(Part 1) History enthusiasts lets dive into the dramatic events of June 6, 1944, as we uncover the heroic Allied invasion of Normandy. Discover the meticulous planning, intense beach landings, and personal stories of bravery that defined D-Day. Witness how this critical operation shattered Nazi defenses and set the stage for the liberation of Western Europe. Don’t miss this thrilling recount of one of WWII’s most pivotal moments! Link of Playlist ua-cam.com/play/PLVvCA4vUrfdBy2JslIUFzxp_RxBiXm0SR.html&si=0KJ14ttnmTR_CsUZ
Superior equipment ? No. More reliable equipment ? Very much so. The Me-262 as an overall aircraft was a lucky series of intuitive correct guesses but its short lived, best at one speed only, jet engines were very much a work in progress.
The narrator is incorrect in saying that by the end of 1943 they had never had a successful assault of a defended coastline. The US Marines had accomplished this at Tarawa in Nov 1943. A different theater of war to be sure but they did learn valuable lessons there
Landings in Sicily, Italy and N Africa were all successful. All helped prepare for Normandy. In fact not single U.S. assault landing was ever repelled.
@@2paulcoyleNo it didn't. That invasion fleet was partly carried from the UK and almost totally protected by the Royal Navy. The Yanks could absolutely not have done it alone.
It seems beyond obvious that the Allies could not devote days and days to shore bombardment. Once they fired the first shot, the Germans would know exactly where the invasion was happening and would begin moving reinforcements and (most importantly) tanks into the area. The entire point of the massive campaign of deception employed by the Allies, from the inflatable tank army near Dover, to Operation Fortitude, was to ensure the Germans DIDNT know the site of the real invasion. They were even hoping for a stalling action that tricked the German forces even AFTER they landed, thinking that it was a feint and that the “real” invasion was still going to happen later at the Pas de Calais. So, no, they were never going to just sit there off the coast firing their guns and picking off coastal batteries one by one for days. They had to wing it and do their best.
Yup. And George Patton was put "in charge" of the inflatable tank army. Rommel was convinced that Patton would be commanding general of the invasion forces.
@currentbatches6205 Not sure what your point is here. I'm saying that Hugo Boss made those fascist fucks into snappy dressers. Nobody can deny they had a keen fashion sense.
Wow great video! I love history but do not aim to become an expert. This video had enough information for me to understand the strategic and tactical issues the parties faced without being bogged down by too many details. The information on the lcvp’s was fascinating as was the cultural differences between the British and American soldiers. The narrator is a great storyteller with a beautiful voice and excellent intonation and speed. Thank you for uploading. Can’t wait for part 2.
Ike told Stephen Ambrose, his biographer , that boat builder Andrew Higgins won the war for the Allies. While teaching History at LSUNO, he found that Hhiggin's factory was located in New Orleans. The boats were tested in Lake Pontchatrain & he decided that a D Day Museum should be built in NOLA. It was later changed to the National WWII Museum to encompass the entire war to bring in more government & private funds.
Oh, those hearsay 'won the war with...' Stories like that are two a penny. The list of Allied war winning equipment, weaponry or tech is about one hundred items long already - much of them British.
I think the Higgins boat and the M1 Garand. U.S. infantry and Marines were only services Allied or Axis armed with semi-automatic as standard infantry weapon. Another major factor was differnt in mentality of common soldiers: Allied troops, British (including all the Commonwealth troops: Canucks, Aussies, Kiwis, Indian) U.S. and Soviet did much more independent thinking in the midst of combat that German, Italian, and Japanese. Evidence: defense of Tobruk, Guadacanal, intrepid Canadian tankers, and Indian troops that terrified Axis troops with there massive knives used in hand to hand combat.
Why astonishingly? The United States had nearly double the population of Germany. Germany had already been at War for several years and lost many of its most fit young men. Americans were much better fed up to and during the war. Americans had factories that were undisturbed by War whereas German factories had to conduct their business while being bombed. There's nothing astonishing at all about the fact that Americans were more fit and American equipment was better and more plentiful. What would be astonishing is if the reverse were true.
Yes, the allied bombing campaign had not reduced German war production but the question the video doesn’t address is how much higher German war production would have been without it. Without the bombing campaign German war production (IMO) would have been much higher and logistics/supply much better. And that bombing campaign also forced the German Air Force to redeploy much of their air forces and thousands of 88 flak guns and crews back to Germany. Those redeployments were particularly bad for the Eastern front. That resulted in the Russian air force gaining complete air dominance over the Eastern Front. And a large reduction in 88 anti-tank guns. That played a major role in the catastrophe that resulted from Operation Bagration. The lack of effective aerial reconnaissance and intelligence on Russian forces and movements leading up to and during Bagration played a heavy role in the disastrous outcome for the Germans.
I hate that view, people who have all or nothing takes on the air war. It's not either "German industry was disrupted" or "German industry failed to be disrupted" They were blowing the factories and oilfields up daily by the end, it was obviously disruptive and no sane person can claim otherwise. It's the degree were concerned with.
The US had four Airborne divisions, the 82nd, the 101st, the 17th, and the 11th. The 17th Airborne wasn't deployed in Europe until Operation Varsity in 1945, the 11th Airborne went to the Pacific in June of 1944.
The 17th Airborne was deployed in a ground combat role during the Battle of the Bulge time frame, but you are correct that it's first use in an airborne operation was Varsity. There was also another U.S. Airborne Division, the 13th. It was deployed to Europe, but did not see combat. By the time it was there and usable for combat, there was no need for further airborne operations, and Eisenhower kept in reserve for an emergency situation, such as a quick insertion into Germany or Berlin in case of catastrophic political and military German collapse.
The US had extensive experience gained from amphibious assaults in the Pacific, such as those on Guadalcanal and Tarawa. It was crucial for planning the Normandy invasion. Pacific experience of seaborne assault operations highlighted the importance of coordination between naval and ground forces, as well as the need for specialized landing craft and equipment.
Excellent work, once again. Indeed, the more the war advanced the more Hitler was losing his mind to eventually trust no one, especially his generals who, with much more experience and knowledge than corporal Hitler would most certainly have known when to quit, before it was too late. And in total disrespect for anyone, Hitler began screaming at everyone but to say that Americans had superior equipment and conditioning seems to be a rather outlandish, and preponderous piece of premature judgement. Here's an excerpt from a video called 'The Bloody 1944 Crusade in Europe' found here on YT. At 4mins 30secs it says: The US Army suffered 6600 casualties on D-Day but later suffered 64,000 casualties from cold injury, not wounds but pneumonia and frostbite. It had few stocks of decent mittens and gloves fur lined parkas, thermal underwear or insulated winter boots. The European winter of 1944-45 was the coldest in years. The Germans had fought in Russia and knew that when a winter storm arrived and pushed temperatures well below freezing, soldiers could not remain outdoors for days. Units must withdraw to towns and farmhouses so soldiers can survive indoors. American officers kept their troops in the field and soldiers suffered. In the (excellent book) Boys Crusade, (Paul) Fussell explains other losses of manpower. He said most fighting was done by American infantrymen who were just out of high school. They were drafted and didn't want to be in the war or the army. Self-inflicted wounds, a downward bullet wound to a leg or arm, were so common that the army kept a tally, used it to measure unit morale. The army's final tally was 19,000 deserters in Europe. Desertion became so bad that U.S. Army generals took drastic action: In January 1945, they selected one deserter to teach soldiers a lesson. Drafty Private Eddie Slovik was executed by a firing squad and his fate reported to all units. (...) In late 1944, the US Army's new 106th Infantry Division was attacked by a large German force at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge. Its soldiers were so startled by the unexpected appearance of large numbers of attacking Germans with tanks that officers jumped into jeeps and fled, while 8000 GIs quickly surrendered. (...) By 1945, replacements were badly needed, so General Eisenhower quietly allowed blacks to join white infantry units, where they were afforded an equal opportunity to be slaughtered. American troops fought hard to help win the war, although the Russians did most of the fighting to defeat the Nazis. The Germans were far more experienced and even better equipped. By the force of numbers and air power support, American infantry men slug forth until the war was won. They were victorious, but just wanted to go home and forget the horrible experience.
Germany simply did not have the industrial strength to fight a world war...especially against such economic titans as the US, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire (America gets so much attention for its huge war effort but the Canadians, with 10% America's population, produced about 10% as much as the US). Germany ended up with so many static divisions not because of Hitler's military strategy, but because Germany lacked the trucks to move those divisions around (there is a reason for the 'motorized' in front of 'infantry' on a small number of German infantry divisions). Tanks were increasingly complimented by assault guns because Germany could not produce enough tanks nor could they create enough new panzer divisions to match the growing number of Soviet formations...German military strategy was driven by necessity.
The DUKW was absolutely necessary, to provide ammunition resupply to amphibious beach landings. Without it, a counter attack could concentrate on a small section of the perimeter of the beachhead, until its ammunition was exhausted, and then a small force could penetrate the beachhead, and prevent supplies from being stockpiled. The DUKW could land, loaded with ammunition, and drive to just behind the front lines to provide the front line forces with ammunition, and perhaps a few men and weapons, needed to block counter attacks.
Without Montgomery tying down 675 German AFV's on a front of only 20 miles, D-Day would've been somewhat different. That was the largest concentration of German armour in WWII, including the first baptism of Tiger II's. And before the Monty and Brit haters pile in, this is information collated by Steven Zaloga. Operation Cobra the US were faced with 155 AFV's on a similar front. Operation Bagration over a front of 500 miles there was a total of 1,850 German AFV's. British and Canadian at Caen = 33.8 density of German armour. USA Op Cobra = 7.8 density. USSR Bagration on ALL fronts = 7.4 density. Yet critics ask why it took Montgomery so long to take Caen? St. Lo was also given a similar time frame to be captured, yet American forces captured it on the exact same day as British and Canadian forces took Caen. But take a look at the German forces involved in the fighting of those towns/cities. Not being disparaging to the US and Soviet forces, but for too long there has been a lot of hatred directed at the British and their commander, Montgomery.
I hadn't thought of the industrial geography that way to explain the continued German efforts in the west. Thanks. Add to that the air war that siphoned off huge resources from the eastern front.
Yeah! Just not enough Germans to go around, especially when they have this nasty habit of dying in combat, even when they win! Hitler effectively lost the war on Sep. 30, 1939! His whole war plan had 'LOSER' written all over it! Ask Yamamoto, he'll tell you! Hitler committed the Trumpy sin of putting his personal feelings, and desires above the well-being of his people!.. Sure, they 'defeated' the Polish and the French, but the Germans paid a much higher price, just in terms of lives lost, and equipment and property destroyed, to say nothing of the 'cost' of sacrificing your own people's humanity, and integrity! A more emotionally intact, reasonable leader would have known better than to even think his people are the best ever (especially when he's not one of them!), nor would he let his people think so: it is too dangerous: it's one thing to say: "Hey! Do we really want these goofy Jews here?... Let's see if we can't find them a better place, where they will be happier!" [...even when you know that is YOU will be happier, and you don't care about their feelings!], BUT, it's a whole different, insane, and inhuman thing to do to say: "Hey, we are the best ever; So, you don't deserve to live! - 'BANG! BANG!' Death to you!" Even if, or, perhaps BECAUSE you WERE the 'best ever', you wouldn't do this, because that would nullify being good, and if you aren't good, you definitely can't be 'the best'!
😢My father was shot down after bombing the Ploesti oil fields in Romania. Spent a couple of months as a POW, but escaped and was rescued by British SAS in Yugoslavia and smuggled back to Italy. My mother did not know if he was alive or dead for several months.
No, they weren't, but, as much as Hitler disrespected the people of the USA (i.e. somewhat less than he disrespected the French and the 'slavs'!), I really don't think he ever engaged in thr fantasy of actually conquering the USA; Merely, that, as Yamamoto had also hoped, if they inflicted some humiliating losses upon them, the USA would look for 'a way out'! They were both wrong, and Hitler had the added benefit of his experience NOT subduing the British Isles! That's what you get for putting ignorant people like Hitler, and Bush, and Trump in charge of countries with big militaries!
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Hobart had spent a week or two at Higgins' production facility, and to see what they came up with, together! I would have liked to see a few (48?)of these LCVP's modified to have actual 3 inch Guns flanked by .50 caliber machine guns, all behind some basic armor plating, and, ammunition cannisters, ALL mounted to the ramp, (though, this might require a modification of the mechanisms to control the raising and lowering of the ramp.) So, when the ramp is lowered, BAM! You are ready to 'give as good as you are getting', and, with some protection, provide some suppressive fire with '50 cal's, as well as actually trying to knock out machine gun emplacements, with the 3 inch. (Thinking that there would be at least 3 or 4 of these going in on each 'sector', and about 20-25% would loiter farther out to fill in inadvertent gaps, or replace a boat that gets knocked out.) These boats would be regarded as 'sacrificial', initially leading 4 other boats of troops, by some distance (predetermined in training exercised) which would, as before, disembark their troops, and return to fleet, for more, while the 'LCGE' would remain, in place, fighting, but, perhaps able to move, as conditions change... So, it may have the benefit of providing close-support fire, from a ~stable platform, while hopefully being outside the German Artillery's reference grid, and, also, by being mobile (at least, for a while...). Of course, the real challenge is coming up with something that can adapt to unpredictable contours of ground below the surf, and set the ramp, angle (The idea of mounting on the ramp would allow people to get out behind it, whereas just mounting at the leading edge of the cargo deck, would greatly obstruct the way off the boat, and also cut off firing sectors...maybe a sliding rail system; this would allow the heavy equipment in the boat to be shifted fore/aft, and keep 'in trim' while transitting...) Oh, well, I still say Higgins was a 'one-trick pony', and his boats were useful, but using them as assault craft, in the manner that they did, got a lot of extra guys killed! And it was partly the Army's fault for not 'troubleshooting' the design concepts, and operational techniques well enough, and building in features that didn't result in German machine-gunners 'shooting fish in a barrel'! This didn't happen all the time, but it did happen...and also, it was an likely possibility that not numerous boats would be forced to unload troops farther from the beach than intended, and troops would have to cross significant stretches of deeper water, while wearing HEAVY packs; the first guys off the boats (25-30%?...maybe even 50%) needed to be able to move faster, and should have had light loads of weapons and munitions, and simple medical kit with tourniquet: the bulky packs for these men (with rations for several days, and blankets and change of clothes in 'dry-bags', and more First-Aid supplies) would be bound together in a 'raft' (well, 2 rafts, maybe 4!), with floatation attached, and hung on the outside of the boats, and when unloading gets down to the last few, the rafts would be released, being still tied to the LCVP with a long lanyard, allowing many men to get ashore unencumbered, while providing a way for the last 4 or 8, men to bring ashore a high quantity of material for their company: NOONE should have been drowned by the weight of their own pack! Overlord was NOT their first rodeo with the Higgins Boats: this was shameful failing of General's Staff planners; after amphibious landings in Tunisia, Sicily, and Italy, they should have made better improvements and options!
The German MG 42 was incomparably superior to any American machine gun. In fact, contemporary general purpose machine guns are based on the MG 42. One on one, Panthers and Tigers were better than any American tank. But the Sherman tank was mechanically reliable. The German tanks were not. In other words, the headline for this video has no basis in fact.
Takes a lot more than one type of machine gun to win a modern war. And the MG 42 burned out barrels faster the the Browning .30 and .50 and the barrel change out took longer. Panthers and Tigers were not better than the M26 Pershing. From Detroit to France was a hell of a long way to ship a heavy tank. German artillery was moved by horses mostly. U.S. artillery was mover by 6x6 trucks, half-tracks, full-tracks. Germans had 1 tracked mobile artillery, one type of gun on it. U.S. had at least 3: 105mm, British called it "Priest, 155mm mobile howitzer (short barrell), 155mm "Long Tom". As for fighter aircraft: U.S. fighters had to fly out of Britian for several hours THEN fight over Germany. P-38, P-47, P-51 were a match for ME 109, and FW190. ME262 was never built in enough numbers to make a difference.
And Germans had nothing to compare to the C47 Dakota, probably in the top 5 prop driven airplanes ever. Though slow, so rugged and reliable. Used in Vietnam as "Puff the Magic Dragon" airial gunships, replaced by C130 Hercules.
@@christopherconard2831the USA basically integrated German tactics (shock and awe), took German scientist and especially their intelligence network. Tell me more about your superiority.
Unfortunately, very simplistic and incorrect description of some events like Battle of Kursk for example. The Germans inflicted the horrendous losses on the Soviets, prompting Stalin to call for a special committee to analyze staggering loss of ca. 7,000 tanks in the summer 1943. Truth is that none of the Ally armies would have been able to defeat Wehrmacht alone.
How could that be astonishing? Germany had been worn down 7 degraded by 5 years of total war, while American armies trained completely unmolested for years before entering combat, supplied by the largest industrial base on the planet.
Hitler took a Mercedes limo from the south of Germany to Airport Kloten in Zurich flew to Buenos Aires, via Lissabon and the Azores. to retire in Argentina.
I have agonized about what appears to be a failing of armies. Am I correct that they refuse to learn from each other? On D-Day the British had the “funnies” that helped them overcome obstacles on the beach. Americans didn’t. Or why American soldiers were so heavily burdened with equipment that was difficult to remove, causing so many to drown, unlike the equipment of the British? Is every military leader so bull-headed they cannot see value in what others are doing? Similarly, in Africa Rommel converted an 88 mm anti aircraft gun into an anti tank gun. It was an overpowering weapon but the British never thought to counter it with a similar weapon. As for Montgomery’s “brilliance”, he defeated Rommel because they discovered that an American ambassador was sending British military plan to the U.S. using a code broken by the Italians. Rommel knew every move the British were about to make. Only after it was discovered and the code changed was Rommel stunted. (Which makes Rommel’s accomplishments much less stellar than they were.) Additionally, Rommel kept using the same end around tactic that the British seemed to slow to realize. Montgomery finally positioned his troops to prevent that. But why did it take so long? And Montgomery finally got the needed air power to overcome Rommel.
The standard 6lb anti-tank gun (57mm) destroyed most of the Afroka Corps as it was highly mobile and capable of penetrating nearly all the armour the Germans had, it was superceded by the 17 pounder (76mm) gun in 1942 which could penetrate any German tank and was superior to the 88. The Germans used the 88 as they had never developed a suitable anti-tank weapon so were forced to use the relatively heavy and vulnerable 88 in immobile defence situations, the 17 pounder was far more flexible and could be mobile mounted allowing it's use in attack situations, it was used in the Sherman tank (then called the Firefly). Basically the Germans had to use the 88 because they didn't have anything else. The British did use a limited number of anti-aircraft guns in other situations, some of the 94mm guns were sent to North Africa and I worked with guy who drove the tow truck of one through the entire Italian campaign where they were used to eliminate bunkers and hardened emplacements to assist infantry advances. Basically the 88 is just overhyped.
Operation chastise was effective in drawing resources from the Atlantic wall and the overdefence of the Channel Islands, all delayed the effective completion of the Atlantic Wall
Germany vs USA? Is this another attempt airbrush the British Empire & Commonwealth out of WW2? The Empire fought its own battles, with its own equipment in NW Europe. Northern Europe, the Pacific. SE Asia, Middle East, North Africa as well as in the North and South Atlantics, the Indian Ocean and the Med. In total, about 13 million British and Empire citixens went into uniform in WW2. The British Empire supplied the USSR with vital military equipment, food and raw materials and, under 'Reverse Lend-Lease' also furnished the US with a treasure trove of materials and tech to the value of around 25℅ of US aid to Britain. NONE of the 3 great Allied powers could have beaten the Axis alone - nor without the three together.
Better trucks, interchangable engines in half-tracks, faster mobile artillery (the "Priest, 105mm on Grant chassis), the DUWK, better grenades, semi-automic rifle for ground troops, P-47, P-51 (yes ME 262 was best fighter of WW II problem was Hitler never grasped it's importance), better artillery towing vehicles (US used half-track and full track to pull 155mm guns), mobile (on full track) 155mm howitzer and 155mm "Long Toms", more reliabe grenades (Germans often failed to fuse their potato mashers"), more reliable engines in medium tanks and in the M26 Pershing better heavy tank, between gunsights on M4 and M26, powered turrents on M4 and M26, the JEEP, effective 4 engine heavy bombers
When you state British Atomic Physicists, I take that to mean Australian and New Zealand Atomic Physicists teaching in England prior to recruiting Oppenheimer and starting the Manhattan Project. That Australian Atomic Physicist also solved your problems with Radar making it useable and effective.
All citizens of the British Empire Dominions - Canada, NZ, Aus, SA - were BRITISH citizens until 1949. So, Dr Oliphant (to whom you're referring) was 'British- Australian'.
😂At no point during ww2 was Hitler in any danger of winning the war. His enemies controlled 90% of the world's population and resources. A monopoly in atomic weapons did not hurt either.
7:15 the Americans didn’t have an atomic bomb in 1945 and when they got it they had only 2 which they used. The US would not have been dropping atomic bombs on Europe
@@hotdog9262 I'm not a historian, but I knew this. We were allied with the Soviet Union which bore the brunt of the fighting in the war. If people do not know this, it's because they learned about WWII while studying US history, which naturally enough, focused on the American role. Few, if any, high schools offer courses on the war itself.
Gallipoli wasn’t a failed amphibious landing. The landing was successful. The army made it ashore and established an operational area. The campaign was unsuccessful, because the British army never made a breakout on land. However, that was no different than almost any other front in that war.
Is it just my French-Canadian ears that get confused when someone has a similar accent in English or is it Paul Bettany who is giving his voice to this channel?
@@35mmMovieTrailersScans It is. The same one is used with other channels. One giveaway, other than tone, is mispronounced words. Especially proper names and long numbers. AI is good, but still has some common errors.
BZZZZTT! Sorry, but the Pas de Calais is absolutely NOT the BEST choice for a World War II invasion of Europe from Britain: NOT for ANY reason! ...And here is why: because everybody is always saying there's two overwhelming reasons why you MUST invade at Calais, so it is a recipe for failure to do WHAT your opponent wants you to do, ESPECIALLY if it doesn't matter WHEN you do it! The distance across the English Channel being a critical criteria is thinking from the Medieval and Middle Ages, when they had to cross by sailing and/or rowing; when you've loaded the boys up in the power-driven ships, an extra hour in the boat doesn't necessarily make that much difference! And, 2. It doesn't matter that Calais is closer to the other land objectives: if you don't get ON the beach, you can't get PAST the beach! And the best way to get ON the beach is to have (as many of) the other guys someplace ELSE! And 3. Calais was too small, and constitutes a bottleneck: you couldn't get enough people through there, fast enough WITHOUT enemy resistance! SO: Bam! Bam! Your two "overwhelming reasons" are shot all to hell, and then some! And very reasonably so! However, Hitler, not being a very reasonable man, barely even listened to any request that he even consider any other possibilities...which, most importantly, would entail admitting a mistake! Hence, the invaluable contribution of the British countetintellgence Service, and General Patton's reputation and all the Illusions and props, and false radio signals and messages designed to reinforce Hitler's incorrect, deluded determination that the Allies would cross to Calais! Clearly, Hitler never played very many games! The best move to be made was to NOT go to Calais, because everybody knew that Hitler expected it! End of discussion! (Except for the part where I really expected better from you!)
AMERICANS HAVE A REPUTATION FOR HAVING EXCELLENT EQUIPMENT; THEY ENDED UP LOSING 81 BILLION DOLLARS OF IT WHEN THEY PULLED OUT OF AFGHANISTAN. THAT GEN. MILLEY IS SOME GENIUS.
when trump gave the enemy the time table for the withdrawal… to call it a mistake doesn’t do that colossal screwup justice. he left biden with a choice. honor the commitment, or extend the war… two horrible options… leaving some stuff behind was inevitable. now ask yourself why were we even there in the first place. afghanistan wasn’t involved with 9/11, so why did we invade? that’s the real issue. republicans gotta answer for that? didn’t think so. pfft. 🧐
All the equipment left in Afghanistan was Afghanistan Army equipment. Every piece of US owned equipment was taken out with them or destroyed prior to leaving. Why don’t you talk about how Trump freed 8,000 Taliban from prison in his ‘genius’ withdrawal deal?
(Part 1) History enthusiasts lets dive into the dramatic events of June 6, 1944, as we uncover the heroic Allied invasion of Normandy. Discover the meticulous planning, intense beach landings, and personal stories of bravery that defined D-Day. Witness how this critical operation shattered Nazi defenses and set the stage for the liberation of Western Europe. Don’t miss this thrilling recount of one of WWII’s most pivotal moments!
Link of Playlist ua-cam.com/play/PLVvCA4vUrfdBy2JslIUFzxp_RxBiXm0SR.html&si=0KJ14ttnmTR_CsUZ
Superior equipment ? No. More reliable equipment ? Very much so. The Me-262 as an overall aircraft was a lucky series of intuitive correct guesses but its short lived, best at one speed only, jet engines were very much a work in progress.
North Africa was very dumb!
The problem with "inflicting unacceptable losses on the Soviets" is, the Soviets were willing to accept almost any level of losses.
Yes. Lives were cheap in Russia-particularly under Stalin.
The narrator is incorrect in saying that by the end of 1943 they had never had a successful assault of a defended coastline. The US Marines had accomplished this at Tarawa in Nov 1943. A different theater of war to be sure but they did learn valuable lessons there
US invasion fleet had loaded up in New Jersey and directly landed in North Africa.,....fighting the French. November, 1942.
Landings in Sicily, Italy and N Africa were all successful. All helped prepare for Normandy. In fact not single U.S. assault landing was ever repelled.
I believe that he means continual Europe.
@@2paulcoyleNo it didn't. That invasion fleet was partly carried from the UK and almost totally protected by the Royal Navy. The Yanks could absolutely not have done it alone.
@@alastairbarkley6572 not to mention 60-80% of the german army was on the eastern front
It seems beyond obvious that the Allies could not devote days and days to shore bombardment. Once they fired the first shot, the Germans would know exactly where the invasion was happening and would begin moving reinforcements and (most importantly) tanks into the area.
The entire point of the massive campaign of deception employed by the Allies, from the inflatable tank army near Dover, to Operation Fortitude, was to ensure the Germans DIDNT know the site of the real invasion.
They were even hoping for a stalling action that tricked the German forces even AFTER they landed, thinking that it was a feint and that the “real” invasion was still going to happen later at the Pas de Calais.
So, no, they were never going to just sit there off the coast firing their guns and picking off coastal batteries one by one for days. They had to wing it and do their best.
Not to mention the airborne forces deployed to cut off routes the Germans could use for reinforcement.
Yup. And George Patton was put "in charge" of the inflatable tank army. Rommel was convinced that Patton would be commanding general of the invasion forces.
Yes, but the Nazis were such snappy dressers with Hugo Boss and all.
@currentbatches6205 Not sure what your point is here. I'm saying that Hugo Boss made those fascist fucks into snappy dressers. Nobody can deny they had a keen fashion sense.
Wow great video! I love history but do not aim to become an expert. This video had enough information for me to understand the strategic and tactical issues the parties faced without being bogged down by too many details. The information on the lcvp’s was fascinating as was the cultural differences between the British and American soldiers. The narrator is a great storyteller with a beautiful voice and excellent intonation and speed. Thank you for uploading. Can’t wait for part 2.
It’s an AI voice lol fyi
@@matthewnewton8812 thanks. Doesn’t change anything.
@@yolandacroes5491I agree . I find the voice quite pleasant.
For anyone who’s wondering. This is a chapter from D-day by Ambrose.
Very good read.
Ike told Stephen Ambrose, his biographer , that boat builder Andrew Higgins won the war for the Allies.
While teaching History at LSUNO, he found that Hhiggin's factory was located in New Orleans.
The boats were tested in Lake Pontchatrain & he decided that a D Day Museum should be built in NOLA. It was later changed to the National WWII Museum to encompass the entire war to bring in more government & private funds.
Oh, those hearsay 'won the war with...' Stories like that are two a penny. The list of Allied war winning equipment, weaponry or tech is about one hundred items long already - much of them British.
Stephen Ambrose is pretty much discredited as a historian now. He made up stuff too much. Good war stories, though.
I think the Higgins boat and the M1 Garand. U.S. infantry and Marines were only services Allied or Axis armed with semi-automatic as standard infantry weapon. Another major factor was differnt in mentality of common soldiers: Allied troops, British (including all the Commonwealth troops: Canucks, Aussies, Kiwis, Indian) U.S. and Soviet did much more independent thinking in the midst of combat that German, Italian, and Japanese. Evidence: defense of Tobruk, Guadacanal, intrepid Canadian tankers, and Indian troops that terrified Axis troops with there massive knives used in hand to hand combat.
Really good analysis of the fronts and the german strategies and priorities. A lot of info has been found/released since I studied this 30 years ago
Why astonishingly? The United States had nearly double the population of Germany. Germany had already been at War for several years and lost many of its most fit young men. Americans were much better fed up to and during the war. Americans had factories that were undisturbed by War whereas German factories had to conduct their business while being bombed. There's nothing astonishing at all about the fact that Americans were more fit and American equipment was better and more plentiful. What would be astonishing is if the reverse were true.
US = God 🚀💥
You definitely posted this comment before listening to the video
@@mgway4661 I was about half way through it. Whatever the video says, the title is still silly.
The American economy was also more efficient and focused than Germany could even dream of.
Yes, the allied bombing campaign had not reduced German war production but the question the video doesn’t address is how much higher German war production would have been without it. Without the bombing campaign German war production (IMO) would have been much higher and logistics/supply much better.
And that bombing campaign also forced the German Air Force to redeploy much of their air forces and thousands of 88 flak guns and crews back to Germany. Those redeployments were particularly bad for the Eastern front. That resulted in the Russian air force gaining complete air dominance over the Eastern Front. And a large reduction in 88 anti-tank guns. That played a major role in the catastrophe that resulted from Operation Bagration. The lack of effective aerial reconnaissance and intelligence on Russian forces and movements leading up to and during Bagration played a heavy role in the disastrous outcome for the Germans.
I hate that view, people who have all or nothing takes on the air war. It's not either "German industry was disrupted" or "German industry failed to be disrupted"
They were blowing the factories and oilfields up daily by the end, it was obviously disruptive and no sane person can claim otherwise. It's the degree were concerned with.
@@jacobpitts6846he said that when he said production would have been higher.
All good points that most Tube peeps are oblivious to. They don't read past Wikipedia.
@@stevek8829 I was agreeing with him
The US had four Airborne divisions, the 82nd, the 101st, the 17th, and the 11th. The 17th Airborne wasn't deployed in Europe until Operation Varsity in 1945, the 11th Airborne went to the Pacific in June of 1944.
The 17th Airborne was deployed in a ground combat role during the Battle of the Bulge time frame, but you are correct that it's first use in an airborne operation was Varsity.
There was also another U.S. Airborne Division, the 13th. It was deployed to Europe, but did not see combat. By the time it was there and usable for combat, there was no need for further airborne operations, and Eisenhower kept in reserve for an emergency situation, such as a quick insertion into Germany or Berlin in case of catastrophic political and military German collapse.
The US had extensive experience gained from amphibious assaults in the Pacific, such as those on Guadalcanal and Tarawa. It was crucial for planning the Normandy invasion. Pacific experience of seaborne assault operations highlighted the importance of coordination between naval and ground forces, as well as the need for specialized landing craft and equipment.
Yup.
Excellent work, once again. Indeed, the more the war advanced the more Hitler was losing his mind to eventually trust no one, especially his generals who, with much more experience and knowledge than corporal Hitler would most certainly have known when to quit, before it was too late. And in total disrespect for anyone, Hitler began screaming at everyone but to say that Americans had superior equipment and conditioning seems to be a rather outlandish, and preponderous piece of premature judgement.
Here's an excerpt from a video called 'The Bloody 1944 Crusade in Europe' found here on YT. At 4mins 30secs it says: The US Army suffered 6600 casualties on D-Day but later suffered 64,000 casualties from cold injury, not wounds but pneumonia and frostbite. It had few stocks of decent mittens and gloves fur lined parkas, thermal underwear or insulated winter boots. The European winter of 1944-45 was the coldest in years.
The Germans had fought in Russia and knew that when a winter storm arrived and pushed temperatures well below freezing, soldiers could not remain outdoors for days. Units must withdraw to towns and farmhouses so soldiers can survive indoors. American officers kept their troops in the field and soldiers suffered. In the (excellent book) Boys Crusade, (Paul) Fussell explains other losses of manpower. He said most fighting was done by American infantrymen who were just out of high school. They were drafted and didn't want to be in the war or the army.
Self-inflicted wounds, a downward bullet wound to a leg or arm, were so common that the army kept a tally, used it to measure unit morale. The army's final tally was 19,000 deserters in Europe. Desertion became so bad that U.S. Army generals took drastic action: In January 1945, they selected one deserter to teach soldiers a lesson. Drafty Private Eddie Slovik was executed by a firing squad and his fate reported to all units. (...) In late 1944, the US Army's new 106th Infantry Division was attacked by a large German force at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge. Its soldiers were so startled by the unexpected appearance of large numbers of attacking Germans with tanks that officers jumped into jeeps and fled, while 8000 GIs quickly surrendered.
(...) By 1945, replacements were badly needed, so General Eisenhower quietly allowed blacks to join white infantry units, where they were afforded an equal opportunity to be slaughtered. American troops fought hard to help win the war, although the Russians did most of the fighting to defeat the Nazis. The Germans were far more experienced and even better equipped. By the force of numbers and air power support, American infantry men slug forth until the war was won. They were victorious, but just wanted to go home and forget the horrible experience.
Great contribution to the history of late WW2.
Germany simply did not have the industrial strength to fight a world war...especially against such economic titans as the US, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire (America gets so much attention for its huge war effort but the Canadians, with 10% America's population, produced about 10% as much as the US). Germany ended up with so many static divisions not because of Hitler's military strategy, but because Germany lacked the trucks to move those divisions around (there is a reason for the 'motorized' in front of 'infantry' on a small number of German infantry divisions). Tanks were increasingly complimented by assault guns because Germany could not produce enough tanks nor could they create enough new panzer divisions to match the growing number of Soviet formations...German military strategy was driven by necessity.
The Canadian industrial contribution is indeed overlooked. The timber shipped to Britain alone, the British could not have done without.
The DUKW was absolutely necessary, to provide ammunition resupply to amphibious beach landings. Without it, a counter attack could concentrate on a small section of the perimeter of the beachhead, until its ammunition was exhausted, and then a small force could penetrate the beachhead, and prevent supplies from being stockpiled. The DUKW could land, loaded with ammunition, and drive to just behind the front lines to provide the front line forces with ammunition, and perhaps a few men and weapons, needed to block counter attacks.
Yup. The DUKW, the M1 Garand, the JEEP, M-2 cal .50 had a great deal to do with winning battles for U.S.
Unacceptable casualties is not something Stalin wouldn't even consider...
An American general asked a Russian general how Russia got through mine fields? He was shocked to hear that he just had his soldiers run through them!
The triple negative in your comment damaged my brain cell.
Its too buisy to be lonely, but now it's damaged.
Without Montgomery tying down 675 German AFV's on a front of only 20 miles, D-Day would've been somewhat different. That was the largest concentration of German armour in WWII, including the first baptism of Tiger II's. And before the Monty and Brit haters pile in, this is information collated by Steven Zaloga.
Operation Cobra the US were faced with 155 AFV's on a similar front.
Operation Bagration over a front of 500 miles there was a total of 1,850 German AFV's.
British and Canadian at Caen = 33.8 density of German armour.
USA Op Cobra = 7.8 density.
USSR Bagration on ALL fronts = 7.4 density.
Yet critics ask why it took Montgomery so long to take Caen?
St. Lo was also given a similar time frame to be captured, yet American forces captured it on the exact same day as British and Canadian forces took Caen. But take a look at the German forces involved in the fighting of those towns/cities.
Not being disparaging to the US and Soviet forces, but for too long there has been a lot of hatred directed at the British and their commander, Montgomery.
He has yet to live down Operation Market Garden.
Hitler never said that Roosevelt would wind up in jail for D=day being unsucessful
The video doesn't say he did. The video expresses Hitler's desires (not expectations) to include Roosevelt ending up in jail "with any luck."
This video is clearly just making shit up
I hadn't thought of the industrial geography that way to explain the continued German efforts in the west. Thanks. Add to that the air war that siphoned off huge resources from the eastern front.
Very good!
The Wehrmacht was never going to defeat Britain, the Red Army and the industrial Colossus of America with the paltry, vulnerable oil fields of Romania
Yeah! Just not enough Germans to go around, especially when they have this nasty habit of dying in combat, even when they win!
Hitler effectively lost the war on Sep. 30, 1939!
His whole war plan had 'LOSER' written all over it!
Ask Yamamoto, he'll tell you!
Hitler committed the Trumpy sin of putting his personal feelings, and desires above the well-being of his people!..
Sure, they 'defeated' the Polish and the French, but the Germans paid a much higher price, just in terms of lives lost, and equipment and property destroyed, to say nothing of the 'cost' of sacrificing your own people's humanity, and integrity!
A more emotionally intact, reasonable leader would have known better than to even think his people are the best ever (especially when he's not one of them!), nor would he let his people think so: it is too dangerous: it's one thing to say: "Hey! Do we really want these goofy Jews here?... Let's see if we can't find them a better place, where they will be happier!" [...even when you know that is YOU will be happier, and you don't care about their feelings!], BUT, it's a whole different, insane, and inhuman thing to do to say: "Hey, we are the best ever; So, you don't deserve to live! - 'BANG! BANG!' Death to you!"
Even if, or, perhaps BECAUSE you WERE the 'best ever', you wouldn't do this, because that would nullify being good, and if you aren't good, you definitely can't be 'the best'!
😢My father was shot down after bombing the Ploesti oil fields in Romania. Spent a couple of months as a POW, but escaped and was rescued by British SAS in Yugoslavia and smuggled back to Italy. My mother did not know if he was alive or dead for several months.
No, they weren't, but, as much as Hitler disrespected the people of the USA (i.e. somewhat less than he disrespected the French and the 'slavs'!), I really don't think he ever engaged in thr fantasy of actually conquering the USA; Merely, that, as Yamamoto had also hoped, if they inflicted some humiliating losses upon them, the USA would look for 'a way out'! They were both wrong, and Hitler had the added benefit of his experience NOT subduing the British Isles!
That's what you get for putting ignorant people like Hitler, and Bush, and Trump in charge of countries with big militaries!
@@markmurphy558
Awesome story. Very glad that he made it out.
.haeuptlin. Queste sono. SOLO
Le Tue Idee.
I forget who said this, but: "Stalingrad determined that the Germans would not win the war in Russia. Kursk determined that they would lose it..."
Interesting analysis between attitudes and actions.
This series shows some very good work. There is a better look inside Hitler's thinking here than I have seen any place else. Well done.
Mr Steve..
Andy's Dad?
Steven Ambrose?..
A Good Dude.. i Watched Him On Local Public TV As A Kid
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Hobart had spent a week or two at Higgins' production facility, and to see what they came up with, together!
I would have liked to see a few (48?)of these LCVP's modified to have actual 3 inch Guns flanked by .50 caliber machine guns, all behind some basic armor plating, and, ammunition cannisters, ALL mounted to the ramp, (though, this might require a modification of the mechanisms to control the raising and lowering of the ramp.)
So, when the ramp is lowered, BAM! You are ready to 'give as good as you are getting', and, with some protection, provide some suppressive fire with '50 cal's, as well as actually trying to knock out machine gun emplacements, with the 3 inch. (Thinking that there would be at least 3 or 4 of these going in on each 'sector', and about 20-25% would loiter farther out to fill in inadvertent gaps, or replace a boat that gets knocked out.)
These boats would be regarded as 'sacrificial', initially leading 4 other boats of troops, by some distance (predetermined in training exercised) which would, as before, disembark their troops, and return to fleet, for more, while the 'LCGE' would remain, in place, fighting, but, perhaps able to move, as conditions change...
So, it may have the benefit of providing close-support fire, from a ~stable platform, while hopefully being outside the German Artillery's reference grid, and, also, by being mobile (at least, for a while...).
Of course, the real challenge is coming up with something that can adapt to unpredictable contours of ground below the surf, and set the ramp, angle
(The idea of mounting on the ramp would allow people to get out behind it, whereas just mounting at the leading edge of the cargo deck, would greatly obstruct the way off the boat, and also cut off firing sectors...maybe a sliding rail system; this would allow the heavy equipment in the boat to be shifted fore/aft, and keep 'in trim' while transitting...)
Oh, well, I still say Higgins was a 'one-trick pony', and his boats were useful, but using them as assault craft, in the manner that they did, got a lot of extra guys killed! And it was partly the Army's fault for not 'troubleshooting' the design concepts, and operational techniques well enough, and building in features that didn't result in German machine-gunners 'shooting fish in a barrel'! This didn't happen all the time, but it did happen...and also, it was an likely possibility that not numerous boats would be forced to unload troops farther from the beach than intended, and troops would have to cross significant stretches of deeper water, while wearing HEAVY packs; the first guys off the boats (25-30%?...maybe even 50%) needed to be able to move faster, and should have had light loads of weapons and munitions, and simple medical kit with tourniquet: the bulky packs for these men (with rations for several days, and blankets and change of clothes in 'dry-bags', and more First-Aid supplies) would be bound together in a 'raft' (well, 2 rafts, maybe 4!), with floatation attached, and hung on the outside of the boats, and when unloading gets down to the last few, the rafts would be released, being still tied to the LCVP with a long lanyard, allowing many men to get ashore unencumbered, while providing a way for the last 4 or 8, men to bring ashore a high quantity of material for their company: NOONE should have been drowned by the weight of their own pack! Overlord was NOT their first rodeo with the Higgins Boats: this was shameful failing of General's Staff planners; after amphibious landings in Tunisia, Sicily, and Italy, they should have made better improvements and options!
Armchair quarterbacking sounds great, 80 years later.
@@Salt_Ed_One1 for sure he is an Englishman. 🙄
The German MG 42 was incomparably superior to any American machine gun. In fact, contemporary general purpose machine guns are based on the MG 42. One on one, Panthers and Tigers were better than any American tank. But the Sherman tank was mechanically reliable. The German tanks were not.
In other words, the headline for this video has no basis in fact.
Takes a lot more than one type of machine gun to win a modern war. And the MG 42 burned out barrels faster the the Browning .30 and .50 and the barrel change out took longer. Panthers and Tigers were not better than the M26 Pershing. From Detroit to France was a hell of a long way to ship a heavy tank. German artillery was moved by horses mostly. U.S. artillery was mover by 6x6 trucks, half-tracks, full-tracks. Germans had 1 tracked mobile artillery, one type of gun on it. U.S. had at least 3: 105mm, British called it "Priest, 155mm mobile howitzer (short barrell), 155mm "Long Tom". As for fighter aircraft: U.S. fighters had to fly out of Britian for several hours THEN fight over Germany. P-38, P-47, P-51 were a match for ME 109, and FW190. ME262 was never built in enough numbers to make a difference.
And Germans had nothing to compare to the C47 Dakota, probably in the top 5 prop driven airplanes ever. Though slow, so rugged and reliable. Used in Vietnam as "Puff the Magic Dragon" airial gunships, replaced by C130 Hercules.
The Lee Enfield was reliable and when tested by the US after the war the most accurate (and had a 10 round magazine.)
About 10 mins in there's mention of the ME262. Listen to Hardthrasher's review for some balance
Like a little of German innovations from the era, "A good idea. But it would have been a great one 5-10 years ago."
@@christopherconard2831the USA basically integrated German tactics (shock and awe), took German scientist and especially their intelligence network.
Tell me more about your superiority.
תודה!
Sir, Thank you for your love and support to our Channel.
Unfortunately, very simplistic and incorrect description of some events like Battle of Kursk for example. The Germans inflicted the horrendous losses on the Soviets, prompting Stalin to call for a special committee to analyze staggering loss of ca. 7,000 tanks in the summer 1943. Truth is that none of the Ally armies would have been able to defeat Wehrmacht alone.
How could that be astonishing? Germany had been worn down 7 degraded by 5 years of total war, while American armies trained completely unmolested for years before entering combat, supplied by the largest industrial base on the planet.
Hitler took a Mercedes limo from the south of Germany to Airport Kloten in Zurich flew to Buenos Aires, via Lissabon and the Azores.
to retire in Argentina.
Who wrote this ? Is an author or authors available?
Sounds like mark felton?
I have agonized about what appears to be a failing of armies. Am I correct that they refuse to learn from each other? On D-Day the British had the “funnies” that helped them overcome obstacles on the beach. Americans didn’t. Or why American soldiers were so heavily burdened with equipment that was difficult to remove, causing so many to drown, unlike the equipment of the British? Is every military leader so bull-headed they cannot see value in what others are doing?
Similarly, in Africa Rommel converted an 88 mm anti aircraft gun into an anti tank gun. It was an overpowering weapon but the British never thought to counter it with a similar weapon. As for Montgomery’s “brilliance”, he defeated Rommel because they discovered that an American ambassador was sending British military plan to the U.S. using a code broken by the Italians. Rommel knew every move the British were about to make. Only after it was discovered and the code changed was Rommel stunted. (Which makes Rommel’s accomplishments much less stellar than they were.) Additionally, Rommel kept using the same end around tactic that the British seemed to slow to realize. Montgomery finally positioned his troops to prevent that. But why did it take so long? And Montgomery finally got the needed air power to overcome Rommel.
The standard 6lb anti-tank gun (57mm) destroyed most of the Afroka Corps as it was highly mobile and capable of penetrating nearly all the armour the Germans had, it was superceded by the 17 pounder (76mm) gun in 1942 which could penetrate any German tank and was superior to the 88. The Germans used the 88 as they had never developed a suitable anti-tank weapon so were forced to use the relatively heavy and vulnerable 88 in immobile defence situations, the 17 pounder was far more flexible and could be mobile mounted allowing it's use in attack situations, it was used in the Sherman tank (then called the Firefly). Basically the Germans had to use the 88 because they didn't have anything else.
The British did use a limited number of anti-aircraft guns in other situations, some of the 94mm guns were sent to North Africa and I worked with guy who drove the tow truck of one through the entire Italian campaign where they were used to eliminate bunkers and hardened emplacements to assist infantry advances. Basically the 88 is just overhyped.
The Korean story is worthy of a movie.
My Way, 2011 Movie Based on That very subject!
Germany is smaller than Montana
Always good to keep that in perspective.
Puny
Operation chastise was effective in drawing resources from the Atlantic wall and the overdefence of the Channel Islands, all delayed the effective completion of the Atlantic Wall
Has this been produced using ChatGBT as some words are strange.
Germany vs USA? Is this another attempt airbrush the British Empire & Commonwealth out of WW2? The Empire fought its own battles, with its own equipment in NW Europe. Northern Europe, the Pacific. SE Asia, Middle East, North Africa as well as in the North and South Atlantics, the Indian Ocean and the Med. In total, about 13 million British and Empire citixens went into uniform in WW2. The British Empire supplied the USSR with vital military equipment, food and raw materials and, under 'Reverse Lend-Lease' also furnished the US with a treasure trove of materials and tech to the value of around 25℅ of US aid to Britain.
NONE of the 3 great Allied powers could have beaten the Axis alone - nor without the three together.
did you forget… germans had no fuel or air power at this point
Your info on the me262 story is factually incorrect, please revisit your sources.
Superior equipment as in quantity? I’d argue the point if it was quality!
Better trucks, interchangable engines in half-tracks, faster mobile artillery (the "Priest, 105mm on Grant chassis), the DUWK, better grenades, semi-automic rifle for ground troops, P-47, P-51 (yes ME 262 was best fighter of WW II problem was Hitler never grasped it's importance), better artillery towing vehicles (US used half-track and full track to pull 155mm guns), mobile (on full track) 155mm howitzer and 155mm "Long Toms", more reliabe grenades (Germans often failed to fuse their potato mashers"), more reliable engines in medium tanks and in the M26 Pershing better heavy tank, between gunsights on M4 and M26, powered turrents on M4 and M26, the JEEP, effective 4 engine heavy bombers
When you state British Atomic Physicists, I take that to mean Australian and New Zealand Atomic Physicists teaching in England prior to recruiting Oppenheimer and starting the Manhattan Project. That Australian Atomic Physicist also solved your problems with Radar making it useable and effective.
All citizens of the British Empire Dominions - Canada, NZ, Aus, SA - were BRITISH citizens until 1949. So, Dr Oliphant (to whom you're referring) was 'British- Australian'.
@@alastairbarkley6572 Australia attained full independence in 1942. No wonder Churchill had an intense dislike of John Curtin.
@@alastairbarkley6572 Okay, that’s why the British talk about the Tank being a British invention, seems disingenuous old mate.
@@n1m-n5c British were first to deploy tanks in combat in WW 1.
oh ya sure, fighting boys and old men
😂At no point during ww2 was Hitler in any danger of winning the war. His enemies controlled 90% of the world's population and resources. A monopoly in atomic weapons did not hurt either.
Japan didn’t surrender due to the a-bombs. They immediately surrendered when Russia declared war. The second front caused the surrender. IMHO.
7:15 the Americans didn’t have an atomic bomb in 1945 and when they got it they had only 2 which they used.
The US would not have been dropping atomic bombs on Europe
They had a 3rd bomb but never used
Perhaps not so astonishingly, Americans have a habit of re-writing history.
Should provide examples when making this sort of remark.
@@johnsumser9743 60-80% of the german army was on the eastern front
@@hotdog9262 How is this evidence of re-writing history?
@@johnsumser9743 well if true. certainly is not the story that were told in the west
@@hotdog9262 I'm not a historian, but I knew this. We were allied with the Soviet Union which bore the brunt of the fighting in the war. If people do not know this, it's because they learned about WWII while studying US history, which naturally enough, focused on the American role. Few, if any, high schools offer courses on the war itself.
Is this Mark Felton narrating
Gallipoli wasn’t a failed amphibious landing. The landing was successful. The army made it ashore and established an operational area.
The campaign was unsuccessful, because the British army never made a breakout on land. However, that was no different than almost any other front in that war.
Is it just my French-Canadian ears that get confused when someone has a similar accent in English or is it Paul Bettany who is giving his voice to this channel?
@@bookaufman9643 I don't think this is an AI voice, these reading videos were already existing before AI voices became really good.
@@35mmMovieTrailersScans It is. The same one is used with other channels. One giveaway, other than tone, is mispronounced words. Especially proper names and long numbers.
AI is good, but still has some common errors.
@@christopherconard2831 Exactly right. It's very, very good, but not perfect.
Ai Voice? The reading of the two hundred sixty-two is odd. Love the rest…
This must be AI narration.
Let’s remember .. Germany lost .. they all lied and still do today
Who lied? Who is still lying?
There is plenty of documents, books , first hand interviews etc...
No suprise
AI...
Let's see, what other famous Dictator ruined his army by trying to invade Russia? Oh that's right, Napoleon!!!
Don't FW Russia. They're not good, but they're good enough.
The Soviets did not stop the Germans cold at Kursk. Hitler called it off after the Allied invasion of Sicily.
This is not astonishing.
BZZZZTT! Sorry, but the Pas de Calais is absolutely NOT the BEST choice for a World War II invasion of Europe from Britain: NOT for ANY reason!
...And here is why: because everybody is always saying there's two overwhelming reasons why you MUST invade at Calais, so it is a recipe for failure to do WHAT your opponent wants you to do, ESPECIALLY if it doesn't matter WHEN you do it!
The distance across the English Channel being a critical criteria is thinking from the Medieval and Middle Ages, when they had to cross by sailing and/or rowing; when you've loaded the boys up in the power-driven ships, an extra hour in the boat doesn't necessarily make that much difference!
And, 2. It doesn't matter that Calais is closer to the other land objectives: if you don't get ON the beach, you can't get PAST the beach!
And the best way to get ON the beach is to have (as many of) the other guys someplace ELSE!
And 3. Calais was too small, and constitutes a bottleneck: you couldn't get enough people through there, fast enough WITHOUT enemy resistance!
SO: Bam! Bam! Your two "overwhelming reasons" are shot all to hell, and then some!
And very reasonably so!
However, Hitler, not being a very reasonable man, barely even listened to any request that he even consider any other possibilities...which, most importantly, would entail admitting a mistake!
Hence, the invaluable contribution of the British countetintellgence Service, and General Patton's reputation and all the Illusions and props, and false radio signals and messages designed to reinforce Hitler's incorrect, deluded determination that the Allies would cross to Calais!
Clearly, Hitler never played very many games!
The best move to be made was to NOT go to Calais, because everybody knew that Hitler expected it!
End of discussion!
(Except for the part where I really expected better from you!)
Germany was a "she"?
AMERICANS HAVE A REPUTATION FOR HAVING EXCELLENT EQUIPMENT; THEY ENDED UP LOSING 81 BILLION DOLLARS OF IT WHEN THEY PULLED OUT OF AFGHANISTAN. THAT GEN. MILLEY IS SOME GENIUS.
A very stable genius
when trump gave the enemy the time table for the withdrawal… to call it a mistake doesn’t do that colossal screwup justice. he left biden with a choice. honor the commitment, or extend the war… two horrible options… leaving some stuff behind was inevitable. now ask yourself why were we even there in the first place. afghanistan wasn’t involved with 9/11, so why did we invade? that’s the real issue. republicans gotta answer for that? didn’t think so. pfft. 🧐
All the equipment left in Afghanistan was Afghanistan Army equipment. Every piece of US owned equipment was taken out with them or destroyed prior to leaving. Why don’t you talk about how Trump freed 8,000 Taliban from prison in his ‘genius’ withdrawal deal?
Maga ignorance and stupidity on display
Why are you screaming?