"The start of the French decline into surrender is generally agreed to have been the German invasion into France." Uh, yes.

I bet there was that one guy that said "what if they come through the woods?" and they all laughed at him and said he was stupid... And then they died.

Um, actually.. When France was building the Maginot line Belgium was cooperating, and the plan was for Belgium to continue the forts on the German border to the North sea. Shortly before the shooting started Belgium stopped cooperating with France and Britain, not allowing them to pre position troops on the German border. None of which was mentioned in the video.

Important reasons not mentioned in this video: 1) *Lack of reserves* Once the Germans had cut off the bulk of the French and British armies in Belgium and broken through the center, there was nothing in their way as they raced toward Paris. There were no available French reserves, nothing the French could use to halt the German advance. This is perhaps the most important factor, bigger than any of the issues related to morale and psychology discussed below. The physical facts simply were that there was no way for the French to keep fighting for the bulk of French territory. 2) *French society was deeply divided.* Like many European countries in the wake of WW1 and the Great Depression, the moderate or centrist forces in French culture and politics were increasingly weakened in the face of growing strength in both the far right and far left. The far left looked to the Soviet Union and the most extreme phases of the French Revolution for inspiration while the far right looked toward Germany and Italy, or to France's previous illiberal monarchical regimes, especially absolute monarchies. It's crucial to remember that at this point, no only the far right but ALSO the far left was soft on Nazi Germany and unenthusiastic about war with Germany, because of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939 and the German-Soviet joint invasion of Poland. Thus, the French government and constitutional system did not command the widespread, deep and passionate loyalty necessary for the public, military and politicians to fight on despite setbacks, and significant elements of French society looked down so much on their own system that they were at least seriously tempted by the prospect of foreign takeover if it resulted in radical change. 3) *Extreme fear of aerial bombing.* Between the world wars, a consensus increasingly arose that any future war would involve massive aerial bombing of cities with effects basically the same as what, later, would be anticipated as the results of all-out nuclear war. In comparison to the actual, much more modest capabilities of air forces and bombers in the 1930s and in the early years of WW2, this fear was wildly overblown. But the fear was so great that it played a big role not only in pre war pacifism and appeasement (Hitler threatened mass bombing to help get his way in Austria and Czechoslovakia), but also in demoralizing the French, especially when news of German terror bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam got out. Although those bombings were minor compared to the mid- and late-war allied massive bombing campaigns, they were shocking in their day and fed into French fears that their beautiful cities would be made into ruins. 4) *Psychological shock.* World War 1 in the West had, for the most part, been a war of methodical slowness and rigid precision. France had won the war that way but their decision-making process was much too slow to cope with the much faster pace of WW2. Not only did this result in repeated battlefield defeats, it resulted in constant huge shocks as each new development of German breakthroughs, rapid movements, and large-scale battlefield encirclements and surrenders, which were such a huge contrast to WW1, rattled and demoralized the French. 5) *Legitimacy fears* France had a long history of overthrown governments fleeing the nation's territory into exile. Kings, republics, emperors, all followed one another into flight and thereby not only lost practical power but also perceived legitimacy. This was why, although the French government considered fleeing into exile into France's colonies in North Africa and carrying on the fight somehow from there, it decided to stay on French soil. Because if it had fled, it feared that some other government would be installed and it would become irrelevant and unable to make a difference. And indeed, the French Parliament remained in existence after the Armistice, and arguably on paper acted legally when it handed all its powers to the WW1 hero Marshal Petain. The French government remained legally continuous and was recognized as legitimate by not only the neutral USA, Switzerland etc but even, for a significant time, by their former British allies. Charles de Gaulle's "Free French" in Britain were seen at first as just a ragtag bunch of refugees with no domestic support or power base or legitimacy, just as the French politicians had feared becoming had they followed him into exile. 6) *Underestimating what giving up really meant* At the end of WW1, the Armistice that ended the war had many negative consequences for Germany such as losing colonies and some disputed border areas, owing heavy reparations, putting up with strict limits on its military, etc., But it did not result in Germany losing its independence, having its capital and the bulk of its territory occupied by foreign armies, a subservient government having to operate in a minor city far from the actual capital, etc., let alone the end of free elections, free speech, etc (quite the contrary, elections and freedoms were made freer than ever). Similarly, when France had lost to the Germans back in 1871, they lost a couple of culturally mixed border provinces, had to recognize German unification and the new German emperor, and pay an "indemnity", but were otherwise left alone. And while Nazi Germany was controversial and feared before the war, it was not universally seen at the time the way we see it now, as the uniquely extreme notorious evil that it is today, especially because the Holocaust as we know it had not yet begun. So while it can be hard to put ourselves in the perspective of people in 1940, we have to remember that, for many of the French of that time, asking for an armistice to end the fighting was, while painfully humiliating, not the end of the country, not the end of the world, not the shameful enabling of a monster's effort at world conquest and endless nightmare that made the devastation and death of fighting to the last man preferable.

I'm french, and i just wanted to say if you guys want to know how deeply affected France was after WW1, just walk into every little village, and you will see. Every village has its own deaths monument. And it's kinda impressive how WW1 deleted a whole generation of men. In my opinion, that's the main explanation of what happened at the beginning of WW2.

Let us never forget what the French had to sacrifice to support the British and its empire to escape the impossible of Dunkirk. As a Brit myself I want to personally thank you for what you did to support the most darkest of dire of days. We’ve had our moments but you were there when it truly counted! 👊🏼

I watched as far as when he said that the Maginot Line went as far as Belgium and the intention was for the best French units to stop the Germans there. This isn't correct the Line stopped at the Belgium boarder because the French Government didn't want Belgium to be on the wrong side of the Line of defence and thought that if it was this would be like saying to Germany you can have Belgium. They encouraged the Belgium's to make there own defensive line that would attach to the French line. The Belgium's where actually doing this but had left it to late to complete.

Further evidence of what I've always said... soldiers don't lose wars, generals and politicians do. As a career military man from a NATO country, I've worked many times with soldiers from all over the alliance and I can tell you this... I've never really had any concerns about the individual French soldier. Their political leaders however, are another matter entirely.

The Germans had captured their supply of baguettes, snails, and frogs, without which, the French would have surely starved.

The first Tour de France.

The video isnt bad, but it does have some flaws. For example the video say the allied units evacuated from dunkirk, and then the germans attacked through the ardennes. This is not the case, it was AFTER the germans had attacked through the ardennes and encircled the allies at Dunkirk, that the allies evacuated from the port city. The French had originally hoped to set up a defensive line at the Meuse river, giving Belgium maximum assistance. However, because of the rapid german advance, the French decided to set up a defensive line further west at another river. It was while this was hapening that the Germans advanced through the Ardennes, eventually encircling the allies at Dunkirk where they had to be evacuated.

There is something that everyone seems to forget : WW1. WW1 was still a fresh traumatism, France and UK wanted to avoid at any price to fight another WW. Losing hundreds of thousand men just to gain several miles or just to defend a city like they did during WW1 was surely a bad memory and it led to strong pacifist mindset in these two countries. In France we sometimes refer to WW1 as "la der des der" (the last of last). While Germany being on the losing side felt humiliated and wanted a revenge especially their leader : Adolph Hitler. The mindset is important in wars !

The greatest British general of WW2 (and most of British wars) : The Channel.

Nothing wrong with the French soldiers. Everything wrong with French "leadership."

I'm reading Shirer's "Fall of the Third Republic". In it, he gives a graphic cost of WW I to the French. To wit: They lost 30% of their young men aged 18 to 25 in the conflict. This, he calculated, added up to some 2.5 millions of citizens that they would not have by the 1930s. Even getting Alsace-Lorraine back from the Germans after the war did not negate the population loss in the war. They also welcomed laborers from eastern Europe into France to help get industry moving again, without whom that would not have happened at all. In WW I, they lost "the flower of French manhood", and were determined to not ever let that happen again. Not to mention that General Weygand just was not equal to the task of this 1940 onslaught, which left Germany in an even better manpower position than in 1914.

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 ...

One half of My family came from France to America after the Versailles treaty and America quitting the League of Nations . The writing was on the wall, Germany was going back to war and the allies expected France to hold the line like it did in WWI. And France simply wasn’t capable of doing that again.

WW1 was of great trauma to the French nation. The French did won WW1 but it left big scars in the French soul. Looking at Germany in 1944-45; this country did fight till the end which had devastating consequences. That's why you can still visit the old-looking French cities (with some exeptions). In Germany practically all middle and big cities have been smashed. Great you guys shined light on this!

1:13 The Maginot line was never intended to stop an ennemy, the french knew it was not possible, it was intended to slow down the ennemy's advance to give time for France to fully mobilize.

As an aside, the Americans were similarly convinced in December of 1944 that the Ardennes were impassable and suffered a rude awakening during the Battle of the Bulge. It was the costliest battle for the US during the war and almost turned into a total debacle. So much for learning lessons.

I really like the documentary between the advertisements

My understanding based on another channel (week by week) and things I think: 1) Biggest issue was, that "the plan" just did not work. France was sure they will be able to stop the attack before it moves to France. Slow it down, destroy enemies on bunkers, with artilery on the borders, with strongpoits to work with. Germany found way around it. 2) With best, experienced, proffesional units destroyed/cut off in Belgium/Dunkirk, France lost core of its army. 3) While Germany had clear idea how to run the offensive (just go forward and destroy anything in front of you), French plan failed "day one" - their idea of having Maginot line protecting them to concentrate and not allow offensive crumbled immediately. Without it fighting in open field, with front too wide and unstable to be defended, it was just question of time to crumble. French army was outnumbered, without proper plan, without defenses, without organisation after first offensive (ended with Dunkirk) and most importantly, with no time. Few decades before, they would dig in and it would work out. 2nd world war, it doesnt - tanks, planes, it was just moving too quicky. Yes, there were few inspiring military geniouses in history (like Caesar, Napoleon or people of similar calibre), who might have figured out the way to win, but there was so little time, so much pressure only few people in history managed to figure out the way out.

A point not to forget is that Germany actually prepared for war with the Spanish civil war in 1937, test new technologies and so on, while 'Allies' were thinking that nothing like WW1 would happen again, and therefore no such preparations were engaged.

Once the Germans had broken the line of the Somme in early June, there was practically no chance of the French being able to stop them anyway. Continued fighting would have led to further casualties for no actual gain. p.s. The withdrawal from Dunkirk was after (and in consequence of) the German breakthrough in the Ardennes and the advance to the coast. The Belgians had already surrendered by that stage.

"I'd rather have a german division in front of me than a French division behind me." - Patton.

They thought the Germans wouldn't go through the Ardennes forest, boy were they wrong.

Main elements are present in the video, but some elements are a bit misleading or missing. Due to a limited British corps, despite 8 months of respite, the Allies were outnumbered by the Germans. All-out offensive was not possible, all the more after the surprinsigly quick fall of Poland, and was against the defensive strategy of strangling Germany by a bockade. The whole operational doctrine of the Allies was a linear defence of all their territory. Meaning that, once pierced in one point, the front would crumble if not reestablished by quick counter-attack. The reserve for counter-attack, initially in the Centre near Ardennes, was sentby French CinC to the extreme North when Netherland was attacked. So Ardennes offensive could not be contained. After Lille and Dunkirk, new French CinC organised a creditable resistance on a linear front North or Paris, on Somme river. But with nearly all the armoured force lost in Belgium, it fall also. It's not the fall of Paris that decided the government to surrender. The fight kept on in the depth of France : in Brittany, south of Loire, in East behind Maginot Line, and in Rhone Valley. But French were totally outgunned and desorganised by the speed of the German offensive. Not all the government wanted to surrender, but Marshal Petain, the most respected general of WW1, put all his influence to back it. With disastrous effect, whereas resistance in North Africa and from London was still possible as De Gaulle proved it. The French ordered they soldiers to stop fighting when then signed the surrender, but the German kept on advancing until the official time of ceasefire, making one million prisoners AFTER the end of combat. This image of mass of prisoners was used by German propaganda to change the French multisecular reputation of great bravery celebrated after WW1, with lasting effect. The French fought bravely and lost heavily to the combination of tanks and assault airplanes that nobody knew to stop until the Soviets in 1941. UK was protected by the Channel but kept on losing battles in Greece and North Africa until Barbarossa. Afer the war, American army asked key German generals to give explanation of their early success. The Germans were dismissive of the quality of French and Soviet armies, insisting on the professional and morale quality of German army, when the difference was rather that Germany was the only nation who fully prepared a war of aggression after the disaster of WW1.

I am french and learned this history at school but your question is a good one. I never found a convincing answer. The question is often avoided. you should know that one part of the government was ready to continue. it was therefore probably possible.

Britain: "hold the door!!" France: nah lol

Dunkirk is one of the most misunderstood factors of ww2 the germans could have captured or decimated the retreating troops there but high command were negotiating with the British for a cease fire one of hitlers main mistakes was not understanding why they wanted to continue fighting

There was also some implications that some in French leadership were sympathetic to German racial and economic policies.

I love your channel keep up the great stuff

"Why didnt France fight to the END" ? Well To not reach the end wtf

The French did not want their country to be destroyed and were not willing to Sacrifice like the Soviets.

Great informative video! Top guy!

people like to say the Maginot didn't work but it still forced the Germans to pass through the low countries. If anything, they probably would have fared better with a longer line, the expectation was that the Belgians would also construct fortifications so the French army could defend on a shorter front.

As a French, i don't blame the gov. for the surrender per say. However i'm still bitter about the polititians in the 30's who didn't bother preparing seriously for war, resting on the laurels of WWI, the lack of ambition, the lack of vision is just pathetic, the principle of a government is precisely to prepare for the worst. And all that considering General de Gaulle (head of the Resistance), wrote two books in the 30's about mechanical warfare and importance of mobility, which was ignored in the French staff while the German generals read him with attention and interest.

The evacuation at Dunkirk did not begin until 27 May, so why is it mentioned well ahead of time?

You have your enemy concentrate his forces on a different front? Pull back your armies and give him 8 months to consolidate and reorganise. Phoney War was a galaxy brain move

The attack on Holland and Belgium was diversion meant to lure the British and French troops into Belgium. The bulk of the German Army was concentrated in the Ardennes and attacked when the deception worked. The Germans then attacked Sedan which was very weakly defended and pushed on to the French Coast trapping the allied armies in Belgium. Hitler then made a strategic blunder by stopping his Panzers from attacking Dunkirk. Instead he opted to let the Luftwaffe finish the allied armies. This allowed the rescue at Dunkirk to happen. The rest is history!

Just think about it : if only Luxemburg (the country) had decided to join the French alliance in the 30's, and the Maginot line had been extended to the border between Germany and Luxemburg, then the 1940 breakthrough would have been harder by far (for the Germans).

Because their army had been surrounded in Belgium/northern France, was out of supply and the British had retreated back to Britain. They had no army left and the Italians had just invaded from the south as well and they weren't 100% sure Franco-ist Spain wouldn't jump in too, you'd be a fool not to surrender considering those odds unless you just like your civilian population being slaughtered,

What’s the music at the end called? I can’t find it in the description.

France: they are not able to go though the ardennes! Germany: haha blitzkrieg go brrrrrrr

france cut military spending and lived by obsolete tactics. Superior weapons or numbers didn't shield from disgrace.

“The Luftwaffe flew over the maginot line when needed” haha, these are hilarious.

Every decision has some good points. I've always thought the Maginot line should have been extended following the Belgium border.

07:19 Henri Pétain? No, no. His first name was Philippe, as mentioned on-screen here.

If Napoleon Bonaparte is still Alive, he'll definitely in shocked😲...

8:25 During ww1 the harchest combat took place on the Western Front yet 90% of the Western Front was in France. Germany on the other hand or the UK saw no combat on their own soil.

they had the "disjointed government" modifier

EXCELLENT VIDEO!

The French and British Forces wanted to move into Belgium, to set up defensive lines although the Belgium parliament did not allow this.The worst thing about the French collapse is that the French had a bigger army than the Germans, and more Aircraft in reserve than we had in the entire RAF. And the French government were requesting more and more support from the RAF

If Charles De Gaulle had more power over the nation/military. I genuinely believe the French army would have been able to hold back the Nazi attack, countering the blitzkrieg. He predicted exactly what Nazi ambitions were yet was completely ignored. He wanted to modernize the French military by making it more mobile and improve logistics. Battle of France was won purely by German logistics. Plus, Britain wasn’t backing the French to push on. The French made many requests for the British to send more ade to pursue the fight for France. Yet all requests were turned down. Literally abandoning France.

Interesting I had never considered that the decision to surrender was, from the view of present times, a good one. They avoided further loss of life and protected their infrastructure (to a degree). Now, had the war ended differently, we'd have a different point of view. But as things turned out, could have been much worse for them had they not surrendered. Lot of speculation in this but it can be considered.

Ardennes is pronounced "Are-Den" with a silent "S" at the end. The general rule in French is a silent "S" at the end of words except when connecting to a following word which begins with a vowel. Luftwaffe is pronounced "Luhft-Vah-Feh." Unlike French, the general rule in German is to articulate everything. Also, "W" in German is sorta' an in-between "V" and "W."

Interesting fact I learned a few days ago: one of the last French units to continue fighting and refused to surrender were a bunch of Germans serving in the French Foreign Legion at the Maginot Line. Apparently they fought on even after the surrender.

France was once the most powerful country in europe even greater than germany but after the latter was unified, france power declined.

About what you said about Guderian's decision to finally stop at the French coast, I think that was Hitler's personal order. At least I read so in a book called roughly "Hitler's drugs" and other less trustful sources seems to support that theory.

As Captain Mainwaring said, on being told that the Germans went around the Maginot Line, "Typical, shabby Nazi trick!"

Belgium be like: Oh shit here we go again

Lol good for the French for not trusting the British promise of bringing the US to the war. We were not ready at all to face Germany at that time. Nobody was.

you didn't mention the additonal 180,000 allied troops taken off farther west in Le havre, cherbourg. maginot line necessarily been broken thru? what does this meand?

Another interesting question might be: Why did the German advance stop which then enabled the bulk of the BEF to escape at Dunkirk?

I just started learning about the Franco-German war of 1870. Fucking amazing how well prepared the German were to war that they were able to be-siege Paris and tool over much of Northern France. Germany was pretty much in charge of the new French Republic after the fall of the third French Empire and Napoleon the 3rd went into exile.

The French government surrendered, the French people didn't.

The command and control of the French military, especially the upper echelons, was extremely poor and slow to react. Every time they had gathered themselves and were ready to respond to German moves the situation at the front had changed and their response would not have worked. They also dispersed their armor (which outnumbered the Germans) across the whole front in an attempt to be equally strong everywhere, but ended up being equally weak everywhere. They also failed to set up effective reserves to stage counter-attacks and the few times they did so they either lacked sufficient armored support or was too late to arrive to make a difference. Simply put, they were expecting to fight the last war against the same strategy that failed Germany and didn't take into account new tactics and technology and were slow to respond to rapidly changing circumstances.

Hard times, hard decisions, hard consequences.

France's domestic politics played a much, much larger role than people think. Some on the right were really happy to see the country fail if it meant they could get to power. And with the first defeats in May 40, they seized this opportunity and got influence in the war cabinets (Petain) On the left side, communists' role in internal sabotages is also underestimated. Since the non-aggression pact of August 39, french communists were ordered to "help" Germany.

What is the song at the end?

channel with scale as big as this one, can't believe didn't provide any subtitle for people with hearing disabilities who want to learn and know about historical knowlege. Your team can do it easily, don't you. Put subtitle so everyone can enjoy the information, thank you.

One of the main reasons that France fell was both a lack of leadership and a deep political division which crippled their ability to respond at all to the invasion when it happened. Some military leaders were unwilling to respond with approval from their political masters.

If French didn't want to fight, they wouldn't have declared war on Germany when it occupied Poland . They wouldn't have helped Belgium war. So probably French had confidence and we're ready. They also made all arrangements and protections. The allies might have realised French preperations were enough. So what went wrong ? Its the German strategy. Its fast war was shock to French. They didn't expect this much damage within just few weeks of war.

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

As is too often the case, the title of the video does not reflect its content, which is 70% context and description of war operations, 20% why the French were beaten and only 10% why they gave up. On the why they were beaten, there was a trial in 1942 in Riom where Pétain tried to put the blame on the former government. History has shown this interpretation of defeat to be flawed. There is a good book written by historian Marc Bloch - who had a good vantage point at the time - called 'l'étrange défaite'. On why they surrendered, there was Pétain's trial in 1945, also deeply biased. You may also find a detailed story of these momentous days in the Wikipedia page of Paul Reynaud, the French Prime minister of the time, who wanted to fight till the end. Please remember that at the time, the French only thought in terms of France vs Germany as in 1870 and 1914, not in terms of a world war, a crusade of democracies against dictatorships or a struggle to stop the Holocaust by the Nazis.

You have to understand France situation at this time. The reluctance of USA to declare itself as an ally, The German-Soviet pact ongoing, UK refusal to fight back at Dunkirk, french army containing italians in the alps, Spain out of the game... Also the government of Petain legitimacy is disputed at this time, unfortunatly Roosevelt supported him until 1942 with disastrous consequences on the french army.

Mr.Tiesti,my spelling is better then let on,my vision is lacking no medals but thanks for the opportunity to respond, and I thank you.

Whats the song at 9:26 called ?

Great Content ,,, thx

7:17 : Marshall HENRY Pétain ???

to answer the question posed in the title, ''Fighting to the end'' or ''Fighting to the bitter end'' as its often phrased, is just never worth it. i'll give you an example, the invasion of Denmark in 1940, the war lasted about 6 hours, not because thats the amount of time it took for Denmark to lose the conventional war. but because thats the amount of time it took for the King at the time Frederik IX to make the decision to surrender, Because it would do more dammage than good for Denmark to fight the wehrmacht in a war we had no chance of winning.

9:26 whats the song anyone know that please tell me

Denmark lasted 6 hours.

They are like the Dutch if you threaten their capital city rather than having it damaged it's surrender time.

The will to fight, or the lack of it, in the French leadership, is the answer to this question. Tens of thousands of Frenchmen fought ferociously and valiantly yet the leadership's lack of will to plan, equip and train the army for a successful defense is what caused the quick surrender. The leadership's false confidence in the Maginot line,which was based on static WWI tactics, ignored Germany's new blitzkrieg tactics everyone knew about, that the Germans had developed since 1935. The lack of air defense when the Luftwaffe was already a frightening well known story since 1936, all this (and so much more) points to a failure on every level of the French leaders. Relying on twenty year old trees in the Ardenne forest to stop Panzers was ludicrous. Then ending the Maginot line before the sea coast with a big wide gap in flat country, ... one could go on and on. And then yes, (or oui) there's the escargot (snails) that is part of the army ration (when available) in the French army.

Paris didn’t “fall” per se; it was declared an open city. The Italians did this with Rome in 1944. The French did alright in tank warfare in 1940, considering they didn’t bother to put radios in their tanks…

General Gamler had VD. France lost the war when they retreated from the Saar, when the Germans were Poland. France was a different country in both WW1 the Franco Prussian war where they fought very bravely on both occasions.

If the French leadership had fought a necessary war in 1940 (WWII), instead of having fought an insane and ultimately unnecessary one (1914-18, WWI)- essentially throwing away the lives of a generation of brave young Frenchman due to incredibly stupid and life wasting tactics - we wouldn't be discussing this now. Also worth remembering: in those brief six weeks of war in 1940 more than 100,000 (not 92,000 as stated) Frenchmen died along with thousands of British. Essentially France had been bled white in the First World War and simply could not fight a Second one.

French army has saved british forces in Dunkerke : “Despite our overwhelming numerical superiority, the French counterattacked at several points. I cannot understand how these soldiers, sometimes fighting 1 against 20, find the strength to attack. It's astonishing. I find in these soldiers the same enthusiasm as those of Verdun in 1916. We are not breaking through anywhere and we are suffering terrifying losses. […] Dunkirk brings me proof that the French soldier is one of the best in the world. The French artillery, so feared already in 14-18, once again demonstrated its formidable efficiency. Our losses are terrifying: many battalions have lost 60% of their troops, sometimes even more! " general Von Küchler

I think one reason is the commanding general was a peabrain, and secondly, I think the French had developed a fatal habit of reacting instead of proacting. It has been stressed how France could have invaded Germany while it (Germany) was still busy with Poland and they just waited. Also, there was a huge German traffic jam on htr road into Paris and all that was needed to wipe them off the face of the earth was to bomb them, but the CO Gamaland did nothing but wait.

Did anyone else notice he said Henry instead of Philippe

They were busy at the cafe smoking a cigarette

Change of perspective: The BEF was 450K men strong in France and Belgium in 1939/1940, + all the tanks, artillery and RAF support. Why did the BEF nearly didn't fight at all in 1940 and just retreated towards Dunkirk? Was it just the French who screwed this up, are were just the allies completely incompetent during the first years of the war against Germany? PS: before El Alamein 1942, the british army got pretty roasted by the Germans on pretty mush all of the fronts they fought each other. No one ever said the Brits were cowards for not fighting to the end in Crete 1941 for instance.

Fun Fact (kinda) The german used the General De Gaulle book about the reform of french military where he explain the gaps in the maginot defense system, he wrote this book because nobody listen to him and tried to force the gouvernemnt hand by making these issues public. Hitler did listen and called him his best general

Poor France. They were willing to fight. But they were outmaneuvered. That's what got them. Because the French and British had the better tanks. It was just that the Germans knew how to use theirs better. That also didn't help the French. What a defeat they suffered. Nice video.

You speak about the French government who quickly surrounded and it's true as you say. But you could do an entire video about many soldiers, pilots and sailors who fought until July 1940 on the French soil and after in Africa, in the UK and in Russia. That could help to break down clichés of "France surrenders".

8:02 the info box misspells "immediately". Come on - you can't do a simple spell-check?

I think it's just a pattern in German-French history. After Napoleon, the French became arrogant and overestimated their potential. After Franco Prussian war, the Germans became arrogant and overestimated their possibilities...

The commander-in-chief of the French army made a decision to cease the offensive against Germany before Poland fell, not after!

What an inconsistent "documentary". The part about "Henri Pétain" was the best.