Why was France so Useless in World War Two??? 

I met an elderly French man from Nantes who was 20 years old in the French infantry in Belgium in May 1940. He chucked his uniform and stole a bike and clothes. He cycled all the way through Paris with his army cru cut looking like a soldier past German forces who did not stop him once.. He got to Nantes on West Coast where he was stopped by two French police on foot. They asked for his papers, he told them the truth, he was a French soldier and he just wanted to spend the war with his wife and child and that they could hear from his accent he was a local, like them. They arrrested him anyway and he was put on a train all the way back to Germany where he was held for a week. After that time he was brought before a German officer who, after looking down at papers summarising the story and for some long minutes, in impeccable French looked up at him and said " ah so, nice friends you have in France " He told me "even the German officer couldn't believe the French police had arrested me"! He thought he would be shot but spent the duration of the war in a prison camp. 5 long years. This is what you have to understand when dealing with 1940s France. This was not unusual.. many helped and collaborated and the resistance such as it was, often fought amongst themselves and had conflicting communist influences. Story related in French to me. The man was called Renaudin and I was dating his grandaughter Maud Renaudin. He is sadly long gone. She is happily married with a grown up family still in Nantes.. just thought I'd share a 100% real story from one who was there but no longer here to do so himself.. I hope he'd approve

I don’t really think it can be underestimated just how much damage the first would war really did. The war had destroyed virtually any real confidence in leadership. Simply too many men had been pointless marched into machine guns and artillery barrages.

The French did have the unfortunate circumstance of not having the English Channel between them and Germany.

To be fair, the British and other allies didn't fare to well against the Germans in 1939 either. England was only spared because of geography.

In every documentary I have seen on this topic, and this video adds to this theory, it was not the French Army that was bad but the French Army leadership and decision makers that were bad.

Sitting around waiting for your enemy to attack whenever and wherever they choose is never an effective strategy.

The outnumbered French First Army fought with such tenacity defending the Dunkirk Evacuation pocket at Lille, only surrendering when they ran out of ammo, that a German general accorded the French troops military honors. They were permitted to parade with their arms. He said of them, "I see in these French soldiers the same determination and defiance as those at Verdun." This angered Hitler, who had the general dismissed.

Those of us that lived during the prosperity and decadence of the second half of the 20th century have no idea how intensely traumatic the first half was. The industrial revolution gave humanity the promise of the most comfortable life possible in history, but also industrial scale human misery. So the world saw the largest and most devastating war in history, followed by a worldwide economic depression and then the largest and most devastating war in history.

Being French and having examined a wide range of sources about this era, I've concluded that the root cause of France's issues during this period was political. While most nations in continental Europe had evolved into various forms of dictatorships, France remained a democracy, despite numerous coup attempts. However, the severe tensions between the far left and far right plunged the nation into political turmoil: over the 20 years of the interwar period, France experienced 43 government changes and had 37 different prime ministers (serving in a role equivalent to presidents in the Third Republic). This backdrop of internal strife led to decisions more concerned with preserving the political system than with operational efficiency. For instance, when De Gaulle introduced his book "Vers l'Armée de Métier" in 1935, proposing a few fully mechanized and armored divisions as the vanguard, similar to the German Panzer divisions, the left viewed his proposal suspiciously as a tactic to create a Praetorian Guard capable of overthrowing democracy. Many on the right also objected, fearing that such a force would necessitate a large number of mechanics, who were often socialist and could act as a fifth column within the military. Similarly, the lack of political consensus resulted in a fragmented aviation industry for almost the entire interwar period, leading to inadequate aircraft production. This deficiency became a critical factor when German air supremacy allowed their forces to advance rapidly, leaving French forces incapacitated. As for military leadership, these challenging conditions resulted in command being entrusted to the same individuals who led during WWI. This approach persisted even as France capitulated, with leadership then being assumed by the octogenarian WWI hero, Pétain. While it's important not to default to ageism, history shows that nations with dynamic military leadership often benefit from the energy and innovation of younger commanders, rather than relying on veterans of past conflicts. Nonetheless, chance played a significant role in the outcome of these events. The French strategy (the Dyle Plan Breda variant), which was ill-suited against the German tactics, could have been effective just a few months earlier. The Germans had postponed their attack multiple times for various reasons, and most of their earlier plans would have played directly into French hands. The decision to adopt a new, daring strategy came after the Germans had to cancel another attack due to weather, during which a plane carrying their battle plans crashed in Belgium, compelling them to abandon those plans. Even though the German strategy ultimately proved to be the perfect counter to the French plan (to everyone's surprise, including the Germans), the situation wasn't immediately hopeless. However, the French response was consistently just a bit too slow, often by mere hours. Had certain events unfolded slightly differently, the Germans might have been forced to halt their advance, potentially leading to a scenario similar to WWI but with the Germans in a far less advantageous position for a war of attrition. PS: I would add more nuance to the Vichy regime portrayal. The holocaust was not something people were aware of back then, so you cannot say that "many people in Vichy France were totally onboard with the extermination of jews". As for antisemitism, it wasn't stronger in France than in the US nor the UK. France actually had many jew political and industrial figures before the war, and Pétain for example was the godfather for a jew family. The inclination to simplify history for moral reasons is understandable, including within France, but accuracy is paramount when examining historical events. France had the highest survival rate for Jews in Europe at 75%, despite being fully occupied from 1942 onward. While Vichy did surrender foreign Jews within its territory to Germany, it negotiated to leave French Jews undisturbed. Although there were indeed pro-Nazi elements within Vichy, the situation is complex, with several different Vichy governments succeeding one another, the most collaborationist of which came after France was fully occupied and under complete German control. Pétain, at 85, was largely a figurehead.

One of the contributory factors in France's failure was the supreme commander Gamelin, he headquartered himself in a remote chateau with no radio or telephone communications and relied on dispatch riders to deliver information and dispatch orders.

What is always missing from these documentaries is a perspective on losses. During the Battle of France, Germany suffered 156K casualties and lost 1/3 of the the Luftwaffe in only 6 weeks. It wasn't a walk in the park and the French did fight.

"I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me." - General George S. Patton

Ultimately, France brought the defeat to itself. The men on the ground fought hard, the numbers are actually impressive- B1 tanks rampaged into German occupied villages wiping out dozens of tanks, the outnumbered air force caused so much damage to the Luftwaffe that it might have played a role in the German's defeat at the battle of Britain. But no matter how hard the individual soldiers fight, if your chain of command is so impossibly stupid as to NOT bomb the ENTIRE German invasion force out of existence while it remains as sitting ducks in the Ardennes and end the war right there then you stand little chances in a war of millions of men. These generals were, for the most part, generals from WW1, so-called war-heroes... From a war that involved a lot of merely charging at the German trenches. Not only were they "old-school", prone to use outdated tactics, they were OLD, and I mean REALLY REALLY old, they might not even have been all there in some cases, I believe.

Germans attacked Sedan in the 1870 Franco prussian war. They repeated this in WW1. The french built a fort at Sedan but staffed it with reserve conscripts. Defence in depth at Sedan would have stopped the Nazis dead. The spanish civil was only 3-4 years before and the French generals must have watched the newsreels with stuka's taking out key infrastructure. Gamelin's bunker in Paris had no phone lines or radios. He intended to write letter delivered by messengers with millions of refugees on the roads. He was dumb as a box of rocks.

France was no more useless than the rest of Europe when faced with the Nazis and the power of the German army. Poland fell right away, and the others followed. Great Britain was saved only by the fact that they were an island, but they were pummeled by whatever bombs could reach them. WWII could have been won a lot quicker if the Americans had gotten involved sooner, but for the longest time Roosevelt and his administration resisted it because of economic reasons. Meanwhile in France the country was divided, many were too terrified to rebel against the German invasion, and you cannot blame them. My grandmother described to me the horrendous paralyzing fear watching the German army entering Paris, and the deafening sound that their boots made on the pavement. Her and my grandfather decided early on to enter the resistance, and unfortunately my granddad was arrested in 1942 with five of his friends who were in the same reseau, and all of them were sent to concentration camps in Germany. None of them came back, my granddad died at the liberation of the Sachsenhausen camp by the Russians, of starvation and pneumonia. He was too sick and weak to hang on for a few more months. My mom was six years old and she never saw her father again. Don’t think that Europeans were just sitting on their behind in their comfortable homes during the German occupation. There was no food, gasoline, nor anything for the civilian population, everything went to the German occupants. My grandma and her sister had to stand in lines for hours with tickets to get a piece of bread, butter, some meat and whatever was available on that day, and some days there was nothing at all. Some people, mostly antisemite monstrous assholes, were more than happy to help the Germans. They were called the Milice, they dressed in those ridiculous black uniforms and worked for the Gestapo. They arrested resistants and Jewish people alike, and unfortunately a lot of those repugnant miliciens did not pay for their crimes at the end of the war, too many. I could go on and on about all I know about those dark times, I am an older French woman who has lived in the USA with my American husband for the last 45 years, and when I was growing up in France, the war still permeated a lot of our lives. It was talked about, thought about, it was in the realistic French films we watched, books we read. WWII was a war not just endured by armies, it was a war that abused, tortured and decimated a huge part of civilians population all over Europe. That kind of war never affect only one generation, it always affect two, and often enough three depending on the circumstances lived through by your family. Try to understand and respect it. Thank you.

Germans were able to synchronize artillery, armor, at guns, airplanes while french and british did not (a problem the british will continue to have in north Africa against Rommel). French armor was meant to follow infantry, not meant for deep penetrations like the panzers. The french logistic was not meant to support french armor in long moves. Often the french armor had to leave the battle when running out of munitions or worse, abandon the tank because no more fuel. A lot of french armor was wasted that way. Another problem with the french and british, was no proper synchonisation between infantry and armor, no proper synchronisation between the french and british during counterattacks. An example is the battle of Stonne (french armor attack without infantry then later infantry attacks alone). Overall nobody was ready for this kind of war of movements in Britain, France, U.S. at the beginning (look how the americans performed at Kasserine, by chance commanders like Patton were given leadership after that), nor in Soviet Union. A lot of allied commanders though they would be fighting another trench war.

Had the French military been organized along the lines of a war of maneuver, had the leadership not been stuck in the 1870's and the first year of WWI, had French politicians had the courage to back their military leaders and had the military even considered the ubiquitous use of radio communication, used their tanks (then the best in Europe) as tanks instead of mobile artillery.... the list goes on, and on, and on, and on. The principal reason the French lost the Battle of France is that the leadership throughout the military (with a few exceptions) were more concerned with their careers and the politicians were more concerned about being seen as the "savior" of France. In other words, the French lost the Battle of France because they were French. The individual soldiers were damned fine fighters, their leadership from the bottom to the top seemed to be staffed by men freshly off the short bus.

Pétain's quote is always truncated. He said that the Germans would be pincered as they left the Ardennes forest "provided that the necessary and adequate defenses were built", which wasn't the case. Apart from Petain's assessment, the French High Command had confirmation on many occasions throughout the 1930s that the Ardennes could be crossed and the Meuse be reached by armoured vehicles in 3 to 5 days, which is roughly what happened. So the French HC had an accurate assessment of the potential "Ardennes" scenario. It wasn't "the French", but Gamelin, who decided that the German Ardennes thrust could only be a diversion, and devised his Dyle-Breda plan with no strategic reserves and ignoring reality.

I was lucky enough to live in France (a long time ago - 2005/6) and it’s amazing how different countries teach kids about the same conflict. My French friends told me how they are taught that the British army fled, deserting them in their fight against the Germans. Us Brits are taught that we had no choice but to withdraw as the Allies were getting pummelled, France was lost and the heroic evacuation at Dunkirk allowed the war to continue. There is still a lot of resentment in France over the idea that Britain abandoned the French and the Germans could have been defeated had we stayed. I can't say I agree with that assessment. The French guys I knew also said they were taught that the British ‘betrayed’ them at Oran, which remains a highly controversial topic.

Where do you find all the video footage for your videos? I’m just curious.

I think Churchill summed it up best. When asked why the Battle of France was lost, he replied: "This battle was lost years before. When Hitler declared rearmament in defiance of the Versailles Treaty. When he reoccupied the Rhineland. And France did nothing. Finally, when Britain and France surrendered to his demands at Munich". Analyzing opponent armament statistics (who has more of what) means little in an actual battle. What counts is fighting spirit.

If I’m not mistaken the Germans were the only ones who had thought to install radios in their tanks so they could quickly react to changes in the order of battle. My college Russian history professor was a French officer and then later intelligence agent whose cell mates at one point in captivity were all executed by the Germans. It was extremely fascinating listening to him relating anecdotes about the war. Then also the Maginot line was not only incomplete, but it apparently never occurred to the French that the Germans were even capable of great maneuver warfare to simply bypass it. Then of course the allies were too slow to increase their air power including at sea in the form of long range ASW flying boats, escort carriers, or large attack carriers. The French could have taken the Germans out in 1936 but they weren’t aggressive spirited enough to punish the Germans for violating the treaties that they’d signed.

Thank you for your incredibly insightful historical video. I happened to click on it and started watching, and was fascinated by your information. Both my parents were war refugees from the Soviet Union, so my whole life I've been interested in WW2 history. Thanks again :)

In ww2: Poland, France - 1 month. Yugoslavia - few days. Denmark - 6 hours... Ukraine fighting vs Russia: 2+ years HAMAS vs IDF: 6+ months Is it a matter of advanced military defense these days or a lack of will to finish wars fast?

The French had suffered terrible losses of manpower in WW1, with an estimated 1.4 Million killed and 4.2 Million wounded. There was a total fear of another bloodbath, which France could not afford. Hence the French readiness to acceept defeat. Goebels playing on the French paranoia also said, "England will fight to the last drop of French blood!"

The Germans had Pervitin, the best medical grade metamphetamine ever produced at industrial scale, the French only had Beaujolais…

The French also had generals from WW1 who were too old by then and slow to think quickly and react. Additionally they were too rigid in their strategy despite intelligence reports of the advancing German front.

French resistance were vital in delaying German forces from moving to counter attack the Normandy landings.

7th Panzer won the Tour de France.

Great storyline and even better footage! Love it!

Really enjoy these educational documentaries Henry. I liked the map animations showcasing the battles that took place. Is there a link on RU-vid to where I could find them? Cheers, Liam from World War Military History.

The original plan for Case Yellow was the main attack through Belgium and Netherlands. That’s what the French military planned for. When that plan fell into the French hands due to an accidental airplane crash, the Germans switched to the Manstien plan. This caught the Allies completely off guard.

The French military was a great fighting force. But like the Italians, they had a corrupt government that invested in the previous war and exhausted their economy to where they simply gave up to a pointless cause when their own government was willing to cooperate with the Nazis. Also, during WW1 France was extremely close to having a mutiny so despite the reputations of the Italians and French military, they were tired so you can't blame them

To cut the story short...France wanted to preserve its historical buildings and city.

From what my grandpa told me france put up a fierce fight I am german btw

I also think the slaughter of World War 1 had a effect on all of them. Remember, the French came close to mutiny and overthrow during the Great War. Also, factor in that the French thought they would be fighting a well dug in static war against a enemy who would hurl themselves against a murderous wall if they even dared to attack, therefore not training or even really considering a mobile war of combined arms movements and counter movements and the communications required to do that. I have also read that the relatively new "warbirds" terrified the everyday troops, which at that stage was probably true. A couple of years later, air attacks became "normal", so to speak, for the combatants.

And towards the end of the War, the Germans almost did it again, by coming through the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge. This time it was the Americans who had done little to defend the forest. Counting World War 1, that was the THIRD time the Germans had gone thorugh the Ardennes. No one seemed to learn.

What are those clips that look like it's from a movie? what movie is it?

Basically, France lost because of a trick play. The Nazis scored the most shocking trick play touchdown in history

Completely forgetting that was exactly what the British Expeditonary Force was too. Actually the British have the French army to thank for getting the bulk of their men back in Operation Dynamo, the small boats armada that picked up the British and some french soldiers and shipped them over the channel. Erwin Rommel had surrounded five divisions of the French First Army near Lille. Although completely cut off and heavily outnumbered, the French fought on for four days under General Molinié in the Siege of Lille, thereby keeping seven German divisions from the assault on Dunkirk and saving an estimated 100,000 Allied troops. In recognition of the garrison's stubborn defence, German general Kurt Waeger granted them the honours of war, saluting the French troops as they marched past in parade formation with rifles shouldered. Although Churchill had promised the French that the British would cover their escape, on the ground it was the French who held the line whilst the last remaining British soldiers were evacuated. Enduring concentrated German artillery fire and Luftwaffe strafing and bombs, the outnumbered French stood their ground. On 2 June (the day the last of the British units embarked onto the ships), the French began to fall back slowly, and by 3 June the Germans were about 2 miles (3.2 km) from Dunkirk. The night of 3 June was the last night of evacuations. At 10:20 on 4 June, the Germans hoisted the swastika over the docks from which so many British and French troops had escaped. The desperate resistance of Allied forces, especially the French forces, including the French 12th Motorised Infantry Division from the Fort des Dunes, had bought time for the evacuation of the bulk of the troops. The Wehrmacht captured some 35,000 soldiers, almost all of them French. These men had protected the evacuation until the last moment and were unable to embark. The same fate was reserved for the survivors of the French 12th Motorised Infantry Division (composed in particular of the French 150th Infantry Regiment); they were taken prisoner on the morning of 4 June on the beach of Malo-les-Bains. The flag of this regiment was burnt so as not to fall into enemy hands.

How many gears does a French tank have? Five for reverse and one for forwards, just in case they are attacked from the rear or for parades.

I heard that the French tanks had 5 gears....1 to go forward and 4 to go in reverse. 😂

I always wondered why France having declared war on Germany Sept 3rd 1939 did not realise most of the Wehrmacht was busy in Poland and open to attack.This actually happened in November 39 when a large incursion was made by the French into the Saarland virtually unopposed.The nervous French high command ordered them to withdraw.After the war senior German military observers said that they had little to stop the french reaching into the heart of the Reich.

Excellent summary! One deeper factor: French generals were convinced that even a very well equipped enemy would never advance faster than 5 kms (3 miles) per day. The military academies cadets had been trained for years to hold fortresses and supply them. Not to react swiftly to an attack. WW1 mentality plus better planes and tanks.

Its crazy to think would have happened if France stopped that initial invasion.

Were they? They lost maily because they expected a static war and due to lack of radiocoms. Nobody could handle mobile warfare deep within own lines at that point in the war. By the time the lesson was learned almost all of Europe was conquered.

Germans made a totally insane leeroy-jenkings move. 4-5 coins flips had to go just the right way for them but they got them. No aerial bombing of the huge traffic jam (biggest gamble), the river crossing, the French slow response and ineffective counter-attacks. Totally reckless gamble but that was literally Hitler on speed. At that point he had been using meth induced drug cocktails for four years from his quack doctor since 1936.

Nice video! Sums it up quite accurately :) Thanks very much. Hope you continue with this good work.

I think a large part of the problem was the French military leadership, or rather, the lack of it. Old men fighting the last war. Inflexible, suspicious of allies and unimaginative. The French had an excellent army, but their generals let them down...

In 1938, General André-Gaston Prételat, commanding the French Second Army, conducted wargame exercises in which the German Army launched an assault through the Ardennes with seven divisions, including four motorized infantry divisions and two tank brigades. The "French" side's defenses collapsed. "The result was a defeat of so comprehensive a nature that the wisdom of publishing it was questioned lest morale be damaged."

As pointed out by Len Deighton in his book "Blitzkrieg", Frances's failure to utilize radio contributed greatly to their inability to respond quickly to the Nazi's maneuvers..

You can thank the French for Dunkirk

French leadership was execrable. Gamelin established his headquarters in a place with no telephones. He withdrew forces to defend Paris and fired 20 top commanders rather than accept any blame himself. This turmoil in the command structure could not have accelerated the sluggish French decision making. He was FINALLY getting around to a counter-attack to cut the Germans off and link up with the Allied forces in Belgium when he was fired and replaced by Weygand, who arrived on 17 May and cancelled the counter-attack before approving it 2 days later. The French thus managed to double-down on command inefficiency.

What is the name of the movie that goes at the background at 21:12?

It wasn't just France, Britain was every bit as useless in that first phase, that's why we ended up with Dunkirk. If it hadn't been for the Channel, Britain would have been quickly over run. More specifically the problem lay with the High Command, with French Generals is overall control at the outset.They were old men, heroes from WW1, but their disciplinarian stance was expecting another trench war and that was what they planned for. They failed to adopt modern technology, Weygand, overall Chief of Staff, didn't even have a telephone in his office, relying on despatch riders that took many hours to deliver orders, when the germans moved in minutes. Both the British and French high commands learned nothing from the Nazi invasion of Poland and didn't lift a finger to help Poland in September 1939. German tactics were there for all to see, and had been in the Spanish Civil War from 1936 too. But both the French and British generals carried on prancing about, fox hunting instead of watching tactics. The biggest single error however comes after the initial defeat and Dunkirk. Most of France was still free with just Picardy lost. Such was the shock at that loss, the the French government, mired in argument, chose to replace the Chief of Staff with another WW1 hero, Marshall Petain. Not only was he ancient, noone seem to realise he was a fascist too, an admirer of Hitler who had no wish to fight him. Within days of taking command, Petain was advocating for an armistice, essentially a surrender! The British shambolicaly landed more troops in the West at Cherbourg, but had to pull them out within a couple of days, leaving all their new kit, still sitting greased up in crates in France. Petain made no real attempt to resist and he led France to capitulate in days, before the Nazis even got to Paris. Petain persuaded Hitler to allow him to establish Vichy france, essentially a French fascist mini-state in which Petain was fuhrer.

"I'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. . . . Oh what the heck I'll laugh anyway." Joker.

The French outsmarted themselves. They had been warned that the German Army was holding training exercises using tactics with tanks and bridge-build equipment in the Black Forest months ahead of the French invasion by the Polish and the French Generals laughed.

One cannot fully comprehend what happened to France in May of 1940 without understanding what the French government did and didn’t do between the two world wars. An excellent treatise on not just the military but also the diplomatic and economic activities of France between the wars is “The Collapse of the Third Republic: An Inquiry into the Fall of France in 1940” by William L. Shirer. It is not only very informative but also highly readable.

Well, it's not only France. Let's not forget that actually until 1942 the germans were successfull everywhere. The British were able to retreat behind the channel. Due to it's size soviets ware able to give up land for time. France couldn't use either tactics

Another tid bit, before the French surrender, Italy declared war on France, a very bad idea it proved to be but, that would come after the French capitulation. Also the battle of Arras saw the German armoured spearhead nearly cut in half, the cooperation between French and English armor units was not practiced enough to make this battle an allied success, Germany was much more trained in mobile warfare than anyone but Stalin knew about, see, Germany had spent years secretly practicing the blitzkrieg deep in Russian territory, long before war broke out, stalin knew exactly what Germany was capable of because he enabled the training that specifically violated the treaty of Versailles, Germany built for the Soviet army a tank factory, actually called the tractor factory and eventually known as tankograd. It was built before Hitler and Roosevelt came to power.

At the time of the invasion of France, Panzer IV was not a heavy tank (it also wasn't later, but its role still changed). At the time, it was an infantry support tank, armed with a short-barreled, low velocity gun, designed to take down buildings and crack open bunkers to give infantry support in the form of heavy firepower. It was not designed to fight other thanks. That only changed later, when Panzer IV was fitted with a long barreled 75mm gun. But even then, Panzer IV was a medium tank, not a heavy tank. The first vehicle actually classified as a heavy tank in the German military was the Panzer VI Tiger, which was only developed after the invasion of France had already concluded.

Actually it would at least as relevant to ask Why France did not collapse in the First World War already ? It would have been an extremely "normal" thing to happen that Germany had invaded all of France in a few month in 1914. It did not happen only because of an almost miracle. At that time the French gathered strength and courage to put up a desparate fight like the one the Russians put up in 1941-1945. But miracles and sacrifices cannot happen everytime. Also, I assume the author and most of the viewers and commentators here are English or American. I think it is an extremely hard thing, if not impossible, to picture what is truly means to have your own country invaded by a superior force, when the country you were born in has never known a true war (a "true" war being a war fought on land, where defeat means your family will suffer greatly and your home be destroyed or taken from you).

"The German chief of staff wrote that there was only a 10% chance for it to work" while showing the actual quote that says a very different thing is a bold thing to say. But nice analysis your format is very compelling, that part just stuck out to me lol

My great grand father was a captain in the infantry in dunkirk. He fought till the end to protecting the british who were retreating and protect his homeland. He finished the war in a prisonner worker camp in Germany because he don’t wanted to surrender. It’s always sad me to see that the english doesn’t even remember that we fought for them being capable to return to they country.

"If I was faced with the German army in front of me and the French army behind me, I would attack in both directions" US General Patton

I remember an old BEF veteran telling me years ago that the French ran, and they weren't far behind us.

At Arras, the British heavy Matilda tanks rattled the Germans. Rommel had to scrape together a patchwork of anti-aircraft guns to stop the attack.

Poor leadership and loss of air superiority. There, saved a lot of time.

France and Britain. I seem to remember the British army were kicked off the European mainland in 4 weeks.

They were very brave people, I also used to believe this rhetoric, your video title, but I also learned that the french resistance was formed and they resorted to geurilla warfare and were still fighting very bravely for their country. Fiercely. ❤

Going to war without France, would be like going to war with an accordion...

2:51 : “relatively few German forces went through Belgium” this is mistaken, the main thrust did go through the Belgian Ardennes. Moreover the map of Belgium is wrong : the most southern part is gone and is marked as French…The author seems to think the Ardennes are not in Belgium. Apart from this the vid is very good.

Once again excellent research, Henry! Hesitating, dithering and arguing is a uniquely French trait in Europe. Arrogance played also a major role - it always comes before the fall.

During mid 1944, the Maquis guerrillas were crucial in disrupting German counter attacks against Allies in Normandy.

"By going through the Ardennes, the Germans were breaking with history." Not necessarily. The French had clearly never heard of Hannibal. A determined enemy will try anything.

One of the best programs I have seen. Well done

so useless.. Even if the Battle of Dunkirk ended in failure for the Franco-British armies, it is important to specify the heroism of the French soldiers who allowed the English to evacuate their troops , Nearly 350,000 men managed to leave Dunkirk, but 35,000 others were forced to capitulate on June 4: the overwhelming majority were French, the defense of the re-embarkation having been ensured by their divisions caught in the trap. While they almost act as extras in the British newspapers of the time (and in Nolan's Dunkirk), it is they who will defend until the end the evacuation of the boats for Dover, heroic and essential actors of a “miracle” that they will pay for with their lives or with several years of captivity. The national navy also came to lend a hand and also lost several warships.

Great summary, my friend. New subscriber here. Just got back from the Ardennes and the Meuse river valley. It really is hard to believe a motorized army could traverse that area so quickly in that time of the year. Lots of flooding potential. There must've not been too much rain that year, so the Germans were in a sense lucky from that point of view too.

Excellent video.

Deffos better with the quieter classical music. Love these long form vids! :)

18:17 "As the French were pissing around" 😂😂😂

I'll just add this. The biggest mistake you can make in war is to plan for your enemy to do exactly what you want him to do. Why would Germany choose to do that?

The French Army simply wasn't ready for the tactics and strategy the German Army used in 1940 - blitzkrieg. French military thinking hadn't evolved much from 1914, which is why they built the Maginot Line. They were planning for another trench war. The Wehrmacht simply went through Belgium and the Netherlands, completely avoiding the Maginot Line. Oops...... The French had roughly double the number of tanks the Germans had, but France didn't have them concentrated in armoured divisions like the Germans. French tanks were scattered among the infantry divisions, so their effectiveness was greatly reduced. It was proven by the Allies in WWI and the Germans in Poland that tanks are best used en masse, but the French didn't learn that lesson from WWI, and it cost them four years of German occupation.

The fall of France was just as much due to poor British leadership as it was poor French leadership, the British plan was also to dig-in in Belgium. They did not counterattack either, they fled back to Great Britain after being cornered in Dunkirk. It wasn't a French defeat, it was an allied defeat, just as the fall of Norway and Poland were allied defeats due to inept British and French command. The beginning of world war 2 had a steep learning curve, the allies didn't turn anything around until battle of Moscow, USA joining the war, and then El Alamein.

Evil anytime, anywhere is more organized, planned and ordered than the good. This is what they dont teach you.

Anyone really interested in the subject would do well to read Marc Bloch's "The Strange Defeat" and Alistair Horne's "To Lose a Battle". In addition to these books, research how the communists, socialists, and fascists all undermined and destabilized France in pre-war years - 43 government in 18 years! Characteristically, look at France's defense spending vs Germany in the 20st and 30s - France was drastically outspent by Germany by a factor of 3-8 in the 30s. Even before Hitler came to power, the military spending was comparable! After Hitler came to power, France, until 1936 actually decreased its spending! When the French government decided to invest into its own defense, Germany was outspending them by a factor of 6. This explains the horrendous French tanks, lack of capable officers, and poorly equipped front troops. Just think about it - for a country that is building a defensive posture, it needed millions of mines and super-advanced fighter planes. Unexplicably, France lacked both. There was nothing wrong with the French soldier - it was a complete betrayal and degeneracy of the 3rd Republic. Even Hitler, after Bir Khakeim, stated that "...after a German soldier, he considered the French soldier to be the finest in the world." The heroic defense in 1940 of the Dunkirk perimeter provided a glimpse of what could have been had France was really preparing for its defense, had it been united in the Interwar period in the way Germany was, or UK has become after the defeat of 1940. The table below compares the French Military Spending Index vs the German Military Spending Index: **Year France Germany 1930 100 100 1931 98 110 1932 95 130 1933 92 180 1934 90 250 1935 95 400 1936 105 600 1937 120 800 1938 140 1000 1939 160 1200

So easy with hindsight, both my uncles were Dunkirk veterans that lived to tell the tale. Don't forget the French helped in defending our retreat. Also look at the bravery of their resistance fighters later in the war. Would D Day have worked without the French resistance greasing large amounts of train rolling stock with carborundum grease? Yes mistakes were made but unfair to right off a nation

As a French, what shocks me the most is not the defeat of France by Germany in 3 weeks (it was actually 3 weeks as we are taught in school not 6 weeks as the video says), it was the length of the occupation. 4 full years. I can't get my head around it. Totally crazy!!!

The French made a bad mistake when they took their tanks and spread them through their army. They thought the tanks should be restricted to infantry support. Heinz Guderian even published a book which was a bestseller in Germany where he said that the French were making a bad mistake with this. The next thing the French knew Guderian had every tank he had running around in central france, bypassing their Manginot line.

If the French had played that song called Fiatagata Gotcha! by The Moon Roses on their loudspeakers...it would have stopped the Germans in their tracks, they would have all started dancing, hahahaha 🌙🌹😎

Henry, all I can say is another brilliant video. Keep doing you mate, build it and they will come!

Excellent military analysis with good videos to support it. The major variable you fail to insert, though, is the desperately chaotic political situation in France during the 1930s. They went through countless governments or PMs, from left to right, but often Communists. One double military consequence: the French armament industry was nationalized on July 7, 1936, while the French aviation industry followed on July 17, 1937. The whole of French society was divided, and therefore so were the military leaders. That is the main reason of the 1940 catastrophic defeat.

Great video topic

Bought a French WW2 rifle never fired dropped once.

Absolute twaddle. The French would have beaten the Germans if they could have. The French collapse had nothing to do with the ability of French soldiers, they are as brave as any. Simply the French army had no satisfactory leadership. The leadership that it had was still attepting WW1 tactics against a determined mechanised oppenent.

Excellent work. I really enjoyed this explanation

I love watching vids where the creator is clearly passionate about the topic

The real shame was the Vichy collaboration. Losing a war against an army that could fight as the same time Soviet Union, the USA, UK and its empire, as well as 10 other countries, is not proof of cowardice. It shows how stupid were the French high rank officers at that time and also politicians, particularly those - including the English PM Chamberlain - who thought after the Munich agreement that Hitler was a "gentleman". Thank God, De Gaulle save the honor of France, calling to fight and resist... And yes, WW1 was probably one of the reasons the French didn't want to fight again, after 1.5 million young men died for their 39 million inhabitants country.

France's issue was command, it actually suffered because it won the first world war, and therefore didn't learn the lessons the Germans learned. Also the 1930s were a period of political chaos in France with the Right and Left bitterly disunified. So when the German's came they didn't have the tactics to counter new methods of fighting and they didn't have the will to fight. Essentially it was that simple. A lesson of the dangers of overconfident democracies in the face of intense will and determination.

Very detailed and interesting Henry