"Brilliant" plans to win WWII: How France planned to win the war? 

smartest comment ive read in this comment section...

it was made to not repeat error of WW1 so your right

There were a series of other mess-ups, too. The French battle-tactics at the time tended to require direct and verified orders, so the troops stationed in the Ardens weren't able to act as independently as they needed to for the much more dynamic German tactics in the area, tactics that could have easily ended up with the blitzkrieg getting cut off from its supplies. The dutch north of Belgium had retreated northward as well, and so the french elites weren't able to rally with their allies to push back south with the force they expected. And one of the main reasons the Maginot line wasn't drawn all the way northward to the coast was due to the otherwise neutral Belgians feeling threatened by having so many forts on their border. If you really analyze it, the rushed fall of the French was more due to poor diplomacy with their northern neighbors than anything else (due to either miscommunications, or general lack of trust.) If the Dutch and/or Belgians worked with the French better, their 1940 plan would have worked in 1940. But, the Dutch and Belgians are both sovereign nations with their own interests, and striving for neutrality or self-defense as a small nation next to something like Germany at the time is only logical. If Frances plan to hold in Belgium did work, then that nation would have been slowly ground into dust over the following years. I can see why that doesn't seem savory to the Belgians. I personally can't put the blame of Frances fall on anyone or anything in particular. Perhaps the French just cared about their allies too much.

William H Plus the French used Motorcycle carried message instead of radio because their generals were all muh tradition. So!

@@hgth44102 Just like in ww1 the french wore bright blue uniforms that have caused hundreds of thousands of casualties until they changed them Those uniforms were fine in the Napoleonic wars, but not in WW1

But they were not so successful in Paris-Dakar

How to invade and conquer a powerful country within 4 weeks.

Deniz Julian T. 3 weeks*

The first Tour de France was in 1903, BUT there was no Tour in 1940, so you could give the title to the Panzer.

FRENCH CULTURE I would say a triathlon, they swam very well

DragonBallStrike Also they command was working with the Nazis, they know everything.

@@prouddegenerates9056 ha ha ..

#deathstar

no belgium was a dumb and didnt let france set up a defence in their hills but even if this did this i guess the germans would of just went through the netherlands and pulled a ww1

tea time commenter The Netherlands were neutral and were not attacked in WW1.

The belgians: "No we are a neutral country and we wont let you station troops within our borders to safeguard us and yourselves from German invasion" Also the belgians "No you can't build static defenses facing our border"

I also heard that king Leopold thought Belgium actually stood a chance against Germany

@@SGT676 Belgium did have a decent army and helped the allies a lot in the weeks up to their surrender right before the Dunkirk operation. They can be blamed for not setting up defenses in the middle of Belgium, the French army could use.. But we can guess why they did not: They did not want a war between the Allies and the Axis in the middle of Belgium.

@@fosphor8920 I know that already I was just pointing out that king Leopold was delusional

​@@SGT676 And the french and brits were not? Hehe

CzechMirco that saying is Chinese

The French political parties (left and right) hated each other. The right preferred dictatorship to a national coalition. The far left looked to Stalin in preference to an alliance with the center left. Numerous Governments coalitions lasted only a few weeks or even days.

CzechMirco Fool me twice, SHAME.... on me i guess...

Belgium was probably more concerned about exploiting the Congo, until reality came crashing down hard...

That One Orang Well that and the fact that the french let the remilitization of the rhineland be carried out so easily Ps: sorry for any errors i'm german

@@johnnyllooddte3415 Did you ever watch the video?

@@the12th68 Absolutely ! This is exactly what the Germans were expected to do.

The purpose of the Maginot Line was initially not to push the German through Belgium but to prevent any sudden invasion (ie without declaration of war) to let sufficient time for the army to mobilize men from all over the coutry and set the units on the border for the main battle. This is the reason why the Maginot Line worked before firing any single round.

exactly en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Quartier_G%C3%A9n%C3%A9ral_(1939%E2%80%931940)

the maginot line worked TOO well … with all those resources, it rendered itself irrelevant to the point where france hadn't the ability [or desire] to properly defend the north. when you're the prey trying to run the hound into the net, you better have a damn good net! the line would've been better if it had had incorporated more agility and appeared soft enough to lure the germans to attack there instead of 'going around' to the softer defense of more difficult logistics. if you leave the enemy only one option, they're going to take it.

They also sold a ton of food to America in the 30s during the Dust Bowl, later resulting in the mass Ukrainian famine in the USSR known as Holodomor.

Oh, they had food. They just didn't KEEP it.

bruh they gave food to the americans and not their citizens...

I guess we know why the USSR collapsed now then... they gave away all their food and kept none for themselves... idiots.

​@@xLionsxxSmithyx actually it's common misinformation. USSR always exported food, and reading documents you can clearly see that in years of famine exported food products greatly decreased. England alone, for example, bought more then 3 million tons of raw product (canned food and else not included) in 1931 and only 838 thousants in 1933, mostly for long term contracts (which they refused to rewrite, by the way, threatening with sanctions). Do not know a sourse in english, I looked in "Statistical review of USSR external trade 1918-1940", based on USSR ExternalTrade ministry documents. It's obviously in russian. istmat.info/node/22117

France: Lets make our country into a fortress Germany: Improvise, adapt, overcome

@Fabian Kirchgessner it was too late to defend the ramp. France declared the war 1 year before in september 1939. But it stayed at the base till late-game.

france strategy - lets just give up and help hitler

dude. this has happened to me so many times... except I was protoss and I have no mules

STAR CRAFT

Cielo Pachirisu *Spits out Champagne* WHAT!

Stalin mannnnnnn...

This Stalin guy does not seem friendly the more I read about him.

[Cielo Pachirisu] "Calm Down! We still have our elite army and better tanks than the Germans! We just have to secure our allies and fortify like it's 1914!" "Sir the Germans have completely negated all these advantages by out maneuvering us on the tactical, operational and Strategic levels!" "*FUAAAAAAAAA*"

[hon hon stops immediately]

Thelk641 you can say that but belgium invested a lot in the strongest fort in europ (eben-emeal) and the national socialist destroyed it in less than two days.

Thelk641 i

You also need to consider the Dutch's retreat in the north. The french elites weren't able to rally with their allies to the north, on top of all of that. However, I get why the Belgians tried to stay so neutral. If they didn't then they would guarantee that their sovereign nation would be leveled into dust as both of their stronger neighbors duked it out in the middle of their lands. By staying neutral, then there is a much higher chance that they would be safer. Also consider that the Belgians were willing to just ally with Germany if the French tried to invade them for 'a tactical advantage' shows that they really didn't trust, nor were even "allies" with the french to begin with.

I mean.. and the soviets, and the foolish french gamble.

ahahah im pretty sure france is a hell of a lot bigger and more populated than little belgium.. france doomed us all by rolling over like a little dog

Edwin Lindley They had better equipment and more time to train, unfortunately French leadership wasn't incredibly effective.

Greek partisans kick the ass of the italian army, so you are setting the bar very low.

Edwin Lindley It was actually more numerous and better equipped, but they had terrible military leaders.

exactly.

@@StrayingCat Especialy one en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Quartier_G%C3%A9n%C3%A9ral_(1939%E2%80%931940)

I draw all my shit on Paint.

Bruh search for GradeAUnderA if you like drawings made with paint

lol

lol

@Ryder Tom I like it too

The biggest mistake was not defending the Ardennes enough. They also were basically asking for encirclement by putting nothing in reserve. Had they done these things, the Germans wouldn't have been able to break through so easily and there would be heavy fighting in Belgium. Germany would probably lose from attrition alone, they couldn't keep their military going for long. For example they were very nearly out of ammunition by the time Poland was conquered.

Simply really. Shit goes wrong, and sometimes unfolds in ways that make you go "wtf". That's why reserves are in important. The french had plenty of manpower, reinforcing the dutch was a good idea. Going all in on that was dumb.

lemonvariable72 Yeah I completely agree, they took Manstein's bait and fell right into his trap. The German attacks on Belgium and the Netherlands were simply to lure the Allies up north. While the Allies would have to meet them or lose them to Germany, they should have been more careful about reserves. Even just leaving a portion of their forces back could have prevented the disaster, Guderian's race to the sea could very well have been stopped.

D Legacy that and they should taken more advantage of the fact they had a whole three months to figure out how Germany took Poland and plan around that. Looking the German use of armour, they should have realized how important radio would be

lemonvariable72 Germany's tanks also had 3 men turrets as well, very important for letting the tank commander do his job instead of having to load/aim. But I would say the biggest mistake with French tanks was that they didn't utilize them properly, they expected them to be a support for the infantry instead of the other way around. While France had the most tanks of any army at the time, they spread them out instead of concentrating them like Guderian did with his armored spearheads.

Good point

Fuck the Gauls and their warband that appeared right next to my capital

Poland:saves Europe at Vienna,saves Europe by communism in 1920,millions of Poles get killed by Ussr and 3 Reich pOLisH dEAth CamPS

And France sent its African fighters on the first rows to be used as human shields for the french soldiers.

And France has an above-average track record when it comes to winning wars. I guess losing two of the biggest wars in human history, against opponents who would end up losing the war, has a way of overshadowing everything else in your military history. Including the rest of what happened in those two big wars.

@@timothymclean They won WW1 as a major power, go learn history

@@timothymclean France actually won ww1

Maurice Gamelin is ranked as one of the worst generals in all of history, France could have easily halted the German Army had it reacted properly but he insisted that the ardennes invasion was only a 'diversion' and expected the main thrust to come against his main line. The reinforcements that were sent to the ardennes were too small and got there too late to stop the germans and so the area was overrun and the Wehrmacht defeated France in a stunning upset. Great battles are not won by geniuses, they are lost by idiots.

Yes, he ordered to not use the radio but horsemen indeed (no joke) because he was afraid of the listening by the enemies. Moreover a French flight saw the panzers in front of the Belgium border (german side) and report the information, nobody trusted him.

Honestly I feel the real reason for the course of WW2 is that germany was the only counry that was 100% up to the occasion(which makes sense) and everyone else lacked in some way. And the polish lacked in a good location for their nation. :(

As I understand it part of the problem with Gamelin is that he did not understand Tank warfare. All his plans on how to counter the German advance were made based on the idea that the German army would be moving at the speed of infantry. However the German army was instead moving at the speed of Tanks and were always far ahead of where Gamelin expected them to be.

@@runtergerutscht4401 the German Army was terrible in Poland

Provocateur you are ignorante

Are you serious? The end of the video dictates that French could have prevented millions of lives lost if we weren't so fucking stupid and loss the war.

Ouinn Ouinn what? Pls don't say stubit thinks about USA, in ww1 america supplies all the fucking entante with oil, food ect...in the pacific the most important power was USA and even in east europe, in the korean war they did 99.99% of the work, the same in vietnam, afganistan,iraq ect...

Oddish so little kid, they had a bad luck, like hitler, of he doesen't have luck to penetrate ardennes without resistense he can't breackthroo the french and even they didn't upgrade the military in the modern standars like the radio, not becouse they have shit generals.

ortelmort23 Losers

A non-aggression pact would mean nothing. Soviets can create two non-aggression pacts with Germany and Allies without having to choose sides. Furthermore, if the allies created a non-aggression pact with the Soviets then they run the risk of not being able to interfere with Soviet invasions in the East.

But they could still stop supplies to Germany. The allies did not reject the pact. The soviets made ridiculous demands of allies for military access through Poland and Romania, ostensibly "to defend Czhecoslovakia", and didn't even bother to ask the Poles and Romanians first. How could they accept such demands on behalf of other countries? We also know very well what soviet army in a coutry turns into - look at the Baltics. Stalin was happy to see Europe tear itself apart, because like in Russia and later China after a bloody war, destroyed and exhausted Europe would be ripe for taking by the commies. That's being fair to Stalin.

ahahah no he didnt...ahaha..he did the exact same thing that hitler did.. LIED to the west.. he made a pact with germany and then they doublecrossed each other.. ahaha stalin doublecrossed the west first, then germany.. then begged the west to help stop hitler.. youre a nutter.. germany doublcrossed the west then russia ahaha

stalin wanted east europe and got it.. he double crossed everyone to get it

Advantage at what? At being at war with Romania and Poland? Maybe you should go back to drawing anime, instead of discussing politics so that less people think you're an idiot.

Well you never hear about the times they do what was expected

It's funny because the same thing happened in Indochina. "The Viet Minh will never transport artillery through the jungle mountains!" Spoiler: they did.

@G E T R E K T 905 Read about the Battle of Dien Bien phu, that's exactly what happened.

@@augustokonrad3572 That was humiliating to the French, I mean what could go wrong when you station yourself in a valley surrounded by thick hills?? Then France started crying because their asses were handed to them by a group of farmers hhhh.

@@augustokonrad3572 Or the more classic one: "Elephants can't cross the Alps!!"

Tank Bank same!

Yup, it just showed up for me. Instant sub!

Me too! Kudos to the creator. Great work!

he lied about soviets being enemies to Germany. even your school textbook does not dare to say that after Soviet being ALLIES of germany in WWII during 1939-1941

Tank Bank me too

Mang Anwar well that’s kinda the wrong quote

Mang Anwar he said: I have always realized that going to war that’s plans are useless but planing is invincible

Mang Anwar what on earth does that even mean

@@themanwithnoname2183 to think in the moment and constantly evolve and change, over just having a rigid goal in mind. I think the idea behind the quote is plans always go array so it's better to always be planning rather then just committing to a plan.

@St. Petersberg tell that to the French and germans.

Problem is it didn't.

You right.

It was pretty impregnable though, not even Hitler would be mad enough to send his army into that.

MrcabooseVG not impregnable still got his army through a weak part of it and sending his army through a strong part of the maginot line would be foolish since they could and already penetrated through the Ardennes

@@el1tefire252 Yep

Your enlgish is fine

I spelled that wrong

so interesting that it sold much more in Germany than in France before the war... and his theories were applied on the field then... but by the Germans... oh the irony

@@kolerick true... Guderian, the father of the blitzkrieg concept recognised he read it, he analysed it, then he improved it slightly and then he applied it... he as also read "la discorde chez l'ennemi" from De gaulle too... But De gaulle was an ambitious colonel and many were jealous of him, he had no way a chance to impose his views... few generals were agreeing with him but by a sort of cowardness for their career, they refused to support his ideas... Nevertheless, few of his ideas had began to be used in 1940... the DLM, sort of strong french pzdivision, regrouping heavy and medium tanks to break the german lines or to counter pzdiv... DCR (even stronger than DLM, with far more and far better tanks that germans had in a pzdiv)... but it was too late.

LOL

Joseph Stalin We regret that decision

Your problem bro!

The next time, don't hire some mexicans permanently drunk

Joseph Stalin Just go eat our tacos*

Are you french ?

nah, just studying it for school. France is awesome, though! :D

@@sammym2511 ok sorry i was going to think you are another french Bashing person but nvm

@@jeanmichel8919 :)

Thats 100% true our generals didn't even listen to their scouts that were telling them of important cortege of german troops in the ardenne, that was a BIG mistake

The French made the same mistake as the Romans. Hannibal got his army through "Impassable" terrain just as the Nazis did.

@@Jay_Frank The Germans didn't go through the Line, they went around it as the French had intended. The result was that the French industrial region in Alsace was protected, the Germans were denied the shortcut to Paris, the French had time to mobilise, and it became possible to cooperate with the British. Hadn't it been for the over-aggressive strategy of the French (meet the Germans in Belgium instead of holding their own border), it might all have worked.

Daniel Eyre interesting. thanks.

no id blame france and england they forced czechslovakia to surrender to the germens. the czechs were very fortified and had one of the biggest military industries in the world , they were re militarizing for years before the war

Main issue was that the Loyalist Tories/Unionist in Scotland and NI formed a Political alliance with the Axis Governments do to share values do to Jewish insurrection in UK occupied Palestine and them fighting with Irish in Ireland in the 1920's, Adolf was viewed as the 20th Centenary King Billie for Unionism. Germans knew all the positions of allied fleets and forces known by the Allied command as the Unionist would past them to the Germans before the war , or Japanese during the War. Should Google The Right Club or Lord Sempill. Even if Belgium let French forces moved in before the conflict the Germans would of known of weak points in the lines.

and the soviet were friends with the german who a little thing called blitz and very big gun to shoot paris with from the other side of the front

also panzers move fast not as fat as they were in WW1 which was still using as the basis for all of their strategy also their tech was still from there

In addition, even if im way too late: When the war officially began with the invasion of Poland, for several weeks there were few German men on the western front - few enough that the French, with British support, could easily have broken. And yet they did nothing. Why? They were afraid the Germans would strike back. They were afraid of retaliation. From a country that they were AT WAR WITH. The French are cool, but they're also pretty stupid sometimes.

​@@sammym2511 They didn't want full scale war. Can you blame them considering the utterly pointless slaughter that did happen in the same region two decades ago. Of course, today, it's easy to say it was stupid to stay on defence / hope for peace and they should have fully mobilized to kick Germany's ass.

You have to consider how much a few miles was worth compared to all those forts back on the border.

@@yannlars1736 Well they declared war with german, Hitlers wargoals were never in the West. He wanted "Lebensraum im Osten" (Territorien in the east), if He could've achived this without going to war with the western allies, that would have been fine by him. I mean don't get me wrong, i don't think it was wrong of the the western allies to declare war on germany. But of they realy acted and supported their ally Poland the war maybe would not have lasted so long.

@@sammym2511 The thing is more complexe : lots of people among the french elite actually did not hated Hitler. They felt he could do something against communism, and in France the elite is not patriotic at all, only the common people is, so they disregarded the anti-german feeling as stupid nationalism. others felt that France had only two choices, helping the british empire fighting the germans, or helping the german empire fighting the english, and the choice was not obvious, because fighting the germans also meant helping the bolchevik dictatorship. In a catholic country lots of people did not wanted to have a communism atheist dictatorship in France. And finally, even the communists did not wanted the french army to win because stalin and Hitler had signed a non-agression pact at that time. So some french communists did some sabotage against their own army on the order of Stalin

a short history of inefficient 'Généralissime' at french HQ : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Quartier_G%C3%A9n%C3%A9ral_(1939%E2%80%931940)

@@salviniusaugustus6567 and? What's your point?

@@khalilbarkallah9998 his point was made in his comment above

Learn french

@Los Santos u speak spanish in the end😭

@Fab Elger Germany/Prussia complete downfall after WWI was ultimately avoided thanks to US and UK which did not France to completely crush Germany at the end of WWI. Versailles was only the alternative to what was planned by France. March into berlin and completely demilitarize Germany with France taking full control of the country. WW2 would have never happened if everything had gone as planned.

@Fab Elger the peace deal made at Versailles was bad but the french couldn't be cool with Germany since the war took place in northern france in wich was the french industry. france lost more than half of its industry, lot of grounds were unusable 1.5 million of french die and 2 millions were wounded and on a population of 40 millions of inhabitants it was huge. i think this treaty was clealy bad-especially if the goal was to ensure peace in Europe (germany pay all the war reaparations, give a part of its industry, lose some german regions like Danzig) but let's see the situation as a french: germany declared war on you, destroyed your country and now germany has lost: Isn't it the time for a just revenge ? This was an error but if Germany had won, this error would probably have been done in the reverse direction.

@Fab Elger Whatever the treaty the Germans started to cheat on it the day they signed it. The military blamed the politics for the defeat, seeding the idea that a revenge was needed; they started to build up military forces decades before Hitler; the politics denied to pay any war indemnity, triggering occupation of Ruhr, then used it as an excuse for the economic shamble of Germany. GB also wanted a german force as a balance to the French one (by then French Army was larger than US and UK ones). They signed treaty allowing Germany to build an army and a fleet, and denied support to France when Hitler invaded Austria and Czech, despite Wehrmacht being still very weak.

@Fab Elger German ww1 reparations were cancelled in 1932, for example. And annexation of Austria was directly forbidden in the treaty. Germany couldnt have gotten a better deal out of Versaille. The war wasnt fought in their land, the treaty itself was hardly imposed (as per above examples), with France being the only one trying. Versaille being harsh is a myth. The treaty the germans imposed at Brest-livotsk was worse. Wanna see a real harsh treaty? Look at WW2, when the country was literally torn apart and occupied

@@lucasbrant9856 True words.

ya and infact the French requested military access for the Belgians denied their request, but when the Germans invaded the French then instantly marched threw Belgium

Its the best to make war not in your borders.Why would you want your country to be destroyed by ongoing war if u just can do it on other or enemy territory. I wouldn't tell that was a "wanted to help out" in my opinion.

THEone RECKER Not sure what kind of books you've read, but it is definitely covered by Dutch history books.

They only cared for our land so they could save their own baguettes landgenoot ;)

Yeah they try to give you guys support but got denied and then when the German attack you guys accept after lose a half territory of your country so the French rush to you guys whit all the elite and made their defenses line in the middle vulnerable and can be easily be penetrated

Except they didn't. The K-W line was a thing.

@Fab Elger That is true, the Treaty of Versailles destroyed Germany, but ObViOuSlY the victors write history

@Fab Elger Enslave what ? Germany was not invaded, no German enslaved. War indemnity was the usual practice, as Germans did in 1814 and 1871. The maker of WW2 were german rightist, pretending that the Reich did not lose but for the betrayal of civilians. The Reich lost. Twice.

@Fab Elger Well Austria-Hungary lose far more territory and they didn't end up with a facist dictator who want to invade the entire world. And harsh treaty had happened before that. During the seven year's war, France lost almost all their colonies to the british (India and a huge part of North America), during the Vienna Congress France lost Belgium and Savoy territory. Yes, Vienna treaty was harsh, but saying that WW2 is the fault of The Allies is completely stupid.

Fab Elger yea winning the war against Germany was easy

French tanks were actually superior to german tanks at the time, the most notable example being a char b1 taking our 30+ tanks and several anti tank guns without being disabled. German tanks had radios and just called down stukas to deal with french armor

@D3LTA get that reddit shit outta here

@@jadedynasty876 wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh

@@thetumans1394 you really think i didnt understand your shit overused joke?

@@Clancy192 yeah why would a french soldier need a rifle when he can beat it with his Fist. French rifles are just OP.

canicheenrage What were the omissions and mistakes?

Better than Simple History's video which says France was not prepared for a German attack through Belgium... like really? That was the whole point of the Maginot! They knew the Germans would attack through there, it was really the only option.

Tarun Rex More so I meant that Simple History says France wasn't prepared for an attack through neutral Belgium as if it was a surprise, it wasn't, the Allies knew they would attack through there. Especially since a German spy plane had crashed and they got information on the German plans. The Dyle plan had the best of the Allies forces ready to move in to defend Belgium It was the Ardennes they weren't prepared for, that was the mistake. They assumed it was impassable by tanks. He doesn't mention it at all in his video, despite it being so critical to the Battle of France.

Bengali - The mistakes I noticed: there were forts in Belgium, but they fell because of the German paratrooper attack. You said the dutch while I think you meant Belgians. The north is dutch speaking, but they are called flemish, not dutch, so the dutch flag is wrong here.

No. You are wrong, they really did try to connect the Dutch Army. That was the Dyle-Breda plan, rather then the original Dyle plan. The Dyle-Breda plan lost the French the war.

Well there was the V1 and V2...

It's not a coincidence that the father's of the American Atomic Bomb were Oppenheimer,Szilard,Einstein,Fermi,Klaus Fuchs...

@@hannibalbarca4372 yes and all of them were either jew or german

@@runtergerutscht4401 Which then was taken by the USA to make nukes along with the German scientists. So the Germans made the nukes lol

@@noodled6145 but it wasn't Germany that made the nukes, it was the USA

@Xenomorph Captain Vex Ghost of the brony community and the belgians refuses the mines

What he doesn't say is that after the Germans passed through the Ardennes, the French launched a counter-attack which was successful at the beginning (battle of Stonne) but the British Expeditionary Force, on orders of their governement, retreated without warning anyone.

@@lahire4943 a ces anglais comme quoi "filer a l anglaise"

Mark Rcca French did have seen the tanks in the ardennes... BUT all the mobile troops and reserves were already engaged in Belgium... the second and 9th french army were mostly reserve C troops with half of their heavy guns, many officers in permission (resting yes ! unbelievable), no AA guns, almost no AT... in the Dyle Plan, there was a case of "if the germans pass in the ardennes"... the french had decided that the job would be given to the 7th army, which was an armoured army, very well trained, all troops ranked professional or A troops, mostly mechanised or motorised... lots of AA and AT (the 25 and 37 mm AT were efficient against most of german tanks) BUT for a choice between 2 strategical reasons, they decided to send french 7th army to make junction with Dutch in Breda... when germans attacked the 2nd and 9th unprepared and untrained troops, the 7th army missed alot... and it was too late to recall it... all the best of the allies armies were engaged fast in belgium... the alone solution was to abandon belgian armies, to rush south to cut german pzdiv which had done the breakthrough in ardennes.. but politics didn't want to abandon the Belgians, alliés were divided : british have spoken of possible reimbarment til the 14th or 15thmay ! Dutch surrendered faster than predicted and didn't informed britts and frogs ;) French generals were more than stunned by the manoeuvre unable to react at the ask of the politics : keep the line in Belgium AND in France and reestablished the situation... it was uncompatible. when finally the right decision of counter attack was taken, it was far too late and french troops had lost most of their supplies, british were retreating to the coast abandonning their french alliés without concertation (or almost), chaos was undescriptible because there were no plan B...

And now who need to clean the iran mess made by england and usa ? France and germany of course :) !

Supershadow301 Nah the Brits were calling the Frogs that long before the Gulf War...It has fuck all to do with the Gulf war and stems back to WWII onwards, vietnam, Algiers etc.

antoine cogny Germany? Fucking dream on, they have zero political will to do anything nevermind military intervention.

mwnciboo I think he meant that Iran supports terrorist groups that are destabilizing the Middle East and France and Germany have to take the refugees because USA and England made the 1953 Coup. This was kind of the beginning of the problems in the Middle East.

"Destabilise the middle east" Hezbollah, PMU's and the SAA won the war against ISIS. If anything it is us who is destabilising it, as the Western coalition is propping up jihadist and ethnic separatist opposition to the legitimate state in Syria. Look at Libya today and tell me that's Iran's fault. That's OUR fault, it's time we left the whole place alone. The Arabs and Iranians aren't children, they don't need our supervision

Not totally wrong but not toally right... The plan for French was not to launch a full scale offensive in Saar... many released documents between french, british and polish authorities has shown that if French troops were to put a certain offensive against germany, France and UK informed that both french and UK armies weren't totally ready for offensive, that luftwaffe was a real threat, and then that poland would have to resist a certain time before french and british would be ready to attack at full scale... we were lacking of true air force, british didn't want to send RAF in france etc... and french and british were convinced that germans would send only enough troops to win the war in Poland and would let most of german armies in front of France... a spying satellite would have permitted french to know they were facing poor troops, but not even sure... nazis propaganda had shown Siegfried line so much stronger than it was, French had a defenseive strategic plan : growing stronger and stronger behind Maginot line, naval blocus by Royal Navy and once we are far stronger than germans, that the naval blocus is efficient, that Norway iron raill would have been cut, Germany would have been defeated by a definitive and strong assault... but hey, that was about to take 1 or 2 years... polish knew that... Tha assault in saar was a very well organised and prepared offensive ona limited scale, the goal was to test german defense and eventually release some pressure on polish... but french didn't expect to breakthrough and invade Germany in a week !

That is pretty much false. The French actually mobilized pretty effectivly, they had well prepared defensive lines, large strategic supplies, a large and powerful navy, a large airforce and even relativly mobile tank divisions. They did not have the best generals in charge, but that's fairly normal in the beginning of a war. They had a defeatist elite, but these people were not primary corrupt, but rather weak and there plan for France was a very different one.

France government was corrupted and cared much more about its personal interest at a point that they almost got deposed by the people on the 6th of February 34 after the Stavisky case. And after that the government of the front populaire turned out to be a disaster leaving the country even more divided, the instability of the 3rd republic in France is no secret. And i agree with you concerning the military (which was considered as the best in the world), but as i said, they (the politics) did not prepared it for war in the sense that at any moment they renewed the military doctrine (while Germany and more importantly USSR did in the 20's) and defended "pacifism" toward Germany while at the release of the book Mein Kampf it was obvious that the main target of Hitler was France.

Apparently, Petain didn't want to make the same mistakes done during WWI aka keeping on fighting until the slaughter gets too important to keep going.

AHAHAH, you know, politics are always corrupted in France. Like everywhere

I support all of you. Some politicians were "pacifist" (remembering WW1, also because many were old.. ... Pétain), France didn't want to make a real offensive if Germany would have invaded the nation but rather to wait and weaken the enemy (as in the video says). France after the war started to develop weapons and military vehicles such as the Mas 36 (one of my favourite rifles), the Somua s35, the Charles B1bis (even thought I preferred to improve it with a heavier cannon and better speed)...... We also remember the anti-German sentiment during and after WW1 for the heavy losses etc.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE T-34-85 COMRADEEEEEEE

Mine is Democracy bombs Freedom Oil machines And patriotism Also murica

Have the biggest navy Have the biggest empire Have the biggest moral Have the smallest island

@@jpc7118 If germans would take Stalingrad, then they would take the oil from the Caucasus and they would defeat the Soviet Union...

@@alexgavril1847 in fact, they do took most of all the western part of Stalingrad, but they were far to cut the road to oil... they were lacking good troops, on their flanks they had Romanians, Italians and few over allies... Not that these soldiers were not courageous, they were very courageous indeed but they were lacking guns, tanks and supply lines were stretched at their maximum... Manstein had elaborated what we call "la defense en retour", which he applied for Kharkov... it was a good organised retreat, recuperating more and more reserves on the North of the front, Russians would inevitably advance all trheir troops to regain territory... once all their best troops have advanced in the hole done by Germans, the reserve concentrated on the North, counter attacked and cut all russian supply lines, encirculed red armies trapped, and destroy them... few Kharkov would have permit to Germans to regain initiative in east... Hitler which was disliking Manstein, refused to follow this tactic... he attacked frontally at Koursk, loosing its last reserves and crushing his best tanks on well prepared positions by the Russians... Stalingrad is a turning point, but Koursk 1943 is the true decisive victory, cause it's the last big german offensive and they crashed on soviets defense... paulus Army was composed mostly with elite troops, their loss at Stalingrad was very important...

Why?This guy is so Allied bias IMO.Not even mentioning that Germany had 2 times of France’s population which caused to France to construct Maginot Line to protect from Germany.Germany had 2 times of France’s GDP as well and much larger industrial production,France was powerful when they were friend with UK.

Bir Türk olarak şu adamın dediğine katılıyorum aq HOİ4’te Fransa baya güçsüz zaten Almanya’nın yanında.

MemeLover Well, I respect your opinions but I am NOT talking about objectivity. I am talking about HOW WELL MADE IS THIS VIDEO. Ideas discussed in this video might be wrong to you, might be right for me. But the manner of expression is truly captivating. That is the only thing I tried to emphasize by typing “the best.” Now about your claims. Well I definitely do not know. I was born somewhat 50 years later and I am definitely not a WW2 historian. On the other hand, I eagerly await your well documented complex data presentation about the military and diplomatic power comparison between the Third Reich and the Third French Republic to prove your claims. Thank you in advance. Yours sincerely.

Erich Von Manstein kardeşim ben de bir Türk olarak videodakinin dediğine katılıyorum çünkü BF V’de (⸮ ) fransızların silahları çok güçlü.

France did pretty good in the battlefield (battle of dunkirk, 8 000 french vs 7 german divisions) But they felt betrayed by Britain after Dunkirk, and lost all will to fight. If Britain at least warned us about their retreat, and then helped in the battle of France, im sure France would not have surrendered that fast.

@Dod o From Wikipedia: "On 26 May, Anthony Eden told General Lord Gort, Commander-in-Chief (C-in-C) of the BEF, that he might need to "fight back to the west", and ordered him to prepare plans for the evacuation, but without telling the French or the Belgians. Gort had foreseen the order and preliminary plans were already in hand." You are welcome. As for the help from the British during the battle of France… well, they decided to retreat on 23rd of May (13 days after the start of the invasion…). Thanks for the good laugh though.

You could say it was a decent plan on paper, but it was actually worthless for the war that was to begin and sticking to it and turtling yield them more bad than good, literally made them lose a golden opportunity to win the war within months, maybe a year or so. Because, well, you know, the allies also had Poland on their side, instant two-front warfare for Germany, which would suck. Germans knew that and used the French plan against them, they gambled and send most of their army east to crush Poland ASAP to not have to fight on two fronts, only leaving token forces in the west, counting on French to not attack them. And the gamble paid off, France played straight into their hand and did absolutely nothing, even though had they attacked they would easily conquer western Germany... including an industrial region right next to the border.

Curvalle Irvin moron they saved so many frog legs that's day. To the point the British troops were pissed off that they were taking positions up on our ships

I'll, have to make two other videos before it, so it will take at least a month.

Ok.

10 months later

Probably never

and now?

Ivan Lima Are you seriously critisizing a shitty ms paint drawing for being innacurate historically?

Not exactly what I would call "criticism".

Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin yes since panzer were not meant for anti tank purposes they mainly carrier shrapnel rounds to act as mobile artillery, it was later that the Pak anti tank guns were fitted into tanks

The Panzer III, 35t and 38t 37mm were meant for anti tank purposes as well as all the other things tanks are used for. Even the short barrelled 75mm of the panzer IV, which was meat to be used against "soft" targets, was reasonably effective against early war armor. Those early 37mm Kampfwagenkanone were found to be ineffective against British Matildas for example and subsequently the Germans sought to upgun their tanks. In Blitzkreig tactics the panzers were meant to punch a hole in the enemy lines and go deep, outpacing their own infantry and causing havoc. They had to engage every and any threat they came across, including artillery, infantry, supply trucks and other tanks. Anyone who claims that tanks were meant to engage only one type of target are very wrong. Even infantry support meant engaging other tanks if need be. The German mobile artillery specifically for infantry support in the early war was the Stug with its 75mm short barrelled gun.

Ivan Lima Wow, you're so smart and cool for correcting an MS Paint slideshow.

WW1 is a french victory, i don't understand why people think it was a failure when France did stop a country which had 2 times more inhabitants and a better army. And yeah they held the german off on the western for ALL the entire duration of the war ( i didn't see british troops pushing back all the germans during 1st and 2nd battle of the Marne ). But in term of population lost it was a failure for each side. But the french did suffer the most because the war was on the french ground.

Well, France won WW1 as one of the only nations. They got exactly what they entered the war for: Alsace-Lorraine, it only cost them 4 million soldiers, for a province of 1.5 million french speaking germans and german speaking frenchmen.

WW1 was both well fought and a nightmare for the french. So despite having fought well and being actually the country that fought the Germans the most, it's still very bad memory.

Man from Nantucket WW1 was a huge military victory in France . I don't get why ppl try to say France didn't win WW1...

Edward Archer-> It's quite ironic coming from a Brit, because the french may have surrendered during WW2, but those that fled were the Brits (thank god USA came at the right time to save Britain). You must have read alternate history.

@Stephen Jenkins -i don't like McDonald's, very bad america bad -Oh, but have you not forgotten the COLD WAR, sir?

@Stephen Jenkins No point, just a really bad joke.

Well, the Resistance gets overhyped to having more support and energy that it really did in actual history. It gets blown up to the point it's practically a myth. So if their post-surrender accomplishments and efforts get exaggerated, it's a even trade for their pre-surrender hard fighting to be glossed over.

Stephen Jenkins We make fun of you because you are very very stupid.

@Oompa Loompa Who let you out? Get back in the Chocolate Factory!

1. Surrender 2. ??? 3. Profit

Just like French arrived to liberate and thus give birth to US in 1790 🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷❤

YES, SOMEONE TOOK THE BAIT!

The American did nothing else than avoid Stalin to reach Lisbon...

How to america: 1 Wait till it almost ends. 2 Say they won the war. 3 Profit.

The French did know about the Ardenes, they conducted exercises and predicted that it could be traversed by the German army in 3 days. That is exactly how long it took the German army to do that. The problem arises more in doctrine. The French then assumed that it would take another 7-10 days for the Germans to bring in enough supplies(mainly artillery shells) for an attack. The problem arose when the Germans didn't use artillery(or reley on it) to support the attack but a new form of artillary, close air support. Mainly Ju88's He111s and the Ju87 stuka. This shocked the French who assumed that if the Germans allocated a large enough force for a crossing of the Sedan then they would have a week or more to recon it and reinforce the area. Unforgettably they were wrong, not in their numbers they got that 100% correct, but in how Germany would use air power to replace artillery.

It actually was pretty stupid, the axis already had iron, Japan could provide rubber from China and some oil, they would be able to align Romania and Hungary (like they did in 1941) intimidating them with their army, and voila, in 1939 they have all the resources they need to invade France at least (which by the way took about 2 weeks, they would have never run out of resources in 2 weeks), then you know after France they obviously have enough resources for all the rest

@@chappie3642 you missed the naval blockade part. No ressources made in Asia... And at the start, neither Hungary nor Roumania were aligned with the Axis, so no supply from them either. The plan wasn't mean to be effective over a really long time, but without those ressources for a few months, the german army would have suffered a lot and spending ressource to try to force the western front would have depleted their stocks even more. The french plan failed because the high command ignored both caution alert and even sighting of the german army passing through the Ardens... And since France centralize a lot of ressource in its capital, losing it was the end... (that and the fact that some peoples in power didn't want to keep fighting.)

@@kolerick France was already in the merge of surrendering, and I don't think Hitler thought he would win against the Soviet union and the Allies in just a few months. France suffered many losses, they had an internal crysis and their army was really outdated. It wasn't only for the industry they surrendered, sure it was a factor, but not everything. The three biggest economies and armies were the in the following order: The USA The Soviet Union The German Reich Germany was also second in the world as of army, so I don't think they feared of not being able to align or conquer Romania, Bulgaria, hungary and yugoslavia

@@chappie3642 well, thank you for the french bashing... "France was already in the merge of surrendering", really? before the war even started? military leadership were fools, but surely were not cowards... they equipment wasn't outdated as a whole. They just missed the damn unlocked back door and ignored reports of burglars coming in this way until it was too late. A lot too many of those in power were armchair generals with too few experience of the actual fighting to understand the realities of the field... and the need to listen a little more to what the grunts say

jklahsd32 laksd13 that was not a smart move if germans won they should be no france fries anymore

It is never smart to take a reactive approach in war and leaving the initiative to the enemy. That and the German cunning, as well as their strategical and tactical brillance was what lost the French the war, despite having more numbers and better technology/ equipement and supplies.

They send their strategic reserve army to the Netherlands for a highly risky operation that even in the unlikely case it succeeded would only yield a pretty bad reward. Most of the Top General were totally against this move, it was against everything they had learned in WW1.

Flamethrower-> Keep in mind, though, that comparatively to their own population, France lost a lot of people in WW1 (twice as much as Britain). Nobody fought the Germans in WW1 as much as them, they sacrificied an entire generation (which is a big deal for the European country that had the lowest birthrate since the mid-19th century), and a large part of the country was devastated since it was mostly fought in France. Nobody wanted that to repeat again, but still, most people didn't want to surrender, many were seen as traitors after the conflict.

Flamethrower-> Confused actual deaths with casualties (Since France alone had twice the casualties of the whole British empire). "Secondly Germany lost more people than France" And? They had more than 70 millions of people (39 millions in France, did you even read the "comparatively to their own population"), and anyway I was talking about the allied side. Also factually, they didn't smash France in WW1, except in your illusionary world. Lastly, France was devastated as a country, especially in the north-east, even today there are remaining shells from WW1 in France. Germany wasn't touched. "Russia lost more troops in WW1 than France" Again, you know how many people there was in Russia right? But in WW2, it's true that the loss of Russia was greater even considering the population. And what? Hitler wanted to destroy Russia, not only to invade it (since paradoxally, he had respect for France), it was a battle for survival. Also, they had a chance to win (france didn't past a certain point, I hope your brain is able to understand that). Still, it was very courageous from the Russian people, I don't know how many other country would have done that, well they didnt have any choice anyway. Also, to repeat myself, the low birthrate had serious consequences in the french people minds. Until the beginning of the 19th century, France had always been the most populated kingdom in Europe, even competing with Russia for numbers (but being more developed). In the 19th century, the demographics of UK, Germany and not the mention Russia exploded. In WW2, if France lost as much people as Russia, there would be between 5 and 10 millions people in France today, less people than in Paris. "the weak surrender monkeys surrendered" Say the weak internet warrior who probably didn't do any real battle in his entire life, and who probably would piss is panties if he was a front of any soldier from that era. Dragon Ball Z and the real world are different, kid, try to write comments without insulting people about things you have no idea about. Disagreeing and being that rude are two completely different things.

Fake news, out to the Gulag you go

One of the reasons for that famine was actually that the Soviet government extracted more grain from rural areas than those could provide - grain, which they exported to import machinery & technology to industrialize the country.

@@franzstrau3521 Soviet Windows - Food: 'This folder is empty.' xD

There was plenty of food, but between civil unrest, rapid industrialisation and poor management, it simply didn't get to the people that needed it all of the time. Pretty similar factors leading to most famines in modern history.

@@michaelhenman4887 The Irish: Cries in potato famine

I use Blender. You can get it for free.

Thanks! I'll do my best!

great work! Great quality!

Thanks!

You? Me?

Id reply with a GFY vs a "thanks" with that statement

Are you sure ? I was thinking that it's more like France wanted to build an extension of the maginot and Belgium denied. :/

Belgium denied I think

@@edgar7456 Belgium was fine with it at first, but then at the last minute they told France to fuck off

They did, sort of, along Albert Canal. But much weaker than the French one, and without aire defence (an unexpected novelty). They bet on neutrality.

@@antoinechristoph9574 Actually, yes, Belgium was supposed to build a defensive line on its ground, while the french wanted to build an extansion of the maginot line on the franco-belgium border, but then belgium became neutral and refused the french defensives constructions plan, to respect its neutrality. ( Belgium became again neutral after the remilitarization of the Rhineland, belgium said that if france didnt do anything to the german remilitarization, then france would do nothing to protect Belgium and so becoming neutral is the best thing to do. ) GG Belgium, dumbest thing to do

The accent is Estonian. It's a Finnic language, together with Finnish.

lrighetti3 different how? In that they went through Belgium and wanted to take Paris and bring a quick end to the war?

RambleOn07 cause blitzkrieg uses planes tanks and infantry as a quick attack

@@rampagecube2714 schlieffen plan in 1914 has nothing to do with blitzkrieg in 1940... in 1914, Germans intent to outflank the right of french armies by Belgium, they pass through belgium from east to west, then expecting to be too fast for french and belgians, they change their way to the straight south to encircle all the french army in eastern france.... in 1940, the plan is send half of army in belgium to make the allies react and send all their best troops in Belgium... cut the line on the pivotal poor troops in the french ardennes, run through france to the channel frome east to west then encircle and trap all the best allies armies in Belgium... That's has nothing to do with tanks etc... the plan was different on the map, tanks and planes are part of materials to execute the plan but are not the plan...

From the population of 40 million,just have %5 of World’s industrial production country.

This is basically true with any defeated side: history is written by the winners...

Aurélien Regat-Barrel irrelevant comment, France was the winner

The French government that won in 1944 was not the same that handled the defeat and the collaboration in 1940: they have been blamed for all the issues after being executed or jailed. Anyway the point is about how history is taught by each country. Russia was by far the main winner against the Nazi. But how many people in the West have have heard that statement just once? How many books can you find in your language about Joukov?

'France was the winner'??? More like France was saved by the winners. Also, more French soldiers died defending German soil for the Nazis than the number lost attacking it. The French didn't win shit, they just survived thanks to their allies.

+Aurélien Regat-Barrel My history class covered the USSR's role in WW2 extensively. Your cultural criticism is 20 years out of date, the Cold War is long gone and the propaganda has been alleviated significantly in most western nations. Most people still don't know about USSR impact, because most people barely know anything about WW2 at all.

BVargas78 freedom

BVargas78 TR IS BETTER

BVargas78 Evolve or perish

Evolve or perish!

LIVE FREE IN THE NC

I have seen a film of the invasion through the Ardennes. The Germans had regularly to get off their tanks to clear the way. Unfortunately for the French, the plans of their defenses ended up in the Germans' hands after a betrayal.