Why France was defeated in 6 Weeks? 

I got that reference! ;)

Georgi Atanasov nah German paras too op early game

Georgi Atanasov lol

Georgi Atanasov nah. They forgot pick a focus build bunker at Belgium and Italian border.

They stacked all their units on the border and got 20% attrition

Though it didn't really work too well for all the nations that lost in WW1. Except for Italy I guess, their strategy worked again.

I think this is fundamentally wrong. By ww1, every country engaged in some attempt at predicting the future wars. The problem is that most German opponents made wrong predictions and not that they didn't do them.

@@etwas013 Has a lot more to do with timing - the Germans rapidly rebuilt their military in the second half of the 1930's almost from scratch. They could integrate equipment and knowledge others didn't have when making their own plans and investment. Technology was making giant strides at the time.

@@davestevens6283 What knowledge others couldn't integrate? Germans has the least time for tank development and the greatest limitations.

@@etwas013 It's more in terms of doctrine and flexibility. You cannot deny that there are some in the high brass that wouldn't budge in their old ways, even more so if they haven't been proven wrong. Also, the Germans had some help from the Soviets in their tank development. It was a tight schedule but they were able to make it and test it in live combat earlier than other nations which is an important factor as well.

"Pip pip tally ho bob's your uncle" "In English we say good morning"

Arrrh Captain Blackadder, have you red the army new magazine ! "For King and Country" indeed I have sir. Soft, strong, and thoroughly exorbitant. Arrhh thought it was right up your ally. Blackadder..lol

@@Napoleonpilled "pip pip tally ho..."

NATO/WP during the Cold War: Oh shit it's gonna be 1940/1941 all over again with the guys on the other side :(

@@hailexiao2770 nah more so worried about nukes

Its not just in the military people plan to fight yesterdays war in the future. Economists and politicians are just the same. They behave like we need to balance our budgets despite we no longer use gold standard currencies anymore. Politicians are paranoid about Russia as if the cold war was still going on. Some media figures think they can roll back the clock and make and people abandon the internet and start watching cable tv again. I think lessons should be drawn from the past, but one does also try to see the changes which have occured in the world since the last war was fought. And I also think one needs to be humble. Otherwise one might become an idiot just like everyone else.

If I remember correctly Germany was much better prepared to the WW1 doctrine, the French were mauled by machine gun fire in the first weeks of engagement while parading bright colors and line formations.

@@theophrastusbombastus8019 you are correct

(then there's a lot of french expletives) I see what you/he did there ...

This describes why France lost so quickly in a nutshell. Thanks so much for sharing this!

OMG -- tomatoes. Incredible.

Sacre bleu, tomates

I have a friend who served in the Royal Navy at the time of the fishing conflict with the Icelanders. He told me a funny story about vegetables in warfare. We put Royal Navy ships between our fishing boats and the Icelandic gun boats, to protect them. Royal Navy sailors hurled potatoes at the Icelanders instead of bullets. I can’t imagine the despair of the french soldiers who were given tomatoes to defend their country.

That clearly is some severe dispersion of forces.

Even in a slow moving war like WWI the lack of radios was a major issue, in fact you can attribute many of the problems both the Generals and front line troops of WWI faced to the fact that command and control technology had not progressed anything like as fast as those of defence and offence. Even by 1918 a radio weighed in at around 2,000 lb and required two lorries to transport it, one for the radio, the other for its antenna. Obviously, this is NOT the kind of thing you are taking across no mans land. Even in 1918 the primary methods of communication for attacking troops basically boiled down to runners or pigeons as non buried telephone lines laid across no mans land by attacking troops inevitably got cut by the artillery counter bombardments that were a standard response to an attack. But yeah, the failure of the French High Command to utilise Radios correctly effectively neutered them, their distrust of radios and subsequent refusal to use them garuanteed that they would be unable to respond in a timely manner to German Operations. I have always felt that the failure of the French Army to hold France in 1940 is largely the fault of its High Command, rather thana down to the fighting qualities of its troops, or the spirit of its people. Instead Frances Army was paralysed not by its doctrines (which can be changed), but by the fact that the High Command literally paralysed itself, and worse, did so *willingly*.

@The Colonel That is interesting, I did not know that, that is both kind of cool, and also indicative of one of the major issues with the Wermacht as a whole... Thankyou for that insight.

Maybe french command could have used speakers of a minority language, one that the germans had no knowledge of. In that way, radios could have been used, without worrying about the germans understanding their communications. Just like the U.S Navy did by using navajo speakers to communicate.

@@josehernandezmartinez8719 Basque or Breton would be an amazing a thing to use.

Rubbish, if the French had employed ww1 strategy they would've halted Germany's advance for a few years, or long enough to organise counter attacks.

That's why e-banking by cell- or smartphones in Africa is much more standard than in Europe.

And yet the treaty was the foundation for WW2 Germany’s failure

@@billmiller4972 exactly!

@@looinrims yes I have seen the video too, however disarmament and forbidden conscription is two different things

@@henrik3291 But in this case it had the same basis. Mixed blessing indeed. But there were other reasons. One of them was that Hitler only too late really fully switched to a war economy and e.g. enforced all females to work too.

MrsPneumaticallyMagicalManfest so, what about the mobile French forces?

Edward 1 in Wales

Yeah his tactics did great in the first month of ww1!

@The Colonel I think he meant "The side that stays on the defensive the whole time will lose"

Fixed fortifications are a monument to mankind’s stupidity. -Patton

Or when they were tied up with Spain.

Sir, you have it in a nutshell, "success(fortune) favours the brave." Why that pen name?

no germany would just defeat poland destroy french in germany and do belgium of corse it would take longer

@@gamerdrache6076 Germany would be forced to split their forces to defend against the French who were already taking over their industrial areas, at which they could ravage if they were ever pushed back. German forces would be dredged down until they’re pushed back to their original borders. France, Britain, Belgium, and Poland vs just one Germany who weren’t at Barbarossa-type preparation.

Petain changed from Patriot to Fascist. That's how the EU was formed from collaboration!

Agreed!!!!

By the way, the French would not have had to fight at all in 1940. They had to fight only because of the betrayal of ally Poland in 1939. The British and French declaration of war 1939 against Germany served only for saving face. The British and the French did not intend to keep to the contractual commitment and to attack massively in the west. They wanted to sacrifice Poland for peace with the Germans! They preferred to betray Poland instead of fighting. This was the continuation of British and French appeasement stupid politics of the 30s! The inaction of the French and British was the message to Germany: Be satisfied with Poland. Do not attack us behind the Maginot Line and in the British Isles. We do not attack Germany either! So most British bomber activity was the dropping of propaganda leaflets. In 1939 there was a good opportunity for a relatively quick victory against Germany. Because the Germans were too weak for a two-front war. For victory over Germany the British and French should have only acted according to the plan worked out with Poland for the event of a German raid on Poland. Three tactical main actions in the event of a German-Polish war contained the agreements with the British and French: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, no later than 15 days after the German attack France with British support would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. If, according to this plan the British and French had massively attacked the Germans in the west the victory would be certain because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war. But it is claimed that an attack was not possible. So it is lied that help for the Poles was not possible. That's a lie! This is a useful myth For British and French that the Germans were so strong that Poland with French and British had no chance to win. In reality the Germans were not at all prepared for a two-front war. The Germans had no chance in two-front war against Poland, French and British! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! By the way, the France and the British could have quickly discovered by enlightening their opponents during the attack that the Germans had little air support in the West because 90% of German front line aircraft were in Poland. Germans had also hardly any tanks in the West. And that the French and British could also quickly realized that the Siegfried Line was a fake. They just had to attack. Even the most incompetent of generals would have won against this weak German troops in the West. That would also have complied the agreement and the war plan concluded with Poland. British and French only had to have the will to fight and loyalty to their allies. The Germans had nothing in the West in 1939. Only inferior reserves without tanks and hardly any air support. Part of the reserve was without training! WITHOUT TRAINING! After war German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." For all that reasons the Germans had lost the war because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! But they didn't attack and thus shamefully betrayed Poland. But these facts are denied today. It is mendaciously claimed that an attack in the West was not possible. But it's a lie that support of Poland was not possible. Claiming that the French and British did not have the capabilities or ability for a massive attack in the West is also a lie that is being spread. This is also a useful myth for British and French that the Germans were so strong that Poland with French and British had no chance to win. So the mendacious legend is spread of the not ready for war or incompetent for attack French and British! The historic facts contradict this legend! Because the French themselves proved that they were capable to attack in 1939! This was the Saar offensive! This offensive has clearly shown that the French were capable of attacking, contrary to the mendacious legends spread about the impossibility of a massive attack in the West to hide the fact that Poland had been betrayed by its allies. The fact is that even without British support, France was able to defeat the Germans in the West in 1939 without any problems. The pre-emptive mobilization was started in France on 26 August and on 1 September 1939, full mobilization was declared. Six days after the German raid on Poland, the French attacked and encountered little German resistance. A French offensive in the Rhine valley began on 7 September, four days after France declared war. The Wehrmacht was preoccupied in the attack on Poland and the French enjoyed a decisive numerical advantage along the border. 90% of German frontline aircraft were in Poland. Eleven French divisions advanced along a 32 km (20 mi) line near Saarbrücken, against weak German opposition. The French army advanced to as far as 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) in some areas, and captured about 12 towns and villages unopposed...By 9 September the French occupied most of the Warndt Forest. The French 32nd Infantry Regiment made further gains on 12 September, seizing the German town of Brenschelbach. The French held German territory along all of the Rhine-Moselle front, but on 21 September French units were ordered to return to their starting positions on the Maginot Line. This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 50 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves.

Well Pétain is retired in 1940 , and weygand and gamelin were at the highest command you can reach in french army ( généralissime ) , whereas rommel was "just " a division leader , guderian a corps commander , far behind gamelin or weygand rank . Von manstein finish the ww1 as a high rank officier btw

@@AmosTrask29 I just looked it up, von Manstein was still a captain at the end of WWI. He had some good assignments as a general staff officer, but that's not the same thing as a "high rank officer". I also looked up the German commander in charge of the Heer at the time of the invasion of France, Walther von Brauchitsch. He ended WWI as a major.

There was, actually. The main strategic idea for Fall Gelb was avoiding another static warfare situation, and most of the German high commanders, Hitler included, were pessimistic about the outcome, thinking that the operation would last well into the fall of '40, and beyond. In fact, the Germans were pleasantly surprised when it took a month and a half, instead of half a year.

Nothing to do with any fear of a prolonged war. This is a method of overcoming complex ww1 defences. It was not limited to Germans.

That's exactly what Guderian says in the introduction of "Achtung-Panzer!".

@@jacopomangini3036 I think he doesn't.

@The Colonel That is a different topic. The original comment was asking about the feasibility of applying a particular tactical guideline (kleckern, klotzen) to a strategic consideration. That is not true.

Adopting an offensive posture despite severe issues in communication and intelligence was exactly what the Soviets did in 1940 and we all know how that turned out...

True, true. But I would say that this trend of being present at the front was still more common amongst German generals than amongst their French counterparts.

Not just generals. German officers were expected to be at the front. Throughout the war, German officer corps lost a lot of people.

@@Sedna063 The casualty rate of German officers was considerably higher than that of ordinary German troopers, this applies to both World Wars and is unique among all powers participating in the World Wars.

@@MaximKretsch I think you mean NCOs rather than officers

@@nattygsbord From that assumption I guess you are a Brit or North American who is used to the fact that the higher the rank the better the chance to survive. Let me tell you that the German army always was different. I said officers and I meant it.

Well, If calling me a "Nazi" is a thing for being german, then hell yeah, i'ma make fun of french people for having tanks with 7 reverse gears and 1 forwards gear for parades.

​@@TheDistortion93 I believe the one forward gear was in case they got attacked from behind

@@lsdave42 the french ALWAYS have a plan

TheDistortion93 you do know the french aren’t the ones calling you nazis anymore

This doesn't explain everything due there were only 3 armored divisions between total 120 Allied divisions for more than a week!! It was so bad even German commanders were freaking out about an Allied counterattack encircling and destroying them easily so they forced both Rommel and Guderian to halt for few days and wait for infantry divisions. Allies indeed tried a counterattack but it was so weak only 3 armored divisions easily repelled it even if they were insanely outnumbered!! Seriously nobody will consider France having a strong military force until they prove themselves again as there is no explanation to this...

The French plan was to fight the war in Belgium only and not on the border, but on the second defense line, half Belgium lives there.

One can often cite the failure of the French government to extend the Maginot Line to cover the Belgian route but you have to realize that France trying to fortify the Belgian border back then makes about as much sense as China fortifying their North Korean border today.

By the way, the French would not have had to fight at all in 1940. They had to fight only because of the betrayal of ally Poland in 1939. The British and French declaration of war 1939 against Germany served only for saving face. The British and the French did not intend to keep to the contractual commitment and to attack massively in the west. They wanted to sacrifice Poland for peace with the Germans! They preferred to betray Poland instead of fighting. This was the continuation of British and French appeasement stupid politics of the 30s! The inaction of the French and British was the message to Germany: Be satisfied with Poland. Do not attack us behind the Maginot Line and in the British Isles. We do not attack Germany either! So most British bomber activity was the dropping of propaganda leaflets. In 1939 there was a good opportunity for a relatively quick victory against Germany. Because the Germans were too weak for a two-front war. For victory over Germany the British and French should have only acted according to the plan worked out with Poland for the event of a German raid on Poland. Three tactical main actions in the event of a German-Polish war contained the agreements with the British and French: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, no later than 15 days after the German attack France with British support would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. If, according to this plan the British and French had massively attacked the Germans in the west the victory would be certain because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war. But it is claimed that an attack was not possible. So it is lied that help for the Poles was not possible. That's a lie! This is a useful myth For British and French that the Germans were so strong that Poland with French and British had no chance to win. In reality the Germans were not at all prepared for a two-front war. The Germans had no chance in two-front war against Poland, French and British! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! By the way, the France and the British could have quickly discovered by enlightening their opponents during the attack that the Germans had little air support in the West because 90% of German front line aircraft were in Poland. Germans had also hardly any tanks in the West. And that the French and British could also quickly realized that the Siegfried Line was a fake. They just had to attack. Even the most incompetent of generals would have won against this weak German troops in the West. That would also have complied the agreement and the war plan concluded with Poland. British and French only had to have the will to fight and loyalty to their allies. The Germans had nothing in the West in 1939. Only inferior reserves without tanks and hardly any air support. Part of the reserve was without training! WITHOUT TRAINING! After war German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." For all that reasons the Germans had lost the war because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! But they didn't attack and thus shamefully betrayed Poland. But these facts are denied today. It is mendaciously claimed that an attack in the West was not possible. But it's a lie that support of Poland was not possible. Claiming that the French and British did not have the capabilities or ability for a massive attack in the West is also a lie that is being spread. This is also a useful myth for British and French that the Germans were so strong that Poland with French and British had no chance to win. So the mendacious legend is spread of the not ready for war or incompetent for attack French and British! The historic facts contradict this legend! Because the French themselves proved that they were capable to attack in 1939! This was the Saar offensive! This offensive has clearly shown that the French were capable of attacking, contrary to the mendacious legends spread about the impossibility of a massive attack in the West to hide the fact that Poland had been betrayed by its allies. The fact is that even without British support, France was able to defeat the Germans in the West in 1939 without any problems. The pre-emptive mobilization was started in France on 26 August and on 1 September 1939, full mobilization was declared. Six days after the German raid on Poland, the French attacked and encountered little German resistance. A French offensive in the Rhine valley began on 7 September, four days after France declared war. The Wehrmacht was preoccupied in the attack on Poland and the French enjoyed a decisive numerical advantage along the border. 90% of German frontline aircraft were in Poland. Eleven French divisions advanced along a 32 km (20 mi) line near Saarbrücken, against weak German opposition. The French army advanced to as far as 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) in some areas, and captured about 12 towns and villages unopposed...By 9 September the French occupied most of the Warndt Forest. The French 32nd Infantry Regiment made further gains on 12 September, seizing the German town of Brenschelbach. The French held German territory along all of the Rhine-Moselle front, but on 21 September French units were ordered to return to their starting positions on the Maginot Line. This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 50 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves.

​@@GreatPolishWingedHussarsbruh go outside lmao

@@0008loser Ridiculous!

They also acted on Speed, if you know what i mean. XD

This is less about a war against positions or troop formations, etc. and more a war on the command structure.

Does anyone remember how Napoleon deserted in Egypt

@@2adamast Just after defeating Ottoman's forces which were 4 times larger than the french troops, then forcing UK to commit 30,000 soldiers to blocade the country, soldiers which were needed when UK, Russia and Prussia decided to stop Napoleon at Austerlitz ! Well, overall, not a bad move. Coalition troops lost 50,000 soldiers when french lost only 15,000 .. Kléber who was in charge of Egypt during french occupation has still a boulevard in Paris with his name. When British let french troops to leave Egypt, they stole all the scientific findings, including Rosetta stone, but could not do anything with it. Champolion mastered to translate hieroglyphic language on a copy made by a soldier, and Gaspard Monge set a new science, Egyptology. Not bad !

@@FredericGaillot He lost from the Ottoman at Acre retreated and deserted nevertheless. Any soldier of his army knew that.

Yep, he stopped at Acre as he could not get to get the fortress and did not have any troop left to move on to capture more territory, but in less than 2 years he controlled a territory not a single european had entered for the last 500 years and changed the history of Middle East for ever. He could have stayed in Middle East and kept on expanding his conquest, but France was at that time under the threat of Russia, Great Britain and Prussia. He would have stayed in Egypt, you would not even mention his name today. He moved back in France, and defeated 2 emperors, gave France control over Europe for more than 10 years. If you want to criticize Napoleon, you've taken the wrong example !

@@FredericGaillot He deserted and you come with imperialist propaganda. You know he had a department for that and it's apparently his best achievement. If I said he lost half a million man in Russia you would answer yes but Russia formed a threat (they didn't follow his orders) and the Russians lost man and cities, and no one went this far since blabla ... Why the Russians following Napoleon didn't stop and burned down Versailles as a polite tit for tat for burning the then empty old Kremlin is for me an open question

That the French were beaten before a shot was fired was Vichy's progaganda to legitimate the armistice and the collaboration. That de Gaulle was a traitor and a coward was Vichy's propaganda as well.

If it’s any consolation one decision was the biggest cause and it was the 7th army (or more accurately: 30 divisions) deployment to the Netherlands, when the penetration was achieved there were no reserves to meet it, having reserves is the officer basic rule #1, and the high command broke it, you get punished when you break rules

Your comment is very interesting. Sad enough, not many people will take the time to read it. Thank you.

@@fabiena1787 Eh ... I'm not part of the Twitter Generation and don't write for those who are. (Not that they should care). If I have some information I can contribute I try to add to the discussion. The thing is - even the videos these comments are part of - are extremely short for an in depth understanding of the subject - so - people who are really interested - are going to take what sources are presented - and study it further. Those who aren't - won't. .

"Element of surprise"? Hell, French declared war on Germans and waited for half of year for something to happen. What was so surprising in the German attack in the end?

@@mdokuch96 The Germans pulled their offensive off and kept their momentum up. Eben Eamel fell. And German troops were holding the iniative and could surprise their enemy. They hold control over the skies, and their organizational style where NCO had much freedom to make fast decisions on their own allowed the Germans to keep the tempo up while the French army got desoriented and had a problem to keep up while the Germans were always one step ahead. The orders given from the French high command often got outdated before they reached the frontline. And information from the frontline got old and irrelevant once it reached the high command. The Germans did not have the same problems since Auftragstaktik allows German frontline commanders to use their own judgement and do as they seem fit. If the enemy is unexpectedly weak, then they could use a golden oppurtunity to strike him down before he could dig in and gather reinforcements... and the German commander does not need to wait hours to get the permission to do so - and thereby lose this great chance. And likewise could the situation on the battlefield on the other hand have changed and it could become necessary to call off an attack, and seek other ways to seize an objective. German tactics simply allowed for more flexibility and they always got one step ahead of their enemies in the decision making process. And that in turn allowed the German army to always hold the strategic iniative. And the allies constantly had to adopt to Germans, and not so much the other way around.

@@nattygsbord I repeat again - Allies declare war in September 1939 and then sit for half an year without doing anything. After that you can't speak about ANY effect of surprise at all, it is like blaming Germans for not being idiots to the same degree and actually using time, they were gifted.

@@nattygsbord This doesn't explain everything due there were only 3 armored divisions between total 120 Allied divisions for more than a week!! It was so bad even German commanders were freaking out about an Allied counterattack encircling and destroying them easily so they forced both Rommel and Guderian to halt for few days and wait for infantry divisions. Allies indeed tried a counterattack but it was so weak only 3 armored divisions easily repelled it even if they were insanely outnumbered!! Seriously nobody will consider France having a strong military force until they prove themselves again as there is no explanation to this...

For more than 10 years, French prepared for linear defense and British prepared for naval blockade. This is not something that could be reverted in the 2-3 years of war preparation. Strategically, this gave up any possibility of supporting eastern allies (Czech, Polish) or counter-attack when the main position was broken. Allies just did not realize how planes and tanks combined could break weak point of the fortified position. Weakness of the Canal Albert or the Ardennes sector was no known until too late. This is not specific to the French, British lost again in Balkan and Lybia before finding the proper counter measure, and Russian lost heavily also. But Britain had the Chanel and Russia had distance. France fought a few hundred kilometers from the sea. Even so, the breakthrough was not irremediable, had the CinC kept strategic reserve instead of sending them to Holland.

​@Nasim Aghdam Didn't really take the whole world to defeat just Germany - even if popular media likes to depict Germany as being only aided by incompetent Italy, the fact was that a large portion of Axis troops in Europe were still not German. On the Eastern Front around 1 million of the 5 million Axis casualties were Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, Finnish, Soviet collaborators etc.. The Axis powers all together accounted for some 250-300 million people, in contrast to about 600 million in the Allies.

@Nasim Aghdam What?

@Nasim Aghdam bullshit

@Nasim Aghdam wehraboo spotted!

@@ChaplainDMK The Finns werent really Axis. They werent fascist well at least most werent and werent in it for a shared political goal with Hitler. They allied with Germany because the Soviets had attacked Finland and when youre fighting against the Soviets and need allies someone whos also against the soviets is an ally of opportunity even if theyre literally Hitler

The polish army at the time was equipped with russian, french, german and austrian stuff. And to be honest, it was losing rather badly until the absolutely ballsy battle of Warsaw.

@@Defenestrationflight which was achieved thanks to aerial recon and the exploitation of this recon by the polish high command with the support of the French military advisors, which included the Colonel Charles de Gaulle and the general Weygand (which lost the battle of France).

I couldn’t say France was greatest land power because of their weak demographics.

@@Defenestrationflight the poles lasted a lot longer then france

@@Tutel9528 poland had less people and lasted longer

Christopher Carpenter american generals in 1944: the germans would never go through the Ardennes a THIRD time right? Private: they went through the ardennes Son of a

@@lenx5953 :-D this fascinates me.

American and British Generals, "They would never try that a third time." ALL the privates, in unison say,...

In WW1 the Germans went North of the Ardennes. The French ahd to hastily move to stop them. In WW2 the German right went North of the Ardennes. The French went North to confront them as planned. Then the German middle went through the South of the Ardennes, cutting the French from their communication line.

If only they had declared the Ardennes a gun-free zone...

By the way, the French would not have had to fight at all in 1940. They had to fight only because of the betrayal of ally Poland in 1939. The British and French declaration of war 1939 against Germany served only for saving face. The British and the French did not intend to keep to the contractual commitment and to attack massively in the west. They wanted to sacrifice Poland for peace with the Germans! They preferred to betray Poland instead of fighting. This was the continuation of British and French appeasement stupid politics of the 30s! The inaction of the French and British was the message to Germany: Be satisfied with Poland. Do not attack us behind the Maginot Line and in the British Isles. We do not attack Germany either! So most British bomber activity was the dropping of propaganda leaflets. In 1939 there was a good opportunity for a relatively quick victory against Germany. Because the Germans were too weak for a two-front war. For victory over Germany the British and French should have only acted according to the plan worked out with Poland for the event of a German raid on Poland. Three tactical main actions in the event of a German-Polish war contained the agreements with the British and French: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, no later than 15 days after the German attack France with British support would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. If, according to this plan the British and French had massively attacked the Germans in the west the victory would be certain because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war. But it is claimed that an attack was not possible. So it is lied that help for the Poles was not possible. That's a lie! This is a useful myth For British and French that the Germans were so strong that Poland with French and British had no chance to win. In reality the Germans were not at all prepared for a two-front war. The Germans had no chance in two-front war against Poland, French and British! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! By the way, the France and the British could have quickly discovered by enlightening their opponents during the attack that the Germans had little air support in the West because 90% of German front line aircraft were in Poland. Germans had also hardly any tanks in the West. And that the French and British could also quickly realized that the Siegfried Line was a fake. They just had to attack. Even the most incompetent of generals would have won against this weak German troops in the West. That would also have complied the agreement and the war plan concluded with Poland. British and French only had to have the will to fight and loyalty to their allies. The Germans had nothing in the West in 1939. Only inferior reserves without tanks and hardly any air support. Part of the reserve was without training! WITHOUT TRAINING! After war German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." For all that reasons the Germans had lost the war because Germans were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The French and British would only have had to attack massively in the West as agreed and the war would have ended quickly with a victory for Poland, France and the British! But they didn't attack and thus shamefully betrayed Poland. But these facts are denied today. It is mendaciously claimed that an attack in the West was not possible. But it's a lie that support of Poland was not possible. Claiming that the French and British did not have the capabilities or ability for a massive attack in the West is also a lie that is being spread. This is also a useful myth for British and French that the Germans were so strong that Poland with French and British had no chance to win. So the mendacious legend is spread of the not ready for war or incompetent for attack French and British! The historic facts contradict this legend! Because the French themselves proved that they were capable to attack in 1939! This was the Saar offensive! This offensive has clearly shown that the French were capable of attacking, contrary to the mendacious legends spread about the impossibility of a massive attack in the West to hide the fact that Poland had been betrayed by its allies. The fact is that even without British support, France was able to defeat the Germans in the West in 1939 without any problems. The pre-emptive mobilization was started in France on 26 August and on 1 September 1939, full mobilization was declared. Six days after the German raid on Poland, the French attacked and encountered little German resistance. A French offensive in the Rhine valley began on 7 September, four days after France declared war. The Wehrmacht was preoccupied in the attack on Poland and the French enjoyed a decisive numerical advantage along the border. 90% of German frontline aircraft were in Poland. Eleven French divisions advanced along a 32 km (20 mi) line near Saarbrücken, against weak German opposition. The French army advanced to as far as 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) in some areas, and captured about 12 towns and villages unopposed...By 9 September the French occupied most of the Warndt Forest. The French 32nd Infantry Regiment made further gains on 12 September, seizing the German town of Brenschelbach. The French held German territory along all of the Rhine-Moselle front, but on 21 September French units were ordered to return to their starting positions on the Maginot Line. This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 50 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves.

​@Polish Husaria you're leaning hard on that, aren't ya?

Germany did not knock out france in ww1

@@mrcool2107russia in ww1

France did not lose in ww1

Russia in ww1@@Yellow-Square

Not really. Certainly, wire and wireless communication had improved greatly but despite being innovators in the First World War, the French went backwards and relied on despatch riders instead. The Germans used those things better. The other matter was mechanisation. If you watch German propaganda films, you get the impression that the entire army was mechanised and it wasn’t. More than ever during the invasion of France, the Germans were reliant on the horse. This remained a problem even during Barbarossa.

No.

@@Mekesi1 Actually yes. The thing is that they had an agreement with the Belgians that broke, which meant they couldn't have their troops at their chosen front nor help the Belgian defenses that served as complimentary to their Maginot line. Also, Belgium had the easy terrain and the Ardennes, and both sides considered it would be a risky move, but the Germans had no time for sht and went for it, while the French indeed had their best units near the frontier on the easy-terrain side. The French considered that pushing an army through that region would take a pair of weeks and this was perfectly adjusted to the way of thinking most of the powers had, because their generals were the victorious forged in WWI and there were no significant wars during that period, meanwhile, the German generals were a mostly fresh generation that had achieved lower to medium and medium-high ranks and success, learned from their defeat and they tested their technology in Spain and knew what the new things could do, at first they had less powerful technology than their rivals but they had used their equipment, the generals of the powers, in this case, France, relied in the techniques they knew to be effective in their successful war, they had more powerful technology and more resources (the Germans started small and little by little made more powerful their industry), but no field experience, therefore they didn't knew what the tanks could now do (tanks were in their diapers when WWI was ending) and how they should be organized, trains must have been super important for them (I'm guessing they had no railways in that forest), safety was rewarded and hierarchy was important in their communications, in a slow and grueling trench-war all of this makes sense, however, this wasn't the case and due to the better cars and tanks the Germans got through in a few days, the same few days it would take communications to travel to the high command and below, which meant, awful reaction times. After this point it's pretty much what the video says, again.

The french game plan was to enter Belgium to occupy prepared position behind the screen of Belgian forces on fortified line. This was too slow, mostly because Belgian did not agree for French troops to come until far too late. But as you said, French reasoned in infantry march while Germans reasoned in tank drive.

@@Mekesi1 Look up The Dyle Line (pron. "Deal"). This was the position the French and British armies took up on their left flank in Belgium. It was always in the plan.

So it was the German’s fault for not sticking to the French expectations? Look up sucker punch in boxing.

Poland still laster longer then france. Poland faught Germany and the Ussr at the same time

​@@dknowles60 Nah, France defended for slightly bit longer, check the calender. F'course it fought together with UK, Netherlands, Belgium & Norway against a single Germany, not 1 vs 2 like Poland did. On the other hand neither Germany nor SU threw everything at Poland, but still Poland fought way better than the Baguettes.

@@saldownik wrong Do you think Germany or the USSR held back both threw every thing they had

@@dknowles60 thanks

@@saldownik wrong. Germany Gave it their all

napoleon led the defeat of his own men how is he in any regard better in the same shoes?

@@Dockhead at least, he definitely wouldn't have lost initial stage of WW2 in such a meme way, because Napoleon definitely wouldn't have gifted half a year of preparations to his enemy.

Every great general; Julius; Napoleon; Hannibal; they all knew about the utter importance of intel; communication; and supplies. And a dude like Napoleon wouldve never let his troops go out into battle without having them equipped with radios. I think that was the biggest mistake. Lack of communication.

@@EinFelsbrocken if there was radio in Napoléon Era the world would be speaking french.

@@mdokuch96 the French military of the 1930s was 100% incapable of offensive operations, as shown by the excursion into the Saarland during the polish invasion Napoleon would’ve been as screwed as any other

Twice as many planes on paper x 5 times the number of sorties per plane per day = a huge difference of effectiveness in airforce. The Stuka, when the Germans controlled the air, was far more effective than artillary; they could put their bomb right on a bridge, troop formation or armored vehicle. & the psychology of the Stuka sirens: a single plane may only hit one tank, but if everyone within range of the sound is hitting the deck or running for cover, they are frozen by fear, not maneuvering & firing at the enemy, that single Stuka momentarily makes inneffective a whole piece of the French front.

@@ajknaup3530 Indeed, it's one of the major factors, which for some reason always gets ignored.

@@ajknaup3530 *_"The Stuka, when the Germans controlled the air, was far more effective than artillary; they could put their bomb right on a bridge, troop formation or armored vehicle."_* Artillery can do that too. What it can't do is hit that object from 50 kilometres away or decide mid air that there's a better target.

@@ajknaup3530 The Stuka sirens were mostly removed after the Polish campaign.

great post

Well, stated my friend!

I believe this statement is a tad narrow in scope. Let's not forget the Polish success against the Soviets owes a lot to the internal teeth pulling of the Soviet Army during Stalin's purges. The Finn's experienced similar success against post purge USSR. Don't get me wrong the Polish performed admirably! Against two opponents I might add! But hind-site is 20/20. While it sounds cliché the French defeat owes a great deal to a combination of modern German/Austrian/Italian/Czech tactics, superior Axis communication and logistics, superb Axis staff work, and most importantly an outdated French reliance on fortification over offensive action. (That's not to say the French didn't attempt offensive action) Historically speaking over reliance on passive defensive strategy generally gives your opponent the advantage in manoeuvrability. Which means they choose when and where contact is made. See the Union Army of the Potomac's blundering in Virginia or the Ottoman performance in modern Ukraine in the latter of the Russo-Turkish wars. Hope this post provides a little perspective on the matter. Cheers!

@@DefeatedRoyalist You went off topic there mate, he didn't say anything about "Polish success against the Soviets" (which would those successes be, in fact...?). He was saying that they put up a good fight against the Germans, managing to go on the offensive a couple of times and that even so, their five-week defeat (one week short of how long the French put up, only with shitty equipment) was not even bound to be so quick but rather was hastened by the Soviet Union moving in to backstab them. The "successes" or let's say half successes in question were against the Germans, managing to foil them for that long and managing to keep even some initiative by launching offensives, which the French hardly did. Crushed in just as long but a ten times more honorable performance, with all potential to courage-in-the-chain-of-command ratio considered. Only summarizing what he said, but I just got annoyed by the patronizing start and ending of your reply to an essentially decent post.

Kuuba Kuugel couldn't agree with you more friend. My main point was to lend the ol French a bit more credit than they generally receive in regards to their facing multiple enemy offensives against their somewhat defended borders. (Maybe I misunderstood the message of the initial comment) In regards to my comments centred on the Poles fighting the Soviets I was comparing the Polish fighting multiple enemies to that of the French facing off against similar odds. Both nations received outside aid and both nations fighting men and women put up some stout resistance. I referenced some well known defensive blunders to provide some comparison and a little evidence to my stance on a combatant being too comfortable in a passive posture. Sorry to come off as patronising lol! I'll have to work on my word smithing. I appreciate the notes:)

How does such a short and positive statement not get any likes in three months. Geez people are lazy haha. Well I agree at least :P

uhm well: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Jw1UJCwcgNc.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hOpQSUwF45w.html

Fikuw Totally agree, a great book from a great man.

An interesting was made a few years ago "L'impardonnable défaite" showing how Germany prepared the next war almost immediately while France procrastinated and put its trust in aged generals, fortified lines and blockade strategy.

quite possibly divisional overlap if the sources are from different time frames (Merging units and what not) Considering the actual chaos that was unfolding, I would not be surprised.

@The Colonel the Belgium decision to adopt a suicidal "neutral" foreign policy and use neutrality rather than the French army to protect itself it crippled it's own defence and the defence of France.

Center was the least appropriate location for maneuver warfare so if the French focused there they would get hammered in the north even easier. Failing to recognise the main German thrust just shortened the campaign to the minimum.

@The Colonel It is true regarding hinterland of the central front. The question was indeed if Allies will identify and able to contain the main German thrust. But were they really in the position to do so? If they did, they would still have to counter German air support and require significant more divisions to be able to contain a faster opponent. This would be a clash of tiger vs dragon whereby the tiger has a broken leg and blunt paws. It would be a matter of time before Allied force is either bypassed or encircled. On top of this, they were unable to succeed with a single major counter-attack. This second issue, imo, fundamentally diminished their hypothetical chances. All this already due to their inadequate doctrines and command structure. If you compare this situation with late war were WAllies never capable of solving these issues, so their success lay in employing bigger numbers and sabotaging German equipment production.

@The Colonel The problem here is that French never succeeded to achieve a single notable offensive victory. Wherever the Germans planned to advance, they did. The successful defences in Benelux are not so important because German plan there was primarily to tie them down while center advances. I agree that one ought to be careful when comparing early and late war. Many things changed significantly. The issues of command culture and doctrine are,I assume, hard to change quickly and even harder to evaluate correctly during war. The Allied performance in Normandy against significantly disadvantaged Germans speaks of disparities in these quality. The result of Ardennes offensive was well predicted by Rundstedt and according to available data nobody in German officer core had any optimism for its success. At the Bulge, Germans defeated all US defences and were in free country. What if they had the forces that Rundstedt required to tie down US and British forces at the northern and southern shoulders?

the battle of stonne wasn't a success but since they where only 42500 fighting against 90000 and inflicted 4 times more castualties than they suffered on the germans i would definitely call it a good exemple of what the french were capable the british had a smaller force so it was easier for them to control it but they still showed a bit of communication problems at arras

@James Blanc - I believe that he is Austrian.

@@shawngilliland243 Austria is germany

LOL!!

France did invade the Saarland in September of 1939, but withdrew in early October.

@@spartanpawn007 why did the gremans spanked them

Exactly. But French and British basically gifted Germans half a year to prepare, form new divisions, supply existing units, move them to the West, define targets of attacks and so on. All that time German industry (including Czech military factories, which were so conveniently gifted to Germany by Allies) kept production of firearms, munitions, artillery, tanks and planes - while France had certain problems with moving to war economic at all.

@@dknowles60 No they left before any fighting started. Had the French attacked, Germany would lose, as most of their army was in Poland and the western border of Germany was poorly defended.

@@SelfProclaimedEmperor Except that the French and the British did not have a mobile force large enough to break through Siegfried line and invade Ruhr. They reasoned in weeks of preparation and gradual advance, while Poland was defeated in two weeks. Then they reverted to defensive strategy.

İf you’re a HOİ4 player you probably know you could never match with German manpower and industry after 1939 :) Defending against Germany is hard but if you play well you could win also stupidity of German AI is too important at victory.

Also, in some tanks, the operator did everything, from fuel to driving to charging and firing to recognizing. They had better tanks but you can't beat a crew that is multi-tasking what you're doing step-by-step

the commander also was a loader,so he could not always direct the tank

i think u'r mistaken on french airforce, french planes have 5/6 mission /day. however they will have a big issue, air doctrine who prevent to concentrate airforce.

Germany was deliberately allowed to take over France in order to add her resources to the invasion of Russia.

@@Itsatz0 What are you talking about? Allowed by who?

@@betimsi France was given to the Nazis. Of course they had to make it look like a stunning Nazi success, but it was planned. They lulled Stalin into complacency and surprised attacked the USSR. The resources of France were sent to the eastern front. The US and Britain have had their military run by the same institution since the Monroe doctrine.

@@Itsatz0 You're still not making any sense. France wasn't "given" to Nazis, it was rather won by them, as the author of this video brilliantly explained, stay away from conspiracy theories, they're not healthy.

More than ignored, it was censored by Pétain, then the main authority in military thinking.

If Britain had been a peninsula then more respurces would have been put into the army.

true but would english tatics be any better then france or the other countries maybe maybe not.....but either way the german army I think was without peer that almost always inflicted more losses then there various opponents especially if the battle was someone equals numbers@@thevillaaston7811

Irony?

@@mihaiserafim Yup.

4 of those shaming DLC... how it's possible to have such units in 1940 ? Since 1917 and few months of experiments the British knew that two different mobility must be separated...

@@BFVK Because you forget terrain. And the mission of those DLCs.

@@mihaiserafim I forgot nothing, the terrain has nothing to do in the fact that this mix of mobility in a same unit is wrong. Nobody use such units, even Red Army with large cavalry unit never mixed with auto cars or tanks. The frenchs themselves said it was bad units. The commanders of those divisions said themselves it was wrong to do so. The DLC did nothing effective, not good in scouting, not good as rear guard.

No

There are much better books than that.

Honor is a participation trophy in those circumstances; especially for french people

Problem of WW2 French command and national leaders was that they were pussies. As soon as Germans attacked Poland, French should have started attacking Germany, bombing raids, well, stuff like that. There were solid chances, German generals would just assassinate Hitler and sue for peace, claiming that "they were misunderstood". But French leaders declared war and then gifted Germans basically a half year of preparations - insane term, if you think about this, when it comes for WW2 conditions.

@@mdokuch96 The French army simply did not have the offensive power to invade Rhineland. All the war strategy for decades was about waiting behind fortified lines. In 1936, when German army reentered Rhine Western bank, French government asked the Army to study an invasion against a still really feeble german army. The answer was that the logistic could not follow.

@@gengis737 well, it is not like that work was given for outsourcing to Germans so I don't think they knew about this nuance. That's the point of political bluff.

Yuri Brito Personally, I put the blame largely on the shoulders of Gamelin. His insistance on using motorbikes instead of radio, his GHQ being well behind the lines outside of Paris, his lack of communication once the conflict started-and arguably his overcomplicated and inflexible command structure-and as you mentioned, his refusal to believe that large armoured units could pass through the Ardennes.

yes but if the 'french guderian ' flavigny has counterattacked with everything in his DCR on the 13th that coulkd have smashed the sedan area bridgeheads

Not sure that the army in Maginot Line were mobile enough to encounter german troops on unprepared positions.

@The Colonel Lack of fighting spirit was not always the problem, some units fought to the last man against overwhelming odds, while other collapsed. And errance of generalship disappeared when Gamelin was replaced by Weygand. "Porcupin" defence of villages and towns denied the german tanks advantage of mobility. Halas, no reserve was left to counter-attack, and the sky was german.

@@gengis737 The Germans didn't attack the Maginot Line except in a couple of places. It wasn't worth the effort.

Very good point about the germans thinking they didn't lose WW1. Clémenceau wanted to push the french army into the heart of Germany in 1918, it was realistic, the german army was exhausted, we saw more and more defections in their ranks, americans and english refused. Politically Clémenceau had to renounce even if he had the means to finish off the german army especially several thousands of Renault FT tanks.

michaelemouse1 60% of the time it works, all of the time

I was wondering about that too.

They just had so many tanks, it jumped over 100%. And in field conditions cosine can jump over 1 or even 2. From my fathers ballistics lessons in the army.

I was about to post this. but you caught that the math doesn't add up before me

German numbers don't translate into English well. ;)

no school teaches this kind of history. duh

@@gabrielsistonamoca6963 mine did in a world history class, I just never really absorbed any of the info

Roni yes but remember Finland and northern France have not the same terrain and the soviets invaded in winter witch is always a bad idea

Actually Finland did fall

@@Alex-qf9ry I see Finland as a prosperous democratic country unlike Belarus, Ukraine or Baltics

Roni and if you watch one of military history visualised’s vidéo on the winter war you can understand the soviets failure in the war due to planing and other issues they had. While the French defeat is mainly droctrinal and some luck the Germans had in gambling with a massive tank assault without infantry support In som places

But the fin's got Hitler's help and were not threaten by USSR because of the pact so yes fin's fought against brits and french on the same side as the nazi's. But you sure change side in 1944 and ally with russia (after attacking USSR with nazi army for 3 years). FIn's just ghot Lucky the whole world was too busy to kick your Fucking nazi friendss asses and give you a taste of your own medecine. And can we talk about the hitlerian dream of the pure white race so followed and put in practice in the scandinavian country during the war but for many décades after? Fucking hypocrites.