The World At War 1973 Episode 3-France Falls


” France Falls ( May-June 1940) ” November 14, 1973 the French policy , the Maginot Line , Saar offensive , Blitzkrieg war and the ‘ Nazi invasion of France …


Add To The Conversation Using Facebook Comments

11 Responses

  1. S Clough says:

    The local NBC affiliate in Boston showed this series back in the 70s on weekday evenings after the news . . .

  2. How sad to see a great country like France to be defeated in 5 weeks, this is mind boggling. Thankfully, Germany and France are now friends forever.

  3. Ranillon says:

    In many ways this episode is unfair to the French and a prime promoter of a lot of negative French stereotypes about WW2 (and the British certainly had a reason to make the French look bad as then they become the plucky underdogs almost underdone thanks to their emotionally dysfunctional and ultimately wimpy allies across the Channel).

    For example, the early crack about the French seemingly marching backwards to support the use of the horse is misleading – in 1940 the French were MORE mechanized than the Germans who ALWAYS relied on horses (or their soldier's feet) for roughly 80-90% of their transport the entire war!  How could using the horse be an example of France's military incompetence when those that beat them used even more?

    But, the biggest stereotype is the notion that France expected to just sit safe behind its "impregnable" walls like frightened children.  The truth is that the Maginot Line worked pretty much EXACTLY AS DESIGNED!!!  The French never expected the line to be some magic suit of armor, but merely to act as a force multiplier to get the most out of their meager manpower.  By the late 30s France was facing a terrible demographic issue versus Germany where Hitler would have many millions more troops to draw upon.  The Maginot Line held the promise of allowing a small portion of the French army the ability face far larger amounts on an equal basis.

    The "failure" of the French was their highly conservative and conventional thinking combined with the Germans hitting upon a highly (contentious within the German high command and) effective plan that perfectly used France's expectations against them.  Yes, the Germans enjoyed many doctrinal advantages that would have likely resulted in their long-term success even in the worst of circumstances, but if they had gone with their first impulse the fight for France would have been far longer and more intense.

    For that matter, the German "Sickle Cut" plan seems like brilliance because it worked so well, but it did so because the French had left themselves vulnerable to it.  If they had been even a bit more prepared to react (say by not putting more troops than they needed to behind the Maginot Line and therefore negating much of its bonus) the going would have been far more difficult.  You can see that in how when the Germans tried essentially the same attack in 1944 for the "Battle of the Bulge" the (mostly) American forces stopped it with relatively ease (despite the great short term shock in produced). 

    If nothing else this shows the moral and psychological aspect to warfare – the French fell apart when things got tough and failed to act when they could have saved themselves while four years later the Americans didn't and beat the Germans handily.  But, then again, the US had been doing hard fighting for years by then with far better equipment while in '40 the French were novices lost in the horrors of the previous war.  For that reason alone you could argue that the real "villains" here are the British – if their army had been as large as it had been in 1918 rather than just a fraction its size even with all the German advantages it's hard to believe Hitler would have done so well.  But, the British wanted the French to do the major fighting on land and the allies paid the price.

  4. dodge96neon says:

    did inspector cleuseau lead the French army in the saar offensive

  5. TheZXKUQYB says:

    Honestly, all these video on WW1 and WW2 should been readily available for public. There are many important lessons to be learned which people fail to heed today.

  6. TheZXKUQYB says:

    Does anyone know what the name of the opening song on the first scene and repeated through out as a theme to this episode?

  7. vdven says:

    The opening scene is epic and has stayed in my mind for years

  8. 444suse says:

    This episode is one example why "World at War" is out of date. Actually it maintains the myth of Blitzkrieg. In reality French and British troops had more tanks and they were even better than those of Germans. Only era with German superiority was air war. And even that could have been narrowed easily by RAF little bit later. British war production was actually bigger than that of Germany. French and British had superiority in artillery with 1:2 rate. Hardly even 7% of German divisions were either mechanized or armoured – compared to 100% of British divisions. Most of German tanks were obsolete tiny piece of crap worth of scout nothing more.

  9. bandwagon22 says:

    Despite common myth of German superiority offensives in Poland and France were not examples of brilliance of warfare. Nowadays we know better how poor Germans were in Poland and how sad atmosphere was in Germany after victory. There wasn't any kind of hype for war at all. There are lots of new studies suggesting that German infantry soldiers were actually poorly trained in 1939-40 than in 1914. Hardly even 60 infantry divisions were capable for intensive offensive rest were mediocre or even lower reserve forces. French and Britons lost because their political leadership was in terrible stage. Allies had about 1:2 superiority of armor and artillery and they still blundered. Luftwaffe Stukas hardly played the main role for western fiasco.

  10. The French seemed like pussies and idiots. Why march towards the Germans to surrender. Just take your uniforms off and go home.

  11. tss77 says:

    444suse! You must remember that the French General Staff believed that the primary role for their tanks was in an
    Infantry support role. The French and indeed the British did have better tanks than the Germans,but did not use them
    in any independent strike force like the Germans. The British did have military minds that thought the tanks should
    be used differently like Sir Basil Liddell Hart and General J.F.C.Fuller and the French had a minor voice of opinion in
    Charles de Gaulle.

Leave a Reply

© 2015 Pakalert Press. All rights reserved.
demo slot
jebol togel
Slot Gacor
obat penggugur kandungan
obat aborsi
Slot Thailand
akun pro malaysia
slot gacor 777