Conquering all of Europe in just a few years from a military you built up basically from scratch is a feat in itself. Imagine how strong Germany would be if WW1 never happened up until that point?
@@waynesworldofsci-tech The man who Heinz Gudarian would read and put those very principles in place for his own book on Armoured Warfare Doctrine, "Actung Panzer" I was going to make mention of Liddell-Heart in my first post, but I just couldn't think of his name at the time.
some senior French commanders were appalling. Gamelin was apolitical general who'd been pals with former pm Daladier. he was in his 60s and locked himself away in a castle with no direct radio or telephone communication with his field commanders. all messages went by motorcycle courier. it could take 24 hours for an order to reach a commander and him to then act on it. meanwhile German panzer units were moving at a moment's notice.
In hindsight no. The Germans were completely prepared. UK and France were not ready militarily or politically despite the warnings. Why on earth didn't the UK/France attack Germany in Sept 1939 while the bulk of the Wehrmacht was in Poland?
The Germans did have prepared defenses that would have been difficult to break through and the Allies were still hoping there could be a negotiated settlement instead of a repeat of WW1
I watched a video on this subject by "Histoire sur Carte" (History on Map) here on RU-vid in which a detailed explanation is given : "The Allies thought that Poland would resist longer, at least till the winter. From the 7th September 1939, the French launched an attack in Saarland in order to relieve Poland. The Germans had evacuated the area, civilians included, and had laid mines and booby traps everywhere. On the 18th, after an advance of about 10 km long by 25 km wide, the units stopped. They were a few kilometers from the Westwall, the western wall, which the French called the Siegfried Line. They encountered no resistance but suffered significant losses from the mines. On the 21st, Poland being virtually beaten, the French troops received the order to retreat to the Maginot Line. In any case, the French didn't have the artillery to breakthrough and couldn't envisage a serious attack on the Westwall, even with the reduce numbers left in the west by the Germans. On the 28th, Warsaw capitulated and on the 6th of October, the last Polish soldiers laid their weapons. The Germans immediately transferred their forces to the west for an offensive that Hitler wanted to launch as soon as possible. It didn't happen before May 1940 for different reasons."
@@HistoryHustle Asian, Chinese specifically. Also important wars that changed the humanity. Btw you're faster than Germans were in France, you commented back in seconds! Thanks!
And the saddest part? The French had multiple opportunities during 1940 to achieve a victory. Their air reconnissance could've been believed when the reported large traffic jams in the Ardennes, and the Ardennes could've been bombed, destroying the German's main offensive, the bridges at sedan could've been retaken, the offensive through Lille could've worked, these are only a few of their pathways to victory, none we're taken, and the worst, and possibly the most unlikely option, the French surrender due to their low morale and poor leadership.
France (39 M) fought Germany (80 M) alone. France inflicted 120,000 losses on them in 5 weeks and destroyed 1/3 of their tanks. German military losses were proportionately higher than during the first 6 months of the war on the Russian front.
@@awesomebrawel4050 The Germans were more numerous against the French while the Russians were more numerous against the Germans. Plus the Russians had a huge territory to retreat to, which was not the case for the French.
Excuse me as i'm searching through my notes for more of anything about this topic. Advanges France had in 1940: • the Maginot-Line covers the entire eastern frontier on metropolitian france (including the coasts of Corsica & a stratigic position somewhere on what is the republic of Tunisia) • An up to-date stockpile of military equipment, especially in aircraft and armour vechicles which outclassed most of what their adversaries had. • out of the allies in 1940, France had sent the mosy manpower to the frontlines, while the british only sent The BEF & RAF or the Benelux had enough for their own terrirory repetively. • • Unfortunate mishaps for the french military: • High consription persentage, so a big portion of their manpower were not professional soldiers. • HQ was plauged with some strife and in fighting, makes it hard to coordinate troop movements. • A combination of the command structure being very conservitive, and both not locating themselves close/nearer to each other and lacking of quicker communication methods. • overall strategy sabotaged by British foreign policies, which most importantly soured relations with Belgium when their military buffer in the rhine was gone on 1936. • french divisions hadn't got into the concept of combined arms warfare as much as the wehrmacht, a well known example is even though a unit of certain single-turret two-man tanks can outlast most of what the germans had that year, because panzer divisions can consist of a vast array of types, a panzer unit would have something capible to counter whatever the allies were fighting with, unlike the allies keeping their tanks grouped by type to make maintenece easier. •
Um, no. That’s a vast over simplification. The French government didn’t trust the army, and didn’t fund communications. The War Minister died in an air show crash where he was a spectator. He had a plan to change the uniform, which got put on hold while a replacement came up to speed. The minister’s death also crippled several updates to French forces. The one fort that the Germans broke through on the Maginot Line was incomplete. Someone had apparently been feeding French aircraft designers hallucinogenic drugs. And on, and on.
Churchill was a Francophile and worked throughout the war to promote France, and De Gaulle who he saw as the embodiment of a proud fighting France. US president Roosevelt however disliked De Gaulle and was worried he might set up a dictatorship when France liberated. At Casablanca big meeting the US preferred the Vichy Admiral Darlan instead , however he was assassinated by a Gaullist ( armed with a weapon supplied by Mi6 ) and US went over to supporting De Gaulle
Truly worthy of Churchill's legendary deceit, a compliment that implies that French troops failed in 1940: "I can't understand how such brave soldiers, fighting in various places at one against ten (sometimes even one against thirty), still manage to find enough strength to go on the assault: it's simply amazing ! I find among the French soldiers of Dunkirk the same ardour as that of the poilus of Verdun in 1916. For several days hundreds of bombers and guns have been pounding the French defences. However, it is still the same thing, our infantry and tanks cannot break through, despite some ephemeral local successes." "Dunkirk proves to me that the French soldier is one of the best in the world. The French artillery, so feared in 14-18, once again demonstrated its dreaded effectiveness. Our losses are terrifying: many battalions have lost 60% of their strength, sometimes even more! “ "By resisting about ten days to our forces, which were significantly superior in terms of numbers and resources, the French army achieved a superb feat in Dunkirk that is to be commended. It certainly saved Britain from defeat, by allowing its professional army to reach the English coast." General Von Küchler commandant of the XVIII army
The most sincere tribute to Bir Hakeim came not from the British but from the Germans: "Some British officers have insinuated that French morale gave way but in the whole course of the desert war, we never encountered a more heroic and well-sustained defence". Generalmajor Friedrich von Mellenthin Panzer Battles: A Study of the Employment of Armor in the Second World War 1956 "Bir Hakeim is a further proof of the thesis which I have always maintained, namely that the French are, after us, the best soldiers in Europe. After this war, it will be necessary for us to establish a coalition capable of containing militarily a country capable of accomplishing military prowess which astonish the world as at Bir Hakeim » Hit ler to the members of the German general staff in June 11, 1942 H itler’s assessment was notably expressed after the battle of Bir Hakeim (North Africa, May 26 to June 11, 1942), where 3,700 Frenchmen in the desert held 16 days against the Afrika Korps and its Italian allies, who numbered 37,000 men. At the same time, the Afrika Korps had switftly taken fortified Tobruk from the British and Canadian in spite of their numerical supériority.
Who cares, the us was supporting Vichy who was allied to Germany. During the time that darlant was still around in north Africa they were still repressing jews, Pl under the eyes of the us army. The same thing happened during the war of Algeria. De Gaulle wanted in dependence for the colonies, the cia funded the oas which tried to pull a purtsch. They never like de Gaulle because he didn't want France to become like Britain, a tool of the us. @@coling3957
The French fought very well and sacrificed their troops to allow the BEF and French forces to escape from Dunkirk, not all French troops were ready to surrender, De Gaulle would not surrender but the political class let down the French people which led to France surrendering 🇬🇧😎
There's a lot more to it. The French had hundreds of fighter planes that were at least as good as the Hawker Hurricane. The MS 406, D 520, MB 155 and 300 Curtis Hawk 75. Not as fast as the ME 109 but still capable of shooting down any German bomber and with a decent pilot, and giving German fighters a hard time. The French air force was hampered by their distribution into "zones" so that figher strength couldn't be concentrated and a very poor system of directing French planes to where they were needed. Yes, the French had 3 armored divisions with the Char B1, with a 4th thrown together later. But, the French also had four "Light" divisions. "Light" in this case meaning fast...not lightly armed or armored. These had the Souma S-35s and were equal in strength to a Panzer division. Also, there were about seven mechanized calvary divisions with light tanks and armored cars. The Light Divisions stopped the German advance in their tracks in Belgium at the battle of Hannut and Gemboux Gap (sorry if I misspelled those) with the Germans losing significantly more tanks. This is the first major clash of modern AFV and still one of the largest with 1500 or so armored vehicles participating. The French, British and Belgians were doing pretty good in Belgium until the German breakthrough at Sedan forced the Allies to have to retreat from Belgium to avoid encirclement. The retreat caused breakdowns of communication and supply. A lot of French armor was abandoned because of lack of fuel. German planes blasting supply columns added to the bad situation. Could the Allies have won in 1940? The answer is Yes. They had what they needed. It was how it was all used ...or not used that led to defeat. If you really study it ...100% of the blame rests on the French High Command. The Old Guard. France had forward thinkers like de Gaulle ...but they did not have the power to override the bad decisions of the Old Guard.
I find interesting that French General Charles Huntziger (an ethnic German) was the French commander of the very spot of the German breakthrough in 1940. Huntziger would become the Vichy Minister of War and was one of those responsible for Vichy anti-Semitic laws. One wonders whether Huntziger wanted the Germans to win against the Socialist government of the French Third Republic.
It was an informative and wonderful historical coverage episode about France 🇫🇷 invasion by Germany 🇩🇪 in 1940 during WW2. This magnificent work was shared by an amazing ( history Hustle) channel introduced by Sir Stefan🙏. Thanks for sharing
Good synopsis of the Battle of France. I think the French 3 man tank and the reliance on phone communications with no doctrine for local commanders to make decisions when out of communication after phone lines are cut by bombing and shelling are the main reasons for French defeat. The French military was ready to fight a continuation war in 1920's, not 1940.
The Dewoitine D.520 was a new design and had a lot of teething problems. According to Greg Baughen in his book The Rise And Fall Of The French Airforce - "By 10th May, around 250 Dewoitine D.520 fighters had been built but fewer than 50 were ready for combat". Most of the French airforce, especially their bomber force, was anything but advanced.
Winston Churchill spoke vociferously before the out break of this war about the Hitler etc and pestered Britain to re-arm and what Hitler would do and not to be trusted 🇬🇧😎
Paul Reynaud was not President of France, it was Albert Lebrun who was Président de la République Française. Paul Reynaud was "Président du conseil des ministres", equivalent of Prime minister.
Hey Hustler. I have a question that may be a little bit off topic of this video. When Germany and Russia invaded Poland. England and France immediately declared war on Germany. Was there a secret protocol between the Russians England and France that would allow Russia to invade Poland and take over many of the countries up on the northern part of Europe without any intervention from France are a declaration of war from England? That is always confused me Russia and Germany were both equal aggressors as far as the invasion of Poland but the French English only declared war on one of the aggressors. I have always suspected that there was a secret deal or protocol between the English Russians and the French government that they would not intervene against Russia. What are your thoughts on this Hustler??
In December 1940 Churchill went to Washington to advise the Americans that Britain couldn’t afford to pay for a single cartridge and that it had burnt the commonwealth, and this was after it had been in default of its US loans since 1931. Lend-Lease was born , initially in exchange for 99 year leases to some British territories. Without America, Britain was a lost cause, it couldn’t even feed itself and was surviving thanks to Australian and Canadian help (which it never repaid) but refusing to contribute to underwriting the shipping that was keeping it in the fight.
My ill educated take. France needs some significant changes to its command structure and more importantly its command attitude for things to play out different. Not trusting radio for local communications, kind of understandable considering WW1 experience, but robbed them of local flexibility. Huge logistical issues, with the units going into Belgium having resupply issues in fuel and oils for their tanks and trucks to the point that many vehicles were abandoned/destroyed by their vehicles when they ran out of fuel. Then the problems of the Army of the Air handed the Germans free movement behind their lines while robbing the French of the same.
I read that there were both French and British generals that wanted to keep their forces much further back into France, away from the Northern borders, so that there would be more room to move about and more time to react. But the French govt. didn't want the Germans coming into France and fighting taking place on their territory causing destruction.
@@kingerikthegreatest.ofall.7860 Reminds me of something; what is it about the Dutch and the way they despise Australia? The Australians made unbelievable sacrifices for the Dutch to return all its colonies from Japan and to provide government in exile, including critical banking facilities for Europe, but in return the Dutch gave the middle finger after a five fingered discount, then supported Europe (and still do) for the punitive trade embargo inflicted on Australia for generations.
In 1918 the RAF and the Armée de l'Air threw every plane they had into stopping the kaiserschlacht and then supporting the allied advance. By 1940 the Germans had learned the lesson and created a tactical air force designed to support ground troops. The French and British had by that time been seduced by Douhet's theories that bombers could win the war on their own and kept most of their fighters back to defend cities that weren't being attacked. It also didn't help that the French withdrew 300 MS406 fighters from front line service on 1st May - 10 days before the German attack - intending to upgrade them to MS410s. It left the Luftwaffe with almost total air superiority over the front lines.
So basically the Germans won because of better morale, better leadership and a better airforce. I heard later military commanders have played wargame simulations of the Battle of France in which the allies won, but I think that is a kind of 'if my sister had been a boy, she would have been my brother' - if things had been different, they had been different, but they were not...
I think there are too many factors that can't be replicated in war games for this scenario. Mainly the low war support/morale, and the confusing and sluggish communication system.
@@rhvoriginals3083 Obviously not intelligent. I'm assuming you meant the Soviets, but gave you the benefit of the doubt. Because neither the British or Soviets would have won the war without US support.
France could've won WW II if they hired Miraculous kids aged 12-14 with their kwamis such as Plagg, Tikki, Sass, Trixx, Wayyz, Pollen, Barkk, Nooroo, Duusuu, etc to fight Wehrmacht, Waffen-SS, Luftwaffe, Fällschirmjäger, etc. Imagine watching the Austrian painter's reaction when he heard his entire military got destroyed by 12-14 yo magical French kids with their miraculouses & kwamis
