germany fought a coward's war, like a prize fighter who trains months before the fight then announces his challenger on the day of the fight...COWARDLY, same goes for the japs.
I dont agree with "inflict on the British Army, its greatest humiliation since the american revolution" how could it be humilating to be defeated by an enemy who outnumbers you in both equipment and manpower while your allies are for the most part unreliable.. The BEF was never going to take on the entire German army and march onwards to Berlin, it was a small force to support the French Army..
@Lachausis Shhhh!!! The Russians used to be Communists, which everybody knows means they're kind and caring egalitariants, as opposed to those mean neocons who are just like Hitler.
The American left has a Caril Fugate-style admiration for Communism and hopes it will one day return, so they don't want people to learn about Russia allied itself with Hitler in order to carve up Poland.
I heard that world war 2 was payback for the Reformation and Catholic church schism. I am begining to see how. The Nazi was to destroy anti-romanistic countries and then be destroyed itself. Crazy...
Not just France, but The Western Allies, including Britain, Belgium, and Holland, alongside France, collectively, were largely steamrolled by The Axis Forces in the early stages of WWII, at least, in a broad sense on a strategic level.
But, even though France proposed an armistace with The Axis Forces, and, essentially, reluctantly became an authoritarian state allied to, and under conquest by, The Axis, the French fought on 'till the end in, at least, some relative force.
What the fuck? That's like asking for the Belgians, Dutch, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Norwegians, Danes, Luxembourgs, Poles, Czechs, and Austrians to fight to the last man but none of them did. Fighting to the last man does not equal bravery.
@silentghost23 they just tried to avoid the war because their economy was never this big than the germans was and was never been able to reach up to it. the allies were aware of this facts and tried to delay the escalation. Take a look at the Retreat of Dunkirk and u will know at what level their equipment and skill was. In WW1 the european nations were at the same point but france got a better army than in the late 30's, they just prayed that the maginot-line will stand strong against them.
From USA and Britain or rather from companies and banks from USA and Britain - they(companies) buy for smaall price germans factories after WWI
and banks gave them great credits on development.
When adolf in 1933 became a chancellor, took over everything(nationalisation), and switched to military production (millions of new jobs) - of course credits from foreign banks must be paid off, but the recipe for this was war.
@bpiotrAgain Surely you're confusing Hitler with Stalin and Nazism with Communism. From economic point of view you could do anything you wanted in the 3rd Reich except if you were Jew, Gypsy etc, meaning you could have private property. Not so in Communism. The German autobahns and infrastructure were constructed also under Hitler. As far as debts are concerned, war is always a paradise for bankers. They simply fund every fighting country.
In this book I'm reading - Teach Yourself, The Second World War, it reads:
The French had more tanks than the Germans (3,000 to 2,400) but most were distributed haphazardly among the French armies. The French therefore had no real equivalent of the panzer divisions which would form the cutting edge of Army Group A.
The Germans had Army Group A, B and C in the attack on Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and France.
- Tank regiments designed to fight with the infantry,, as in 1918, and were indeed distributed among French armies.
- Tank divisions (the 4th was created in May 1940), which had been designed since 1937 in the same spirit as panzer divisions: "To ram into enemy lines".
Note that both tactics were used in WW2. In Normandy in 1944, most tanks were used to support infantry from hedge to hedge... until Patton's Blitzkrieg-style breakthrough.
Actually, there were French units that performed outstandingly in this battle.
But very much like the fiasco of Pearl Harbor, they, like the Americans, were caught completely by surprise at the speed, superior preparation and intensity of what was deemed an inferior opponent.
We tend to disregard the admirable planning both of these operations had by the Germans and the Japanese staffs.
@QPhilms - I agree with your comment. It seemed almost as though the French and the Americans were in denial that they were, indeed, AT WAR! French sat behind their Maginot line continually counting their troops and artillery pieces to reassure themselves that the Germans wouldn't dare cross their frontiers. USA sat isolated, telling themselves that they were not going to get involved again in a "European War", while thoroughly discounting any real threat by the "inferior" Japanese.
German air power in terms of plane's number and design contribute toFrance collapse.France land and air defense is not balance.France's"AA" guns were not good and few.Tanks were overstreched some awkward in design &controls.All this contributes to the first German advantage of covertlly preparing war and engaging unprepared victims.
Only the French forces which were fighting alongside the British Expeditionary Force which was evacuated at dunkirk were brought to England. And most of the French forces in British colonial areas.
No, far from that. The British evacuated their own men in priority (just normal), then a part of the French who were trapped with them in Dunkirk: 122,000 French. Many of the French who had been covering the British evacuation against German attacks were left behind (in a quite bitter mood against the Brits...). Many more French troops were in other parts of the front (Somme, Aisne, Maginot line, Italian front, + air and sea), and kept fighting for 3 more weeks.
if you look at all they accomplished they were probably the most advanced in the world. they just didnt have the economy or man power in the end to put it into place
I don't this is true. Other countries had some better technology. Russia had better tanks, Brits had radar etc. What set the germans above the rest was their leadership and tactics not their equipment.
True, they had the best tactics and training. They avoided frontal assaults and alway tried to surround and cut off the enemy. They believed in speed and confusion. while the Brits and French were trying to replay WW l
actually, its rated as the best tank of the war, only problem was it was too complex to be mass produced and Germany was running out of oil starting mid 1944. These factors have nothing to do with Mechanical failures. Also, i know, Britain had the Comet in 1944, but Germany built the Me262 in 1938 man, not to mention that the Me262 was way more advanced and stronger then the Comet
Yes you're right. In the beginning the french tanks were much better but the germans had the tactic.But in the end german tanks were the best - but to less
Like the German tanks were faster and had radios. For that matter the German radio commo was so superior to the French it gave them a complete edge right there General Gamelin, the French commander, didn't even have radio in his HQ.
The new German tactical doctrine of blitzkrieg, coupled with the new training programs. Which placed great importance on personal initiative, performance under pressure and the ability of every rank to assume a higher rank on the battlefield, if the situation demanded it. This gave the Germans much greater flexibility and efficiency on the modern highly dynamic and fast paced battlefield. Lastly the shock and confusion which the allies were plunged into by the surprise attack.
Jabthecat was right! The allies had numerical superiority in men, guns and tanks for the battle of France and the low countries. Unlike Poland or Norway the French and British Armies were ultra modern and well supplied. The French Char B1 and the British Matilda tank were greatly superior to their German counterparts. However the Germans exploited their three main advantages to the full. Their air force was bigger and had the benefit surprise, it acted as a force multiplier.
I really have a problem with people posting things without any knowledge. Any who knows the situation in 1939 knows that french army was strong. Even more Germans were equiped with stuff from annexed country. Helmets from WWI and so on... I just can agree with thooses who says that germans superior tactics did most of it, and the fact that french just did not wanted to get back into war as they had suffered the most during WWI.
Randy, what you write is partly right. The most objective way to understand this tragedy is to consider that the French, just like the British and Americans, didn't want to fight another bloody war, for the reasons you say. The only real difference between these countries lies in the fact that Britain was protected by the Channel, which bought it time to rearm. And that Hitler had carefully planned an invasion of France, not of Britain, which he tried to improvise in Aug. 1940.
At the beginning of this war the french army was equally large and equally well equiped. The main differences lay in tactic and also in strategy. Besides of the tanks, which were used as spearhead in the german wardoctrine, the incredibly effective use of the aircraft (Stukas) was decisive. French tanks were scattered all around the country, although they were more than a match for the german tanks....the French hab the most advanced tanks of their time, they just didn't use them.
Even though I'm American I admit that the Wehrmacht was "the better army". German army was 'man for man' the finest army in the world going INTO the war. Most other nations had no desire to fight and were rather reluctant militarily. The Germans had spent years planning their revenge for WW1 and indoctrinated their entire society with the Hitler Youth, etc. By 1945 the battle hardened American, Soviet and British were the better soldiers because all the best Germans were already dead...
Man you got that right! The French really underestimated the Germans. Also, they thought the Maginot Line would "protect" them, but the Germans simply went around it. The French had such horrible casualties in WW1 that they didn't have any heart to fight when the Germans invaded them in 1940. It had only been 22 years and the bad memories were still fresh. I still think the French should have truly fought it out. They could have really bloodied the Germans before surrendering. -Peace-
No, I'm not retarded. And the French basically didn't really fight for a variety of reasons. If the French would have seriously fought when the Germans invaded don't you think they would have had many more casualties than they did? I've studied military history for 34 years and saying that "the French didn't fight" is called sarcasm. Look it up...
Right, France lost 200 000 in this lighting campaign. Some fights were ferocious and Germans could have faced a tremendous counter-blitz if the strategy hab been up to the material quality.
I wish the French would have chosen to fight in WW2. Their decision to "sit this one out" cost hundreds of thousands of British and American lives. French spectators had front row seats to one of the largest wars in history. They have the nerve to complain about being "occupied". Maybe next time they'll fight...
Once a lllaaady asked Napoleon, hoping to flatter him: "General, who are the best soldiers in the world?"
He replied blankly: - "Those who win battles, Madame".
Therefore we should also count the Vietcong and the Chinese among "the best armies in the world". Yet this quality is not genetically transmitted (e.g. the French).
ok germans had ONE of the best armies in the history of the world but the best soldiers are the American soldiers k i respect your opinion but i disagree with it k
lalafaca u r just hilarius u think that american and british could never match the germans in any aspect?r u just serious lol?dude the americans and the british destroy the germans you smart one you r just an idiot lol.
actually the soviets mostly destroyed the germans, the german armies were majorly in the east at the time the landings occured so the resistance was not that fierce though still not an easy task
If Hitler had not ordered the German men to invade Czechoslovakia, Germany would be twice its size today. Prussia would still be German. The Sudetenland would be German. And almost all German-speaking areas of Europe would be part of the German Reich. Great mistake.
technically would Hitler have come to power if the Allies had never forced the Treaty of Versailles on the Germans? however the Allies would have seen Hitler for what he was in the end
ccx009 is right. Hitler should of conquered the nearby countries and waited possibly ten years. I n that time he could of consolidated his power, took the industrial might of the conquered countries and then slowly conquered more. Instead he was stupid and invaded Russia. If he had only listened to the Generals.
The Burgundians, the English, the French monarchy, the Nazis, the Germans... they already won.
In a few years, there will be no France anymore, and no French language either. It will be the same situation like the fall of the Roman Empire and its migration period...
...new tribes will rise, and then they become new folks, after this new nationalities, and it will be the same situation again: chaos, war and death.
French lost to Americans, many times to the English, lost to the Germans in both world wars, and being first country to get owned by the Vietnamese peasants.
only because they had us and Britain help them out lets face it France needed us to three wars for them The First World War, The Second World War, and The Vietnam War
France did good in the first world war and I just want too say that Hitler himself said that the french where the best soldiers in europe after germany
Yes France was afraid that Germany may attack them again and that led to the Treaty of Versailles, but I think their fear was justified with the fact thet germany had been really aggresive.
france doesent suck its just the german warmachine was powerful just overwhelming its enemy with the tactic blitzkrieg im sure if france was ready it ould have been longer like ww1
defend lol you mean give up in less than a week? cmon lets just admit it , french was never good at wars the only time France had power was when Napoleon was on power and that was short lived. French lost to Americans, many times to the English, lost to the Germans in both world wars, and being first country to get owned by the Vietnamese peasants.
First they maneged to defend their country for six weeks and the UK would have fallen as fast if you did'nt have a huge canal as protection and they formed the FFL and kept on fighting
Second there has NEVER EVER been a war between the french and the americans
Third yes the lost to the vietnamese but you brits lost to americans and they where just peasents then and the brits lost an entire army to the zuluwarriors in the 1900-century and they where primitive in comparison to the brits
french lost to the english colony troops which were the same thing as loosing to americans, english lost one battle to the zulus due to that they were outnumbered atleast 20 to 1 but manage to end the zulu war with only 1,000 casualties with 10,000 zulu dead. Nothing is more humiliating than being defeated in a war by a thirdwar country and France showed the world that it is possible.
Germany were merely bullies picking on peace loving nations like France and Norway, Hitler had no balls, no guts, only crazyness inside his own head, the German people were a weak flock of sheep for following this madman.
not exactly Germany barely won the race to invade Norway but still saying Germany was being a bully on smaller nations is stupid the French could have fought off the Germans easily if they weren't still in World War I
yeah, Russia was definately peace loving! it was because of nations like france and britain that germany felt cheated and betrayed, so much that they appointed a fascist regime
The funny thing I see is that France and Britain who used and invented tanks, thought they were only support weapons and used outdated military doctrine. Meanwhile, Germany adopted these tanks as their main weapon in military doctrine, and then overrun France.
carmen, you're right about the Blitzkrieg-style offensives in Poland and on the west in 1940, and others. Yet in Normandy in 1944, during two months the Allies used tanks mostly as support weapons in close cooperation with infantry, hedge after hedge - until Patton was able to launch a Blitzkrieg-style offensive too. In the Pacific islands too, tanks were mostly used in 1918-like attrition battles. The problem was that the French commadners in 1940 knew only this old established method.
Hitler didn't "strike" anywhere - he merely, and this was his outspoken intention all along, rightfully took back the areas the "Allies" had cut away from Germany and separated the German people after WWI with the implementation of the Treaty of Versaille, and the fact that the German minority in these the areas were being subjected to discrimination and harassment. That's why the Czech never got any say in the "carving up of 'their' country".
Trev1er02 , thanks for exposing the Nazi point of view so clearly. But we know it already, along with its consequences. You and your beliefs are history now.
In June on those hot summer days of paris a troop of girl scouts could capture it. Theres nobody to answer the phones. There all on holliday in the countryside.
Then why didn't Hitler send a troop of girl scouts ??
Stupid.
The French Air Force shot down 1,000 German aircraft. On the battlefield, French tanks won over German tanks. The main problem was bad strategy, not your ridiculous holiday inconveniences.
It's your country which was on vacation that summer, remember.
Thinking back, we should've let ol' Adolf keep Europe. Or uncle Joe Stalin. You would've had a lot of fun living under either ones reign. Fucking ungrateful pieces of crap
Exept your insults, that offense me, because My grandfather was killed during battle of France (and his brother) the fact is that we (And english army too ...)
germany fought a coward's war, like a prize fighter who trains months before the fight then announces his challenger on the day of the fight...COWARDLY, same goes for the japs.
n8tivguitar 1 year ago
I dont agree with "inflict on the British Army, its greatest humiliation since the american revolution" how could it be humilating to be defeated by an enemy who outnumbers you in both equipment and manpower while your allies are for the most part unreliable.. The BEF was never going to take on the entire German army and march onwards to Berlin, it was a small force to support the French Army..
TowerHamletsNeil 1 year ago
Shouldn't this be renamed the "typical surrender of France"
gopconservative78 1 year ago
Backstabbing russian pigs
Lachausis 1 year ago
@Lachausis Shhhh!!! The Russians used to be Communists, which everybody knows means they're kind and caring egalitariants, as opposed to those mean neocons who are just like Hitler.
The American left has a Caril Fugate-style admiration for Communism and hopes it will one day return, so they don't want people to learn about Russia allied itself with Hitler in order to carve up Poland.
Bullzeye95 1 year ago
the anglofrench were stuck in ww1
lakas50 1 year ago
6 week vacation for German troops.....The surrender of France
gopconservative78 1 year ago
@gopconservative78
That's totally why the Germans lost 49,000 in casualties on that 6 week vacation.
Scrinoverlord 1 year ago
I heard that world war 2 was payback for the Reformation and Catholic church schism. I am begining to see how. The Nazi was to destroy anti-romanistic countries and then be destroyed itself. Crazy...
WorstDecadeInHistory 1 year ago
how a country with lower supplies can win a war???- Blitzkreige!!!!!
DeutschlandFrau 1 year ago 2
Not just France, but The Western Allies, including Britain, Belgium, and Holland, alongside France, collectively, were largely steamrolled by The Axis Forces in the early stages of WWII, at least, in a broad sense on a strategic level.
But, even though France proposed an armistace with The Axis Forces, and, essentially, reluctantly became an authoritarian state allied to, and under conquest by, The Axis, the French fought on 'till the end in, at least, some relative force.
GmanGregilla 1 year ago
Sabaton--> "UPRISING" this is example of brave people sold twice by "allies"
bpiotrAgain 1 year ago
french gave up way too easily. they should fought to very last man.
NoXAdmiral 1 year ago
@NoXAdmiral , oh, right, absolutely. Just like the US troops at Bataan.
Fridomfry 1 year ago
@NoXAdmiral
What the fuck? That's like asking for the Belgians, Dutch, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Norwegians, Danes, Luxembourgs, Poles, Czechs, and Austrians to fight to the last man but none of them did. Fighting to the last man does not equal bravery.
Scrinoverlord 1 year ago
@NoXAdmiral ya, such brave talk form someone behind their computer watching a video.
Dekar41 1 year ago
and to think that if Hitler was captured while he was near the french border all this wouldn't have happened...
Aelkamal 1 year ago
love these history docs! thanxs 4 the uploads
prometheusz 1 year ago
Wow! I had no idea. Thanks for that.
shasha1873 2 years ago
No problem:)
bpiotrAgain 2 years ago
Talk about a suprise, the Nazis coming through the Ardennes Forest, caught them completely off suprise
silentghost23 2 years ago
How did Hitler get the money for all these things he did? Unbelievable!
shasha1873 2 years ago 2
Germany had become a war economy to get ready for the war and was amassing a huge army while Britain and France tried everything to avoid a war.
silentghost23 2 years ago
Good point.
shasha1873 2 years ago
@silentghost23 they just tried to avoid the war because their economy was never this big than the germans was and was never been able to reach up to it. the allies were aware of this facts and tried to delay the escalation. Take a look at the Retreat of Dunkirk and u will know at what level their equipment and skill was. In WW1 the european nations were at the same point but france got a better army than in the late 30's, they just prayed that the maginot-line will stand strong against them.
DanteFlint 2 years ago
That's why many felt betrayed by their own government when the war came and not enough prepearations had been done....
VegardMinde 2 years ago
From USA and Britain or rather from companies and banks from USA and Britain - they(companies) buy for smaall price germans factories after WWI
and banks gave them great credits on development.
When adolf in 1933 became a chancellor, took over everything(nationalisation), and switched to military production (millions of new jobs) - of course credits from foreign banks must be paid off, but the recipe for this was war.
bpiotrAgain 2 years ago
@bpiotrAgain Surely you're confusing Hitler with Stalin and Nazism with Communism. From economic point of view you could do anything you wanted in the 3rd Reich except if you were Jew, Gypsy etc, meaning you could have private property. Not so in Communism. The German autobahns and infrastructure were constructed also under Hitler. As far as debts are concerned, war is always a paradise for bankers. They simply fund every fighting country.
Bereft008 1 year ago
@Bereft008 This was a war waged. Rome versus Anti-Romanism... it was payback for the Protestant/Lutheran reformations. There was to be no winner.
WorstDecadeInHistory 1 year ago
In this book I'm reading - Teach Yourself, The Second World War, it reads:
The French had more tanks than the Germans (3,000 to 2,400) but most were distributed haphazardly among the French armies. The French therefore had no real equivalent of the panzer divisions which would form the cutting edge of Army Group A.
The Germans had Army Group A, B and C in the attack on Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and France.
AppleSouffle 2 years ago
In fact, the French had both sorts of tank units:
- Tank regiments designed to fight with the infantry,, as in 1918, and were indeed distributed among French armies.
- Tank divisions (the 4th was created in May 1940), which had been designed since 1937 in the same spirit as panzer divisions: "To ram into enemy lines".
Note that both tactics were used in WW2. In Normandy in 1944, most tanks were used to support infantry from hedge to hedge... until Patton's Blitzkrieg-style breakthrough.
Fridomfry 2 years ago
Actually, there were French units that performed outstandingly in this battle.
But very much like the fiasco of Pearl Harbor, they, like the Americans, were caught completely by surprise at the speed, superior preparation and intensity of what was deemed an inferior opponent.
We tend to disregard the admirable planning both of these operations had by the Germans and the Japanese staffs.
QPhilms 2 years ago 10
@QPhilms
dont know why someone gave you a thumbs down for your comment, but I evened it out by giving you a thumbs up
biagiotti2006 2 years ago
I agree. If people hold a different opinion, why don't they just write it down, instead of censoring ???
Fridomfry 2 years ago
@QPhilms - I agree with your comment. It seemed almost as though the French and the Americans were in denial that they were, indeed, AT WAR! French sat behind their Maginot line continually counting their troops and artillery pieces to reassure themselves that the Germans wouldn't dare cross their frontiers. USA sat isolated, telling themselves that they were not going to get involved again in a "European War", while thoroughly discounting any real threat by the "inferior" Japanese.
randy109 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
germans r better than the french even if football, lol
vanmaarwijk 2 years ago
hmmm....nice!! i didnt knew about this one! i only have the El Alamein,Monte Casino,Bomber & Arnhem.
gonna search this one too for download! nice to have all in collection! thx for posting this!
xStalkerxx 2 years ago
so ironic they start war over poland and then in the end they give poland to russia. what a joke.
Rico8458 2 years ago
German air power in terms of plane's number and design contribute toFrance collapse.France land and air defense is not balance.France's"AA" guns were not good and few.Tanks were overstreched some awkward in design &controls.All this contributes to the first German advantage of covertlly preparing war and engaging unprepared victims.
mikerama1 2 years ago
french casualties: 1.900.000 captured, 300.000 killed.
german casualties: 27.000
france sucks.
88Nonni 2 years ago
@88Nonni agreed
darthcassidy666 2 years ago
@88Nonni
French dead were about 90,000, that's still much higher, though not quite 300,000.
SlikElgeron 2 years ago
same thing wud've happend to the britsh if there was a tiny bridge for the germans to get their panzers into england
vanmaarwijk 2 years ago
@vanmaarwijk the british would have destroyed the bridge
codeman409 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SEIG HAIL!!! my FUHRER
hitler42088 2 years ago
Only the French forces which were fighting alongside the British Expeditionary Force which was evacuated at dunkirk were brought to England. And most of the French forces in British colonial areas.
TowerHamletsNeil 2 years ago
ehh,can anyone tell me, did all french army go to England after that?
wangweidi2002 2 years ago
No, far from that. The British evacuated their own men in priority (just normal), then a part of the French who were trapped with them in Dunkirk: 122,000 French. Many of the French who had been covering the British evacuation against German attacks were left behind (in a quite bitter mood against the Brits...). Many more French troops were in other parts of the front (Somme, Aisne, Maginot line, Italian front, + air and sea), and kept fighting for 3 more weeks.
Fridomfry 2 years ago
merci~
wangweidi2002 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
france rules
montuyauamoi 2 years ago
french's sucks
xStalkerxx 2 years ago
with 1500 years of wars you should be more respectful.
Aelkamal 1 year ago
@xStalkerxx Si c'est pour laisser ce genre de commentaires, il vaut mieux ne rien dire ...
cestmoi974 1 year ago
obviously not coz they lost,hahaha
barrynw1 2 years ago
stupid germans must have made peace with russia and enjoyed the conquered territories.
indianpatriot 2 years ago
the wehrmacht was the most technologically advanced army at the beginning of the war for sure no question
crapcake101 2 years ago
if you look at all they accomplished they were probably the most advanced in the world. they just didnt have the economy or man power in the end to put it into place
frodosaurusrex 2 years ago
I don't this is true. Other countries had some better technology. Russia had better tanks, Brits had radar etc. What set the germans above the rest was their leadership and tactics not their equipment.
AoCNacht 2 years ago 5
Tanks and planes. Thats what the germans had. They were the architects of modern warfare.
hsybcmpny 2 years ago
True, they had the best tactics and training. They avoided frontal assaults and alway tried to surround and cut off the enemy. They believed in speed and confusion. while the Brits and French were trying to replay WW l
jakefree25 2 years ago 11
and at the end as well, no body could match the advanced King Tiger Tank or the Me262 Jet Fighter, or the STG 44 first ever assault rifle
youngsamurai88 2 years ago
King Tiger wasn't that good tank since most of them were abandoned because mechanical failures. Britain also had jet fighters...
MokomaSusi 2 years ago
actually, its rated as the best tank of the war, only problem was it was too complex to be mass produced and Germany was running out of oil starting mid 1944. These factors have nothing to do with Mechanical failures. Also, i know, Britain had the Comet in 1944, but Germany built the Me262 in 1938 man, not to mention that the Me262 was way more advanced and stronger then the Comet
youngsamurai88 2 years ago
German tanks were very bad in beginning of the war. They had better tacticts what helped them to win...
MokomaSusi 2 years ago 2
Yes you're right. In the beginning the french tanks were much better but the germans had the tactic.But in the end german tanks were the best - but to less
HardstyleBorusse 2 years ago 2
Like the German tanks were faster and had radios. For that matter the German radio commo was so superior to the French it gave them a complete edge right there General Gamelin, the French commander, didn't even have radio in his HQ.
jakefree25 2 years ago
not to mention german troops taking ecstacy and speed
YuraT0w3l 2 years ago
yes ,i think lot of Wehrmacht generals took cocaine and get morale and self confidence high.
ghangonlfjy 2 years ago
The new German tactical doctrine of blitzkrieg, coupled with the new training programs. Which placed great importance on personal initiative, performance under pressure and the ability of every rank to assume a higher rank on the battlefield, if the situation demanded it. This gave the Germans much greater flexibility and efficiency on the modern highly dynamic and fast paced battlefield. Lastly the shock and confusion which the allies were plunged into by the surprise attack.
VonManstein112 2 years ago
Jabthecat was right! The allies had numerical superiority in men, guns and tanks for the battle of France and the low countries. Unlike Poland or Norway the French and British Armies were ultra modern and well supplied. The French Char B1 and the British Matilda tank were greatly superior to their German counterparts. However the Germans exploited their three main advantages to the full. Their air force was bigger and had the benefit surprise, it acted as a force multiplier.
VonManstein112 2 years ago
I really have a problem with people posting things without any knowledge. Any who knows the situation in 1939 knows that french army was strong. Even more Germans were equiped with stuff from annexed country. Helmets from WWI and so on... I just can agree with thooses who says that germans superior tactics did most of it, and the fact that french just did not wanted to get back into war as they had suffered the most during WWI.
Jabthecat 2 years ago
Randy, what you write is partly right. The most objective way to understand this tragedy is to consider that the French, just like the British and Americans, didn't want to fight another bloody war, for the reasons you say. The only real difference between these countries lies in the fact that Britain was protected by the Channel, which bought it time to rearm. And that Hitler had carefully planned an invasion of France, not of Britain, which he tried to improvise in Aug. 1940.
Fridomfry 2 years ago
At the beginning of this war the french army was equally large and equally well equiped. The main differences lay in tactic and also in strategy. Besides of the tanks, which were used as spearhead in the german wardoctrine, the incredibly effective use of the aircraft (Stukas) was decisive. French tanks were scattered all around the country, although they were more than a match for the german tanks....the French hab the most advanced tanks of their time, they just didn't use them.
ABCTrommel 2 years ago
Even though I'm American I admit that the Wehrmacht was "the better army". German army was 'man for man' the finest army in the world going INTO the war. Most other nations had no desire to fight and were rather reluctant militarily. The Germans had spent years planning their revenge for WW1 and indoctrinated their entire society with the Hitler Youth, etc. By 1945 the battle hardened American, Soviet and British were the better soldiers because all the best Germans were already dead...
randy95023 2 years ago
but you must say Italians were strongest ,especially in land warfare
:P
ghangonlfjy 2 years ago
Man you got that right! The French really underestimated the Germans. Also, they thought the Maginot Line would "protect" them, but the Germans simply went around it. The French had such horrible casualties in WW1 that they didn't have any heart to fight when the Germans invaded them in 1940. It had only been 22 years and the bad memories were still fresh. I still think the French should have truly fought it out. They could have really bloodied the Germans before surrendering. -Peace-
randy95023 2 years ago
No, I'm not retarded. And the French basically didn't really fight for a variety of reasons. If the French would have seriously fought when the Germans invaded don't you think they would have had many more casualties than they did? I've studied military history for 34 years and saying that "the French didn't fight" is called sarcasm. Look it up...
randy95023 2 years ago
Right, France lost 200 000 in this lighting campaign. Some fights were ferocious and Germans could have faced a tremendous counter-blitz if the strategy hab been up to the material quality.
fulansujin 2 years ago
I wish the French would have chosen to fight in WW2. Their decision to "sit this one out" cost hundreds of thousands of British and American lives. French spectators had front row seats to one of the largest wars in history. They have the nerve to complain about being "occupied". Maybe next time they'll fight...
randy95023 2 years ago
Every Military force in the world has good and bad soldiers. Its like a sports team, you got your top guys and your low guys, its all a team effort
ArmyMPsoldier 2 years ago
Once a lllaaady asked Napoleon, hoping to flatter him: "General, who are the best soldiers in the world?"
He replied blankly: - "Those who win battles, Madame".
Therefore we should also count the Vietcong and the Chinese among "the best armies in the world". Yet this quality is not genetically transmitted (e.g. the French).
Fridomfry 2 years ago
ok germans had ONE of the best armies in the history of the world but the best soldiers are the American soldiers k i respect your opinion but i disagree with it k
blazingarrow44 2 years ago
LOL, the American soldiers is far from the best, how ever they have the best equipment
musicbruv 2 years ago
Wrong, remember the Vietnam War, a modern army facing a "rag and shoe " guerilla, and thin of the outcome.
fulansujin 2 years ago
lalafaca u r just hilarius u think that american and british could never match the germans in any aspect?r u just serious lol?dude the americans and the british destroy the germans you smart one you r just an idiot lol.
blazingarrow44 3 years ago
actually the soviets mostly destroyed the germans, the german armies were majorly in the east at the time the landings occured so the resistance was not that fierce though still not an easy task
Stimor 2 years ago
they won couse of their numbers....they had a dumb taktic VERY DUMB, it was : STORM ALL
FieryMastermind 2 years ago
that may be simplifying it a bit too much.
The Allied had airsuperiority and superior artillery and supplies, in adition to numbers of soldiers and gear.
The armor of Germany was better than Allied or Russian, but close air support aircraft neglected that advantage.
But in general the Allied Supreme Command said:
If Allied and German forces meet in equal numbers, then the germans win.
arasaka2020tm 2 years ago
terrible audio
atemlos2585 3 years ago
the best of the best ,best army in the world.
Americans and british could never match the germans in any aspect.
lalafaca 3 years ago
Really, do the majority of you watch these clips to be informed or just to be crude, vulgar and display your ignorance?
ConorCT 3 years ago 5
If Hitler had not ordered the German men to invade Czechoslovakia, Germany would be twice its size today. Prussia would still be German. The Sudetenland would be German. And almost all German-speaking areas of Europe would be part of the German Reich. Great mistake.
ccx2009 3 years ago
technically would Hitler have come to power if the Allies had never forced the Treaty of Versailles on the Germans? however the Allies would have seen Hitler for what he was in the end
Lurtz0886 3 years ago
ccx009 is right. Hitler should of conquered the nearby countries and waited possibly ten years. I n that time he could of consolidated his power, took the industrial might of the conquered countries and then slowly conquered more. Instead he was stupid and invaded Russia. If he had only listened to the Generals.
Ionizap 3 years ago
stupid french, defense is the best offence
racxtoy 3 years ago
like you would have done any better?
splat4 3 years ago 3
other way around genius
emmteez 3 years ago
The Burgundians, the English, the French monarchy, the Nazis, the Germans... they already won.
In a few years, there will be no France anymore, and no French language either. It will be the same situation like the fall of the Roman Empire and its migration period...
...new tribes will rise, and then they become new folks, after this new nationalities, and it will be the same situation again: chaos, war and death.
jecherchelamour 3 years ago
you stupid fuck go kill yourself
Dhaune 3 years ago
French lost to Americans, many times to the English, lost to the Germans in both world wars, and being first country to get owned by the Vietnamese peasants.
studyboy2007 3 years ago
France won in thee first world war
Abridgedfan134 3 years ago
only because they had us and Britain help them out lets face it France needed us to three wars for them The First World War, The Second World War, and The Vietnam War
Lurtz0886 3 years ago
France did good in the first world war and I just want too say that Hitler himself said that the french where the best soldiers in europe after germany
Abridgedfan134 3 years ago
France was afraid of Germany though that is what led to the Treaty of Versailles and the rise of the Nazis and Hitler
Lurtz0886 3 years ago
Yes France was afraid that Germany may attack them again and that led to the Treaty of Versailles, but I think their fear was justified with the fact thet germany had been really aggresive.
Abridgedfan134 3 years ago
well does that justify what France did to Germany? they paved the way for over 10 million people to die
Lurtz0886 3 years ago
Whats the point pressing the subject any further? its been 69 years since the battle of france and 90 years since the end of WWI
Abridgedfan134 3 years ago
france doesent suck its just the german warmachine was powerful just overwhelming its enemy with the tactic blitzkrieg im sure if france was ready it ould have been longer like ww1
23Erwinrommel 3 years ago
france will never live this down. and they are still upset with us for destroying their navy.
patsyd80 3 years ago
FRANCE SUCKS
liampowerlifter 3 years ago
FUCK YOU!
Respect those frenchmen who tried to defend thier country
I mean you brits didn't do much to help
VIVA LA FRANCE VIVA LA MAGNIFIQUE FRANCE
Abridgedfan134 3 years ago
defend lol you mean give up in less than a week? cmon lets just admit it , french was never good at wars the only time France had power was when Napoleon was on power and that was short lived. French lost to Americans, many times to the English, lost to the Germans in both world wars, and being first country to get owned by the Vietnamese peasants.
Congo4life 3 years ago
First they maneged to defend their country for six weeks and the UK would have fallen as fast if you did'nt have a huge canal as protection and they formed the FFL and kept on fighting
Second there has NEVER EVER been a war between the french and the americans
Third yes the lost to the vietnamese but you brits lost to americans and they where just peasents then and the brits lost an entire army to the zuluwarriors in the 1900-century and they where primitive in comparison to the brits
Abridgedfan134 3 years ago
french lost to the english colony troops which were the same thing as loosing to americans, english lost one battle to the zulus due to that they were outnumbered atleast 20 to 1 but manage to end the zulu war with only 1,000 casualties with 10,000 zulu dead. Nothing is more humiliating than being defeated in a war by a thirdwar country and France showed the world that it is possible.
Congo4life 3 years ago
America lost to Viet-Cong too you know so respect the french. they can win a war!
Abridgedfan134 3 years ago
Germany were merely bullies picking on peace loving nations like France and Norway, Hitler had no balls, no guts, only crazyness inside his own head, the German people were a weak flock of sheep for following this madman.
BibcottUnitas 3 years ago
France is "peace loving"? Come on! How did they build their colonial empire?
yarovitek 3 years ago 4
Great Britain invaded Norway first !!! to cut steel supplies to Germany , Hitler invaded and drove the British out and then occupied Norway !!
FieldmarshallRommel1 3 years ago
not exactly Germany barely won the race to invade Norway but still saying Germany was being a bully on smaller nations is stupid the French could have fought off the Germans easily if they weren't still in World War I
Lurtz0886 3 years ago
yeah, Russia was definately peace loving! it was because of nations like france and britain that germany felt cheated and betrayed, so much that they appointed a fascist regime
ChezJamesy 3 years ago
very very true
123Ivansharpe 3 years ago
The funny thing I see is that France and Britain who used and invented tanks, thought they were only support weapons and used outdated military doctrine. Meanwhile, Germany adopted these tanks as their main weapon in military doctrine, and then overrun France.
carmen510 3 years ago
carmen, you're right about the Blitzkrieg-style offensives in Poland and on the west in 1940, and others. Yet in Normandy in 1944, during two months the Allies used tanks mostly as support weapons in close cooperation with infantry, hedge after hedge - until Patton was able to launch a Blitzkrieg-style offensive too. In the Pacific islands too, tanks were mostly used in 1918-like attrition battles. The problem was that the French commadners in 1940 knew only this old established method.
Fridomfry 3 years ago
Hitler didn't "strike" anywhere - he merely, and this was his outspoken intention all along, rightfully took back the areas the "Allies" had cut away from Germany and separated the German people after WWI with the implementation of the Treaty of Versaille, and the fact that the German minority in these the areas were being subjected to discrimination and harassment. That's why the Czech never got any say in the "carving up of 'their' country".
Trev1er02 3 years ago
Trev1er02 , thanks for exposing the Nazi point of view so clearly. But we know it already, along with its consequences. You and your beliefs are history now.
Fridomfry 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Get a clue, kid.
Trev1er02 3 years ago
In June on those hot summer days of paris a troop of girl scouts could capture it. Theres nobody to answer the phones. There all on holliday in the countryside.
SCHRUBBE1966 3 years ago
Then why didn't Hitler send a troop of girl scouts ??
Stupid.
The French Air Force shot down 1,000 German aircraft. On the battlefield, French tanks won over German tanks. The main problem was bad strategy, not your ridiculous holiday inconveniences.
It's your country which was on vacation that summer, remember.
Fridomfry 3 years ago
Pfft, get lost. The French "army" was a complete joke, and no match to the German Wehrmacht or the Leibstandarte and Waffen SS forces.
Trev1er02 3 years ago
Frenchies got raped inside 6 weeks.
Thinking back, we should've let ol' Adolf keep Europe. Or uncle Joe Stalin. You would've had a lot of fun living under either ones reign. Fucking ungrateful pieces of crap
markwtr77 3 years ago
this is not "Thinking", just burping. A free Europe was vital for US trade and security. The US just preferred to let the Brits and French do the job
Fridomfry 3 years ago
Exept your insults, that offense me, because My grandfather was killed during battle of France (and his brother) the fact is that we (And english army too ...)
batten in 6 weeks ..
BOUCHAK 3 years ago
May he rest in peace cause he died for a good cause
Abridgedfan134 3 years ago
fuck france
Turksince1453 3 years ago
do you have anymore battlefield videos?
mjhundem 3 years ago
Yeah i will be uploading more but im working on something else for now.
KoLo2071 3 years ago
Are you GDHouston?
PanzerGrenadierLSSAH 3 years ago
Nah he isn't GD Houston changed his acc to 2bn442RCT
Deathofblades 3 years ago
France, pussy whipped since 1940.
gopconservative94 3 years ago
battlefield:the battle of france
lakas50 3 years ago