My Dad landed on Sword beach D-Day plus 1. He thankfully lived to tell the tale but never actually told it. He was badly wounded some time later near Caen. As a kid I remember asking him how he got the scar on his face, he told me it was a ricochet when they were shooting rabbits. I actually believed that for years but never found out the real story. RIP Dad.
Sad fact: more french civilians were killed on DDay than allied or german soldiers. This is mostly due to the bombing operation carried out on France for DDAY, it is the largest synchronized air operation in history to this day and it was a mostly a failure. All the target on Omaha, Gold and Sword beach were missed. At Gold and Sword alone the bombings killed 400 to 500 civilians. The bombing were so inacurrate that they even almost killed the british pathfinders at merville. It is one of the largest collateral damage events in American history and Interestingly this bombing operation is also the least written about it is missing in most English war narratives.
I did the 50th Anniversary of D Day in 1994, whilst serving on HMS Fearless. We had a few of the Vets from that day onboard, most in their late 60's early 70's.,Everyone there was going to visit their mates who lay sleeping in a foreign land, who they all referred to as the real hero's. They still had a twinkle in their eyes a humbling experience, a few spoke about it, most did not. Almost 30 years on their numbers diminish each year, soon the will all be gone and the greatest generation will just history on a page. Lest We Forget, We Will Remember Them.,
Your questioning about GB having resisted the German assault is relevant. Yet, considering: Not having been invaded, it served as a base for the French Resistance (General Charles de Gaulle masterminded it from London) and for the Allies to get organised, but do not minimise the role of the continental, occupied countries's role in Resistance that was key in providing data to the Allies to prepare D-Day, and to hinder the Germans movement through sabotage actions. France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, ... were indeed quickly overwhelmed, but had the UK not been an island and been occupied too, who knows how long they could have resisted their invader? Respect to the hundreds of thousands (occupied) European Resistants who lost their lives and whose less spectacular actions were of paramount importance in the ultimate victory. Also, and in all fairness, I find it sad that, because of their politics having gone awry, the (then allied) Soviets are not celebrated in that success. Had it not been for their actions on the Western front, wouldn't the war have been much harder to win? NB: "World War II losses of the Soviet Union were about 27,000,000, both civilian and military from all war-related causes, although exact figures are disputed. A figure of 20 million was considered official during the Soviet era." Source: Wikipedia
Respect to your great-uncle first of all. It amazes me to this day that the actual plan wasn't leaked. Certainly in Portsmouth it was an open secret as civilians knew something big was happening. My graet-uncle was a Para and so was one of the first to land in enemy territory. He survived D-Day, was shot four times and refused to be sent back home. He was unfortunately killed on a bridge with a number of his comrades in Germany with less than a month of the war to go.
The media in those days were far more responsible. Even if someone did leak it to them they would never have published it. So the story couldn't spread beyond the local area. If it was now the likes of Kay Burley would take great pleasure in destroying our military plans
My late father and his mates thought that their time was up, so had a last meal of a peacock and some wine. Luckily they were picked up by a boat and taken back to the UK to safety.
3:54 What always drove home the sheer size of D-Day for me was this: you know how the Germans had enormous anti-aircraft batteries lined up all along the coast to be able to flood the skies with flak? You can imagine in that situation the best tactic for aircraft was to zigzag. But on D-Day, they didn't. The bombers and then the transports carrying paras flew in predetermined straight lines over enemy territory and in predetermined, straight lines back. Basically carlanes in the sky. Making them far easier targets for the AA cannons. Why did they do that, you ask? Because there were so godawfully many of them that they had to stick to skylanes to avoid colliding with one another. 11:36 Yep. Land and weather have determined the outcome of war for as long as there has been war. 12:05 Again, yes. WWII was, more than any other, a war of scientists and engineers. People who had sudden inspirations, such as using echo to see across huge distances of air or water. People who had spent most of their lives theorizing about the mathematics of calculation or mechanics coming together to build schemes and machines that could break codes. People who had practical ideas about getting across barbed wire with tanks or stringing together pontoons to make bridges. People who had ideas about making aircraft fly faster using air compression or building a small rocket that could be fired by a soldier to take out a tank. And of course there was this group of weirdo refugees from all over Europe who had this wild idea about taking a teacup full of this heavy metal called uranium and making it go boom -- but really, REALLY *BOOM* ... 17:30 That was one of the things. The British blockade was another. The fact that the Soviets made the Germans pay with their life's blood for every millimeter of Leningrad and Stalingrad. The fact that the Germans got themselves into a two-front war *again* . That they declared war on the US for no good reason.... 18:30 Ummm... the Allied did exactly that...
Have a look at Spies of War - The D-Day Spies | Full Documentary.Have you had a look at the longest day?The Longest Day is a 1962 American epic war film, shot in black and white.
War is like a game of poker You have to attack when your opponent makes a mistake whilst being careful not to give away any valuable information and that’s all war is really about outside of the fighting and politics, it’s mostly about trying to outsmart one’s opponents
As Churchill said, in his Churchill War Diaries [following Operation Jubilee] : "Never again, shall man walk on hostile ground with his eyes closed." This time round, the allies would be PREPARED.
Despite it being so long ago, I, as a German, regret the loss of your relative during this insane, senseless war. This was another one of those strange circumstances where Hitler's insane narcissism played right into the hands of the Allies. Rommel had been tasked in 1943 to establish a strong defensive force in northern France. Rommel had requested far more tanks as well as troops along exactly those locations chosen by the allies. However Hitler deemed himself to be the superior tactician and strategist and denied that those tanks were needed more along the eastern front than to support a location already strongly defended, and by his own estimates being highly unlikely to be attacked anyway. Rommel warned Hitler again and again, to be rebuffed over and over. Rommel was soon relocated to other front lines, and his constant requests for upgrades to the garrisons was effectively stopped. Just from a German perspective again. Greetz from a German in Hamburg.
Plus people forget that this was long before things like satellites , where everything had to be done manually and sometimes despite having or being given accurate information, by the time the plans are being carried out what could’ve looked like an un defended position in reality had hidden emplacements as well as concealed machine gun positions which could result in total defeat
Why Normandy? As after the raid on Dieppe demonstrated capturing a significant port would be prohibitively costly, it was accepted that cross-beach landings were ineviitible, s.t. key factors ranging from accessibility of beaches to ships and landing craft, to distance from UK sea and air bases that would be essential to any invasion attempt, to strength of 'Atlantic Wall' defences and position/ability to reinforce of German forces, plus their perceptions of the likelihood of allied attack in that place to begin with. Was Germany "doomed to fail" from the outset? No, at least in my estimation. The outcome only became certain with Hitler's ludicrously stupid decision to declare war on the USA a few days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Until then, a purely European axis victory, or at min an eventual negotiated peace, was still feasible. As for our winning the Battle of Britain and, of equal importance, the UK/Canadian campaign in the Atlantic stopping Germany from driving us out of the war later, then yes, it did save at least Western Europe from a very protracted period of subjection to one or another loathsome tyranny, though whether the German Nazi one or Soviet Marxist one is less certain.... and after all, it still didn't save East/Central Europe from exactly that 2nd fate, anyway.
Rommel personally interviewed another Commando who was captured surveying one of the beaches before the landing. Germany was done when they invaded the Soviet Union. The US could not have invaded France if GB had surrendered.
@@scatton61 We could hope so, if there was no American intervention in Europe (war against Japan would be enough). Not that Stalin was a good man, but a useful devil of Hitler's own choosing.
@@williambranch4283 Tbh, Germany only became certain to lose from the point when Hitler declared war on the USA, though paradoxically, without ongoing involvement in the war by Europe's other loathsome absolutism, the USSR, the 'Anglo' powers would not have been able (or willing) to invade and liberate Western Europe... (and after all, in any case failed to liberate East/Central Europe, most of which merely ended by swapping one repugnant absolutist occupier for another for an extra 45 years +)
@@squirepraggerstope3591 It might be unbelievable, but if Hitler had played defence with Poland and didn't invade the Soviet Union either, Stalin may have eventually attacked him and most countries would have been on his side.
@@williambranch4283 Theoretically possible but very unlikely. Not least as it was precisely the Soviet regime's own opportunistic agenda of collaboration with their Nazi alter egos in order to predominantly direct Berlin's aggressive expansionism away from themselves, that led directly to the Nazi-Soviet Pact and enabled their (ultimately) joint dismemberment of Poland. Plus the additional Soviet attacks on several other east European states. After, of course, war first between Germany and France/Britain in response to Germany's initial solo attack on Poland. So despite not anticipating the fall of France, Stalin's predictable reaction when it did ensue, was to try even more to give Gerrmany no pretext to attack him.
Had Britain been defeated around the time of the Battle of Britain then no D-Day for sure then the rest must be pure conjecture as to the following events.
There was no way Britain would’ve been defeated around that time, because it would’ve been extremely difficult for German forces to cross the channel. The Royal Navy and RAF would’ve pounded the German invaders in the channel itself even before they landed on the English coast.
@@Stand663 As you allude to, the Royal Navy was the largest and most powerful navy in the world at that time. If Hitler had attempted Operation Sea Lion, to cross the channel and invade southern England not many ships would have reached England and the chances of any significant forces getting to London would have been even poorer.
Had the Germans destroyed the radar stations and other airfields what was left of the R.A.F. [assuming the Germans had won the battle of Britain ] would not have air superiority over the channel and the R.N. could have been sitting targets[with most of its ships needed around the world anyway ] history proved that battleships were no match for air attacks as you may know Britain lost two battleships to Japanese air attacks early in the war and the fact is battleships apart from being very expensive went out of fashion because of airpower including the largest ever the Yamamoto. It is only your certain belief that i question. With German air superiority it is a stretch to see the easy victory you claim, but i make no claims of an easy German victory even if there was time to pull in all R.N.ships from around the world to fill the channel that would just mean it would be hard for German bombers to miss and there were plenty of German bombers at that time not to mention German U boats. For it to work the Germans would not cross until the time was right which is the whole point of Operation Sea Lion .
@@charlesfrancis6894 I have read that senior Nazi commanders and even Hitler himself were not at all confident of Operation Sea Lion succeeding. Thankfully the Battle of Britain was not lost and so we will never know if Germany would have successfully invaded Britain.
@@charlesfrancis6894 Germany never seriously had a navy capable of an amphibious operation and could never challenge the Royal Navy in any way even if they had defeated the RAF, which of course it didn't.
If Great Britain had fallen to Germany 1940 (assuming the Battle of Britain was lost and Germany invaded) the US would not have become involved in the war in Europe, now the question is, with GB falling, there would be no reason for the US to put pressure on the Japanese oil reserves, so there would be no reason for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour, again negating the reasons for the US to enter the war. This would mean an even bloodier conflict in the east, eventually Germany could lose, and with that there is a possibility that Russia could have taken all of europe. Imagine how that could have turned out......... for the US, No massive industrial boom, None of the Massive Factories, ship yards, arms manufacturers, and lastly, bare in mind how close Germany was to creating nuclear weapons,(even with all the Bombing we were doing) if they had managed to gain nuclear weapons, then they would have smashed Russia and Germany would have become the first super power................................................ but we didn't fall............................... cos we're hard as FU#K LOL!!!!
Britain wasn't the factor; the USSR was. Perhaps Barbarossa would have succeeded in reaching Moscow if the Luftwaffe hadn't ripped itself to shreds in the Battle of Britain - but there's nothing to suggest the Soviet government wouldn't have just moved east like its armaments infrastructure already had. The only real viable win condition for Germany that could reconcile with Hitler's ambitions in the East would have been to cut Britain off from her Empire, isolate her from America, secure the Middle East and then take on the Soviet Union with the help of Japan. But Hitler was never going to be that patient. It would have needed 200 u-boats at the onset of hostilities rather than 28; proper commitment to the North Africa theater; and a willingness to cooperate with "allies" that Hitler simply didn't have. If the British Isles had fallen (which was never a realistic prospect even in the lowest ebb of the war) the invasion would have come via Africa and the Middle East. But in the end the Western powers left the Soviets fighting on a single front for a very long time out of self-interest. They knew the Soviets; both by geography and political necessity; were forced to endure a toll their own people would not stomach as a willing act, and they played that card for as long as they possibly could. Germany lost the war the day it invaded Soviet soil, and pretty much nothing anyone else could have done had any ability to change that. The second front was an astounding feat of heroism and logistics, and certainly saved millions of lives and shortened the war considerably: but the ultimate outcome was already determined.
The msitake was switching to Russia while the UK was still likely to be a potential problem. I think the germany should have continued their air war as during the battle of britain the UK was running on empty. That was a battle that could have been won. They gave up, turned their attention to Russia. If they aquire air superiority, Operation sea lion would have been a goer. I think the luftwaffer with air superiority could have kept the navy away. --- Interestingly, the city hall in my city was listed in operation Sea Lion as Hitlers planned seat of government and his victory speech would be from its balcony. There were also dutch farmers arrrested, in our area, who had their farms confiscated on suspicion of working as spies for the Nazis. They had filled in the ditches, removed hedgerows to make an airfield and built big hangar type barns. It was believed these were a prep for Sea Lion. But the military took them over themselves.
Britain was in no way running on empty at all, victory had been achieved in the Battle of Britain and it was the Luftwaffe running on empty....besides the Royal Navy always owns the channel and so there was absolutely no way Germany was ever going to win....Jerry had far more success invading the Soviet Union actually.
@@richardhumphrey2685 At the moment they switched away from bombing the airfields and radar stations, the stituation was pretty desperate. Switching to bombing cities, then becoming bored with the UK, was their error. I think the fact that as many U-boats were sunk by shore based aircraft as were sunk surface vesels (despite limited rages at the time) tells you everything about air superiority against lumbering slow surface vessels. And given fighting on two fronts ultimately lead to their demise, im failing to see the success.
@@InquisitiveBaldMan But you said that 'Britain was running on empty' during the Battle of Britain which wasn't at all true, superior tactics and of course radar had given the RAF the edge and Germany never even came close to winning the air battle....Germany never got bored but rather had no choice but to give up as the Luftwaffe were slowly being wiped out in 1940, Britain though had an abundance of new aircraft coming out of the factories....And Sealion was never seriously going to succeed anyway because the Germans never had a navy capable of carrying out a sea borne invasion, especially against the most powerful navy in the world.
Germany wasn't alone either....it had the resources and manpower of it's many allies and also that of many occupied and enslaved countries too, including forced labour.
@@richardhumphrey2685 Not much in 1939. Britain had half the globe and a third of the world´s merchant fleet. At the beginning of World War II, the Royal Navy was the strongest navy in the world, with the largest number of warships built and naval bases across the globe. It had over 15 battleships and battle cruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers, 164 destroyers, and 66 submarines. Hardly "poor little Britain", is it?
@@richardhumphrey2685 - Bear in mind that 'enslaved countries' and 'forced labour', creates resentment and hatred towards the enemy. In turn that creates huge 'underground' resistance and internal troubles for the enemy... So they are not just fighting on the West, the East but right inside the 'supposed' captured or defeated countries! 🤔 No rest for the wicked. 😎
@@daseteam I never suggested it was 'poor little Britain'....Yes I'm well aware of Britain having the most powerful navy in the world and of course it got even bigger as the war went on, and the biggest empire in history and greatest merchant fleet (that's why Britain was always going to win)....But I just wanted to point out that Germany wasn't alone either.
McJibbin You should realy watch the movie the longest day 1962 as one german german general made an invasion plan for a war game later that week and explained why he would asault normandy , in short its the least probable location. as every one expect it to be some where els.
My Dad landed on Sword beach D-Day plus 1. He thankfully lived to tell the tale but never actually told it. He was badly wounded some time later near Caen. As a kid I remember asking him how he got the scar on his face, he told me it was a ricochet when they were shooting rabbits. I actually believed that for years but never found out the real story. RIP Dad.
My dad land on saw Beach. The second wave they might of passed each other. You never know brave men
Th battle for Caen was brutal ;-(
Sad fact: more french civilians were killed on DDay than allied or german soldiers. This is mostly due to the bombing operation carried out on France for DDAY, it is the largest synchronized air operation in history to this day and it was a mostly a failure. All the target on Omaha, Gold and Sword beach were missed. At Gold and Sword alone the bombings killed 400 to 500 civilians. The bombing were so inacurrate that they even almost killed the british pathfinders at merville. It is one of the largest collateral damage events in American history and Interestingly this bombing operation is also the least written about it is missing in most English war narratives.
I did the 50th Anniversary of D Day in 1994, whilst serving on HMS Fearless. We had a few of the Vets from that day onboard, most in their late 60's early 70's.,Everyone there was going to visit their mates who lay sleeping in a foreign land, who they all referred to as the real hero's. They still had a twinkle in their eyes a humbling experience, a few spoke about it, most did not. Almost 30 years on their numbers diminish each year, soon the will all be gone and the greatest generation will just history on a page. Lest We Forget, We Will Remember Them.,
Your questioning about GB having resisted the German assault is relevant. Yet, considering: Not having been invaded, it served as a base for the French Resistance (General Charles de Gaulle masterminded it from London) and for the Allies to get organised, but do not minimise the role of the continental, occupied countries's role in Resistance that was key in providing data to the Allies to prepare D-Day, and to hinder the Germans movement through sabotage actions.
France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, ... were indeed quickly overwhelmed, but had the UK not been an island and been occupied too, who knows how long they could have resisted their invader?
Respect to the hundreds of thousands (occupied) European Resistants who lost their lives and whose less spectacular actions were of paramount importance in the ultimate victory.
Also, and in all fairness, I find it sad that, because of their politics having gone awry, the (then allied) Soviets are not celebrated in that success. Had it not been for their actions on the Western front, wouldn't the war have been much harder to win? NB: "World War II losses of the Soviet Union were about 27,000,000, both civilian and military from all war-related causes, although exact figures are disputed. A figure of 20 million was considered official during the Soviet era." Source: Wikipedia
My grandfather parachuted in many major theatres of the war including D-Day. I have much respect for that generation, for what they did for us all
Respect to your great-uncle first of all.
It amazes me to this day that the actual plan wasn't leaked. Certainly in Portsmouth it was an open secret as civilians knew something big was happening. My graet-uncle was a Para and so was one of the first to land in enemy territory. He survived D-Day, was shot four times and refused to be sent back home. He was unfortunately killed on a bridge with a number of his comrades in Germany with less than a month of the war to go.
The media in those days were far more responsible. Even if someone did leak it to them they would never have published it. So the story couldn't spread beyond the local area.
If it was now the likes of Kay Burley would take great pleasure in destroying our military plans
My late father and his mates thought that their time was up, so had a last meal of a peacock and some wine. Luckily they were picked up by a boat and taken back to the UK to safety.
3:54 What always drove home the sheer size of D-Day for me was this: you know how the Germans had enormous anti-aircraft batteries lined up all along the coast to be able to flood the skies with flak? You can imagine in that situation the best tactic for aircraft was to zigzag. But on D-Day, they didn't. The bombers and then the transports carrying paras flew in predetermined straight lines over enemy territory and in predetermined, straight lines back. Basically carlanes in the sky. Making them far easier targets for the AA cannons. Why did they do that, you ask? Because there were so godawfully many of them that they had to stick to skylanes to avoid colliding with one another.
11:36 Yep. Land and weather have determined the outcome of war for as long as there has been war.
12:05 Again, yes. WWII was, more than any other, a war of scientists and engineers. People who had sudden inspirations, such as using echo to see across huge distances of air or water. People who had spent most of their lives theorizing about the mathematics of calculation or mechanics coming together to build schemes and machines that could break codes. People who had practical ideas about getting across barbed wire with tanks or stringing together pontoons to make bridges. People who had ideas about making aircraft fly faster using air compression or building a small rocket that could be fired by a soldier to take out a tank.
And of course there was this group of weirdo refugees from all over Europe who had this wild idea about taking a teacup full of this heavy metal called uranium and making it go boom -- but really, REALLY *BOOM* ...
17:30 That was one of the things. The British blockade was another. The fact that the Soviets made the Germans pay with their life's blood for every millimeter of Leningrad and Stalingrad. The fact that the Germans got themselves into a two-front war *again* . That they declared war on the US for no good reason....
18:30 Ummm... the Allied did exactly that...
I'll always be amazed at the ingenuity man is capable of when needed. As the say goes "Necessity is the mother of invention".
Have a look at Spies of War - The D-Day Spies | Full Documentary.Have you had a look at the longest day?The Longest Day is a 1962 American epic war film, shot in black and white.
War is like a game of poker
You have to attack when your opponent makes a mistake whilst being careful not to give away any valuable information and that’s all war is really about outside of the fighting and politics, it’s mostly about trying to outsmart one’s opponents
As Churchill said, in his Churchill War Diaries [following Operation Jubilee] : "Never again, shall man walk on hostile ground with his eyes closed."
This time round, the allies would be PREPARED.
Despite it being so long ago, I, as a German, regret the loss of your relative during this insane, senseless war.
This was another one of those strange circumstances where Hitler's insane narcissism played right into the hands of the Allies. Rommel had been tasked in 1943 to establish a strong defensive force in northern France. Rommel had requested far more tanks as well as troops along exactly those locations chosen by the allies. However Hitler deemed himself to be the superior tactician and strategist and denied that those tanks were needed more along the eastern front than to support a location already strongly defended, and by his own estimates being highly unlikely to be attacked anyway. Rommel warned Hitler again and again, to be rebuffed over and over. Rommel was soon relocated to other front lines, and his constant requests for upgrades to the garrisons was effectively stopped. Just from a German perspective again.
Greetz from a German in Hamburg.
Plus people forget that this was long before things like satellites , where everything had to be done manually and sometimes despite having or being given accurate information, by the time the plans are being carried out what could’ve looked like an un defended position in reality had hidden emplacements as well as concealed machine gun positions which could result in total defeat
Dieppe was a double faint. 1. To convince Hitler an invasion would fail. 2. To capture the latest Inigma code books.
Could we see a reaction to the Pearl Harbour minute by minute mini series by World War Two/ The Time Ghost Army it is a long one though
Why Normandy? As after the raid on Dieppe demonstrated capturing a significant port would be prohibitively costly, it was accepted that cross-beach landings were ineviitible, s.t. key factors ranging from accessibility of beaches to ships and landing craft, to distance from UK sea and air bases that would be essential to any invasion attempt, to strength of 'Atlantic Wall' defences and position/ability to reinforce of German forces, plus their perceptions of the likelihood of allied attack in that place to begin with.
Was Germany "doomed to fail" from the outset?
No, at least in my estimation. The outcome only became certain with Hitler's ludicrously stupid decision to declare war on the USA a few days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Until then, a purely European axis victory, or at min an eventual negotiated peace, was still feasible.
As for our winning the Battle of Britain and, of equal importance, the UK/Canadian campaign in the Atlantic stopping Germany from driving us out of the war later, then yes, it did save at least Western Europe from a very protracted period of subjection to one or another loathsome tyranny, though whether the German Nazi one or Soviet Marxist one is less certain.... and after all, it still didn't save East/Central Europe from exactly that 2nd fate, anyway.
Rommel personally interviewed another Commando who was captured surveying one of the beaches before the landing. Germany was done when they invaded the Soviet Union. The US could not have invaded France if GB had surrendered.
Interestingly I wonder had Britian fallen would Russia have steam rollered it's way through all of Europe?
@@scatton61 We could hope so, if there was no American intervention in Europe (war against Japan would be enough). Not that Stalin was a good man, but a useful devil of Hitler's own choosing.
@@williambranch4283 Tbh, Germany only became certain to lose from the point when Hitler declared war on the USA, though paradoxically, without ongoing involvement in the war by Europe's other loathsome absolutism, the USSR, the 'Anglo' powers would not have been able (or willing) to invade and liberate Western Europe... (and after all, in any case failed to liberate East/Central Europe, most of which merely ended by swapping one repugnant absolutist occupier for another for an extra 45 years +)
@@squirepraggerstope3591 It might be unbelievable, but if Hitler had played defence with Poland and didn't invade the Soviet Union either, Stalin may have eventually attacked him and most countries would have been on his side.
@@williambranch4283 Theoretically possible but very unlikely. Not least as it was precisely the Soviet regime's own opportunistic agenda of collaboration with their Nazi alter egos in order to predominantly direct Berlin's aggressive expansionism away from themselves, that led directly to the Nazi-Soviet Pact and enabled their (ultimately) joint dismemberment of Poland. Plus the additional Soviet attacks on several other east European states. After, of course, war first between Germany and France/Britain in response to Germany's initial solo attack on Poland.
So despite not anticipating the fall of France, Stalin's predictable reaction when it did ensue, was to try even more to give Gerrmany no pretext to attack him.
Had Britain been defeated around the time of the Battle of Britain then no D-Day for sure then the rest must be pure conjecture as to the following events.
There was no way Britain would’ve been defeated around that time, because it would’ve been extremely difficult for German forces to cross the channel. The Royal Navy and RAF would’ve pounded the German invaders in the channel itself even before they landed on the English coast.
@@Stand663 As you allude to, the Royal Navy was the largest and most powerful navy in the world at that time. If Hitler had attempted Operation Sea Lion, to cross the channel and invade southern England not many ships would have reached England and the chances of any significant forces getting to London would have been even poorer.
Had the Germans destroyed the radar stations and other airfields what was left of the R.A.F. [assuming the Germans had won the battle of Britain ] would not have air superiority over the channel and the R.N. could have been sitting targets[with most of its ships needed around the world anyway ] history proved that battleships were no match for air attacks as you may know Britain lost two battleships to Japanese air attacks early in the war and the fact is battleships apart from being very expensive went out of fashion because of airpower including the largest ever the Yamamoto. It is only your certain belief that i question. With German air superiority it is a stretch to see the easy victory you claim, but i make no claims of an easy German victory even if there was time to pull in all R.N.ships from around the world to fill the channel that would just mean it would be hard for German bombers to miss and there were plenty of German bombers at that time not to mention German U boats. For it to work the Germans would not cross until the time was right which is the whole point of Operation Sea Lion .
@@charlesfrancis6894 I have read that senior Nazi commanders and even Hitler himself were not at all confident of Operation Sea Lion succeeding. Thankfully the Battle of Britain was not lost and so we will never know if Germany would have successfully invaded Britain.
@@charlesfrancis6894 Germany never seriously had a navy capable of an amphibious operation and could never challenge the Royal Navy in any way even if they had defeated the RAF, which of course it didn't.
If Great Britain had fallen to Germany 1940 (assuming the Battle of Britain was lost and Germany invaded) the US would not have become involved in the war in Europe, now the question is, with GB falling, there would be no reason for the US to put pressure on the Japanese oil reserves, so there would be no reason for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour, again negating the reasons for the US to enter the war. This would mean an even bloodier conflict in the east, eventually Germany could lose, and with that there is a possibility that Russia could have taken all of europe. Imagine how that could have turned out......... for the US, No massive industrial boom, None of the Massive Factories, ship yards, arms manufacturers, and lastly, bare in mind how close Germany was to creating nuclear weapons,(even with all the Bombing we were doing) if they had managed to gain nuclear weapons, then they would have smashed Russia and Germany would have become the first super power................................................ but we didn't fall............................... cos we're hard as FU#K LOL!!!!
Britain wasn't the factor; the USSR was. Perhaps Barbarossa would have succeeded in reaching Moscow if the Luftwaffe hadn't ripped itself to shreds in the Battle of Britain - but there's nothing to suggest the Soviet government wouldn't have just moved east like its armaments infrastructure already had.
The only real viable win condition for Germany that could reconcile with Hitler's ambitions in the East would have been to cut Britain off from her Empire, isolate her from America, secure the Middle East and then take on the Soviet Union with the help of Japan.
But Hitler was never going to be that patient. It would have needed 200 u-boats at the onset of hostilities rather than 28; proper commitment to the North Africa theater; and a willingness to cooperate with "allies" that Hitler simply didn't have.
If the British Isles had fallen (which was never a realistic prospect even in the lowest ebb of the war) the invasion would have come via Africa and the Middle East. But in the end the Western powers left the Soviets fighting on a single front for a very long time out of self-interest.
They knew the Soviets; both by geography and political necessity; were forced to endure a toll their own people would not stomach as a willing act, and they played that card for as long as they possibly could.
Germany lost the war the day it invaded Soviet soil, and pretty much nothing anyone else could have done had any ability to change that. The second front was an astounding feat of heroism and logistics, and certainly saved millions of lives and shortened the war considerably: but the ultimate outcome was already determined.
It beats me how Nebula advertise on UA-cam and complain about the UA-cam algorithm.
The msitake was switching to Russia while the UK was still likely to be a potential problem. I think the germany should have continued their air war as during the battle of britain the UK was running on empty. That was a battle that could have been won. They gave up, turned their attention to Russia. If they aquire air superiority, Operation sea lion would have been a goer. I think the luftwaffer with air superiority could have kept the navy away. --- Interestingly, the city hall in my city was listed in operation Sea Lion as Hitlers planned seat of government and his victory speech would be from its balcony. There were also dutch farmers arrrested, in our area, who had their farms confiscated on suspicion of working as spies for the Nazis. They had filled in the ditches, removed hedgerows to make an airfield and built big hangar type barns. It was believed these were a prep for Sea Lion. But the military took them over themselves.
Britain was in no way running on empty at all, victory had been achieved in the Battle of Britain and it was the Luftwaffe running on empty....besides the Royal Navy always owns the channel and so there was absolutely no way Germany was ever going to win....Jerry had far more success invading the Soviet Union actually.
@@richardhumphrey2685 At the moment they switched away from bombing the airfields and radar stations, the stituation was pretty desperate. Switching to bombing cities, then becoming bored with the UK, was their error. I think the fact that as many U-boats were sunk by shore based aircraft as were sunk surface vesels (despite limited rages at the time) tells you everything about air superiority against lumbering slow surface vessels. And given fighting on two fronts ultimately lead to their demise, im failing to see the success.
@@InquisitiveBaldMan But you said that 'Britain was running on empty' during the Battle of Britain which wasn't at all true, superior tactics and of course radar had given the RAF the edge and Germany never even came close to winning the air battle....Germany never got bored but rather had no choice but to give up as the Luftwaffe were slowly being wiped out in 1940, Britain though had an abundance of new aircraft coming out of the factories....And Sealion was never seriously going to succeed anyway because the Germans never had a navy capable of carrying out a sea borne invasion, especially against the most powerful navy in the world.
And saving private Ryan
Great Britain wasn´t alone against Germany. It had the resources and manpower of the empire.
Germany wasn't alone either....it had the resources and manpower of it's many allies and also that of many occupied and enslaved countries too, including forced labour.
@@richardhumphrey2685 Not much in 1939. Britain had half the globe and a third of the world´s merchant fleet. At the beginning of World War II, the Royal Navy was the strongest navy in the world, with the largest number of warships built and naval bases across the globe. It had over 15 battleships and battle cruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers, 164 destroyers, and 66
submarines. Hardly "poor little Britain", is it?
@@richardhumphrey2685 - Bear in mind that 'enslaved countries' and 'forced labour', creates resentment and hatred towards the enemy. In turn that creates huge 'underground' resistance and internal troubles for the enemy... So they are not just fighting on the West, the East but right inside the 'supposed' captured or defeated countries! 🤔 No rest for the wicked. 😎
@@daseteam I never suggested it was 'poor little Britain'....Yes I'm well aware of Britain having the most powerful navy in the world and of course it got even bigger as the war went on, and the biggest empire in history and greatest merchant fleet (that's why Britain was always going to win)....But I just wanted to point out that Germany wasn't alone either.
Hobarts funnies
Have you seen the brand of brothers series must watch
McJibbin You should realy watch the movie the longest day 1962 as one german german general made an invasion plan for a war game later that week and explained why he would asault normandy , in short its the least probable location. as every one expect it to be some where els.
I love all our allies but the british know wars and how to win them there knowledge is the best when it comes to warfare ..
Band sorry
Both Hitler and Bonapart made the same mistake.
They took on Russia before defeating Britain splitting their forces was a huge error.
They both tried but failed.
@Richard Humphrey didn't read history books, last successful invasion was 1066.
Many tried, all failed.
"Simon Clark" is fictional. Maybe find yourself a better tv programme about Normandy sometime.