia would have to intervene in favor of Lithuania, and that Soviet Russia would give aid for the development of infraestructures and industries in Lithuania. In exchange, Lithuania allowed to give military access to Soviet troops and the right to establish a small military presence in the area, as well as stopping "the activities of anti-Soviet groups" inside Lithuania. In 1926 said agreement was complemented by the Soviet-Lithuanian non agression pact, which was a de-facto defensive alliance and included a protocol for which, in case of a war between USSR and Poland, the Soviets would cede the Vilnius region back to Lithuania, and both countries recognised Lithuania as the legitimate owner of Vilnius and the Poles as military occupiers. This for Lithuania. For Estonia, the treaty of Tartu (1920) established a similar status quo, in which Soviet Russia, in adition of sending back evacuated industries and refugees of WW1, would provide funds and materiel for construction of infraestructures (as well as linking Moscow and Tallin by train) and defend Estonia if said country was attacked by a third country, while in exchange Estonia would allow Soviet presence and the construction of a supply naval base in Estonian territory. In 1932 it was also expanded with the sign of the Soviet-Estonian non agression pact. For Latvia, the Soviet-Latvian treaty of Riga in 1920 had similar provisions to that with Estonia, except that they also established a partnership commision for their mutual interests, and that the Soviets didn't ask for military presence in Latvia, also complemented by a non-agression pact in 1932. In 1929, the USSR, the three Baltic nations, Poland, Finland, Romania and Turkey signed the Litvinov Protocol named after the (at the time) Soviet People's Commisar for Foreign Affairs Maxim Litvinov. This protocol, as well as being a mutual non-agression pact established ways for pacific solution of problems between the signatary nations. In practice, this semented the diplomatic power of the USSR as they had the economic and military power (despite having only a testimonial amount of soldiers compared with those mobilised during the Civil War), which is something to be taken into account in diplomacy (it doesn't matter the justice or injustice of your position, but wether you have the money and the guns to impose it).
Nowadays abut 80% of our videos are demonetized - in 2018 they were all monetized. It doesn't matter financially, because RU-vid ads have such low payout, but it really matters for our recommendation and growth.
So many great historical RU-vid channels. WW2, Drachinifel, History Guy, Mark Felton, Armchair Historian, MHV, The Chieftain, and more. You guys put the "History Channel" to shame. If you guys banded together to make a joint website posting all your content together it would be a boon to your audiences
I must say, between your September, December, April and today, I have seen constant improvement, and do not speak as an invested person, I am not a patreon so no bias. The quality in terms of narrations, gfx, sfx, Historical footage and so on has consistently increased. I cannot wait to see what these will be like in 2024(1945). Keep it up!
Thank you - but we do have to give credit to the Patrons, because without them we would not have been able to improve, it takes a lot of time and people, and people need money to live ;-)
To be fair though, the French had to give up their families and few of them could expect they would be trapped inside POW camps for another four freaking years. So there was reason for many of them to choose to stay. On the other hand, Poles left their families (and country) behind long ago, this was alien soil for them. Also, by this point the news of rampant massacres comitted against Poles in occupied Poland had become so commonplace, most Poles probably wouldn't be surprised if they were taken to the side and shot immediately upon capture.
Is this the first time someone called it another World War? Right now it seems to be a German-French-British-Polish-Norwegian war. A massive war, but the Germans have no colonial forces around the world.
the term World War One was used the first time in print by Time magazine in their June 12, 1939, issue on page 28b speculating about a potential World War Two due to rising tensions in so many places. In the September 11 issue of Time magazine the current situation was described as the outbreak of World War Two and from then on it has been known that way and was and is considered to have started on September 1, 1939.
With the French almost certainly agreeing to an armistice, there is almost nothing stopping the seemingly invisible Germans from staging a Seelöwe invasion of the UK. The Channel Islands would most certainly be a first logical step towards that I suppose. Of course, there is still the Royal Navy and the RAF in the Channel that the Germans have to contend with first though...
Nothing stopping the Germans except the vast naval superiority of the British in the Atlantic, the contested airspace in the channel and the OKW's total lack of contested naval landing experience.
Is it though? It looks pretty dark to me. There are 0 active states resisting the Germans on mainland Europe anymore, and the British don't seem ready for an invasion anytime soon..
@@WorldWarTwo As long as someone continues the fight, there's always a bit of light left. And I have a hunch the Nazis are going to make a big mistake "soon"
Watching the last few weeks has really lowered my opinion of the French in WW2. This clearly illustrates that the US propaganda about France in WW2 became the accepted history taught to several generations of American school children. But the true history is a vastly different story.
Indy Neidell: "Their only remaining active enemy is an island nation . . . " An island nation guarded not only by the capable RAF, but also the immense Royal Navy, at the time the world's most powerful such force. The much smaller German navy has already suffered enormous losses in the invasion of Norway. No wonder Hitler was concerned about the French navy!
Frankly heavy German naval losses and their after effect in Norwegian Campaign is usually overlooked but even before that Germans had no amphibious capability or capacity for an undertaking as ambitus and vast as invasion of British isles. They had no landin craft in first place and no planning to resume the war or landding on Britain was discussed or planned by OKW or German Navy before 1940 spring.
