read Shirer's book The Nightmare Years, he saw and wrote, that suddenly a french officer running down the road without his rifle and screaming, the german tanks are coming, ;Well, it didn't take a second before all the troops fell in behind him , running pell mell, all without their weapons , screaming and running for their lives. All without even seeing a single german or hearing a shot. Coward thy name is French soldier.
All arguments aside, the German's prepared for war; the Allies on the other hand, and countries that wishes for neutrality, were thrust into battle--unprepared, perhaps yes, but not to be unjustly criticized.
hmmmmnnnnn,i guess the french were just really bad on defense during ww2.they failed to defend every corner and forgetting a back-up defense,instead of relying on a so-called impregnable defense...
the great glory and pride of france was lost after ww1,they also forgot the fact that their victory at ww1 was nothing but a cease fire...
that magino line would also be less use if ever they were succesful to fend off the invader,if france has no intention to strike hard on the invaders...
Fcking cowards. Gave up and people didn't fight against nazism. Piece of french shit. They can only talk. Russia took all the German force on itself and won. French just sucked German dicks. I hate these morons. France must be conqured and french people must be eliminated as the cowardest nation in the world.
@Go1andec huh?no nation is a coward dude,it all depends on leadership,and the french leadership at this time is the worst of its great nation...
a nation that had charlemagne,joan d'arc,william the conqueror,loiue XIII and loiue XIV,napoleon bonaparte I,and many more french great people...
it was really sad that france had the worst time for having the worst political and military leader against one of the word's deadliest and powerful army...
Didn't fight against Nazism? Let's see, 360,000 casualties in the Battle of France, Free French forces fighting in Africa, Italy, and in the D-Day invasions, French Resistance fighters fighting the Nazi occupiers. Sounds like they fought to me.
@Go1andec The French Resistance were braver than any military force during WW2, as were the partisans operating throughout Europe against the Nazis like those in Italy and Poland. If you were a citizen - not a trained soldier - involved in fighting the Nazis, you were executed if caught . . . Whereas soldiers were sent to POW camps. Many were women, many were of old age . . . Are you calling them cowards?
Well they thought the Maginot line would be impregnable, and it was, basically. The French put all their forces behind the line, hoping the Germans would come. However the German generals werent so dumb as to send their divisions straight at the line. They went north and conquered Belgium, and from there, moved right into France without even having to encounter the line. The poor French troops couldnt do anything. Say what you want about the Nazis..if they werent outnumbered, they mightve won...
But for the Channel, Britain would have followed France.
The French pre-war strategy could been better, but they were no cowards.
Its true democracies can be slow to react, but at least they can get rid of a hopeless govt. Britain replaced Chamberlain with the more useful Churchill.
Totalitarian governments, however, have a problem - even if the rulers prove incompetent, they are hard to get rid of. That's partly why Germany lost - Hitler helped defeat himself with poor strategic decisions.
@BeantownJim Yes, they are - in Northern France much of the land is still barely useable after WW1; farmers still have to call bomb disposal to clear shells, and I heard of one man who bought land cheaply - for the very good reason that every time he tried to work it, he unearthed bones, and other relics. You can still see the trenches under grass. It's a poignant reminder of how devastated this proud and beautiful country was.
@BeantownJim , yes, in Northern France not only farmers are still digging up ammunition from WW1 & 2, but Coast Guards an engineers are often called to retrieve shells, bombs and mines from the coast between Britanny and Calais. Fishermen regularly find heavy stuff in their nets. Also, in our cities (Le Havre, Rouen, Verdun…) sometimes shells and bombs are found by construction workers, and the whole area must be evacuated until the "thing" is neutralized.
i still dont understand how a country as small as Greece resisted alot longer than France,im not against the French i just dont understand why they didnt resist longer
@TheMoonspelI The French military saw itself as the guardian of the French civilian population. The decision to surrender was made out of a sense of pity, an emotion absent from the armies of Germany or the USSR. Individual French soldiers continued to fight well throughout the war, and along with the Poles were among the best of the British Commandos.
@TheMoonspelI do u know the diffirence?the french were against the powerful nazis,while the greeks held theirselves against the italians,only when the allies interfered n tried to help the greek that made hitler initiate an attack of their own against the greeks,which was quick enough...
@teslagod2003 the allies arent what pushed the italians out of Greece,it was the Greeks,and hitler intervened because he knew italy was in trouble,also greeks lasted pretty long,they had pots and pans compared to what the Germans had
@TheMoonspelI have i said anything about the allies pushing the italians?i said the allies interfered and tried to aid the greeks,hitler then made his move to aid the italians in defeating the greeks,tsk...
Democracies are very slow to react to threats because attempting to reach a consensus is the base of their political systems. It's easy to say after the facts that the "allies" were too passive. WW1 had literally cut down a whole generation of intellectual french people including some of whom could have foreseen what was to happened. Those who remained did not want to relive this again. It's understandable.
@syl171 It is also healthy to point out that the British also lost the Battle of France, and the USA didn't even scruple to fight the Nazis until 1941. I understand the mindset of the British and Americans, and I don't condemn them for it, but condemning the French isn't right either.
@Anekantavad Sorry for responding so late. I'm not condemning the French as a nation. I'm from French descent myself. But one must admit that the French High Command contributed to Hitler's success by pushing into Belgium and by wedging themselves in a trap just as had happened with their near fatal Plan XVII of 1914.
@syl171 I agree, and most modern French people agree that since they called the shots in 1940, their high command failed. But that's not the same thing as calling the French "cheese-eating surrender-monkeys" (not that I am implying you do). The Poles, Greeks, Yugos, etc all surrendered as well, and the Dutch were more enthusiastic collaborators than the French. I often wonder why the French get all the abuse.
@Anekantavad It's cultural. "We French people are fun to hate. 1-Historically, England and France were foes for many centuries. 2-After WW2, France often took a series of independant defense decisions without consulting it's neihbours. 3-Our latin based temper and sanguine approach to life greatly contrasts we the English phlegmatic temper. But remember whatever our race, when we are born we are all the same color : BLUE. LOL. Best regards.
@syl171 Heh heh ... and I forgot to mention that the French are perfectly capable of giving as good as they get when it comes to national rivalries. If you've ever been on the receiving end of French condescension/dismissal (and I as a Canadian have on plenty of occasions) you'll know you've been spoken to :-)
@syl171 Historically, we are "best enemies". Since the days of the Roman Empire we have fought each other - but waded in in defence of each other if outsiders attacked. We have different national temperaments, but share many of the most important ideals, and what i find, living here, is that our rivalry doesn't have the basic grounding of dislike and distruct that there is, still, between Germany and her neighbours - there is mutual respect and affection.
@TheBelovedButterfly I agree. I believe that the development of the Concorde airplane and the construction of the Tunnel between France and England illustrates exactly what your comment is conveying. Vive la France. God save the Queen.
@syl171 Did you know that correspondence between Churchill and DeGaulle was recently uncovered which reveals that, after the fall of France they considered declaring Britain and France one nation? this would have ensured that the combined forces of our Empires (France's was only slightly smaller than Britain's) could have immediately come under allied control.What stopped them was that they believed the French would not accept a Monarch - and the British would not depose the King.
@Anekantavad I wonder that, too. Actually, out of all the occupied nations, they put up most fight, for longest. I think that far too much was expected of them. Also, much of history has been "written" by Hollywood, and the Americans don't like the French. Roosevelt actually described De Gaulle (for wanting to be the one to liberate Paris) as being "the biggest son of a bitch ever to straddle a pot".
@TheBelovedButterfly What I think may have a lot to do with it is the French capacity to make plain-talking and straight-shooting English-speakers feel stupid and unsophisticated. Since the fall of Napoleon, France has never been likely to rise to a position of dominance in the world, but their genius at playing a mediocre hand has allowed them to maintain an importance that their economic and military strength would seem to justify. De Gaulle was a genius at this :-)
@Anekantavad the French defend their own way of life (which, trust me, is worth defending); so they bit the hand that was "giving" them Marshall Aid because the price was too high. They are "protectionist", so by the same token they didn't go into recession recently: instead, they produced a €38bn rescue package, invested in construction, gave 5yrs back-dated tax rebates to employers and entrepreneurs, and watched everyone else go to the wall.
I should add, they won't be caught napping again. They are incredibly militarised, third highest military spending, third biggest nuclear power. They make friends around the world through vast overseas aid projects and investments, but otherwise do entirely their own thing regardless of public opinion - and if anyone ever tries to get near them again.... they'll be toast.
And I guess if it was so easy to beat the Germans, the 5 time more populated than France UK+USA would not have waited 4 years before attacking directly in Normandy. Nazi Germany was a state dedicated to war, and for this, they were brilliant...and it needed a dictature with no respect for human life to beat it: The USSR.
So many francophobic comments over there...Some look happy that a democracy was defeated, just because it's France. Well, the so-called arrogant French didn't provoke the war and had just half the population of Germany. The British army collapsed as well on ground and had to flee in Dunkirk. Being crushed doesn't mean that you didn't fight! Or the Soviets didn't fight during Barbarossa, the Germans didn't fight in Stalingrad, the Poles didn't fight...
@wollin20 Both the British and French were like headless chickens at the outbreak of WW2, basically because nobody wanted war except the Germans. The French had to misfortune to live next door to a psychopath, but incredibly held out for 9 months before being defeated (usually, it took only a few days.) I am British but live in France; not only do I love this country to the extent that I'd die for it, but they are as far from "gutless" as any people can be.
@TheBelovedButterfly the french living history is its very embodiment,true they lost some wars,but they'ved won more wars than they'ved lost,and for the french pride,they have NAPOLEON BONAPARTE I as one of its greatest leader in its history,who have won more wars and battles than any person who have lived,and considering the fact that his wars was to defend france,not really to be the "hun"...
"I mean its OBVIOUS that the Huns will take the route across our heavily fortified Maginot line, and not the easy peasy way across the neutral Belgium..again, Hah hah, we French are FAR superior in thinking then the Germans"
Ah, really ? In Tank-toTanks battles, it was usually the pussy French tanks which smashed the pussy German tanks. Moreover, in these 5 weeks, 100,000 pussy French soldiers were killed while defending their country against superior German forces. What was your country doing at that time ?
@Fridomfry The Americans were sitting on their arses trying to make money (Henry Ford paid for Krystelnacht, then got paid for producing US bombers.) And remember, they never did actually declare war against, Germany, even when Germany's allies attacked them - Germany declared war on THEM!
But, it was a near run thing. It was a gamble, far more risky than the original OKW plan of repeating the WWI plan, with the addition of invading Holland and Dnemark. Had the French kept any kind of reserve in their center, the Germans would have remained penned in the Ardennes. Also, in technical terms, French tanks were better than German. The US 'Grant' tank was based on the French 'Char B' heavy tank - one better than anything the Germans had.
To bad that Hitler was so stupid to make the same mistake as Napoleon did... yea, sending troops to Russia during winter .What a shame when Poland declared war to Nazi Germany while others were in appeasement... Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt were my favorites.
@ArchEnemySlayer dude,hitler didnt send them during winter,he sent them during summer,and hitler wanted the russians to be defated before winter,which was his big mistake.he shouldved prepared his invading force for winter war,same to napoleon.what kind of a stupid commander would send his summer troops for winter war.napoleon n hitler both hit russia during summer,they just both failed to realize that they should have prepared for winter war too...
@teslagod2003 yea I know you just explained it before with more details.What I was trying to say is that hitler thought he was gonig to defeat the Soviet Union before winter, so did Napoleon, but both failed . The red army resisted in WWII. What happend in Stalingrad you know.
napoleon attacked russia coz russia tried to help the prussians destroy the french empire,which they failed coz napoleon quickly moved and prfer fighting out of france...
while hitler just bluntly wanted to enslave the russians coz he hated the communists...
@teslagod2003 thats proper bullshit... of course he hated communists but hitler attacked russia at first because stalin himself prepared an attack on germany which he wanted to start when germany would be weakened in the west. hitler wanted to be quicker and he was.
@nightwish1000 like hitler has no plans for hitting the reds,tsk...
hitler wants to enslave the russians,if it was not his goal,he may have beaten the reds much quicker,since they were being seen as liberators,but hitler just shown that he is not a liberator but a conqueror who wants to enslave the reds...
@JJFP1 while Americans gibbered with fear because a couple of month's involvement in WW1 had scared them to death... whereas the French, even having lost half their males in a war fought for four years on their land, declared war immediately, fought to the last man standing, and those who could escape to England carried on fighting; and only 10% of French males sent to Germany as slave labour arrived - the rest jumped train and joined the maquis.
have you listened to what Beaufre said around 3:00? "The illness of being victorious...." A little humility is much better than a boat load of pride any day.
Pardeep your comments are poor, yes France feel, 150 thousand died in its defence. Both Britain and France were taught a lesson at the beginning of war
My Grandparents fought too. My Great Grand Father never returned from the Somme, but in WW2 his son returned home safe from fighting in Africa. How come you managed to become an expert as a result of that tenuous connection, being the voice for a lost generation, and yet I don't feel that.
Equally, Burma and Gallipoli are a very long way from France for any comparison to be given. Indeed, the army in Burma initially suffered the same fate as the FRENCH. Most surrendered. But they are all heroes.
I honestly wish the poster had not made room for comments. It only gets stupid, inane and entirely uneducated fools like yourself, talking horse shite. You live in cyberspace with a mentality of a spoilt 4 year old, completely unable to comprehend what the realities of war and the bravery of those faced with fear and death. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. You are obviously not, so the readers will feel ashamed for you. Maggot.
A very big SO WHAT! Everyone's ancestors fought. It was called a World War. Knowing someone who can no longer speak for themselves, does not give you any right to be their voice. The USA turned up late, the UK were unprepared, the French was lazy, the Dutch were naive. They were up against the biggest tyrants ever. It was what it was. But to accuse the French resistance of being cowards is totally shameful. EVERYONE was caught out by the speed of invasion.
Analyzing history with hindsight from a comfy chair, it is easy to be critical. We were all unprepared because we are peaceful nations. The French were never going to win from the get go. Stalin and Hitler's tactics was to send men to combat with no sense of their well being. I am glad our culture is not like that. An English Channel is a big game player. It just is. Without it, the Brits would have been in the same position. But it makes none of them cowards. They dies for us. Have respect.
@pardeepsinghk the British surrendered to the Japanese. There is no dishonour in being defeated by overwhelming odds - and you are an insulting, mindless worm.
I apologize for calling you a Maggot. It was low. But the realities of 1939 are very different from today. No-one wants to die, ever. Self preservation is a big emotion. Many gave their lives so we could live as free individuals. What counted was that they won, and they would have all given their lives to achieve that end. And they did. It took every man woman and child from every allied nation. They all played their part.
That's more of a compliment to the Polish than an insult to the French; remember that a lot of the French at the time were ambivalent or even sympathetic towards the Nazis.
A lot of them were in that camp, but if you've seen The Sorrow and the Pity, you'll know that there were definitely French fascists too. Traitors to the country, really.
i love the first line that the narrator says, "thank god for the french army". sounds like something that jerry lewis would have said whenever he had a movie premiering.
@Molo9000 anyone who knows the French knows that they don't give up ANYTHING without a fight!
that might be true,but at ww2,the french were badly lead and badly organized,their last great glory was ww1,where germany only surrundered because of it's government and leader was changing,only during napoleon I and before him,that the french was on its greatness...
@Molo9000 Don't forget the German Casualties. Over 100,00 killed, wounded and MIA. Over 1,000 aircraft lost, and a good proportion of their tanks were lost as well.
Where on Earth did you see that "the French armed forces almost cost the allies WW1 with mutiny". On the contrary, the French army won the battle of the Marne in 1914, changing the course of the war; then stopped the Germans at Verdun (350,000 dead - a joke indeed...). And the Allies won WW1 under French command. You'd better learn history before writing nonsense.
Sieg Heil? I don't think the German military of antiquity could say it lived up to that commonly chanted statement. It means 'hail victory', in translation. They afterall, never ending up having much lasting success in their persuits....... It was only when the Germans started playing by our rules is when they could claim any sort of real victory.
Muslims should stay in their own countries, they have practices such as "Stoning"and marriage to 12 yr. olds, etc. which are repugnant to us. There is an old wise MAXIM, When In Rome, Do As The Romans", Muslims will not follow this rule as immigrants, but go to a Muslim Country and see what happens if you break their religious rules. Israel is a heavy, that's why Muslims hate America.
Isreal has to be heavy, they are surrounded by Muslims, may Isreal destroy them all, of course their are decent Muslims, but they have allowed the FUNDAMENTALIST MANIACS to dictate repugnant policies.
Repugnant to us? Man shut up. You got your fucking priests fucking little boys and enslaving their daughters in their basements and shielding them from the outside world until they get caught by the police.
Don't get me wrong. Im not saying Arabs/Muslims are better than American Christians, because i have respect and love both sides. But what i hate is ignored idiots like you who believe in his own superiority over other humans.
I don't go to any religious order, and you know I can't get my hands on you, coward, Muslim practices are insane, go live in a Muslim country you ignorant pig, my apologies to all pigs.
That explains your stupidity. A 5 2 Canadian trash trying to be a monster, and i will live in a Muslim country after you go find an atheist one you idiot. You know what, it is my fault to be arguing with somebody that doesn't have any believe or a reason for existence except eating and shitting until the day he dies.
I never said I was an atheist, you assumed ( ass u), watch the fuking documentary, I know your a woman. Check this out. 20 Royal Scots Highlanders killed 39 Taliban with their bayonets, no shots were fired, 2008.
I am not anti-American, far from that. The problem with the Muslims moving into France would not be so serious, had the US not so often supported Muslims against Europe. Perhaps you don't perceive it from the States, but Washington supported Egyptian nationalism in 1956 against France & the UK, then Saudi Arabia (which funded radical Islamism), then the worse among Afghan mudjaheddin, then Albanians against Serbs (so did France), and now wants Turkey in the European Union...
Your right America takes no action against minorities moving into countries. I could understand having imigrants but there are too Muslims moving into the Europe and the US also having problems with too many Mexicans along with Muslims. When are people just going to stay in their own countries. America and Europe want to remain prodominately white and there is pleanty of room for the rest of you in your own countries.
Besides, I can assure you that most Arabs living in France are strongly for law & order, and much worried about youths' riots and radical islamists. Most support the French law banning Islamic scarf at school, and just want to become good French citizens. In France you never see these Muslim women completely hidden in a shroud, as you see daily in British cities. It's a political battle that we wage daily, and for which we've been much criticized in the US, at least before 9/11.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
French rifles for sale! Never fired; only dropped once! How many French soldiers does it take to defend France? No one knows; it has never been done before. LMAO!
OK, okay, you are from France. Fine. But the way I see it, you French had better worry more about the Muslims moving into your country, than about Americans like me, and a few jokes. Your nation is on the verge of becoming an Islamic Republic. (And, yes, I am aware that the US has a very bad minority problem as well-blacks and Mexicans.)
@drexelur1 Americans have a bizarre idea about the UK and France and Muslims. You listen too much to Glenn Beck. Did you know that GERMANY has the highest Muslim population in the EU? In the UK and France, we certainly have a dedication to racial and religious freedom, but that is a sign of being civilised - our Muslims are law-abiding people. And in France and the UK, we openly celebrate Christmas and Easter; we don't have to say "Happy Holidays"!
@drexelur1 American rifles - not fired at all between 3rd September 1939 and 10th December 1941. American rifles: speciality - "friendly fire". How many American soldiers does it take to defend America? No-one knows; you've never been invaded. But here's a hint: you were so infested with krauts and Nazis that you never got the guts together to declare war on Germany: if they'd marched on you you'd have stood in the streets and waved swasticka flags!
Germany had the will to win that is the most important factor in battle. The French are like the Walloon 's in Belgium lazy and arrogant. The Flemish built Belgium and the french collect the welfare , maybe you could say they are the blacks of Europe. Germany had the technological superiority and stable government, this coupled with a desire to win doomed the unorganized French.
The idea that the French folded because of cowardice, where as the Brits fought bravely til the end which is why they were not invaded. <==== That Myth
Too many French citizens stabbed their own people in the back and made them too weak to do what they needed to in order to protect the country from the German. They fought hard but they were badly prepared by traitors in their ranks as much as by German skill.
The early Panzer divisions were not particularly dangerous by themselves at this date, but when used with close air and infantry support they proved devastating. At the start of the Battle of France the allies actually had more divisions and guns with about a thousand more tanks than the Germans, not to mention the best defenses in the world. France did not lack power, but it was in dire need of proper military planning and leadership.
I disagree with the potential of the german tanks.
afaik they were modern and the most advanced battletanks, they broke through a passage into france that was considered as "unpassable", and they could tear down houses by just driving through. And afaik France had dated weapons and technology. except for their defense system.
I agree that france could have done much more damage to the german army, but i think they would have lost as well.
Later in the war German tanks were superior in design, but at this stage the Pz. I & II's made up the majority of the German forces and were not of a particularly high standard. France did not have out dated technology, but it certainly had out dated officers. And I think you will find it was not the tanks that made the Bastogne breakthrough possible, but the superior planning and engineering units of the German army. Had France modernized its tactics there's no reason to suppose it would lose.
caliche, that's right. The French army's equipment was, on the whole, comparable with the Germans' (superior French heavy tanks, assault rifle, etc., inferior radio communications and AAA). Some good Navy radars, too. The main French weakness was in:
- Tactical doctrine and officers' training
- Air Force: Excellent pilots with aircrafts which were, at best, comparable with the Hurricane, no match for the Me109s.
its just pathetic how defensive minded the French were, Magino Lines and all, they never though offensively (only defense is offense). Napoleon must of been rolling in his grave...
This debate was started a soon as June 1940, between no less than De Gaulle and Churchill. Thus I don't think we can advance it much further - only repeating the same arguments again. Both armies were weak and outdated compared with the Germans. Thanks God, Britain was:
- protected by the Channel
- not immediately threatened by Hitler, who had just no plans to invade Britain until July
The World at War is the best documenrary on ww2. this episode is both the best and the saddest. First, it shows the brilliance of the German military planning. Second, it points out the politica lapathy and miltary ineptitude of the French.Fridomy is very astute in his analysis of the tremendous French sacrifices in the Great War. Finally, this program points out, as Gen Beaufre states, the selfishness of the British by abandoning their allies to the Nazi's.
If Britain wouldn't have retreated and left for home Europe would very likely have been speaking German.There was no reason for the British Army to go down in flames with the terribly weak French army!
A lot of the Leadership was hoping to work for the Germans when it looked like France was finished. At least Degaulle and Leclerc along with the army of the Free French kept fighting.
That's nonsense. A lot of the French leadership had fought in the hell of WW1 against the Germans, and now they had declared war against Hitler - and lost. They were devastated by their own mistakes, but still hated Nazi Germany. The three reasons for the armistice were: They wanted to stop the bloodshed; there were 5 millions refugees on the roads; everyone believed that Britain would sue for meace within weeks. Only a few fascists "hoped to work with the Germans".
Amazing to see how most comments just neglect 3 facts:
- The French had fought and hold most of the Western front in 1914-1918, and been bled white (1.5 million killed, millions more crippled). No wonder that they were not keen on doing war again in 1939... just as the British and Americans.
- France was under a lame parliamentary regime, unable to pursue any serious policy on the long term, particularly to modernize the Army.
oui oui the french and there folly? 6 bloody weeks to smash western europes biggest land army and to send the BEF packing aswell.!!! yet there were many reasons why this came about?ie military planners for a start?and the overall french mentality.and so on and so on!!!???
well then 'Lawrence Olivier' pronounces HORSE like WHORE, and that's fucking retarded. Also, obviously this IS one of the best WWII docus out there, I'll give you that. Also, FOX news is biased to republican scumbags
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LMAO I love this episode because it shows just how bad the French really are. They talk all this shit and whatnot, but when it really comes down to it, they have no fucking idea what they're doing and get their asses handed to them over and over again. They may as well rename this episode "France = Fail".
The lesson here is to remain strong and vigilant as we confront the evildoers of this generation and beyond. Great nations rise, grow fat and satisfied, and then decline and finally fall when they are too selfish and unwilling to pay the price for success.
In the USA, we now have had good times for far too long and the generations have grown soft. Gird your loins, fellow citizens, because the big war is fast approaching. Stay vigilant.
France was not "riddled with fifth columnists", and the Vichy puppett regime didn't exist yet. I read Rebatet's "Les Décombres": The Socialist admin. which ruled France since 1936 had been very efficient against Nazi agents, and also against the French right-wing. The French secret service was entirely "Républicain" and anti-Nazi. It was very different from Britain and even more the US, where pro-Germans were really influent.
really enjoying these videos, hadn't seen them since 1970s... always thought they should be a public document accessible to all... thanks for uploading.
But disappointed in the general comments here... this anti-american/ anti-european nonsense really doesn't give dues to anyone who served in WW2... very disrespectful...
i agree with you. the antagonist has been forcibly removed from our midst as a result of his inability to restrain himself to debate. i did not think it fair, however, to the people who responded to his comments to delete the entirety of the commentary...so i only left those portions that were responded to by other viewers.
i posted these videos hoping that people would view them and gain a more rounded perspective on just how much was given by all who fought in this war.
i just wanted to comment briefly on the courage or lack thereof where France is concerned in this war. there has been much debate and i know that the concept of the French army has become somewhat a joke in many nations...it would be prudent to keep in mind that WWI took a lunch break and then resumed as WWII, essentially, embroiling Europe in one nearly continuous war over 30 years. the French played a huge role in the trench fighting of WWI...it is possible they were war weary by the 1930s.
I've always wondered about why more isn't written about the 5th columnists in WW2. One reason that England, France and America weren't prepared for WW2 was that there were a lot of fascist sympathizers in their governments. The Germans were not seen for the danger they were, until the fall of Poland, because German pre-war propaganda had fooled so many people.
okay...i know how very much everyone has enjoyed the presence of Camarale here, keeping us all on our toes and making us defend our respective nations' "lack of participation" in WWII, which France obviously won single-handedly against the horrifying anglo threat...but i warned him ages ago that deliberately and directly insulting others would not be tolerated here. these videos are here for education and information...debate is good, verbal assault is not...so, we've had to say goodbye to C.
this is the worst humiliation ever done to france, they had 3 million men defending with the english and 90% of the 3 million was wiped out in 1 month just 4 million attackers. French always talking like the king of the world but being defeated in both world war I don't know where their arrogance comes from.
Agreed, stop argueing, there's no use looking in hindsight, it had nothing to do woth cowardice, but that defence mentality and the incompetence of the allied politions and generals. But it's 68 years ago now, so thiers no point in arguing.
The French didn't fought, asshole ? They inflicted 45000 kiled to Germans,111000 wounded,destroyed 1400 of their planes and 1000 Nazi tanks.And in case you didn't know, they lost 100000 deads in 6 weeks of fights in May/June 1940. What about your shitty pathetic country as big as a theme park crushed in a few days ,in 1940?ASSHOLE.
While what Henkbress says is nonsense, so is what you say. You're hating on a country that chose to fight a hopeless fight, men gave their lives trying to defend against impossible odds, and at times succeeding at it too, such as in the battle of the Hague, where Germany lost many skilled paratroopers and perhaps more importantly, transport planes. You show as little respect as HenkBress does for how bravely soldiers across Europe fought to defend their countries.
hey the French did not fight real well. They were poorly lead, hell there Generals and politicans were stuck in 1914 not 1940. The British were closer but still had major issues as well. You both are right and wrong so peace..
i've read quite a lot about the war between france and germany in ww2 and the french really displayed extreme cowardice. Experts agree that if french soldiers wouldn't have been such extreme cowards (a lot of times they surrendered just at the sound of germans coming) germany could never have won that war. France and england combined had more men and weapons than the germans, and their weapons were more modern. However, in practice only the english fought, the french were panic-stricken.
Your a complete retarded moron. Did you know America was fighting on two fronts half way around the world? If I can remember correctly the UK got ass raped and were forced to retreat back to your shithole island and wait for America to come save your wanking asses. Seriously the brits were the most pathetic army in ww2 besides the French.
read Shirer's book The Nightmare Years, he saw and wrote, that suddenly a french officer running down the road without his rifle and screaming, the german tanks are coming, ;Well, it didn't take a second before all the troops fell in behind him , running pell mell, all without their weapons , screaming and running for their lives. All without even seeing a single german or hearing a shot. Coward thy name is French soldier.
germaniajim 1 year ago
All arguments aside, the German's prepared for war; the Allies on the other hand, and countries that wishes for neutrality, were thrust into battle--unprepared, perhaps yes, but not to be unjustly criticized.
PoliticalPars 1 year ago
@orkneymist
The Germans did not used other or better equipment - aside from radio - then the French. They just used better tactics.
lucius1976 1 year ago
They killed themself or smth?
No german would have wasted bullets to kill them
TopRomania 1 year ago
What is the French Military Music playing at 1:43 onwards? I've worked out the others!
Regards,
WChurchill1874 1 year ago
What is the music playing at the opening while looking at the Maginot forts?
WMAcadet 1 year ago
hmmmmnnnnn,i guess the french were just really bad on defense during ww2.they failed to defend every corner and forgetting a back-up defense,instead of relying on a so-called impregnable defense...
the great glory and pride of france was lost after ww1,they also forgot the fact that their victory at ww1 was nothing but a cease fire...
that magino line would also be less use if ever they were succesful to fend off the invader,if france has no intention to strike hard on the invaders...
teslagod2003 1 year ago
Fcking cowards. Gave up and people didn't fight against nazism. Piece of french shit. They can only talk. Russia took all the German force on itself and won. French just sucked German dicks. I hate these morons. France must be conqured and french people must be eliminated as the cowardest nation in the world.
Go1andec 1 year ago
@Go1andec huh?no nation is a coward dude,it all depends on leadership,and the french leadership at this time is the worst of its great nation...
a nation that had charlemagne,joan d'arc,william the conqueror,loiue XIII and loiue XIV,napoleon bonaparte I,and many more french great people...
it was really sad that france had the worst time for having the worst political and military leader against one of the word's deadliest and powerful army...
teslagod2003 1 year ago
@Go1andec
Didn't fight against Nazism? Let's see, 360,000 casualties in the Battle of France, Free French forces fighting in Africa, Italy, and in the D-Day invasions, French Resistance fighters fighting the Nazi occupiers. Sounds like they fought to me.
Learn your goddamn history, dumbass.
Scrinoverlord 1 year ago
@Go1andec The French Resistance were braver than any military force during WW2, as were the partisans operating throughout Europe against the Nazis like those in Italy and Poland. If you were a citizen - not a trained soldier - involved in fighting the Nazis, you were executed if caught . . . Whereas soldiers were sent to POW camps. Many were women, many were of old age . . . Are you calling them cowards?
R0undAboutMidnight 1 year ago
Well they thought the Maginot line would be impregnable, and it was, basically. The French put all their forces behind the line, hoping the Germans would come. However the German generals werent so dumb as to send their divisions straight at the line. They went north and conquered Belgium, and from there, moved right into France without even having to encounter the line. The poor French troops couldnt do anything. Say what you want about the Nazis..if they werent outnumbered, they mightve won...
FightingForFreedom23 1 year ago
Does anyone know tha song that plays for the first minute or so of this segment?
voyager454 1 year ago
But for the Channel, Britain would have followed France.
The French pre-war strategy could been better, but they were no cowards.
Its true democracies can be slow to react, but at least they can get rid of a hopeless govt. Britain replaced Chamberlain with the more useful Churchill.
Totalitarian governments, however, have a problem - even if the rulers prove incompetent, they are hard to get rid of. That's partly why Germany lost - Hitler helped defeat himself with poor strategic decisions.
4demolition 1 year ago 3
@4demolition very acceptable comment about leaderships...
teslagod2003 1 year ago
The Germany never attacked the French soldiers in front, but behind, the French soldiers wanted to fight with dignity and not loose
arb981 1 year ago
I wonder if the farmers are still digging up ammo after 2 world wars and 60 year span?
BeantownJim 1 year ago
@BeantownJim Yes, they are - in Northern France much of the land is still barely useable after WW1; farmers still have to call bomb disposal to clear shells, and I heard of one man who bought land cheaply - for the very good reason that every time he tried to work it, he unearthed bones, and other relics. You can still see the trenches under grass. It's a poignant reminder of how devastated this proud and beautiful country was.
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
@BeantownJim , yes, in Northern France not only farmers are still digging up ammunition from WW1 & 2, but Coast Guards an engineers are often called to retrieve shells, bombs and mines from the coast between Britanny and Calais. Fishermen regularly find heavy stuff in their nets. Also, in our cities (Le Havre, Rouen, Verdun…) sometimes shells and bombs are found by construction workers, and the whole area must be evacuated until the "thing" is neutralized.
Fridomfry 1 year ago
i still dont understand how a country as small as Greece resisted alot longer than France,im not against the French i just dont understand why they didnt resist longer
TheMoonspelI 1 year ago
@TheMoonspelI The French military saw itself as the guardian of the French civilian population. The decision to surrender was made out of a sense of pity, an emotion absent from the armies of Germany or the USSR. Individual French soldiers continued to fight well throughout the war, and along with the Poles were among the best of the British Commandos.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@TheMoonspelI do u know the diffirence?the french were against the powerful nazis,while the greeks held theirselves against the italians,only when the allies interfered n tried to help the greek that made hitler initiate an attack of their own against the greeks,which was quick enough...
teslagod2003 1 year ago
@teslagod2003 the allies arent what pushed the italians out of Greece,it was the Greeks,and hitler intervened because he knew italy was in trouble,also greeks lasted pretty long,they had pots and pans compared to what the Germans had
TheMoonspelI 1 year ago
@TheMoonspelI have i said anything about the allies pushing the italians?i said the allies interfered and tried to aid the greeks,hitler then made his move to aid the italians in defeating the greeks,tsk...
teslagod2003 1 year ago
@teslagod2003 sorry misread your comment :)
TheMoonspelI 1 year ago
the germans gave them a good ass-kickin, but the french did put up a fight.
stardaddyo9 1 year ago
Democracies are very slow to react to threats because attempting to reach a consensus is the base of their political systems. It's easy to say after the facts that the "allies" were too passive. WW1 had literally cut down a whole generation of intellectual french people including some of whom could have foreseen what was to happened. Those who remained did not want to relive this again. It's understandable.
syl171 1 year ago 10
@syl171 It is also healthy to point out that the British also lost the Battle of France, and the USA didn't even scruple to fight the Nazis until 1941. I understand the mindset of the British and Americans, and I don't condemn them for it, but condemning the French isn't right either.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad Sorry for responding so late. I'm not condemning the French as a nation. I'm from French descent myself. But one must admit that the French High Command contributed to Hitler's success by pushing into Belgium and by wedging themselves in a trap just as had happened with their near fatal Plan XVII of 1914.
syl171 1 year ago
@syl171 I agree, and most modern French people agree that since they called the shots in 1940, their high command failed. But that's not the same thing as calling the French "cheese-eating surrender-monkeys" (not that I am implying you do). The Poles, Greeks, Yugos, etc all surrendered as well, and the Dutch were more enthusiastic collaborators than the French. I often wonder why the French get all the abuse.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad It's cultural. "We French people are fun to hate. 1-Historically, England and France were foes for many centuries. 2-After WW2, France often took a series of independant defense decisions without consulting it's neihbours. 3-Our latin based temper and sanguine approach to life greatly contrasts we the English phlegmatic temper. But remember whatever our race, when we are born we are all the same color : BLUE. LOL. Best regards.
syl171 1 year ago
@syl171 Heh heh ... and I forgot to mention that the French are perfectly capable of giving as good as they get when it comes to national rivalries. If you've ever been on the receiving end of French condescension/dismissal (and I as a Canadian have on plenty of occasions) you'll know you've been spoken to :-)
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@syl171 Historically, we are "best enemies". Since the days of the Roman Empire we have fought each other - but waded in in defence of each other if outsiders attacked. We have different national temperaments, but share many of the most important ideals, and what i find, living here, is that our rivalry doesn't have the basic grounding of dislike and distruct that there is, still, between Germany and her neighbours - there is mutual respect and affection.
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
@TheBelovedButterfly I agree. I believe that the development of the Concorde airplane and the construction of the Tunnel between France and England illustrates exactly what your comment is conveying. Vive la France. God save the Queen.
syl171 1 year ago
@syl171 Did you know that correspondence between Churchill and DeGaulle was recently uncovered which reveals that, after the fall of France they considered declaring Britain and France one nation? this would have ensured that the combined forces of our Empires (France's was only slightly smaller than Britain's) could have immediately come under allied control.What stopped them was that they believed the French would not accept a Monarch - and the British would not depose the King.
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
@Anekantavad I wonder that, too. Actually, out of all the occupied nations, they put up most fight, for longest. I think that far too much was expected of them. Also, much of history has been "written" by Hollywood, and the Americans don't like the French. Roosevelt actually described De Gaulle (for wanting to be the one to liberate Paris) as being "the biggest son of a bitch ever to straddle a pot".
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
@TheBelovedButterfly What I think may have a lot to do with it is the French capacity to make plain-talking and straight-shooting English-speakers feel stupid and unsophisticated. Since the fall of Napoleon, France has never been likely to rise to a position of dominance in the world, but their genius at playing a mediocre hand has allowed them to maintain an importance that their economic and military strength would seem to justify. De Gaulle was a genius at this :-)
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad the French defend their own way of life (which, trust me, is worth defending); so they bit the hand that was "giving" them Marshall Aid because the price was too high. They are "protectionist", so by the same token they didn't go into recession recently: instead, they produced a €38bn rescue package, invested in construction, gave 5yrs back-dated tax rebates to employers and entrepreneurs, and watched everyone else go to the wall.
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
I should add, they won't be caught napping again. They are incredibly militarised, third highest military spending, third biggest nuclear power. They make friends around the world through vast overseas aid projects and investments, but otherwise do entirely their own thing regardless of public opinion - and if anyone ever tries to get near them again.... they'll be toast.
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
And I guess if it was so easy to beat the Germans, the 5 time more populated than France UK+USA would not have waited 4 years before attacking directly in Normandy. Nazi Germany was a state dedicated to war, and for this, they were brilliant...and it needed a dictature with no respect for human life to beat it: The USSR.
wollin20 1 year ago
So many francophobic comments over there...Some look happy that a democracy was defeated, just because it's France. Well, the so-called arrogant French didn't provoke the war and had just half the population of Germany. The British army collapsed as well on ground and had to flee in Dunkirk. Being crushed doesn't mean that you didn't fight! Or the Soviets didn't fight during Barbarossa, the Germans didn't fight in Stalingrad, the Poles didn't fight...
wollin20 1 year ago 3
@wollin20 Both the British and French were like headless chickens at the outbreak of WW2, basically because nobody wanted war except the Germans. The French had to misfortune to live next door to a psychopath, but incredibly held out for 9 months before being defeated (usually, it took only a few days.) I am British but live in France; not only do I love this country to the extent that I'd die for it, but they are as far from "gutless" as any people can be.
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
@TheBelovedButterfly the french living history is its very embodiment,true they lost some wars,but they'ved won more wars than they'ved lost,and for the french pride,they have NAPOLEON BONAPARTE I as one of its greatest leader in its history,who have won more wars and battles than any person who have lived,and considering the fact that his wars was to defend france,not really to be the "hun"...
teslagod2003 1 year ago
9:43
Verdun transport. Forshadow of history repeating?
the82spartans 1 year ago
"I mean its OBVIOUS that the Huns will take the route across our heavily fortified Maginot line, and not the easy peasy way across the neutral Belgium..again, Hah hah, we French are FAR superior in thinking then the Germans"
French Arrogance....
IvanBeSerious 1 year ago
" provided the hun came this way " what a stuning introduction. It says it all !!! .at 40 sec
syl171 1 year ago 3
Lawrence Olivier, he's such a bad ass Narrator. I love how he says "Panzer".
Panzerrr...
azz578 1 year ago 3
The German Tanks smashed the pussy French in 5 weeks
JJFP1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ah, really ? In Tank-toTanks battles, it was usually the pussy French tanks which smashed the pussy German tanks. Moreover, in these 5 weeks, 100,000 pussy French soldiers were killed while defending their country against superior German forces. What was your country doing at that time ?
Fridomfry 1 year ago
@Fridomfry The Americans were sitting on their arses trying to make money (Henry Ford paid for Krystelnacht, then got paid for producing US bombers.) And remember, they never did actually declare war against, Germany, even when Germany's allies attacked them - Germany declared war on THEM!
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
But, it was a near run thing. It was a gamble, far more risky than the original OKW plan of repeating the WWI plan, with the addition of invading Holland and Dnemark. Had the French kept any kind of reserve in their center, the Germans would have remained penned in the Ardennes. Also, in technical terms, French tanks were better than German. The US 'Grant' tank was based on the French 'Char B' heavy tank - one better than anything the Germans had.
sukneh 1 year ago
"provided the hun came this way" indeed, even the maginot line was smashed anyway, french seemed to forget about concentration of forces
meninagorda 1 year ago
To bad that Hitler was so stupid to make the same mistake as Napoleon did... yea, sending troops to Russia during winter .What a shame when Poland declared war to Nazi Germany while others were in appeasement... Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt were my favorites.
ArchEnemySlayer 1 year ago
@ArchEnemySlayer dude,hitler didnt send them during winter,he sent them during summer,and hitler wanted the russians to be defated before winter,which was his big mistake.he shouldved prepared his invading force for winter war,same to napoleon.what kind of a stupid commander would send his summer troops for winter war.napoleon n hitler both hit russia during summer,they just both failed to realize that they should have prepared for winter war too...
i guess you were misinformed,tsk...
teslagod2003 1 year ago
@teslagod2003 yea I know you just explained it before with more details.What I was trying to say is that hitler thought he was gonig to defeat the Soviet Union before winter, so did Napoleon, but both failed . The red army resisted in WWII. What happend in Stalingrad you know.
ArchEnemySlayer 1 year ago
@ArchEnemySlayer napoleon and hitler were very diffirent...
napoleon attacked russia coz russia tried to help the prussians destroy the french empire,which they failed coz napoleon quickly moved and prfer fighting out of france...
while hitler just bluntly wanted to enslave the russians coz he hated the communists...
teslagod2003 1 year ago
@teslagod2003 thats proper bullshit... of course he hated communists but hitler attacked russia at first because stalin himself prepared an attack on germany which he wanted to start when germany would be weakened in the west. hitler wanted to be quicker and he was.
nightwish1000 1 year ago
@nightwish1000 like hitler has no plans for hitting the reds,tsk...
hitler wants to enslave the russians,if it was not his goal,he may have beaten the reds much quicker,since they were being seen as liberators,but hitler just shown that he is not a liberator but a conqueror who wants to enslave the reds...
teslagod2003 1 year ago
@JJFP1 while Americans gibbered with fear because a couple of month's involvement in WW1 had scared them to death... whereas the French, even having lost half their males in a war fought for four years on their land, declared war immediately, fought to the last man standing, and those who could escape to England carried on fighting; and only 10% of French males sent to Germany as slave labour arrived - the rest jumped train and joined the maquis.
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
have you listened to what Beaufre said around 3:00? "The illness of being victorious...." A little humility is much better than a boat load of pride any day.
Shipskeel 2 years ago
Pardeep your comments are poor, yes France feel, 150 thousand died in its defence. Both Britain and France were taught a lesson at the beginning of war
conartiz1987 2 years ago
My Grandparents fought too. My Great Grand Father never returned from the Somme, but in WW2 his son returned home safe from fighting in Africa. How come you managed to become an expert as a result of that tenuous connection, being the voice for a lost generation, and yet I don't feel that.
Equally, Burma and Gallipoli are a very long way from France for any comparison to be given. Indeed, the army in Burma initially suffered the same fate as the FRENCH. Most surrendered. But they are all heroes.
DaiJonesful 2 years ago
Haha...stupid French.
Useless and weak.
pardeepsinghk 2 years ago
I honestly wish the poster had not made room for comments. It only gets stupid, inane and entirely uneducated fools like yourself, talking horse shite. You live in cyberspace with a mentality of a spoilt 4 year old, completely unable to comprehend what the realities of war and the bravery of those faced with fear and death. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. You are obviously not, so the readers will feel ashamed for you. Maggot.
DaiJonesful 2 years ago
Unable to comprehend war?
My grandfather fought in Burma against the Japanese in the toughest terrain possible.
My greatgrandfather fought at Gallipoli and lost both his legs.
I was raised appreciating sacrifice...and the French barely put up a fight.
Useless and weak.
pardeepsinghk 2 years ago
A very big SO WHAT! Everyone's ancestors fought. It was called a World War. Knowing someone who can no longer speak for themselves, does not give you any right to be their voice. The USA turned up late, the UK were unprepared, the French was lazy, the Dutch were naive. They were up against the biggest tyrants ever. It was what it was. But to accuse the French resistance of being cowards is totally shameful. EVERYONE was caught out by the speed of invasion.
DaiJonesful 2 years ago
Analyzing history with hindsight from a comfy chair, it is easy to be critical. We were all unprepared because we are peaceful nations. The French were never going to win from the get go. Stalin and Hitler's tactics was to send men to combat with no sense of their well being. I am glad our culture is not like that. An English Channel is a big game player. It just is. Without it, the Brits would have been in the same position. But it makes none of them cowards. They dies for us. Have respect.
DaiJonesful 2 years ago
@pardeepsinghk the British surrendered to the Japanese. There is no dishonour in being defeated by overwhelming odds - and you are an insulting, mindless worm.
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
I apologize for calling you a Maggot. It was low. But the realities of 1939 are very different from today. No-one wants to die, ever. Self preservation is a big emotion. Many gave their lives so we could live as free individuals. What counted was that they won, and they would have all given their lives to achieve that end. And they did. It took every man woman and child from every allied nation. They all played their part.
DaiJonesful 2 years ago
damn! even polish resistance fought harder than frenchs....LOL!
xStalkerxx 2 years ago
That's more of a compliment to the Polish than an insult to the French; remember that a lot of the French at the time were ambivalent or even sympathetic towards the Nazis.
Thornfox 2 years ago
@Thornfox
No, many of them were ANTI COMUNISt, that's all
gipcambero 2 years ago
A lot of them were in that camp, but if you've seen The Sorrow and the Pity, you'll know that there were definitely French fascists too. Traitors to the country, really.
Thornfox 2 years ago
Amazing video !
joshuahimself 2 years ago
i love the first line that the narrator says, "thank god for the french army". sounds like something that jerry lewis would have said whenever he had a movie premiering.
dodge96neon 2 years ago
Comment removed
pardeepsinghk 2 years ago
"The French armed forces are a joke [...] they gave in without a fight in ww2"
Are u serious?
They had 90.000dead and 200.000 wounded soldiers in about 6 weeks.
The french were not very succesful but they definetly didn't give up without a fight!
Molo9000 2 years ago 20
@Molo9000 anyone who knows the French knows that they don't give up ANYTHING without a fight!
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Molo9000 anyone who knows the French knows that they don't give up ANYTHING without a fight!
that might be true,but at ww2,the french were badly lead and badly organized,their last great glory was ww1,where germany only surrundered because of it's government and leader was changing,only during napoleon I and before him,that the french was on its greatness...
teslagod2003 1 year ago
@Molo9000 Don't forget the German Casualties. Over 100,00 killed, wounded and MIA. Over 1,000 aircraft lost, and a good proportion of their tanks were lost as well.
Kaigun06 1 year ago
It was the british who let the french down they were watching belgium border but they got run over and allowed the maginot line to be encircled
Godfather9255 2 years ago
Where on Earth did you see that "the French armed forces almost cost the allies WW1 with mutiny". On the contrary, the French army won the battle of the Marne in 1914, changing the course of the war; then stopped the Germans at Verdun (350,000 dead - a joke indeed...). And the Allies won WW1 under French command. You'd better learn history before writing nonsense.
Fridomfry 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sieg Heil for German Heroes !!!!
HLeonIV 2 years ago
Sieg Heil? I don't think the German military of antiquity could say it lived up to that commonly chanted statement. It means 'hail victory', in translation. They afterall, never ending up having much lasting success in their persuits....... It was only when the Germans started playing by our rules is when they could claim any sort of real victory.
billybobmacguyver 2 years ago
Muslims should stay in their own countries, they have practices such as "Stoning"and marriage to 12 yr. olds, etc. which are repugnant to us. There is an old wise MAXIM, When In Rome, Do As The Romans", Muslims will not follow this rule as immigrants, but go to a Muslim Country and see what happens if you break their religious rules. Israel is a heavy, that's why Muslims hate America.
locheelad2 2 years ago
"Israel is a heavy, that's why Muslims hate America. " explain please :x
tytoso 2 years ago
Isreal has to be heavy, they are surrounded by Muslims, may Isreal destroy them all, of course their are decent Muslims, but they have allowed the FUNDAMENTALIST MANIACS to dictate repugnant policies.
locheelad2 2 years ago
Repugnant to us? Man shut up. You got your fucking priests fucking little boys and enslaving their daughters in their basements and shielding them from the outside world until they get caught by the police.
Don't get me wrong. Im not saying Arabs/Muslims are better than American Christians, because i have respect and love both sides. But what i hate is ignored idiots like you who believe in his own superiority over other humans.
mhagdaoud6003 2 years ago
I don't go to any religious order, and you know I can't get my hands on you, coward, Muslim practices are insane, go live in a Muslim country you ignorant pig, my apologies to all pigs.
locheelad2 2 years ago
That explains your stupidity. A 5 2 Canadian trash trying to be a monster, and i will live in a Muslim country after you go find an atheist one you idiot. You know what, it is my fault to be arguing with somebody that doesn't have any believe or a reason for existence except eating and shitting until the day he dies.
mhagdaoud6003 2 years ago
Coward, and I'm Scots, go blow up some innocent children and get your 72 virgins.
locheelad2 2 years ago
I never said I was an atheist, you assumed ( ass u), watch the fuking documentary, I know your a woman. Check this out. 20 Royal Scots Highlanders killed 39 Taliban with their bayonets, no shots were fired, 2008.
locheelad2 2 years ago
I am not anti-American, far from that. The problem with the Muslims moving into France would not be so serious, had the US not so often supported Muslims against Europe. Perhaps you don't perceive it from the States, but Washington supported Egyptian nationalism in 1956 against France & the UK, then Saudi Arabia (which funded radical Islamism), then the worse among Afghan mudjaheddin, then Albanians against Serbs (so did France), and now wants Turkey in the European Union...
Fridomfry 2 years ago
Your right America takes no action against minorities moving into countries. I could understand having imigrants but there are too Muslims moving into the Europe and the US also having problems with too many Mexicans along with Muslims. When are people just going to stay in their own countries. America and Europe want to remain prodominately white and there is pleanty of room for the rest of you in your own countries.
tginn07 2 years ago
Sometimes I definitely prefer law & order-loving Arabs to liberal whites who "understand" rioters!
Fridomfry 2 years ago
Besides, I can assure you that most Arabs living in France are strongly for law & order, and much worried about youths' riots and radical islamists. Most support the French law banning Islamic scarf at school, and just want to become good French citizens. In France you never see these Muslim women completely hidden in a shroud, as you see daily in British cities. It's a political battle that we wage daily, and for which we've been much criticized in the US, at least before 9/11.
Fridomfry 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
French rifles for sale! Never fired; only dropped once! How many French soldiers does it take to defend France? No one knows; it has never been done before. LMAO!
drexelur1 2 years ago
This joke has been repeated over and over by thousands of crass ignorants since G.W. Bush French-bashing campaign in 2003.
And this moron is a product of Drexel University :-(.
Did you major in Toilet Cleaning?
God ! Philadelphia used to have more educated people.
Fridomfry 2 years ago 2
OK, okay, you are from France. Fine. But the way I see it, you French had better worry more about the Muslims moving into your country, than about Americans like me, and a few jokes. Your nation is on the verge of becoming an Islamic Republic. (And, yes, I am aware that the US has a very bad minority problem as well-blacks and Mexicans.)
drexelur1 2 years ago
@drexelur1 Americans have a bizarre idea about the UK and France and Muslims. You listen too much to Glenn Beck. Did you know that GERMANY has the highest Muslim population in the EU? In the UK and France, we certainly have a dedication to racial and religious freedom, but that is a sign of being civilised - our Muslims are law-abiding people. And in France and the UK, we openly celebrate Christmas and Easter; we don't have to say "Happy Holidays"!
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
@drexelur1 American rifles - not fired at all between 3rd September 1939 and 10th December 1941. American rifles: speciality - "friendly fire". How many American soldiers does it take to defend America? No-one knows; you've never been invaded. But here's a hint: you were so infested with krauts and Nazis that you never got the guts together to declare war on Germany: if they'd marched on you you'd have stood in the streets and waved swasticka flags!
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
In reply to uneducated englishboy , go to your corner pakistanized grocery and buy a dictionary so you can learn to write english.
eduardalet 2 years ago
Germany had the will to win that is the most important factor in battle. The French are like the Walloon 's in Belgium lazy and arrogant. The Flemish built Belgium and the french collect the welfare , maybe you could say they are the blacks of Europe. Germany had the technological superiority and stable government, this coupled with a desire to win doomed the unorganized French.
eduardalet 2 years ago
Troll, or simple fucking idiot.
YiddoBobbins 2 years ago
to the people protected by the english channel
or the atlantic ocean
let see if you could do better in the same conditions
you were just not being put to the same challenges
astridbelge 2 years ago
You are exactly right, but good luck on educating the masses about that historical myth,
ecksile 2 years ago
Comment removed
astridbelge 2 years ago
The idea that the French folded because of cowardice, where as the Brits fought bravely til the end which is why they were not invaded. <==== That Myth
ecksile 2 years ago
Too many French citizens stabbed their own people in the back and made them too weak to do what they needed to in order to protect the country from the German. They fought hard but they were badly prepared by traitors in their ranks as much as by German skill.
nomadnametab 2 years ago
England persisted until 1934 that France be disarmed to the level of Germany
england had never never liked france
their alliance is always makeshift and ad-hoc
astridbelge 2 years ago
guess your right, i just had a bad day know what i mean.
bradykroeker999 2 years ago
in the english speaking world
people seem to have more sympathy to the Germans than the French
astridbelge 2 years ago
one thing I don't like some of these comments is that you seem to take great pleasure and glee at France's failure in 1940
astridbelge 2 years ago
Comment removed
astridbelge 2 years ago
wow the state of france's military and political leadership from ww1 to 1940 makes 1 think that inspector cleauseau could have done a better job
dodge96neon 2 years ago
so they relied on the horse, hmm more meat for the germans when they came, mmmmmmmm.
bradykroeker999 2 years ago
virtually all WWII European armies used horses,
a little respect, if you please
this is getting immature and tiring
astridbelge 2 years ago
how france thaught they could stand up against the panzer division of germans is incredible ...
14kip 2 years ago
The early Panzer divisions were not particularly dangerous by themselves at this date, but when used with close air and infantry support they proved devastating. At the start of the Battle of France the allies actually had more divisions and guns with about a thousand more tanks than the Germans, not to mention the best defenses in the world. France did not lack power, but it was in dire need of proper military planning and leadership.
calicheSCOT 2 years ago
I disagree with the potential of the german tanks.
afaik they were modern and the most advanced battletanks, they broke through a passage into france that was considered as "unpassable", and they could tear down houses by just driving through. And afaik France had dated weapons and technology. except for their defense system.
I agree that france could have done much more damage to the german army, but i think they would have lost as well.
Hooovercat 2 years ago
Later in the war German tanks were superior in design, but at this stage the Pz. I & II's made up the majority of the German forces and were not of a particularly high standard. France did not have out dated technology, but it certainly had out dated officers. And I think you will find it was not the tanks that made the Bastogne breakthrough possible, but the superior planning and engineering units of the German army. Had France modernized its tactics there's no reason to suppose it would lose.
calicheSCOT 2 years ago
Not to mention that they spent a great deal of military spending on the Maginot Line ($7,000,000,000).
JimmyeDallas 2 years ago
caliche, that's right. The French army's equipment was, on the whole, comparable with the Germans' (superior French heavy tanks, assault rifle, etc., inferior radio communications and AAA). Some good Navy radars, too. The main French weakness was in:
- Tactical doctrine and officers' training
- Air Force: Excellent pilots with aircrafts which were, at best, comparable with the Hurricane, no match for the Me109s.
Fridomfry 2 years ago 2
its just pathetic how defensive minded the French were, Magino Lines and all, they never though offensively (only defense is offense). Napoleon must of been rolling in his grave...
youngsamurai88 2 years ago
Great intro! "These guns would halt the hun. Provided the hun came this way..." :D
djlagomorph 2 years ago
This debate was started a soon as June 1940, between no less than De Gaulle and Churchill. Thus I don't think we can advance it much further - only repeating the same arguments again. Both armies were weak and outdated compared with the Germans. Thanks God, Britain was:
- protected by the Channel
- not immediately threatened by Hitler, who had just no plans to invade Britain until July
Fridomfry 2 years ago 2
The World at War is the best documenrary on ww2. this episode is both the best and the saddest. First, it shows the brilliance of the German military planning. Second, it points out the politica lapathy and miltary ineptitude of the French.Fridomy is very astute in his analysis of the tremendous French sacrifices in the Great War. Finally, this program points out, as Gen Beaufre states, the selfishness of the British by abandoning their allies to the Nazi's.
villanovakid84 2 years ago
If Britain wouldn't have retreated and left for home Europe would very likely have been speaking German.There was no reason for the British Army to go down in flames with the terribly weak French army!
MDSJR67 2 years ago
the problem with France was the leadership, the top level. The French army could have withstood the Germans.
majorhepcat 2 years ago
A lot of the Leadership was hoping to work for the Germans when it looked like France was finished. At least Degaulle and Leclerc along with the army of the Free French kept fighting.
MDSJR67 2 years ago
That's nonsense. A lot of the French leadership had fought in the hell of WW1 against the Germans, and now they had declared war against Hitler - and lost. They were devastated by their own mistakes, but still hated Nazi Germany. The three reasons for the armistice were: They wanted to stop the bloodshed; there were 5 millions refugees on the roads; everyone believed that Britain would sue for meace within weeks. Only a few fascists "hoped to work with the Germans".
Fridomfry 2 years ago
i've said this before but, France's problem was poor leadership, both military and in the government.
apeloki 2 years ago
Amazing to see how most comments just neglect 3 facts:
- The French had fought and hold most of the Western front in 1914-1918, and been bled white (1.5 million killed, millions more crippled). No wonder that they were not keen on doing war again in 1939... just as the British and Americans.
- France was under a lame parliamentary regime, unable to pursue any serious policy on the long term, particularly to modernize the Army.
- Hitler had battle plans, UK & France hadn't.
Fridomfry 2 years ago
oui oui the french and there folly? 6 bloody weeks to smash western europes biggest land army and to send the BEF packing aswell.!!! yet there were many reasons why this came about?ie military planners for a start?and the overall french mentality.and so on and so on!!!???
redriot74 2 years ago
Aah.. the French and their aesthetics.
tomsega 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The fucking narrator pronounces horse like whore, what a retard.
RmonSP 2 years ago
Well its sounds funny. And the french depended on their whores
alexander33345 2 years ago
You're the retard, that's Lawrence Olivier and the programme is the best series ever on the Second World War, stick to watching Fox News...
Cadhain 2 years ago 4
well then 'Lawrence Olivier' pronounces HORSE like WHORE, and that's fucking retarded. Also, obviously this IS one of the best WWII docus out there, I'll give you that. Also, FOX news is biased to republican scumbags
RmonSP 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LMAO I love this episode because it shows just how bad the French really are. They talk all this shit and whatnot, but when it really comes down to it, they have no fucking idea what they're doing and get their asses handed to them over and over again. They may as well rename this episode "France = Fail".
BitterHappiness 2 years ago
The lesson here is to remain strong and vigilant as we confront the evildoers of this generation and beyond. Great nations rise, grow fat and satisfied, and then decline and finally fall when they are too selfish and unwilling to pay the price for success.
In the USA, we now have had good times for far too long and the generations have grown soft. Gird your loins, fellow citizens, because the big war is fast approaching. Stay vigilant.
Boelcke1916 2 years ago 3
Very true. Military qualities are not genetically transmitted. Our societies' values don't encourage us to sustain hardship.
Fridomfry 2 years ago
Also my favourite episode of the series
Nickherts 2 years ago
Man, I really have to get the soundtrack to this documentary series. I'm really digging the tune that plays before the opening credits.
Anyways, thanks for the uploads!
lavosdaman 2 years ago 3
The Italians attacked in the alps at the Alpine Line and got defeated very badly.185000 French Troops against 450000 Italian Troops.
01252546952 2 years ago
what's the name of the march at the beginning?
astridbelge 2 years ago
Marche Des Bonnets a Poils, a Napoleonic march.
rehedgehog 2 years ago
Best episode of the series.
olivemike81 3 years ago 2
fkin agreed jimmy!
dragonkilla7 2 years ago 2
France was not "riddled with fifth columnists", and the Vichy puppett regime didn't exist yet. I read Rebatet's "Les Décombres": The Socialist admin. which ruled France since 1936 had been very efficient against Nazi agents, and also against the French right-wing. The French secret service was entirely "Républicain" and anti-Nazi. It was very different from Britain and even more the US, where pro-Germans were really influent.
Fridomfry 3 years ago
It looks like there was a strong prewar Right wing from what I see on this film.
MDSJR67 2 years ago
As this vid so expertly describes.....
The French were horribly divided at the beginning of WWII.
They had recently fought in a huge and terrible war on their own soil. A war more costly in any terms than anything preceding it.
Who in their right mind would want to repeat that.
It had very little to do with courage.
Pablo668 3 years ago
really enjoying these videos, hadn't seen them since 1970s... always thought they should be a public document accessible to all... thanks for uploading.
But disappointed in the general comments here... this anti-american/ anti-european nonsense really doesn't give dues to anyone who served in WW2... very disrespectful...
orangefunk 3 years ago 2
i agree with you. the antagonist has been forcibly removed from our midst as a result of his inability to restrain himself to debate. i did not think it fair, however, to the people who responded to his comments to delete the entirety of the commentary...so i only left those portions that were responded to by other viewers.
i posted these videos hoping that people would view them and gain a more rounded perspective on just how much was given by all who fought in this war.
damoosebelly 3 years ago
i just wanted to comment briefly on the courage or lack thereof where France is concerned in this war. there has been much debate and i know that the concept of the French army has become somewhat a joke in many nations...it would be prudent to keep in mind that WWI took a lunch break and then resumed as WWII, essentially, embroiling Europe in one nearly continuous war over 30 years. the French played a huge role in the trench fighting of WWI...it is possible they were war weary by the 1930s.
damoosebelly 3 years ago
I've always wondered about why more isn't written about the 5th columnists in WW2. One reason that England, France and America weren't prepared for WW2 was that there were a lot of fascist sympathizers in their governments. The Germans were not seen for the danger they were, until the fall of Poland, because German pre-war propaganda had fooled so many people.
Bullettube 3 years ago
okay...i know how very much everyone has enjoyed the presence of Camarale here, keeping us all on our toes and making us defend our respective nations' "lack of participation" in WWII, which France obviously won single-handedly against the horrifying anglo threat...but i warned him ages ago that deliberately and directly insulting others would not be tolerated here. these videos are here for education and information...debate is good, verbal assault is not...so, we've had to say goodbye to C.
damoosebelly 3 years ago
everyone else, please continue to enjoy, debate, and discuss...thank you for watching and posting.
damoosebelly 3 years ago
this is the worst humiliation ever done to france, they had 3 million men defending with the english and 90% of the 3 million was wiped out in 1 month just 4 million attackers. French always talking like the king of the world but being defeated in both world war I don't know where their arrogance comes from.
Congo4life 3 years ago
all of you, stop arguing.
Peace
astridbelge 3 years ago
Agreed, stop argueing, there's no use looking in hindsight, it had nothing to do woth cowardice, but that defence mentality and the incompetence of the allied politions and generals. But it's 68 years ago now, so thiers no point in arguing.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
The French didn't fought, asshole ? They inflicted 45000 kiled to Germans,111000 wounded,destroyed 1400 of their planes and 1000 Nazi tanks.And in case you didn't know, they lost 100000 deads in 6 weeks of fights in May/June 1940. What about your shitty pathetic country as big as a theme park crushed in a few days ,in 1940?ASSHOLE.
Camarale 3 years ago
While what Henkbress says is nonsense, so is what you say. You're hating on a country that chose to fight a hopeless fight, men gave their lives trying to defend against impossible odds, and at times succeeding at it too, such as in the battle of the Hague, where Germany lost many skilled paratroopers and perhaps more importantly, transport planes. You show as little respect as HenkBress does for how bravely soldiers across Europe fought to defend their countries.
Retuobak 3 years ago
hey the French did not fight real well. They were poorly lead, hell there Generals and politicans were stuck in 1914 not 1940. The British were closer but still had major issues as well. You both are right and wrong so peace..
thegreatokie 3 years ago
i've read quite a lot about the war between france and germany in ww2 and the french really displayed extreme cowardice. Experts agree that if french soldiers wouldn't have been such extreme cowards (a lot of times they surrendered just at the sound of germans coming) germany could never have won that war. France and england combined had more men and weapons than the germans, and their weapons were more modern. However, in practice only the english fought, the french were panic-stricken.
henkbress 3 years ago
henkbress..I totally agree with every word you write.
dog123903 3 years ago
Come in the real world, assholes.This shit happened 70 years ago.
Camarale 3 years ago
and alot of the world problems occurring today stems from mistakes made at the end of WWII. 65 years is not a long time ago.
lemonite1 3 years ago
The last headline.WW2.
Camarale 3 years ago
Look you French and American wankers, just accept you both made invaluable contributions to an Allied victory in WW2.
Taramriel 3 years ago
Your a complete retarded moron. Did you know America was fighting on two fronts half way around the world? If I can remember correctly the UK got ass raped and were forced to retreat back to your shithole island and wait for America to come save your wanking asses. Seriously the brits were the most pathetic army in ww2 besides the French.
emmteez 3 years ago
I'm a complete retarded moron because I think France and America made invaluable contributions to an Allied victory in WW2.
Okay!
You fucking idiot! I know more about WW2 than some piece of shit scrub like you :)
Taramriel 3 years ago