Why didn't France fight to the end in 1940?
video description
-One may deprive Germany of her colonies, reduce her army to a mere police force, and reduce her navy to the strength of a fifth-rate power. Still, when Germany feels that she has been wronged in the peace of 1919, she will find means at last, to compel restitution from its conquerors. To obtain retribution, our conditions may be severe, they may be harsh, and even ruthless, but at the same time they may be so just that the country on which we impose them feels, in its heart, it have no right to complain. But injustice and arrogance displayed in the hour of triumph will never be forgotten nor forgiven. I can think of no stronger reason for a future war than that the German people, who are sure to declare themselves as one of the most vigorous and powerful tribes in the world, would be surrounded by a number of smaller states, some of which had never before been established lasting government for itself, but each of which would contain large numbers of Germans desiring reunification with their homeland. -
But thats exactly what happened.\r\n
Date: 2023-12-16
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 29
-nickcharles1284
It did. It took the Germans - the most sophisticated and powerful army in the world - over a month to take France: a country in catastrophic political, leadership, and military disarray. The lufwaft suffered more air losses during the battle of France than it did during the battle of Britain, such was the determination, daring and skill of the French pilots; who often had to land in other airstrips as their origin airfield had been over fun. The French soldiers fought doggedly and with great bravery in the face of certain defeat. It should be noted that France - legitimate France under the leadership of DeGaul after the cabinet cravenly ran - never surrendered, but fought on in exile, whilst its soldiers fought on in the service of the US, British and Soviet armies with distinction.
reply
It did. It took the Germans - the most sophisticated and powerful army in the world - over a month to take France: a country in catastrophic political, leadership, and military disarray. The lufwaft suffered more air losses during the battle of France than it did during the battle of Britain, such was the determination, daring and skill of the French pilots; who often had to land in other airstrips as their origin airfield had been over fun. The French soldiers fought doggedly and with great bravery in the face of certain defeat. It should be noted that France - legitimate France under the leadership of DeGaul after the cabinet cravenly ran - never surrendered, but fought on in exile, whilst its soldiers fought on in the service of the US, British and Soviet armies with distinction.
reply
-BladeTheWatcher
Well, interesting question. If I look at history, I would say the French had no choice left. If they resist, it would have cost the Germans more time and resources, but they would have still wiped them out.
After conquering France the biggest problem Germany had was that they didn't have a target for their land army. Britain was unwilling to accept the new situation, but Germany lacked the navy for an invasion. So, the remaining options were an air war with Britain, and invading the Soviet Union. Both were pretty bad choices, as it turned out, so a continued French resistance for half a year could have actually played on Germany's hands. Maybe they could have seized the French fleet this way. Maybe they could have concentrated on Africa or the Middle East. We will never know.
reply
Well, interesting question. If I look at history, I would say the French had no choice left. If they resist, it would have cost the Germans more time and resources, but they would have still wiped them out.
After conquering France the biggest problem Germany had was that they didn't have a target for their land army. Britain was unwilling to accept the new situation, but Germany lacked the navy for an invasion. So, the remaining options were an air war with Britain, and invading the Soviet Union. Both were pretty bad choices, as it turned out, so a continued French resistance for half a year could have actually played on Germany's hands. Maybe they could have seized the French fleet this way. Maybe they could have concentrated on Africa or the Middle East. We will never know.
reply
-jola9328
one of the main reason of the surrender can be found in WW1.
The french birth rate from1815 to 1945 was really low, one may be the lowest of develop country at the time.
Therefore the death ratio in WW1 decimate a generation of men that wasn't very numerous to start with. Petain and a lot of politician that weren't whiling to fight ( the pacifist ) had that in the back of their mind. At that time it was something people were concern with.
The french military were whiling to fight, that's why you have an armistice ( politic ) and not a capitulation ( military. The military refused to surrender but at the end the had to obey to the political orders.
reply
one of the main reason of the surrender can be found in WW1.
The french birth rate from1815 to 1945 was really low, one may be the lowest of develop country at the time.
Therefore the death ratio in WW1 decimate a generation of men that wasn't very numerous to start with. Petain and a lot of politician that weren't whiling to fight ( the pacifist ) had that in the back of their mind. At that time it was something people were concern with.
The french military were whiling to fight, that's why you have an armistice ( politic ) and not a capitulation ( military. The military refused to surrender but at the end the had to obey to the political orders.
reply
-garyklimitchek45
Surrender should not be an option for any county that wants to survive. Only when all resources and troops are surrounded with no way out, should surrender be considered. The tyrants count on surrender. If they know that will not happen, they may decide not to attack. Even if Washington DC, New York, Chicago, LA we-re nuked, can many really believe that America would surrender? I know the government would move and the fight would continue until victory or most everyone was dead. Then any states would carry one as long as they could. Most believe that it-s better to fight than bow on your knees in slavery.
reply
Surrender should not be an option for any county that wants to survive. Only when all resources and troops are surrounded with no way out, should surrender be considered. The tyrants count on surrender. If they know that will not happen, they may decide not to attack. Even if Washington DC, New York, Chicago, LA we-re nuked, can many really believe that America would surrender? I know the government would move and the fight would continue until victory or most everyone was dead. Then any states would carry one as long as they could. Most believe that it-s better to fight than bow on your knees in slavery.
reply
-BladeTheWatcher
One more point. As I understand, with Paris and the North most of the populated, industrialized part of France was lost. The remaining part was - and is - sparsely populated and industrially weaker. This means that re-organizing the French army after the fall of Paris would have been increasingly difficult. France would have lost all the territories Germany occupied, and some more, before even they could have started to put up a fight. The surrender just offered better terms than that, not to mention sparing the lives of countless civilians and soldiers. It made sense.
reply
One more point. As I understand, with Paris and the North most of the populated, industrialized part of France was lost. The remaining part was - and is - sparsely populated and industrially weaker. This means that re-organizing the French army after the fall of Paris would have been increasingly difficult. France would have lost all the territories Germany occupied, and some more, before even they could have started to put up a fight. The surrender just offered better terms than that, not to mention sparing the lives of countless civilians and soldiers. It made sense.
reply
knowledgia
You would have to adress the French political situation, the roles of Reynaud, his mistress, Petain. Also Gamelin who tried the stab in the back trick, in order to have the civilian government bear the responsibility of defeat. The weight of extreme right parties. The communists allied to the Germans. They all agreed the war was lost for France and that it was best to strike a deal with the victors. The lack of trust in the English and the US. They felt alone and abandoned.
reply
You would have to adress the French political situation, the roles of Reynaud, his mistress, Petain. Also Gamelin who tried the stab in the back trick, in order to have the civilian government bear the responsibility of defeat. The weight of extreme right parties. The communists allied to the Germans. They all agreed the war was lost for France and that it was best to strike a deal with the victors. The lack of trust in the English and the US. They felt alone and abandoned.
reply
-Jugement
Aside from having one of the most glorious millitary history of the whole world, out of all the countries invaded by NZ Germany, France is actually the one that resisted the longest
Fact of the matter is, France had several massive diplomatic clashes with the US after the war, and each time it occured, american media started spreading anti french-propaganda, which ended up with the forging of most stereotypes americans carry up to this day
Basically, hoe was mad
reply
Aside from having one of the most glorious millitary history of the whole world, out of all the countries invaded by NZ Germany, France is actually the one that resisted the longest
Fact of the matter is, France had several massive diplomatic clashes with the US after the war, and each time it occured, american media started spreading anti french-propaganda, which ended up with the forging of most stereotypes americans carry up to this day
Basically, hoe was mad
reply
-ethanstrong
I can't help but feel like a lot of these numbers we are given is absolute horseshit. Not this guys fault at all, but it's inconceivable that the French were capable of destroying 40 more tanks than the Germans. Would be interesting to know if these numbers were French or German reports. Nonetheless, numbers are often overinflated for propaganda purposes.
reply
I can't help but feel like a lot of these numbers we are given is absolute horseshit. Not this guys fault at all, but it's inconceivable that the French were capable of destroying 40 more tanks than the Germans. Would be interesting to know if these numbers were French or German reports. Nonetheless, numbers are often overinflated for propaganda purposes.
reply
knowledgia
Where's your evidence for Britain -promising- the USA would come into the war? Also, Britain didn't plead with France to continue fighting: the two countries had an agreement that neither would negotiate a separate peace with Germany. France -pleaded- to be released from this agreement, Britain did not comply.
reply
Where's your evidence for Britain -promising- the USA would come into the war? Also, Britain didn't plead with France to continue fighting: the two countries had an agreement that neither would negotiate a separate peace with Germany. France -pleaded- to be released from this agreement, Britain did not comply.
reply
-tbuxt3992
Partially correct. Definitely less inaccuracies than most videos that use the biased sources which keep getting repeated. But if anyone wants a proper read on the incredible sacrifices of French troops during the battle of France, take a look at -The Hidden Truths of the Defeat of 1940- by Dominique Lormier
reply
Partially correct. Definitely less inaccuracies than most videos that use the biased sources which keep getting repeated. But if anyone wants a proper read on the incredible sacrifices of French troops during the battle of France, take a look at -The Hidden Truths of the Defeat of 1940- by Dominique Lormier
reply
-fixpontt
as an outsider i think it was one of the smartest decision in history, imagine to fight until the end and Paris would have looked like Stalingrad completely destroyed and flattened for what? . would it have been better? France gathered their friends the UK, US etc and came back years later stronger
reply
as an outsider i think it was one of the smartest decision in history, imagine to fight until the end and Paris would have looked like Stalingrad completely destroyed and flattened for what? . would it have been better? France gathered their friends the UK, US etc and came back years later stronger
reply
-johnsmith-mf2jt
20 years after ww1, french were not ready anymore to do the same sacrifices. . and all 1. 3M french soldiers that died to defend their nation in 1914. were dead for nothing.
when you say that to surrender was the right decision, I don't agree. it deeply changed french minds for the worse
reply
20 years after ww1, french were not ready anymore to do the same sacrifices. . and all 1. 3M french soldiers that died to defend their nation in 1914. were dead for nothing.
when you say that to surrender was the right decision, I don't agree. it deeply changed french minds for the worse
reply
-stevejh69
The french had better tanks and more soldiers, just much less guts to fight for their own land! Every time they lose, just like dutchland people and the belgiques, they know men form Canada, the USA and Britain will rescue them. But all these ungrateful countries always forget that!
reply
The french had better tanks and more soldiers, just much less guts to fight for their own land! Every time they lose, just like dutchland people and the belgiques, they know men form Canada, the USA and Britain will rescue them. But all these ungrateful countries always forget that!
reply
-Lambert7785
-right, a difficult decision - on the whole, although it was certainly demoralizing, and damaged their worldly reputation, I think the decision was correct - clearly the cost if they had not, would have been terribly brutal, and much of france would have been reduced to rubble: )
reply
-right, a difficult decision - on the whole, although it was certainly demoralizing, and damaged their worldly reputation, I think the decision was correct - clearly the cost if they had not, would have been terribly brutal, and much of france would have been reduced to rubble: )
reply
knowledgia
The duration of the 1940 campain in France was 45 days only but the german losses were
50, 000 dead and 150, 000 injured, the equipment losses 1, 400 planes and 1, 000 Tanks and
thanks to the french troops sacrifice many english soldiers could escape from the Dunkirk trap.
reply
The duration of the 1940 campain in France was 45 days only but the german losses were
50, 000 dead and 150, 000 injured, the equipment losses 1, 400 planes and 1, 000 Tanks and
thanks to the french troops sacrifice many english soldiers could escape from the Dunkirk trap.
reply
-frenchdog3715
France surrender because the britannic run in their country, USA was blind and USSR was a german s' allie, so what france supposed to do?
The french soldier save the british army, and kept it to conitnue the fight, without french soldier sacrifice, England would be taken,
reply
France surrender because the britannic run in their country, USA was blind and USSR was a german s' allie, so what france supposed to do?
The french soldier save the british army, and kept it to conitnue the fight, without french soldier sacrifice, England would be taken,
reply
knowledgia
Honestly, even if the maginot line ran through the entirety of the French/Belgian Border, and even if there were 2 other lines in the italian and spanish borders, France would still probably not be able to do anything outside maybe pushing the italians back for 5 seconds
reply
Honestly, even if the maginot line ran through the entirety of the French/Belgian Border, and even if there were 2 other lines in the italian and spanish borders, France would still probably not be able to do anything outside maybe pushing the italians back for 5 seconds
reply
-Spazzz123
i think the real question is why did Germany fight to the end? there is nothing honorable about fighting to the end. In France's case, it would've done nothing but needlessly sacrifice hundreds of thousands of young French men for a lost cause.
reply
i think the real question is why did Germany fight to the end? there is nothing honorable about fighting to the end. In France's case, it would've done nothing but needlessly sacrifice hundreds of thousands of young French men for a lost cause.
reply
-chuckmorrison7085
Like they did in WWI, the useless French waited for other countries to save their sorry asses in WWII. Only to be screwed again by that communist deGaulle.
Looking back, we should have let them fight the Germans alone in WWI.
reply
Like they did in WWI, the useless French waited for other countries to save their sorry asses in WWII. Only to be screwed again by that communist deGaulle.
Looking back, we should have let them fight the Germans alone in WWI.
reply
-BStrapper
Blame the french leaders and the french is a huge smoke screen meant to hide the fact that
Against Nazi Germany, in 1940, France alone did not stood a chance without a strong and reliable ally.
Britain did not check those boxes.
reply
Blame the french leaders and the french is a huge smoke screen meant to hide the fact that
Against Nazi Germany, in 1940, France alone did not stood a chance without a strong and reliable ally.
Britain did not check those boxes.
reply
-walrustrent2001
Very good remark about the psychological telltale of the Maginot line.
I would add that France was since 1936 governed by a leftist coalition that started depleting the army budget as soon as in office.
reply
Very good remark about the psychological telltale of the Maginot line.
I would add that France was since 1936 governed by a leftist coalition that started depleting the army budget as soon as in office.
reply
-davothegreat9990
The Germans were far superior to the French in the air. Air supremacy was a massive advantage for the Germans and helped them push through very decisively. French never stood a chance.
reply
The Germans were far superior to the French in the air. Air supremacy was a massive advantage for the Germans and helped them push through very decisively. French never stood a chance.
reply
-RonSommar
1: 15 it was also foreign policy that denied an extension of the line further along the Belgium border. Belgium could have understood this as a denial of france to defend Belgium soil
reply
1: 15 it was also foreign policy that denied an extension of the line further along the Belgium border. Belgium could have understood this as a denial of france to defend Belgium soil
reply
knowledgia
the wisdom of the phrase -pick your battles- comes to mind. it would've been like Japan continuing to fight against the USA after both atomic bombs leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
reply
the wisdom of the phrase -pick your battles- comes to mind. it would've been like Japan continuing to fight against the USA after both atomic bombs leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
reply
-MegaWarlus
-The start of the French decline into surrender is generally agreed to have been the German invasion into France. -
-Probably the most braindead thing I have ever heard.
reply
-The start of the French decline into surrender is generally agreed to have been the German invasion into France. -
-Probably the most braindead thing I have ever heard.
reply
-matthewhaller2715
Some constructive criticism on the map colors. Make oceans blue and Nazi Germany red.
White oceans, black Germany and blue Vichy France threw me for a loop.
reply
Some constructive criticism on the map colors. Make oceans blue and Nazi Germany red.
White oceans, black Germany and blue Vichy France threw me for a loop.
reply
-adamesd3699
WW1 traumatized both sides. The French were traumatized by the cost of victory. The Germans were traumatized by the cost of defeat. That-s how they fought in WW2.
reply
WW1 traumatized both sides. The French were traumatized by the cost of victory. The Germans were traumatized by the cost of defeat. That-s how they fought in WW2.
reply
-daniel5362
Because the French are weak and they knew the UK would rather die than surrender Europe to the nazis so they could hide while we saved their country and Europe
reply
Because the French are weak and they knew the UK would rather die than surrender Europe to the nazis so they could hide while we saved their country and Europe
reply
-verdesxg71
French giving up so early will always be a joke inthe US. I wonder if it-s the same for other countries? I don-t get it, you still have to defend your country
reply
French giving up so early will always be a joke inthe US. I wonder if it-s the same for other countries? I don-t get it, you still have to defend your country
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
