Reality is Sardonic. Best sense of humor there is. I am dying laughing at this video for example. I had no idea this was happening at the time. France and England wanting more... With each other. Great stuff.

Meanwhile: Soviet Union is persecuting countless Eastern European peoples and fighting insurgent conflicts that will last for years in Ukraine and the Baltics Yeah the UN can really pat themselves on the back for being a force for peace during this time smh

Because the British started both ones

WW2 after France’s great showing in WW1 was an embarrassment to a proud nation, they had to have someone to blame and naturally we will never be forgiven being their oldest adversaries, as shown recently with the D Day celebrations where our flag was omitted.

@@blitzy3244yes because of course the Brits assassinated Franz Ferdinand and then forced an impossible ultimatum on Serbia, after which they concocted a false flag operation to excuse their invasion of Poland… …I’m sorry to disappoint you but a bloke called Archie Duke did NOT shoot an ostrich because he was hungry…

Me neither. & I loved it, but have to research some, as I'm not fully convinced about the "weak" arab influence in all this fully-Colonial Intrigue !

Canada ejected De Gaulle and I’m rather proud of it.

It's not because Roosevelt was the banks' puppet and de Gaulle was not?

Because he was an english lapdog, Gaulle did nothing wrong.

@@fenixman2bro forgot to watch the video.

@@fenixman2de Gualle hated the English and kept them out of the EEC.

Frances' inability let go lead to Vetinam, and the stability of USA still hasn't recovered from the us vs them party politics that event snowballed into Americana

Are we pretending that the British were not colonisers, now? Seriously, now...

@@adrien5834 The British STOPPED it though and set goals for independence, so why are you waffling about irrelvancies? The recognised it was wrong! Do you?

@@patrickmexiquinn Whoever you are you are totally incorrect and it was as early as 1976 that Vietnam actually put our feelers towards allying itself as a US supporter and for this their then head of state travelled to the US in 1978. That contradicts your story hugley BUT the reader can check out the truth for themselves.

@@HenriHattar It's irrelevant to point out your hypocrisy? I'm sure you think so.The British were maneuvering for advantage, nothing more. They cared not a jot for the freedom of the people of Syria.

You’ve forgotten the Australian campaign that defeated the French in Syria and Lebanon in 1941.

I believe Churchill championed French inclusion in post war talks. For example, the French Sector in Berlin was carved out of the British Sector. Churchill was a lifelong Francophile - he retired there. Also he had proposed an Act of Union in 1940 to keep the French in the war, and was the earliest -though largely unrecognised- proponent of a United Europe.

@@bob_the_bomb4508 Churchill did indeed want a closer knit union with Europe , not a Federal one . France is a beautiful country with great variety thanks to thee Alps , and the Med . Thats why it was a popular retreat for the English before and after WW1.

@@bob_the_bomb4508Churchill championed French inclusion in paying the $$$ for occupation, really. Japan was already left to the United States, and Britain did not want to concede more of its influence in Europe to America and the Soviet Union, two bigger and better land empires. France was the logical ally against them.

The french were in zero capaciry to tell the japs what they could or could not do. Even less than the brits who were far more important in that part pf the world than they would like to admit Even when they totally outnumbered the japs... like during tje Singapore glorious battle...

The greatst delusion of the french was to believe that the english (and american) would be better allies to them and would help against Germany.

As opposed to who? France didn’t fall because of a lack of allies. It’s widely understood that it was more powerful (in theory) than the Germans when they were invaded. The issue was their inability to modernize, horrible bureaucratic dysfunction that equally caused horrendous fractures in the military… all the way from the low ranking officers, still being selected by familial ties- something many other nations had began to faze out post WWI- to the highest level officers being figureheads stuck in the area of non-mobile warfare. The French fell because their leaders failed them. Not because their allies failed them. As much as I love De Guille, he forgot that France had fallen many times, and that the allies were giving them many handouts, acting like he was saving the allies while in exile, not vise versa.

​@@samgerman2883Bro French were Second Grade power in Front of Britain , Germany, US and Soviet Union For example in 1938 industrial potential US = 28% Germany= 12.7% Britain = 10.7% Soviet Union = 9.9% France = 4.2% Industrially French were weak and thier population was also lagging behind They didn't have the Vast Manpower , Natural resources like British Empire as well as the Industrial Potential of Britain and Germany

I can't think of any major contribution the French made to fighting Germany. As individuals and units they displayed skill and bravery. As nation, they were a negligible participant.

France wanted to keep syria for the same reason britain wanted france out: OIL FIELDS! A little stab in the back of France... whats wrong with that???

Lies. His largest cross to bear was the 24 carat gold cross his Jewish financers bought him to ensure Britain sacrificed all of it's wealth to drag Germany down with it into it's ethnically cleansed modern version

Churchill once again proved to be one of the biggest traitors to his people and of the worst dictators there ever were. If he had just accepted those germany's peace offers, we wouldn't have gone through such numbers of deaths solely for that trίbe 😒😒😒

Hatred between the interests of the powerful in both regions. The people do what they are told by those more educated than them.

Lies they are none it s all old story and history

i think the roman persian one was longer

Not British but English, definitely not Scotland who partnered France in joint attacks on England. Why is it the Scottish and Irish are always treated as victims when they were the aggressors. After all, the Scots are Irish and in common with the rest of the Irish were invading England or Britain as it was then. St Patrick was a monk in Ellesmere Port, kidnapped and taken as a slave. The Scots eventually took over Northern Britain and continued their attacks on England from there. Many years later the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons and Jutes invaded and Romans and Norman's followed. Incidentally a lot of the people (ancient Britons) fled to Wales and other extreme areas, so in a way the Welsh are the original English. Now there's food for thought, Taffys!

The hatred was more on the part of the English monarchy and ruling class, because they were of French origin themselves. The Norman kings were obsessed with their properties in Normandy, Anjou and France generally. Kings of England and later Great Britain claimed also to be kings of France and had the fleur-de-lis on their coats of arms right up to the formation of the United Kingdom in 1801. That obsession looks as irrational as the Tsars' (and Putin's) with the Ukraine.

He actually put an end to Algeria war and give them their independence. He did not want to keep the colonies and was perfectly aware that it was time to let them go. When it come to colonial empire, take a look at Great Britain history and their colossal Empire. De Gaulle was not arrogant, touchy or haughty, he was proud to be a French, proud of his history and love is country more than his own citizens. He was the best leader France have ever had since Napoleon Bonaparte. Both De Gaulle and Churchill had strong character and a little bit of temper, but they respect each other.

I thought he was trying to pull out of north africa?

John what you just described is just a normal Frenchman

those are the best Gallic characteristics, it is the reason their food and wine are so good

@@marcelb7259 "He actually put an end to Algeria war and give them their independence." Honestly, this was more pure pragmatism than a matter of ideology. The writing had been on the wall for a while by that point. Maintaining French presence in Algeria was not possible. It would have been too expensive and would have weakened the country far beyond what Algeria could bring. "He did not want to keep the colonies and was perfectly aware that it was time to let them go." By 1958 yes, but back in 1945, that was an other story, as his policivy in Indochina show. He wanted to restore French sovereignty on that old colony and he ordered it so in 1945. Also, the man who started the war in 1946, admiral D'Argenlieux, was a fervent Gaullist, although it isn't sure if he specifically acted on De Gaulle's order. It is however worth to point out that, before D'Argenlieux took over the Indochina question, Leclerc was there and De Gaulle did ordered him, at some point, to consider independance, at least as a way to maintain dialogue with the Vietminh. I think De Gaulle, at least for a moment after that war, believed that he could maintain France prestige and place as an international power through the old colonial. But the defeat of his constitutional project in 46, the disastrous resolution of the Indochina war, the war in Algeria raging on, the Suez crisis and his return to power in 1958 trully changed the paradigm.

Wish he had. De Gaulle was nothing but a scumbag.

Why didn't he then? The only reason why de Gaulle had so cowardly abandoned Algeria afterward was that he was afraid of looking inept and stupid in the eyes of the world, after the dog's breakfast he had made over his handling of French Indo-China, (Vietnam).

The feeling was equal with the Americans too. De Gaulle was insufferable. Even Canada kicked him out of the country after shooting his mouth of, saying "Vive le Quebec Libre", suggesting Quebec was not free. David Irving investigates and points out the wartime assassination attempt on De Gaulle in sabotaging his aircraft, probably by British Intelligence. Oddly, De Gaulle and Antony Eden were friends despite De Gaulle's shenanigans. What a shame, because the moment Eden became PM, the two of them screwed everything up with the Suez crisis.

If Churchill had arrested De Gaulle, he would have got a statue in every British town !

Churchill quipped both very positive and negative about De Gaulle. De Gaulle cryptically alluded to their relationship if I recall as, When I am right I get mad when he is wrong he gets mad. So we are often mad at each other! De Gaulle was in a corner so he had to fight while Churchill was in the middle so he had to be diplomatic.

Tbf the signs of the US abandonning Gold standart was already present, De Gaulle France mostly just did a nominal "f*** you" to the US rather than help its economical decline, they didnt even stop using the Dollar in itself nor stock them again afterward, they just converted what little dollars they had on hands to gold and then kept on going as usual

It was 1971 not 1965

@@brucenorman8904 While true by Nixon in 71, De Gaulle In a press conference in Paris, on the 4th of February 1965, President Charles de Gaulle advocated the return of the world's money system to the gold standard. Following this speech, France announced that it would convert some of its dollar reserves into gold.

💯

Being on the Gold Standard is what prolonged the depression of the 1930s. Gold isn't magic; money is valuable if you use it to stimulate your economy and generate something valuable. Britain ran its war on credit from May 1940 onwards because caving to Nazi Germany was unthinkable.

What about about the british attacking France in peace in 1755, letting down the great alliance in 1711/1712 (dutch and austrian garrisons refusing to let the retreating troops to come in), leaving the spaniards protecting their retreat from Toulon in 1793, letting the french behind in Dunkirk....

@@oliviervece6121🏳️🏳️🏳️

the same could be say about the British

@@oliviervece6121 😂😂Excuses Excuses French boy, you are embarrassed because Britain gave France one last big f*ck you. 😂

@@kiankier7330 - yes, or the US.

The Brits only contribution to the liberation of Paris was landing in Normandy and fighting their way across northern France. Ike did not really want to go into the city as it might soak up too many resources... but due to the popular uprising he ended up having to. 4ID opened the way, French 2nd AD disobeyed orders and attacked from the wrong direction, got hung up and lost a lot of people. Finally pushed into the city. De Gaulle wanted two Divisions to secure the city and Ike said no, but he had the 28th ID march through the city as a show of force and then go back into the attack on the other side. De Gaulle was a major pain in the ass, but they needed someone to counter the French Communists...if De Gaulle was even half as wonderful as he thought he was, no one would remember Jesus...did one good thing; kept France from going communist.

The British were very much third class participants…

I recently read a book by Paddy Ashdown covering the resistance movement around Bordeaux in which the British SOE was heavily involved. At the war`s end De Gaulle was presented to members of the resistance. He totally blanked the British in the line-up whilst bigging up the French efforts.

@@aconsideredopinion7529 Nice try at trolling but the British were first among equals in that campaign. French completely insignificant as their army had been in 1940. Americans were good but overrated.

@@Curmudgeon2In other words, the Brits’ ahem “only contribution” was doing most of the donkey work for France and the US to take the glory? Nice try troll…

Vichy was right

French surrender was the right decision and opposing the allies was in the French national interest

Wrong, Vichy was neutral until the British attacked the French Navy at Mers-el-Kébir.

"The Vichy Government actively opposed the British" is a blatant lie, and can easily be fact-checked on any wiki, really. After the british betrayal at Mers-El-Kebir (which they still sometime try to portrait as justified, like the Copenhagen bombings), all Vichy did was send some bombers over Gibraltar, and that was their strongest offensive operation against Great-Britai. Vichy declared its neutrality and defended its territory, that is all...

The plain fact, which is omitted in this video because it very much sees things from a Brit perspective, is that de Gaulle and Pétain (head of the Vichy gov't, and before that, PM of France during the May/June 1940 invasion by the Germans, until he handed in the surrender of the French army to the Germans) were *competing* over which of them should be seen as the true representative, the legit leader of France and the French nation. de Gaulle claimed that Pétain and the Vichy men were traitors, and by 1944 he could certainly claim that history had proved him right. Most people in France since WW2 (no, I'm not French but I know the country) would consider Vichy a bastard government that had no real claim to speaking for France, just like Lord Haw-Haw did not represent the British.

Thanks, glad you enjoyed! Do check out the public script in the description too for a few extra fun details in the footnotes!

He had a great influence among the peoples.

Why should the French be concerned about destroying the navy of "german puppets"? De Gaulle and others should have praised the UK for its quick thinking in making sure that the German Led-French Government didn't have a navy to help Hitler take the rest of Europe unopposed.

Cheap attempt to justify war crimes... most of French fleet remained in France/Toulon, they never gave it to Germans (eventually scuttled). It was that hideous British attack (worse than Pearl Harbor) that almost forced France into Axis, not prevent it.

Most expediecies are given time and retrospective wisdom

True, while promising the same area to the Arabs and the Zionists, a triple lie. Very few regimes allowed themselves to such multiplicity, secrecy and disregard for human life in history, and we are watching the consequences on TV these days.

How do you figure? Sykes-Picot has nothing to do with French control. They were determined to control the Levant. Look at the Treaty of Sevres in 1920.

@@ElGrandoCaymano Sykes-Picot had everything to do with French Control. It was what the agreement was all about, giving the British control of Palestine, Jordan and Iraq and the French control of Lebanon and Syria. It also of course led to the complete [expletive deleted] up that the world is still dealing with today!

@@ronwilson9815Yes. It’s not about whether UK or France was *more* imperialistic, it’s about how appalling it is that they were *both* so imperialistic. Why should we even *care* which of them was even worse than the other?

Respect to your uncle and father. It must have been galling (no pun intended) to have to go to a country and fight our erstwhile allies, and then have no-one ever speak about the incident ever again, so stop the French throwing a hissy fit again.

@@WanderlustZero I do respect my dad, mum and all my uncles they all served. Dad always said he had a good war. Meaning he didn't get hurt or psychology injuries, no PTSD etc. Another person don't believe me or he thinks dad a psychopath. But dad never use physical punishment on me, he always made me feel shame when I was naughty. So dad says he had a good war and puts it down to superior training. In Townsville they called for volunteers so dad and Syd joined and ended up in 2nd7th Independent Company. For 45 years dad was wearing the wrong ribbons when he finally sent away for his medals he was told he wasn't entitled to the North Africa Star. Its because he didn't see action in Syria, I think someone stuff up and they are telling him porkies that he's not entitled to it. Dad was upset about that, cause some joined the Commandos after basic training where this would have shown he joined up earlier and was in the Middle East. He always sung Legon Of The Lost most popular song after Lilly Mallane over there. He also had great respect for the Japs.

That has nothing to do with France or degaulle . Its a Palestine Israel thing. Tje lebanese civil war was in the 70s.

It does though. France is the reason why it stayed majority christen ​@@Twasforthevine

@@JacobFraps ah i thought the original poster was blaming France for Lebanon's current misery.

Whose wealth? Also, so what?. They govern themselves, that's a good thing for every nation.

If you want to see what happened to Lebanon Google Bridget Gabrial she escaped with her life.

Same as Netherlands and Belgium.

@@DD-qw4fz and UK (except that, since 1066+, we've never suffered the ignominy of being occupied, being an island)

Britain (Boris etc): "We want to be able to say "F*-K you, there's notihng for you to say about our laws and institutions" to the EU and everybody else.. That's the meaning of true sovereignty."" Britain (Boris and others): "How dare China impose their own laws on Hong Kong?? That place used to be OURS! We want to have a say!"

@@Muddy283 Your prime minister i from India !

He's a British citizen and BORN IN THE UK you dolt. How can people still be like this, how much more of more of a Brit does he have to be? Does he need pasty skin and no rhythm? ​@@druisteen

Wrong they had started the process of decolonisation, India became independent by 1947, it did not happen in a vacuum, the brits had to negotiated it.

Don't forget the British intervention in French Indo-China during the power vacuum caused by the Japanese surrender. Truman was all for handing over European colonies to the Chinese sphere of influence.

Malaya wasn't a colonial war, not really. It was a Chinese minority Communist insurgency,, with very little support amongst the ethnic Malayans

Britain message was: do as i say not as i do...

Britain only gave up on india because it did not have the power to keep india as a colony. Keep the empire was still a major objective.

Why so called ? And using allied arms and support is nothing unusual. The USA had done so in ww1 for a variety of things if memory serves.

And later from 7 September 1940 with the first Convoy FS1 the British were also on a life line from the USA in the so called Battle of the Atlantic ,US also supported Russia with loads and loads of weapons with the artic convoy, Crazy times

Perfidious Albion going to perfidy a little more.

This is very Black Adder. Love it!

French influence? Culinary for sure. How did French influence work for them in Algeria and Indo China?

​@@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qethe french took those countries out of the middle age. Really Nothing else.

@BStrapper Thanks for the timeline. French should have retired their colonial designs. Learned this the Hard way.

Not so sure of the friends part of friends and allies.

And Churchill over 50 inches large

​@@RsgNoisewhataboutism shows a lack of intelligence

@@KingAgniKai commenting on yt also ✌️

De Gaulle was a lot of things, but surely not human shit, he organized all the french resistance, and that's how the D-Day was so successfull. I think that this video is great but surely don't show all the little details, cause basically it's saying France played like bastards, while they had reasons to put so much efforts on it. England was tempted to take the old french colony, and the US wanted france to became their puppet state after the war. If it wasn't for a strong character like De Gaulle France would have been shared between the US and the UK, at least by their influence.

To ignore that it was an Australian campaign shows the intellectual limits of the presentation and its bias.

​@@seanlander9321This doco is really about the actions of 1945. Which I didn't know about. 2nd AIF was part of British and Free French (a lot of French legation officers) invasion 1941 it even included the Arab Legion from Trans Jordan. The doco mentioned it 4 minutes in and some of the photos I am sure from the Australian War Museum. My father was in 2nd3rd Field Regiment 2nd AIF that's 25pounders lucky dad wasn't in Sir Roland Cutler mob. Culture got his VC cause he was the only one to survive their forward observation post losing his legs.

Dam auto correct. Even when you type it in correct you move on the dam thing changes it on you. So I'm not only stupid thing making typos and spelling mistakes.

@@JamesKelly-fj8zi The British, Indian and Free French were part of the Australian force. The command, finance and logistics were Australian. The Free French refused to fight. Cutler lost a leg.

@@seanlander9321 I knew I had something wrong a bit more than I expected.

Britain had suppressed the Viet Minh and restored order, before leaving so the French could roll in. On handing over, General Gracey told his counterpart 'They've had a tough time. Go easy on them' So of course the French started just driving through towns and villages machine-gunning everything in sight -_-

Thank you! I did an English and History degree as well strangely enough!

Well, the USA were eyeing over France and its empire all along (just like the Brits), they even went to the level of spending years forming US men that would be officials in France in a US imposed militaristic colonial state for the French people (check AMGOT France) thankfully De Gaulle was here and managed to counter the US plan, giving a tap on their shoulder wouldn’t only be dumb but would also discredit the USA themselves as they had their own colonies around the world, in the Caribbean and the Pacific (and still do to this day).

​@@brunol-p_g8800LOL since when did the US government care about hypocrisy or irony during the Bretton Woods years? The real reason they didn't pressure France too much was the desire to sweeten the deal in allowing the formation of a West German nation. Basically "go along with our cold war plans in Europe and we'll look the other way for now". On top of that, many advisors in the presidential cabinet during the postwar years despised the UK more than France for having a competing, if not waning, global empire. Dismantling that was more of a priority than intervening in French internal issues.

The us feared a communist takeover in France more than they feared a communist takeover in Vietnam. That was why the US used the Marshall plan - not out of any brotherly love.I’m quite surprised the French didn’t go all founding fathers after either WW and just default on their debts especially after the US started backing out of its Versailles commitments to France but expecting France to honour theirs to the US.

There's a prevalent yet unfounded idea that the US said 'jump' and everyone replied 'how high?' It's a caricature of international relations, propagated by the numbskulls who are film screenwriters and authors of fiction novels as well as genuine dictators who wield such power domestically and disseminate propaganda: 'No, it's the US that strong arms everyone. Not me.' The stooges repeated it. It ignores each party had a say. Upon the elections of '46 the Fourth Republic had 15 parties in the legislature, meaning everyone formed coalitions. The largest was French Communist Party (PCF) with 28.5% of the legislative seats. It formed a tense three-party ruling coalition with the leftist French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO), the third largest party with about 18% of the seats. The tension was the SFIO refused to support the PCF leading the government. The third member of the coalition was Popular Republican Movement (MRP), a schizophrenic party, with 26% of the seats. Though nationalist and even right of centre, the MRP found common cause with the left because it too supported mass nationalisation of business. The MRP was de Gaulle's party nominally until he had a falling out with it and formed his own Gaullist party. In March '47 the PCF and SCIO argued over military spending for Indochina, which the communist's opposed. Then a dispute over wage freezes arose between the two in May. Again, the PCF opposed. This led to a schism between the two parties, the PCF's ministers being kicked out of their posts, and a collapse of the three-party coalition. Uproar. General strikes. The Marshall Plan was announced in June. Stalin rejected the Marshall Plan for the USSR and fomented a mass movement against it in Europe led by the communist parties. A new coalition formed with the SFIO, MRP (without De Gaulle and his loyalists), and group of parties known as the Radicals (of the Left) who were of the right - French context where 'the right' historically was monarchist. This was known as the Third Force. Of the three options, Communists, Gaullists, and Third Force, the US decided the third was the least worst of bunch. But the Third Force was no pushover. It understood that it had the US over a barrel. 'You going to work with the Communists or the Gaullists? You know you can't do so and we know you can't do so. You're stuck with us.' A stand off. Who would blink first? The Third Force launched the Monnet Plan, a programme of massive government investment and economic modernisation focused on infrastructure and industry. As this was inflationary, it reduced the quality of the people's lives and furthered dissent. Using its right of approval for projects, the US tried to force the Third Force to spend some money on social welfare programmes to counter the Communists, but the Third Force stuck to its guns. The US blinked. Each party had some power, but neither had a totalitarian's power. With the smooth came the rough, and each had to put up with both.

The Americans were motivated to ‘persuade’ the Dutch about Indonesia after the Dutch reneged on every agreement with Australia to have their colony returned to them. It was their own treachery that sank the Dutch, not American.

Keep in mind, also, that the French efforts to keep their crumbling empire were a direct cause of the Vietnam War.

Why are most people seemingly forgetting that the British also had a globe spanning empire

@@gdutfulkbhh7537 Total nonsense. The direct cause of the Vietnam War was America's absurd crusade against communism, nothing else.

@@coygus4422 the difference is the British willingly gave theirs up.

@@WanderlustZero They "willingly" gave theirs up after realising that fighting endless guerilla wars was no longer profitable

Je t'aime

Interesting viewpoint, never thought about it that way. To be honest, though, I’ve not thought much about inter-allied relations during the war other than the shaky alliance with the Soviets

Where was alk this bravado when the nazis came, oh, there was none , you just surrendered, we (the uk, America, Canada) liberated you. I'm sorry we bothered. De Gaule stated in a meeting he wanted every American soldidr removed from french soil, he was asked if that included the 40.000 dead, De Gaule shutup and left the meetjng in shame. That sums up De Gaule.

@@alexwallace5486 yes. Exactly, THAT arrogance is EXACTLY why De Gaulle was a good leader for France, because while you hid behind oceans and seas and think yourself better in hindsight, the Liberators of the world and that we are ungrateful for not letting you run all over us in return. He was forced to leave his country in shame to lead its resistance from a place he despised aka England. His arrogance was the last thing keeping France together, if he wasnt such a Prick France wouldve been led by an Americanied puppet, which is only varely better than the occupation, because the only thing that would be differant is that the occupiers wouldnt be nazi but american imperialists. He left the meeting you speaking of outraged not ashamed when the answer to "all your soldiers should leave France" was "including the dead ones?" Itd be like France asking the US in a similar circonstances "including those that died so your very country could Exist?". Its a total lack of respect, when its 100% obvious the dead ones should be respected anyways, and it was only the living who would have to leave. Same lack of respect that led to De Gaulle leaving the Integrated Command of Nato in the first place. We arent ungrateful for the liberation, we simply dont like that you would dare think we need to look up to you as liberators and act like a puppet state to your every whims because of it, when we are also an indepandant state and a great power in our own right even if no superpower. At the very least De Gaulle def thought line that. And he was damn right about it. Fun fact when Pompidou, De Gaulle's ideological heir was President in the early 70's, the US was so miffed about France's wish for autonomy, that Kissinger said they needed to destroy France's ability to be a nuisance (to american interests is obviously implied). Happy to say it didnt really work and the US didnt truly manage to prevent France from reaching its autonomy. At leadt not till the 90's for sole unchecked Hyperpower reasons

Exactly , Macron is persuing French influence in Africa by trying to implement schooling whereby French becomes the primary language in Africa , no doubt in years to come French citizens will take solace in the fact that African migrants will be able to converse with them prior to mugging, raping or commiting murder

How are we still a colonial power ? we dont occupy any nations nor do they dance to our tune.

“The British empire died 70 years ago” ?? Let me introduce you to Anguilla, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Falklands, Virgin Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Gibraltar, St Helena South Georgia etc. France has no lessons to be given from Britain regarding colonial stuff

In the end I think the French made the smarter choice by reconciling with Germany and becoming one of the driving forces in what became the European Union. The UK on the other hand clamped on to old time sentiments and is now an isolated country slowly sliding on a downward spiral. Best of luck lads.

@@Kamfrenchie explain the hundreds of pro-French coups in Africa the last 75 years, supported by French soldiers. France still treats its former African colonies like they were never independent.

It seems you forgot that Vichy France was a neutral country, thus they werent suppose to fight to the end.

@@pierren___ Vichy claimed neutrality while fighting for the Axis. Traitors as well as liars.

The free french refused to fight ? can you prove that ? considering there were Free french doing very well even in Russia, inside the normandie niemen squadron, your claim is bizarre.

Could you just gave us a break whive your francophobia ??

@@druisteen Francophobia? Yeah right. Its history as it is, not the bull the French want it to be.

The story should be told! As should the stories of Algeria, and Indochina, and everywhere the French decided to spill blood and crush democracy to assuage their battered ego.

@@WanderlustZero You seem to despise us for that, but it's basically what humans have always been doing in their history. There's no bad guy and good guy, everyone is sorta colons and colonized at the same time, that's all. saying it's about ego is pretty unaccurate, it's about ressources

​@@hdemuizon9034 despise is not quite the right word... but what gets me is the hypocrisy; I grew up with the stories of the French resistance, and bravery under occupation by the nazis. Algeria, Indochina, Syria all seem to get airbrushed out of history. How could people endure that, and then go out and do the same to other people? Even a lot of the resistance fighters became soldiers and went to Indochina, at some points fighting alongside former German Waffen SS now serving the foreign legion. I don't get it. What resources are worth that?

Yes just like the Americans in the war of impudence.

@@Mulberry2000Are you referencing the revolutionary war? Whichever wars your island has waged with or against us, you’ve played only a minimal part. We saved you in both great wars. It could be argued that Britain has simply been on our winning side scores of times now.

@@zachalexander963 READ A BOOK. As for your post the UK saved the American at the battle of the bulge.

​@@zachalexander963 Prior to mid 44 it was Britain that had more men at arms than the US with the tables being turned only in the final year

@@zachalexander963 Are you still winning in the ex-French colony called Vietnam? You failed to emulate the success that the British achieved under similar conditions in Malaya/ Malaysia.