Comments by "PiN" (@pierren___) on "Knowledgia" channel.

  1. "Why didnt France fight to the END" ? Well To not reach the end wtf
    88
  2. Natio.-Socialism in fact lol
    27
  3. France = hexagon
    15
  4. National* capitalism
    15
  5. Id like to have a precise account of the places and technics of the bolsheviks
    12
  6. They still capture berchetesgaden before him, lol
    12
  7. Luckily for him, It never happened, as they were further than him, entering Austria 🤡
    12
  8. France hold the door dumbass. More like "England be respectful and honest" No lol
    11
  9. Just didnt want another ww1. France lost the most proportionnaly of that war
    5
  10. It his actual first name Henri-Philippe Petain i think
    5
  11.  @bernardotorres2532  Thanks
    3
  12. @Metric Fern french was huge excellent and ready To win, but more so To a new world view that could have give sense To life, politics, and world; it could have been nzism. French politics were on the brink of collapse; germans would have push the revolution; animating historical tensions between french culture and britain, which could have permitted war that could be won.
    3
  13. Exactly what i thought, never noticed before
    3
  14. Un peu surévalué
    2
  15. And the politicians side too: all they did was yelling bout peace to everyone which obviously will not work
    2
  16. @Metric Fern because they were not numerous and in england. Plus a new state and culture emerging of revolution type nazism would have legitimized the war and england would be invade with x2 soldiers and planes than planned. Then no usa war and ussr destroyed i think yes
    2
  17.  @ThugShakers4Christ  libya* je next to Egypt in north africa, where it was fought the second world war between british and axis. Yes because it was easy To confront ussr in the state of weakness it was than the strong german army. Remember France 40m against G 80m and the british runaway because they wanted to shallow a direct war against germany (they will lose ) so Germans feel safe to go on operation barbarossa To skin both Russia and Germany, which happened in fact
    2
  18. True. Post-war "pacific" policies - which mean no plan policy- has totally separated the right wing nationalist realpolitik of strength and remembrance from the left forgetful disdainers moralist pacifist which is responsible for the mess of the post-war. Lesson learned: NEVER BE IN THE CENTER.
    2
  19. They lost 1,4 millions during ww1 + 3millions injured : on the ww1 generations, only 1/3 will have childrens. The british wanted to weakened europe but the French refuse to disappear but they were pacifist and refuse the new german mentality so ideally they should have fight with germany against the uk and destroy their bankers
    2
  20.  @thierrydesu  oui oui c'est un peu exagéré, lol
    1
  21. Understand why collaboration wasnt surprising
    1
  22.  @clementl.9566  im sure life as prisoner was better than english life lol
    1
  23.  @karstenschoenberg9736  Royan is controversial
    1
  24.  @watchman835  after ww1 only 1/3 of generation male had children
    1
  25.  @SWiftxFuRY  Its a war video not showing other aspects
    1
  26.  @SWiftxFuRY  because To understand an event you must have presupposely understand history. He should explore behind the lines
    1
  27.  @SWiftxFuRY  he didnt have recoil focusing on military tactic rather than strategy or even civil-politic-diplomatic nodes of the French relations, while omitting britain strategy To fuck France sending hell on them again and rescuing again, all that for the classical divide europe = no concurrents like against Napoleon, that Mister H. Talked about very well in his last will; which ultimately led to the cold war europe and today. 😁
    1
  28.  @WillmobilePlus  Yeah lol Nice theory
    1
  29.  @luisfernandosantosn  I never noticed the 19century occupation mentality. Might explain Why they accepted To collaborate but not lose their primar position
    1
  30. Yes and Uk wanted France to do surreal things and suffer everything
    1
  31.  @sebastianlodge7549  did germany had colonies?
    1
  32.  @sebastianlodge7549  all? Didnt know. So i undesrtand why collaboration was accepted. As they knew France was man-vacuum and angry because the république hate the french they just had To take money and send their armies against usa and uk. In my opinion France had opportunity To déclare war against allies and germany would really have win
    1
  33. Remember germany was 80 millions war industry ready against 40 millions middle age mourning their dead. France shouldnt have any regret for refusing uk trick wars and enter collaboration
    1
  34. France should have send its army against britain. Never understood Why France didnt declare war against them
    1
  35.  @belsayshootingground  Yes so they should have declared war on britain, since britain attacked french army
    1
  36.  @belsayshootingground  because ou principle is that France is now ally in 3rd reich. So i dont understand Why they didnt resist more. Actually i know Pétain wanted double game and kinda failed. And the french déclaration would be formality, and crédible BECAUSE they were already under hands of germany, so war against uk is in exchange of partial autonomy.
    1
  37.  @belsayshootingground  well you are the one with very strange ideas. N-soc Germany is not capitalist nor pro-capitalism. Then they go in the west because they were in war against poland BEFORE going To ussr. If not against both ideologies they had no reason To go To russia; thats how english think: just let the other do the work and suffer, and thats what the germans wanted To escape
    1
  38.  @belsayshootingground  Not at all bruh maybe feodalism at that point but no international bankery for germany thats for sure lol
    1
  39.  @belsayshootingground  yeah i dont think so, however id like To read more about that, furthermore they werent socialist lol😊 And uh both says they right i think so no this war had sense and it couldnt be solved by phrases like this
    1
  40.  @belsayshootingground  i guess you are american
    1
  41.  @belsayshootingground  well explain me before we on suit eachother lol
    1
  42.  @belsayshootingground  thats not an argument anyway lol in what way is it bad ???
    1
  43.  @belsayshootingground  plus the army wasnt prisonered in germany; it was autonomous in France and limited To 100000, and officialy defensive and charged of collaboration.
    1
  44. Points faibles d'abord Points forts après
    1
  45. Légal d'abord Lethal après
    1
  46. Impossible
    1
  47.  @Chungus581  not at all since the Vichy government was ruling all of France outside of Alsace, France was consider neutral and all the allies reconized it with their ambassies. We never lost the war since both sides helped us, so for me its whatever. And the us allies killed more frenchmans than germans ever did, so their victory isnt a problem since its equal for us.
    1
  48.  @keramidasnicolas2079  what are the flying saucers
    1
  49.  @keramidasnicolas2079  lol wtf
    1
  50.  @simapark  there was one hence why France won ww2 its called resistance. Your cliches are not the truth.
    1
  51.  @simapark  your right. They were 100000s. And it was commanded by uk usa and ussr and they prepared the ground of their occupations. Its literally what resistance partisans are expected To do.
    1
  52. They should had alliéd against uk
    1
  53. Uk way*
    1
  54. Nope - all the contrary : they were pushed there because of uk and France got war in its fields while certainly not britain and germans
    1
  55. Do you have a link To xi-jinping book? 12 pillar of socialism ?
    1
  56. Lol no way since the war was tricked by britain. If he tutored France/annexed it he could have launched its army against england so the French would preserve their colonies, and win against uk.
    1
  57.  @Anglo-Brit  should i reformulate? Too much for France so much that they bombed Mers el-kebir To show you it wasnt worthy To be scared 😁 And german navy potential was mediocre like IRL so no fantasy for me
    1
  58.  @Anglo-Brit  my point was that alliance with uk is impossible since the heart of war against France in your plan or against Germany IRL is british division politics. 2) My view is that German would have win campain of britain if they implanted naz*** in France and launch together against britain
    1
  59.  @Anglo-Brit  no, they didnt. There was the condition of armistice which restricted at 100000 soldiers, defensive army, non agression and political collaboration. France wasnt annexed like poland (a thing He regretted in Bormann version in H. Last will) France was considered as a neutral nation, still sovereign and existing ! And France had that power, french soldiers shoot english in syria, Algéria, etc. The french navy was extremly powerful compare To germany and was bombed by the english that were scared of a returnment le the French politiciens against britain. Invasion dday style was possible lol. But yeah theres essential reason that britain refuse To help germany, you dont seem to understand Why hence im tired to explain your dreams out
    1
  60.  @robch.2901  Exactly but that mostly mean success of german national-socialism and thats not compatible with ///england/// politics you see? 🙃 maybe germany would have attacked england after, like it did with France. So no more banker system and thats the "problem"
    1
  61.  @Anglo-Brit  they were not outdated, tanks were better than germany, they were divided internally  (and exhausted from ww1that bled them out the most of all)  and from that point we Can see ww2 as a global civil wars inside peoples. Not handable ? Germans almost retreated at Arras and were scared of a marne battle like ww1 so they could have resisted alone because 1million soldiers + tanks + airforce+navy, but thats not our subject. With the uk France already fell so you think backward: without the French at dunkirk, Uk would fall and this happened InRealLife Without the uk, France would have allied To germany against the uk and would have win, then annex the british into 3rd Reich and go To russia and win. It was H. Plan all along but Abetz started collaboration in France which hitler never liked, and history proved him right because he could have won IF he just totally owned France (and launch against uk) That proved i was right and closes our debate. Stop raging at others for the things YOU dont understand
    1
  62.  @Anglo-Brit  my english is perfectly understandble and my points are on point. The uk couldnt deal with everything and they bombed mers el kebir because they were scared that the French army would participate To active war, allied with Germany. Good point for the colonies though- even france had soldiers too and Uk colonies would have rioted due to nazi influence, propaganda, and diplomacy and british exhaustion (ex: ss bataillon india) France had better tanks - everywhere they attacked they met success- on the german side lot of tanks were destroyed (50% in arras or didnt work. Just basic knowledge.
    1
  63.  @Anglo-Brit  I dont really agree on that analysis but anyway, that dont clash my politics lol
    1
  64.  @Anglo-Brit  I red the contrary about german tanks so idk. And the success due To plains is a joke lol maginot line handle well and didnt surrender in fact, in the north a push was feasible on the Marne etc then i dont think england could last without usa and ussr sorry
    1
  65.  @mattyvonlong-schlong4433  what are you talking about
    1
  66.  @michaelwackers6475  yeah
    1
  67. The renaissance was a liberation for the peoples of Europe; Reformation throw Germans back into the austere and sterile values of chrisitianity.
    1
  68. Natio-socialism?
    1
  69.  @christopheripoll2580  cette bombe haha
    1
  70. No, its nationalism-socialism i think
    1
  71. Based n-s China
    1
  72. If he annexed France he could have won
    1
  73. @Metric Fern nope: the military zone was extended (after they were defeated in north africa i think) so annexion or tutoring would have make them a new gov based on 3rd reich politics so bye-bye resistance lol and invading england was enough because of proximity with right wings. Then reconquest of north africa? then war against ussr won, maybe usa after?
    1
  74. @Metric Fern no they were in colonies and england but yeah they were more numerous than other countries but a revolution war would have been won against them. Revolutionarism socialism pacifism and national-socialism are different thing that Can cross eachother and look alike and i mean fascism was very popular it has been banned by front populaire after the riots of 6 february 1934, the republic was falling because of its own corruption (stavinsky case eg) By légitimize i mean justify; ideologically and by the state juridiction (new govment new objective) a war against england could have solve a lot of crisis
    1
  75. Yeah true their was another line
    1
  76.  @ThugShakers4Christ  they werent in lybia, yet they were 🙄 Yes it was, you know wars are son before start if your clairvoyant And finland fought against the purged russian army in a hard winter and they negotiated at some point
    1
  77.  @ThugShakers4Christ  lol
    1
  78. Ils misaient tout sur le paneuropeisme
    1
  79. @i-mm-o res rira bien qui rira le dernier - the last laugh is the last one
    1
  80.  @plamantin2937  yeah lol - in fact the French govt believed in its own superiority
    1
  81.  @plamantin2937  wow. How many tanks had they? Both
    1
  82. Northern French too
    1
  83. It was mentionned by etat-major actually but thought regular armies would dig and hold
    1
  84. I just remember we live in the european union. Im disgusted
    1
  85. @Jacarter99 yeah. Whats the difference tho ?
    1
  86. Politician had pacifist mentality (1) and prefer collaboration to carnage (2) understandable
    1
  87. Yes, cross between right wing nobles and neo-socialist
    1