I'm a Vietnam Veteran and every single American enlisted person I ever met knows that the Canadians and Australians are the Very Best allies anyone could ever ask for. I served on a joint American-Canadian base and we loved them because they were completely trustworthy, willing to give their lives for Freedom, and were utterly loyal! Out and thank you again Canadians and Australians.
I shall pass that on to those in my family and mates who have served and some who still do. It is not that they need praise but if you watch US news or Docos you would think ANZACS did not do anything. I have spent most of life in North so we are used to having US troops as part of our everyday lives an American accent is not unusual. Now being in The Red Centre, we have many who work out at the Gap so know they enjoy being here and working/training unfortunately fighting still with our guys, they settle into life so well so many come back to live here they changed length of rotation to try and combat that didn't work.
It was much later in the war but original war diaries of combat formations show how little intelligence was known to them. Intelligence gleaned from Enigma was often very incomplete but the fragments did help.
Churchill sent my countrymen into the "soft underbelly" three times: once in Turkey, again in Greece and once more in Italy. There was nothing soft about fighting up ravines against entrenched positions.
Both my grandpas fought in Greece on the Albanian frontier with the Italians. It was still a war, then with the Germans, one was captured and tortured then killed. The other left with the British to Crete when Germans took over and fought again, then was sent to Egypt. Later after WW2 was thrown into civil war with the communists. Alive one never mentioned the war and died young in 60's drinking his pain away.
Regarding Turkey, it's the Ottoman Empire in WW1 I refer to, specifically the invasion of the Dardanelles, which Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, was responsible for.
Well entire world did some part and numbers talk biggest credit goes to Russian 20 million plus casualties excluding people from the east without documents ...
I'm South African. My first cousin once removed was KIA at Bardia near Tobruk and is buried at Halfaya Sollum Cemetery on the border of Egypt and Libya. My grandfather was captured in North Africa and spent the remainder of the war as a POW in Italy. My other first cousin once removed was KIA while flying a Mustang over Yugoslavia and is buried at Belgrade War Cemetery. One other first cousin once removed fought with the Kings Africa Rifles and survived the war. Thats 2 KIA, 2 survivals for our family alone, from South Africa. I recall how my late great aunts spoke so fondly and sadly of these young men who gave up their lives during WWII.
@7:16 "...it was the Empire that allowed Britain to punch way above their weight in the world arena. Without the Empire, Great Britain would be Little England". Zero credit to the other nations of the Empire and Commonwealth then - what are you expecting, individual name checks?
Because Churchill Unlike almost everybody else at his time, was able to know that Suez canal and Gibraltar was all what Germany needed in order to win the war.
@@casteretpollux The answer is: Oil . Who ever controlled the Mediterranean Sea back then, he actually controlled who had oil in Europe and who didn't ! And the Mediterranean unlike any other Sea has only 2 gates. Today we have pipes, and roads everywhere but at 1940 Mediterranean Sea was the only possible way.
@@casteretpollux the other reason was supply routes, things like rubber would have to detour around Africa allowing surface and U-boats to raid. OTOH the Axis could have consolidated, reached Persia and threatened the USSR oil fields
Winston Churchill, a man who never once drew his own bath or shaved his own face, must be the only world leader in history who managed an afternoon nap every single day throughout a world war! 😂😁🥰
@@badpossum440 Congratulations on your 101st birthday. When was it? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Italy_during_World_War_I I think we can agree Churchill was fading things just slightly. But no, you don't remember any battles against them in WWI.
@@wobblybobengland I think the Churchill Quote Fairy sprinkles them along with hero-victory dust, after midnight. Industrial production has nothing to do with victory in war, it's all up to the Quote Fairy.
@@badpossum440 But where outside their own country? At diverse instances they had contingents of French and British to tide them over, and just as the Austro-Hungarians - or rather the Austrians had Germans to hold them up…
@War Child This documentary wasn't made that long ago and what you just said is not a good excuse for not giving proper credit to the Canadians. What happened back in 1914-18 is one thing but those in the Modern Era making documentaries ought not to be of the same mindset.
@@rapier1954 Pretty much. In 1914 we were forced into the war with Germany because we had no international power or any in the British government concerning their foreign affairs. It was only after the Statute of Westminster in 1931 did Canada have the power to get involved into foreign wars which is why it was significant that Canada didn't join the war effort in 1939 until seven days after Britain declared war. I still think that Canada gets the short end of the stick when it comes to the Second World War histories because we're not big empires such as America or Britain. Canada took the majority of the beating in Dieppe, we were at the defeat of Hong Kong, got the furthest inland during the D-Day landings, was a major part of the invasion of Italy, would have gotten to Rome first if it wasn't for political propaganda (gotta love the US), Ortona, holding Holland and the Netherlands along with the Battle of the Scheldt which is never talked about for some reason because if it wasn't for the first Canadian Army there would be no Antwerp for the allies to get their supplies while heading farther inland towards Belgium and Germany. Not to mention the war would've been over for Britain if we weren't sending convoys into the North Atlantic through U-Boat infested waters. Just my two cents. It's just frustrating that Canada is almost never given its due and is usually only ever mentioned for the Dieppe raid. We did more than that!!
@@history_loves_anime8927 Speaking as a Canadian whose father and numerous other relatives served during WW II ( a number were killed ) it is an indication of how little the British care and take us for granted. We are seldom given an honest appraisal and very little credit. It is to our credit we stayed out of the second Iraq war which has proven to be a serious mistake and very destabilizing to the Middle East. But the British jumped into bed with the US for that one.
I read my early years where he talks about his time in the army and as a war correspondent in india ans south africa and he talks all about his escape and who helped him who was your grandpa in the book
@@cowboyjohnn I've not read the book, but my great grandfather was on the then Natal Government Railways as a conductor. We have in our possession the letter sent to my great grandfather by Lady Randolph Churchill thanking him for his assistance and was saddened by his injuries sustained. My great grandfather was William Thomas Yallup who passed away in 1906 in Dundee Natal.
When a general decides to drive his men to victory no matter the cost, to pursue and turn a defeat into a rout regardless of casualties he is considered a "butcher." When a general takes a victory, consolidates as he has no desire to loose more men that absolutely necessary, he is branded a coward or "too careful." Either way, the general cannot win.
Often the lives saved in the short term are more than lost when having to face an organized enemy another day when you didn't destroy them when their defeat could have been turned into a rout.
Assuming every battle is crucial, victory is compulsory. Minimizing losses is always important, but sometimes, sadly, secondary. We lost 500,000 but the Russians,Germans and Japanese lost millions each
@@bobandbally88 assuming every battle is critical, the general HAS to marshal all his resources, including men and material. Ever heard of a Phyric victory?
8 ver hasta ver v ver hasta hoy voy hola Heather he hablado hoy voy hola hola hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h8
Must have been awful, from what I have read unless som big offensive was going down the enemy airforce's objectives was to do strafing runs on supplylines. Unarmoured trucks loaded with petrol are really juicy targets.
@@Vollification at one time granddad drove his truck between the lines so they flew over him from both sides. He told dad sad stories but his grandchildren got the nicer stories. Like the incident with the loo paper.
This is one of the most professionally done documentaries on any subject I've ever seen. Everything about it from the narrator/host to the cinematography and directing is excellent. Now for part 2........
@@wheremyshekelsat1430 even that story never goes into the machinations of Montague Norman- Chairman of the Bank of England for 24 years- He carries more blame for WW2 than any other, cause he planned for it from 1920. Read this- written from Jewish source doc, amongst others. archive.org/stream/ConjuringHitler/ConjuringHitler_djvu.txt
@@wheremyshekelsat1430 Did you fall for that aswell? Don't admit to that on public, might aswell talk about the "facts" in Zeitgeist the movie. That had even more people fooled in the early days of modern internet.
@leonardimas1 Wait, what? Never heard of that. Was this about Bersaglieri alone or the Italian soldiers in general? I'm asking cause i still don't understand how Italy lost to Greece. You are a much bigger country
First time I've ever seen a doc done by him. Gives off a Starkey vibe but has his own style. This and the Stalin one on this channel were very entertaining.
@@therealhypehype5617 it depends. Compared to the Russians? No. But the Mediterranean saw some intense battles as well. Not to mention that the region was far away from each nation's respective homebases, making resupply quite a nightmare. The Russians may have a broken nose in Kursk and Stalingrad, but they can replenish those losses easily due to shorter supply lines to Moscow and the factories beyond the Urals. In North Africa and Greece? Not so much.
Alexander Christopher without the Russians, most of the world will be speaking German today. Even if the US and Britain and its allies had not landed in Normandy or invaded Italy, the Russians would still have crossed the Marne and captured Berlin, crush Italy and the remnants of the Wehrmacht.
@@algrand52 1945 Russia occupied Berlin that had already been battered by The Allies bombing campaign . Japan,Italy,North Africa and the liberation of France those monumental task where checked of by America & it's Allied forces. Russian General Zhokov commented That Russia would not had been able to recapture Stalingrad without The Lend Lease of Approximately $130 billion in supplies that America fought its way to Russia to deliver . Russia didn't save the world from speaking German they saved Germany from looking like Hiroshima.
Churchill took the right decision to defend the Suez Canal, irrespective of any Empire concerns Britain needed the resources going through the Canal to fight on. The decision to proceed through Sicily and Italy was, at that moment in the war, the only option : the allies were simply not ready at all for a channel crossing, it would have been an abject failure. Churchill was indeed a imperialist but above all a superb strategist.
If you can land torch in 1942, bomb German cities with fleets of 1000 bombers in 1942, and invade Sicily in 1943, then you can hit northern France before the Germans have 1-2 extra YEARS to build up defenses and men. The number of German troops in 1942 were less than half than 1944. Tanks were a fraction of 1944s. There was no Atlantic wall until after the 1942 raid on Dieppe, which went ahead after Britain refused US and Soviet calls for a major landing in France. In fact the earlier you go the less defended France is and we know from the scale of torch and Sicily that landing craft, naval vessels, logistical support, and aircraft were all in ample supply to land at least 110,000 troops in northern France as early as autumn of 1942 and at least 160,000 in summer of 1943. The unfeasibility of the operation pre 1944 is an opinion only held by the overly cautious British leaders and Eisenhower. Virtually every American commander in early 1942 wanted to go. The policy was Germany first and the Soviets were getting bled out. The fact that operation sledgehammer in 1942 would only be supported as a contingency if Germany OR the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse is further evidence that it was possible to conduct and the British were only willing to go if there was more to lose if they didn’t. Where were British possessions at risk? Africa. That’s why the Allies went to Africa. The idea that landing in France in 1942 was impossible is a myth. The British simply didn’t want to risk it.
@@davidlindsey6111 That's a hoot!! Yes, hypothetically if newly trained poorly equipped conscript soldiers could smash the Germans in 1942 and roll through Europe Germany would have less time to prepare. But reality is different, Germany had to be bled dry, preparations had to be made and an air war fought to degrade Germany's capacity. To take advantage of German over stretch fighting at the periphery, where they had extended supply lines vulnerable to attack
To be serious, the Royal Navy has fought many battles in and near the Mediterranean since 1798. So Churchill, with his love of history, may have had a natural focus on the Mediterranean, and invading southern Europe was secondary.
It’s simply a metaphor for how the Northern lands of Germany can be cut off from the Mediterranean by mountains and the sea, especially because of the Alps. And thus relatively easily lost from German access, control, and benefit.
The reason for the British defeats in North Africa was that the American representative was reporting to Washington about British strategy and tactics and these reports were intercepted by the Germans who knew exactly what the British were going to do and anticipated every move. It was not until the leak was discovered and the reports stopped going to Washington that the British started to get the upper hand. If the reports had not have ceased, the British would have suffered defeat at Allamein.
Exactly yes they cracked code from book they seized in Italy but soon as that was known everyone changed code, they did this more than once while looking for spy. Yank said he stuck with old code book as was quicker because he was used to it. Yet to see this in any American Doco and rare to see in a UK one.
Churchill knew what it would mean to loose the foothold in Africa and middle east as well as the mediteranian. I shudder to think what the world would be like had Churchill not been at the head of Great Britten during WWII
@@danam0228 I'm just glad I can watch some history show history channel use to do things like this too but now it's all bulshit like american pickers and other fake reality junk
Jason Goldstein The presenter has a little too obviously been coached in presentational "skills". A more natural style would be more bearable. And a style less obviously directed (see David Attenborough as the way to go). He's become insufferable by the end, and one reason to look forward to it.
What about the Canadians? They were the ones that lost big time in Dieppe and fought in Sicily, Italy and Normandy alongside the British with many other allies as well.
I am American, while the American sentiment of the time was very much for direct and immediate intervention in France, look at the magnitude of the growing pains felt by the American forces in both North Africa and Italy. You have disasters such as Kasserine pass and Rapido River, supply and logistical failures, imagine blowing out load all at once and trying to carve out a victory in France. It'd have been a slaughter. The Dieppe raid on a massive scale. Let's remember, it was only in early 1944 that the US forces would master Germany's own maneuver warfare tactics. At the same time, it's obvious that Churchill was trying to have the Russians and Germans bleed each other.
In fact the Americans used the old British tactics when they first arrived in North Africa, by then Britain had switched more towards the German tactics and the Americans then followed suit. What helped the British win at El Alamein was also the RAF cutting of German fuel supplies.
Your last sentence is the real reason, at least as far as the British leadership was concerned. Sure the Allies would have lost more people by driving straight into Central Europe. But that was exactly what the soviets were doing.
Adecodoo the Soviet army by the end of the war were more than a match for the Germans, they smashed the Japanese army of almost a million men in 2 weeks and were storming up the Japanese islands when the war ended
THIS DOCUMENTARY STARTS IN JUNE 1942! The north african war was already 2 years old by then!, Please start at the beginning. June 1940 when the Italians declare war on britain and france (and their reasons for doing so),then start talking about what followed on from that point.
Ayebee Mk2 It does start 1942 (the surrender of British forces 1942) but you should watch some when he states it all started in 1940 with the shipment of tanks
Wasn’t he in charge of the 6th Bde, SA div? Is that the same Smuts? If so, he was the bloke who kept his men out of the battle? Even when kiwis and brits were getting killed, he was continually ordered to move his men forward to support, but he didn’t
"Give me two Australian divisions and I will conquer the world for you." - Erwin Rommel. German Field Marshall in Command of the Afrika Korps during the Siege of Tobruk 1941
Not a great strategy with a free press. Stalingrad -- the greatest sacrifice -- came and went with a whisper in the German media. Goebbels saw to that.
If any of the countries that helped Britain ever got in a big war and needed help ie Canada, New Zealand, Aus, India, and countless others I would feel obliged to help and sign up to fight for them as their ancestors did for Britain
And it was Auchinleck who flogged Rommel in the Crusader battles as well as stopping him at Alamein. Montgomery failed to catch a beaten Rommel all the way from Alamein to Tunisia and screwed up the Market Garden adventure.
@@robertfindlay2325 It was Auchinlecks failure that resulted in the Rommel being at El Alamein. He was a brilliant General but his appointment of Cunningham and Ritchie that caused this disaster. The slow movement of the Eighth Army after El Alamein is a myth. The advance was not as fast as Monty wanted, as he was held up by his officers not obeying orders and stopping, these included Lumsden, Freyberg and Gatehouse. The most ironic part it was Gatehouse who was sacked by Montgomery after failure to follow orders and attack Rommel’s retreating troops that made the allegations that Montgomery was too cautious after El Alamein. While the truth is he disobeyed orders sitting on a hill at Mersa Matruh saying “ This is Custances battle and I’m not going to interfere”. Gatehouse’s tanks were held up by one anti tank gun and he had approx 40 tanks. Monty had advanced so far that his headquarters were ahead of his own Generals. Rommel described the Eighth Army advance as vulture like, in a letter to his wife. The 8th Army did 1,100 km in just 17 days from El Alamein to Benghazi November 4th to 20th 1942. If you can find any one to beat that let us know, maybe look at the advance rate of the 1st Army in North Africa. After El Alamein the Germans and Italians had lost about 30,000 captured, including nine German Generals, 10,000 killed and 15,000 wounded. Of Rommel’s 600 tanks, 450 were left on the battlefield and about 1000 Artillery guns.
Gidday from OZ, Claude Auchenleck was the best General the British had. He was always being told to attack without the resources by Churchill for political reasons, he then refused and started planning for the battle of Alamein. The Germans were reading all of Britians plans and communications through the "The Good Source" when Auchenleck was the commander and then Britian closed the good source and then they read all of Germany's plans and communications using "Ultra". This made Montgomery appear brilliant, which he was not.
He wasn't very good at choosing his subordinate generals. He was better than Rommel (outfought Rommel every time he took personal command) but this wasn't supposed to be his role
the americans didn’t really focus on the med. they handled the pacific against the japanese and the germans in europe. id say the americans got the worse of the two fronts
@ granskare Yes very important, especially as it gave the Americans experience in coming to grip with the Germans at a point where they were over extended and could not strike back with overwhelming force.
Another commie apologist. The Soviet Union did face 80% of the German military. By 1944 only 40% of the German military was against the Soviets. You commie apologist need to quit giving all the credit to the the USSR. It was an Allied victory not just a soviet victory.. The USA, UK (including it’s commonwealth),the Free French and Poland had soldiers, sailors and airmen that fought and died defeating the Germans as well. No country suffered worse than Poland did but that is hardly mentioned...
Wasn’t referring to you Dennis. I was talking to the guy who claims that Soviets were fighting 80 percent of German military strength. That was probably true in 1941 but not afterwards. Yes it is estimated that by the late summer/fall of 1944 only about 40 percent of German strength was pitted against the USSR. The rest was against the western allies in France and Italy and the air campaign over Germany.
Been watching similar documentaries for years, starting with TV long before the internet. Recall of of this information from others, this has a much more in-depth take and editorials that I think weren't available 50 or more years ago. I would suggest this to reachers and people who want a revised look at history.
It is hopelessly inaccurate. It does not even mention Monty's first battle against Rommel - Alem el Halfa, when Rommel outnumbered Monty. Monty outfoxed him and *won.* Monty beat Rommel in every event Rommel attacked him.
@@johnburns4017 I would think of this as " explores the reasoning behind the Second World War battles that took place in North Africa and Italy..." and not focused on Monty and his battles.
@@JohnPutnamalwayslearning From day one the Royal Navy formed a ring around the Axis positioning ships from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Arctic off Norway, blockading the international trade of the Axis. This deprived the Axis of vital human and animal food, oil, rubber, metals, and other vital resources. By 1941 the successful Royal Navy blockade had confined the Italian navy to port due to lack of oil. By the autumn of 1941 Germany's surface fleet was confined to harbour, by the British fleet and the chronic lack of fuel. A potential German invasion from the the USSR in the north into the oil rich Middle East entailed expanded British troop deployment to keep the Germans away from the oil fields, until they were defeated at Stalingrad. Throughout 1942 British Commonwealth troops were fighting, or seriously expecting to be attacked, in: ♦ French North Africa; ♦ Libya; ♦ Egypt; ♦ Cyprus; ♦ Syria: where an airborne assault was expected, with preparations to reinforce Turkey if they were attacked; ♦ Madagascar: fighting the Vichy French to prevent them from inviting the Japanese in as they had done in Indochina; ♦ Iraq; ♦ Iran: the British & Soviets invaded Iran in August 1941. Those spread-out covering troops were more in combined numbers than were facing Japan and Rommel in North Africa. Look up the German Mesopotamia plan. If the Germans did defeat the Soviets in the south of the USSR, the British were waiting to stop them getting at the magic, and vital, oil and linking up with the Japanese. *This documentary is complete garbage.*
Alam halfa was Auchinleck's plan and the massive mine field by Dorman smith.Monty was riding the allies coattails,lucky Churchill fired the wrong guy.What so called Field Marshall didn't cross the 30 Mile so called Channel for 4 FULL YEARS .It only took 16-20 days to leave? Burns because of monty your army was poorly led,and ineffective - kind of like you in life.Because of the RAF,ULTRA,RN and the Torch Landings with massive supplies even Bernard could not faff it up but he tried
This isn’t history, it’s rewriting the war in a cynical sarcastic tone. Germany lost the war because they couldn’t access oil. Africa campaign was about cutting off the mideast oil reserves. Brittain didnt “fear” taking on the nazis in francr, they simply knew it was a stupid way to go about it until they were ready for the massive snd complex attempt at crossing the english channel abd up agains deeply defended french coast. D-Day couldn’t succeed intil allies had air supremacy. It took time to achieve that, which they acccomplished with the battle of brittain and the massivr bombing of germany ehich decimatrd the wermacht.
Oil was only one reason they lost. Strategic materials were also denied them. Rubber, Aluminum, Tungsten, Copper, and more. The German economy wasn't strong either. The GNP was lower in 1939 than it was in 1914. Add to that the numbers of potential soldiers were fewer than in 1914. Finally they were led by a man who was a fool and not a good leader..
@@jpavlvs WW II in both theaters was about "strategic materials". Most wars are, in the long run, and behind the B.S. of propaganda are about economics and access to food, and energy sources. And wars are about keeping the rich and powerful, rich and powerful. If rich people over 40 did the fighting and the dying, wars would cease to exist.
The documentary is mostly right. 1) The Germans had oil in Romania (Ploesti). Although not as much as they wanted. 2) There was no oil drilling or production in North Africa at the time. Italy, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine shut the Mediterranean for Allied merchant convoys (save a few, expensive ones to Malta). Merchant ships got re-routed around Africa. 3) North Africa started with Mussolini's stupidity and later turned into UK doing something to show moral support for the USSR's decisive struggle with the Germans, while keeping the cost relatively low... Until USSR and Germany killed each other in sufficient numbers to make taking over Western Europe cheap for the US (UK was already beginning to be a US satellite during the war). Attacking Italy was the continuation of the same game, with an added benefit of being able to hit Ploesti with air raids, starting late 1943. 4) Most of Luftwaffe was bled on the Eastern front. Although not by a large margin. For me, Turkey managing to stay neutral is very interesting. Had the Germans managed to get Turkey on their side they could have damaged Soviet oil facilities in the Caucasus with air raids from Turkey which could have had some serious consequences for the USSR's war effort.
@@VersusARCH Points 3 and 4 are not true. The war in North Africa against the Italians began in 1940 and the British Commonwealth were fighting the Germans in early 1941. This predated the Eastern Front war. The vast majority of the Luftwaffe was destroyed in the west. Already by the end of 1942 only 25% of Luftwaffe fighters were on the Eastern Front.
Once again General Auchinleck's stopping of Rommel in the First battle of El Alamein is forgotten, which is typical of much writing etc., of these events. Further Auchinleck was replaced partly because he said he would not be ready for the offensive until mid September which upset Churchill. Also not mentioned is that Montgomery was not the first choice to replace Auchinleck but a man named Gott who was killed shortly after in a plane crash. It was then that Montgomery was made commander. Auchinleck was convinced Rommel would attack sometime in August and prepared plans to meet the attack which Montgomery adopted. After the war Montgomery added by a hero worshipping media spread a series of distortions and outright lies about Auchinleck's plans etc., to enhance his own reputation. I note that Montgomery put off the offensive not until mid September but until mid October!! I also note that although this documentary does note the serious British defeats in Greece and Crete it fails to mention that in early 1941 there was a excellent chance for the British to drive the Italians completely out of Libya but Churchill decided instead to waste valuable men and resources in a foolish campaign in Greece which was a complete waste of time and energy. Clearing the Italians out of Libya at this time would greatly helped Britain's strategic position but Churchill muffed it chasing after military fantasies.
Great Post,O'Connor got screwed also - the 1st Desert Fox,captures 133,000 italian prisoners,400 tanks just under 1,300 artillary pieces then Churchill sends 50,000 of O'Connor's crack troops to Greece - which screwed both fronts.O'Connor could have ended the Desert Campaign before German Jackboots ever set foot in North Afrika .Churchill had no business sticking his nose into conducting the war
Churchill was a terrific politician-war leader, but he was a terrible military strategist. Roosevelt was the wisest of the war leaders, he left military planning to the generals and admirals.
Old Churchill was a bit of a war monger did not mind getting his own people killed or anybody in the commonwealth life meant nothing to him As long as it was not his own life Was not to happy about releasing the Australian soldier so they could defend there own country against the japenis
Actually Britain was getting most pf its oil from America. The real point of the video is Churchill's commitment to Empire, but not fully developed is the poor performance of the British Army.
@@MostCommentsAreFake-ud8by Fake comments?1> Please do not puts words in my mouth. I am not doing it to you. I am saying Britain's principal source of oil in World War II was America, Most Middle Eastern oil fields were still not developed during the War. The Iraqi fields were beginning to produce oil. But most of Britain's oil was coming from America or Venezuela where America played an important role. Just look at the 'SS Ohio' that saved Malta. It did not come from the Middle East.
Commonwealth forces is code for Canadian, Australian, Indian, New Zealander, South African and anyone else not from Great Britain. Most Australians did not like Churhill and it may have been better if he had been replaced. Perhaps the Italian front could have been avoided and resources used better elsewhere.
It is interesting to note that the in excess of 400,000 axis troops that were taken prisoner during the campaign were also resources that could have been better used elsewhere.
The most significant outcome of WW2 was the demise of the British Empire and European Colonialism. Before WW2 it was acceptable for Nations to rule over other Nations. After WW2 this idea was considered an affront to Humanity. The world owes the US a debt of gratitude for establishing this principle in International Relations.
A little unknown fact: The code breakers did work tirelessly trying to figure out the German enigma machine! However, final success came when the British captured enigma code books!
The removal of an American military attache who was congratulated for the thoroughness for the reports that he radioed directly to America in a cipher that had long been read and provided to Rommel, changed more than we will ever know.
At the beginning of the "First Battle of Alamein", Rommel's DAK suffered an unexpected coup when they lost the signals intercept unit Nachrichten Fern Aufklarung Kompanie 621 (NFAK 621) which was commanded by the Hauptmann (Captain) Alfred Seebohm. This unit was overrun and captured by the 9th Australian Division in an attack initially directed against the Italian "Sabratha" Division near the coast on 10th July 1942. Rommel when told of the unit's loss was furious--he had suddenly lost his best source of intelligence. They had provided him with an unparalleled wealth of tactical intelligence. This was "quite the most important intelligence coup of the entire North African campaign". ww2live.com/en/content/world-war-2-little-known-capture-rommel-s-signals-intelligence-unit-australian-battalion
Have you noticed HE is never mentioned in American Docos used to them glossing over ANZACS since only ones been in every stupid war with US since WW11 rare mentioned in any and all others that fought but never talk about HIM.
So concerned that he kept most British infantry divisions in Britain until D-Day. Left the Commonwealth troops to do most of the fighting in north and east Africa.
Why hated over here also little issue from WW11 and refusal to allow proper defence of country and those surrounding us. He was not happy when he was ignored and govt turned a troop carrier around to defend us and those around us like PNG.
@Robert Cawley Yes thats true. Its also true that WW2 destroyed the British Empire and Soviet Union won the war in Europe. One saving grace for the British is that they were on the winning side.
@Robert Cawley Thats Great, good for you. Re a joint effort, well yes thats true, but its like saying the Italians and Germans had a joint effort. Reality is without the efforts of the Soviet Union, the British were on a hiding to nothing. They were in fact the Italians of the Allies. Also the British did not retire the empire, they lost it in their struggles against the Axis. Please dont take offence, I understand the average Brit has a need to take pride in their empire, and indeed it was a great empire, but unfortunately they have now lost it and history has turned its page. Best Wishes and God Bless the UK !
I think the presenter too often forgets that Britain is a tiny country on the worlds stage and thus fails to give it adequate credit for what it achieved.
Ultra was being decoded long before Monty got their. One of the early failures caused by Ultra was when Rommel first landed Britain was reading Enigma codes, this was when Wavell was in charge. The Army in North Africa had lost most of its troops caused by Churchill sending the troops to Greece. When Rommel started advancing the British Forces in North Africa were not reinforced because the Ultra code breakers were reading the instructions being sent to Rommel not to advance, he ignored his instructions and advanced.
Nor is the Yank who used the old code book to send back to US full details of planed offensives all that time wasted looking for a spy changing codes all the time yet this guy was such A idiot he just kept using same old code book so many were killed just because of one person. It also helped cement Rommel's Rep as he was always there waiting no matter what the battle plan was.
nice to watch a documentary that do more than just showing the explosions and attacks that we all know but have a good analysis and explanation about what happened behind curtains.
......and don't forget Britain was not exactly absent in that theatre of war either. After the humiliation of Singapore in 1942 which was Britain's worst ever defeat, victories against the Japanese at Kohima and Imphal in 1944 helped change the direction of the war in the far east and then again in 1945 at the Battle of Mandalay.
As was the Uk giving the japanese the biggest defeat on land in history. Without the Brits and commonwealth forces the would have taken India and had the oil in the middle East.
@Clem Cornpone Great commentary. I'd also add that Churchill was preoccupied with shortening the communication lines to British colonies, trying to preserve the Empire. Opening the Suez canal helped with that. Well it ultimately didn't work and Britain lost her colonies. P.S. I'm American.
My dad was one of those green troops trained to fight the Germans. Luckily he came back from Europe . He was in the 13th Royal Horse Artillery. A good choice he made.
Two reasons. #1 It was the only place the defeated disheartened British Empire could conceivably strike back and challenge Germany. #2 The Empire would have been shattered for good if Egypt was lost and India would have easily fallen. Convenient for the Brits that the Germans went there in their half-hearted way. Britain had a lot in their favor in North Africa, their navy at Gibraltar, their most solid base at Cairo and Alexandria, a tenuous enemy supply line and as events showed vast distances of empty space which in a hostile climate melted the Germans away. Rommel never won anything of consequence but just raced back and forth over empty ground heroically until he ran out of gas and went home.
please @@IanMalcolm-rw5pn , elaborate how it's different, how going with an army and establishing a colonial goverment in the PH doesn't make America a colonial power
@@HelloQro Are you an edgy teenager or did you actually give any effort to see how the US came to be in control of those places? They gained Guam, Phillipines, Puerto Rico from the Spanish after the Spanish-American war for $20 million dollars. They won the war and they literally paid money. Hawaii though was a straight up annexation though.
@@cefb8923 Right, 'cause getting the colonies from Spain after the treaty of Paris and the U.S. having to pay compensation to Spain over infrastructure in the Philippines somehow makes it not a colony ? dude, this is not the Louisianan purchase, this is the U.S. gaming ownership of the Spanish colonies and Spain being "compensated" for the infrastructure investment it made in the Philipines not for the land lost, and all of this doesn't make it so this former Spanish colonies were not American colonies after the war, unless they had been "freed" , which, they were not, or why would the PH people have to fight a war to try and free themselves from American rule after the Spanish American war ?
I didn’t know Dieppe was such a mess to the Canadians. My poor uncles. They never spoke of it. Now we’re not a real nation were told. Sacrifice in vain?
remember when historical documentaries told history and was focus on giving facts and not about getting ratings and focus on theater with little facts little history given
Securing transport lines, gaining battle experience and draining resourses from the enemy, and knocking out an axis power. Churchills strategy may have been selfserving, but also made perfect military sense. And the US was an empire with colonies, just ruled by other means and rethoric. Just think of the philipines!
@goodfella21f Used as their own cheap food and mineral supply, but not controlled in the same way. There were military operations, and help for ruthless greedy elites in latin america. Calling them colonies in the traditional sense im not sure, it seems an overstatement... But I do take the essence of your point to heart..
@goodfella21f Since the US did not put men on the ground to do the dirty work, nor conquer these areas militarlly, and that most realestate and buisnesses is owned locally, that leaves the local elite to control the system locally, your point seem to be factually wrong. Perhabs we can talk of dominance in regard to exports. Or in the case of some smaller states where compaines like United Fruit, owned and controlled large sways of lands. But not so for most of Latin America..
It was General Paulus who said Italians' make good workers but bad soldiers. They don't like loud bangs or the sight of blood. Especially their own.' A bit unfair. The Italians fought with great courage in WW1 campaigns but they definitely weren't up for this one!
The Italians were very good soldiers. They actually did very well in Russia (yeah, they were in Russia). Their failing came from not being able to fight (and logistically support) a mobile, mechanized style of warfare.
I was watching this and a siren started that sounds similar to the sirens sounded during the blitz... I forgot that siren testing happens once a month...
I think the sentence "Italy was not prepared for war" is incorrect. Italy was dysfunctional. Italy had in 1939 a strong military and a more modern fleet and Air Force than the UK, France or USA. The main issue was that Italy was dysfunctional in technical, industrial and military aspects. - While all nations that went to war in wwII increased their production of military equipment Italy not. - While the allieds and Germany increased their pace of technical deveolpment, Radar, electronic warfare, Germany Me109e -> Me 109 G6 in 1943, USA P40 -> P47, Panzer II -> Panther, 0 -> M4 Sherman, Italy did not keep pace. - Italy military failed at sea and as well on land, Greece, North Africa. Other nations as Russia, UK, USA improved their military and tactical skills and adapted it to the Germany tactics...Italy not... Having a look on the pure 1940 numbers, Divisions, ships, aircraft Italy should have driven the British out of the Mediterranian.
The Enigma machine the Poles decoded was a pre war civilian type, nowhere near as complex as the later 4 and 5 cog machine used by the German army and navy. They not only needed a whole new approach to code breaking, but also the invention of a pioneering computer in order to do it quickly enough to use the information in time. Thanks are due to the Poles, especially those who gave their lives to supply the information. They gave the British the start they needed, but the rest was down to Bletchley Park......and the crew of HMS Petard capturing U559 with its code books (at the cost of two of of their sailors).
adventus saxonum , correct but the fifth wheel was used by the navy, latter. The reason no one mentioned the Poles is because the enigma machine was still being used by some countries up to the late 60s.
@@morganlove4379 Yes, the British thought that the Soviets were using the technology in the early years of the Cold War. The whole story was kept secret until comparatively recently, including the Bletchley invention of Colossus. The silence was not an attempt at ignoring the Poles, but of keeping the whole affair secret.
True and False. The Poles did indeed develop a method to break the simpler civilian Enigma. But they were quite unable to break the improved German military one. So, they handed over what work they had completed and the British took over. The Polish method would have been quite useless for the expanded plugboard and the 4th wheel Kriegsmarine/U-boat Enigma cyptosystems. They do deserve some credit for 'proof of concept' but NO WAY did they 'break' Enigma. Interesting that the Americans broke the very tough Japanese naval HN-25 PURPLE system - but made no progress against Enigma.
Alastair Barkley False, the polls gave the information to the British about two weeks before Poland feel and destroyed all the information regarding what they did so the Germans wood not know. The so called improved enigma came later and was used by the navy, it had more wheels. The Army used the first variant. The work at Bletchley park enabled faster work.
Then why is it the scots refer to themselves as Scotsman and the Irish as Irishmen and those from Wales welshman.But the English say British?Trying to spread the guilt around perhaps
Read Rick Atkinson's "An Army At Dawn" for a great analysis of all of this. Having airbases in Italy enabled us to bomb all the way up to the Wehrmacht supply lines in Russia, thus taking some pressure off of the Soviets. And also probably helping to drop the Iron Curtain further west than it might have been...
This amusing but rather one-sided bit of revisionism should be viewed with the phrase "Errors and Omissions Excepted" aforethought. The most major omission is that the fall of Egypt would not only have been a disaster for the British Empire but for the world. Nothing would have stood in the way of the Germans taking over the Middle Eastern oilfields and, worse, advancing along the coast of the Eastern Mediterranean to meet up with their armies in the Ukraine/Asia minor. And a major error is how Reynolds talks about the Russians being a critical factor. El Alamein (Oct-Nov 42) was over and Montgomery was well on his way to Tunis 6 months before the Battle of Kursk (July-August 1943) took place, which is viewed as the turning of the tide on the Eastern front. El Alamein took place when the outcome in Russia was far from certain and took a lot of pressure off the Russians by securing their southern flank.
the only problem with your comment the germans taking over the middle east oil fields is that those oilfields were not developed as of yet noone knew how large those deposits were. at that time the u.s. and venezuela were the largest oil producers. the real danger britain faced in losing egypt would have been losing the suez canal which would have been a disaster. that was rommels real target.
What are you talking about? Slavery? Hundreds of Thousands of our own people died and fought against their own families and friends in an effort to stop slavery in America. I am pretty sure that is the ultimate way one can atone for the sins of their past. It is utterly insulting to fail to acknowledge the huge sacrifice Americans made for African Americans. We paid in blood and lives.
According to Lt. Gen. Raymond Mason, he said, *"The Suez Canal you needed to protect at all costs. The bottom line is that to collect rather a large quantity amounts of Oil, You gotta use the Sea Lanes, and it's true today as it was then."*
Churchill's first choice for replacing Auchinleck was General Gort, who died en route to Cairo. Also the presenter has forgotten to mention the strategic build up of resources undertaken by General Harold Alexander. The presenter has tended to gloss over several points
@@bigwoody4704 You are correct Woody. My apologies, it was a typo, so l will need to proof read much better in future. Gott died in a plane crash in the Egyptian desert. Alexander took over as Monty's commander and doesn't even rate a mention. This doco seemed more interested in cherry picking facts, to suit a theory, rather than presenting an overview.
no worries Shame that plane crashed. Gott supposedly survived the crash but died trying to pull others out. I admired Adml Ramsey from what I've read and he also died in a plane crash.A risky proposition back then evidently
Bruh this feels like a massive hit piece on Churchill, even when talking about British victories he downplays it as if it’s not an achievement lmao, yeah obviously the Russians took more prisoners at Stalingrad it was quite literally the biggest battle in human history smh
It's quite typical of the revisionist style of academic these days, ever since the late 50's universities became breeding grounds for the political left and liberalist, they hate our history and constantly play upon the extremes to denigrate the people and actions of the past.
Todd S I get what you’re saying but when you’re comparing the whole of North Africa to one city, the density of the troops and equipment involved were very different
Todd S I understand, what you’re saying, I find it annoying when everyone just down plays Britain’s role in the war, as well as the rest of the commonwealth, people act as if the role and sacrifice of the 400,000 commonwealth troops was a joke and treat it as such
Churchill also insisted on a role for the British Navy in the Pacific in the Second World War - presumably in an attempt to preserve the British Empire in the Pacific after the war.
There really wasn't much of a British Empire in the Pacific. Many senior RN officers viewed the BPF as part of a 'Debt of Honour' which required to be repaid.
The issue is the same revisionism continues with anglo narrators completely glossing over the important contribution Italian paratroopers and Bersaglieri made in North Africa. Only mentioning the losses and then attributing everything else to the Germans. This isn’t a complete history but selective retelling, that has gone on since the end of ww2... what a pity the full story never gets told.
Whilst the scene setting around the political and military situation in 1942 in Africa was accurate in this documentary, to describe the leadership of the British and Commonwealth Army as poor is a misrepresentation. The three biggest challenges they faced were lack of comparable equipment, distance from supply and above all, Churchill's constant meddling in affairs. The significance of the battle site of Alamein was glossed over as was any detail of the first battle which was indeed the turning point in the war. In that battle, Gen. Auchinleck not only chose the best possible field to fight it on, but also handed Rommel is first major defeat. This wasn't good enough for Churchill who was desperate for a second attack. Auchinleck would not launch that second attack until his men had been rested and refitted. September was the earliest he was prepared to go so it was ironic that the man who replaced him as Eight Army Commander, Gen. Montgomery, launched his attack (mostly using Auchinleck's plans that he took credit for himself) in October only after taking delivery of a large amount of US equipment.
I always enjoy all the different Documentaries that features Professor David Reynolds as the Moderator. He Tells it like it is and is not afraid to throw stones at some of the leaders of the Allies if he feels they fell short. Some of the pettiness of the Allied commanders demonstrated the large size of their egos, especially Patton.
Thank you for a very well produced series, maybe you have already done it but Malta is fascinating in the Mediterranean theatre. I will be looking out for others in this series.
Throughout all of this, and other historical takes on modern history he's produced for timeline, he can't help his 'Anti British'' 'Anti Empire' 'Pro Russian' 'Pro Socialist' 'Pro Globalist' sentiment. It's cringeworthy left leaning.
I came to this conclusion within the first 10 minutes but i'm used to the whole hur dur britain bad freedom land and stalin land won the war rhetoric that is constantly vomitted on the internet.
@@tonyromano6220 You don't need to be political to have an agenda, idk about the socialist part but he is definitely pro-russian, i mean there is another document from the same people saying how "stalin saved the UK", yes Stalin, the guy who didn't trust the British and ignored all our warnings.
Agreed. I came to watch a WWII documentary and heard the narrator bash Sir Winston within the first three minutes. This guy probably wasn't worthy to shine his shoes. Goodbye, I don't need to see anymore.
An empire defending its territory against an encroaching empire builder. I mean...man, I hate Naxis...but I'm no lover of the history of European imperialism, in any form, one way or another. Comme ci comme ça.
In 1942, Tobruk was not seen as strategically useful, ironically, by the British General staff (Corelli Barnett 1961). But it was a loss of face for Churchill in front of Roosevelt.. It had come to "this" because Churchill had diverted the British army from securing north Africa to trying to defend Greece, allowing the Germans to land in Tripoli in 1941. Control of the Mediterranean was essential to control the Middle East, with oil in Iran and also enabling supplies to get to the USSR via Iran. And of course to keep the Italians at bay. It should be noted that the "soldiers" under Auchinleck had "delivered" in the Crusader battles in earlier 1942 and was building up strength to continue the attack when Rommel struck first. Montgomery took the plans of his predecessor for the second Battle of Alamein and delayed the third battle until the Torch landings in Algeria. Rommel was completely out-gunned, out-tanked and was low on petrol, and had to retreat anyway(only after 12 days) because of the Anglo-American landings in Algiers. And Montgomery could never catch him during the long retreat across north Africa. Churchill was a cigar-waving strategist whose mistakes were fortunately fewer than Hitler's. Churchill's vote of no-confidence came in the 1945 election when the returning soldiers kicked him out of office.
I think my parents and some others who did the fighting might have helped a bit. Churchill said and did the right thing at the right time in regard to the UK's upper-class 5th column, as well as encouraging everyone else, but as a military strategist he was an incorrigible romantic whose desire for immediate victories for internal political purposes superseded military common sense; dashing around on polo ponies and charging around Omdurman with the cavalry was no good training for dealing with coordinated and effective Germanic warfare. Hence his sacking of Wavell; and of Auchinleck for a lesser man. Auchinleck would have been the ideal man to have worked with Eisenhower in Europe.
+Robert Findlay Indeed. Churchill had learnt nothing from the Singapore fiasco , scarcely six months before, and again insisted that Tobruk be defended "to the last man"!
I think the main problem with this sort of history is its focus on a single individual. The whole world was fighting and almost everyone involved had different aims and hopes, so why does he focus on what 'Churchill' wanted? He could not conceivably have wanted anything that went against the interests of the British ruling class, so the UK's policy in the war should really be seen from the general perspective - one of winning the war but maintaining class rule in the Empire and in GB.
Had Churchill really 'not conceivably have wanted anything that went against the interests of the British ruling class' then why did he continue the war beyond June, 1940, rather than agree to a negotiated peace, as Halifax wanted? After Pearl Harbor, the United States (or, rather, General Marshall) was arguing for a landing in France in late 1942. The British General Staff ( not merely Churchill) feared that neither the US nor the British had anything approaching the resources to make a success of this. Thus, operations in the Mediterranean, where the British already had substantial forces, were the only realistic alternatives. In view of actions such as Kasserine, it appears that there may have been something to be said for the British view
@@dovetonsturdee7033 In reality, as now, the ruling class was itself split into factions, based on sources of income. Imperialists needed to retain the empire so that revenues would continue to flow into the UK. Others, perhaps more politically motivated and unconnected with imperial exploitation, saw advantage in alliance with fascism against the USSR, which was a tempting target for European capital. However, the dominant interest in both factions was to retain the status quo ante as regards the empire, and that was what Churchill strategically pursued during the war.
England's WW2 stratergy send colonial troops with no support to impossible situations , claim colonial troops are "British" when they win , otherwise blame colonials , avoid combat at all costs .
So how did Britain suffer a higher proportion of combat losses as a function of percentage of her pre war population in BOTH World Wars than any of the Commonwealth or Imperial Nations then? In WWI for example Britain suffered 1.91 - 2.23% of her 1914 population as fatal casualties. Australia: 1.19 - 1.24% Canada: 0.81 - 0.93% India: 0.02% New Zealand: 1.52 - 1.64% Newfoundland: 0.64 - 0.79% South Africa; 0.12 - 0.16% That 1.91 - 2.23% of her pre war population comes in at somewhere between 750,000 - 890,000 dead, and on top of that around 1.6 million wounded. That evidence kind of suggests they did not in fact do as you said, the casualty figures are similar in WWII, though Canada is in second place for that war when it comes to combat casualties as a percentage of population behind Britain. Shall we look at the Canadian Corps in more detail? For a start, by 1918 a Canadian Division had 12 rifle Battalions compared to the British 9. A Candian Division had a full Brigade of Engineers, compared to a single Battalion for the British. As well as their own Artillery train the Canadian Corps was also given extra Artillery, crewed by British gunners. In other words the Canadians actually had MORE artillery support than a British Corps. The Australian Corps was the same.
Ah from a Britsh Royal reference no doubt mind leaving a link? Ya know kind of helps with the credibility. The Crown has been know to rival the Reds and the Reich when it comes to propaganda
The Netflix of History. Use code 'timeline' for 80% off bit.ly/TimelineHistory
Funny how algorithm works, a vid uploaded years ago all a sudden gets thousands of veiws in a couple days. Jackpot
Ad “podcasts” are commercial free? How about video?
Why can you only view 4 out of the 16 British vids? I'm in Britain??
He who controls the oil wins the war.
@@weekarn1🤫😄🥕🥕🫓🥕🥕🥖🥦😊🥐🥯🥬🧅😝😃🤌💬😊 GG 22 xtx22bv ewe nn
I'm a Vietnam Veteran and every single American enlisted person I ever met knows that the Canadians and Australians are the Very Best allies anyone could ever ask for. I served on a joint American-Canadian base and we loved them because they were completely trustworthy, willing to give their lives for Freedom, and were utterly loyal! Out and thank you again Canadians and Australians.
Very sweet of you to say! Thankyou from 🇨🇦
I shall pass that on to those in my family and mates who have served and some who still do. It is not that they need praise but if you watch US news or Docos you would think ANZACS did not do anything. I have spent most of life in North so we are used to having US troops as part of our everyday lives an American accent is not unusual.
Now being in The Red Centre, we have many who work out at the Gap so know they enjoy being here and working/training unfortunately fighting still with our guys, they settle into life so well so many come back to live here they changed length of rotation to try and combat that didn't work.
yes thank you Canada, for making the sandwiches
South Koreans were excellent too.
Is there a chance that their troops are called out to fight a war and our troops are in 800 bases around the world to protect business investments?
The cracking of the Enigma Code was such a huge part of the Allied victory in WW2. In many ways, a true turning point in the war.
Perhaps
Enigma was cracked by Polish code breakers in 1939. The information was passed to Britain in 1940.
Seemingly it has been said that without Enigma the war would have dragged on for a further two years.
It was much later in the war but original war diaries of combat formations show how little intelligence was known to them. Intelligence gleaned from Enigma was often very incomplete but the fragments did help.
@@MyDogmatix the Germans started to change the codes everyday and Bletchley devised a way of keeping up with them.
Churchill sent my countrymen into the "soft underbelly" three times: once in Turkey, again in Greece and once more in Italy. There was nothing soft about fighting up ravines against entrenched positions.
Both my grandpas fought in Greece on the Albanian frontier with the Italians. It was still a war, then with the Germans, one was captured and tortured then killed. The other left with the British to Crete when Germans took over and fought again, then was sent to Egypt. Later after WW2 was thrown into civil war with the communists. Alive one never mentioned the war and died young in 60's drinking his pain away.
do you speak of ww1 or ww2?
What do you speak of when you talk about Turkey?
I don't think he realises hes mixing two wars into one. He just want a rant at the Brits
Regarding Turkey, it's the Ottoman Empire in WW1 I refer to, specifically the invasion of the Dardanelles, which Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, was responsible for.
Many South Africans fought very valiantly in North Africa and Italy
Zero credit given
Well entire world did some part and numbers talk biggest credit goes to Russian 20 million plus casualties excluding people from the east without documents ...
I'm South African.
My first cousin once removed was KIA at Bardia near Tobruk and is buried at Halfaya Sollum Cemetery on the border of Egypt and Libya.
My grandfather was captured in North Africa and spent the remainder of the war as a POW in Italy.
My other first cousin once removed was KIA while flying a Mustang over Yugoslavia and is buried at Belgrade War Cemetery.
One other first cousin once removed fought with the Kings Africa Rifles and survived the war.
Thats 2 KIA, 2 survivals for our family alone, from South Africa.
I recall how my late great aunts spoke so fondly and sadly of these young men who gave up their lives during WWII.
@7:16 "...it was the Empire that allowed Britain to punch way above their weight in the world arena. Without the Empire, Great Britain would be Little England".
Zero credit to the other nations of the Empire and Commonwealth then - what are you expecting, individual name checks?
BRITISH EMPIRE! all the nations in the empire are default included.
@@otterspocket2826 -- the narrator does say 7 British divisions and 4 from the Empire.
Because Churchill Unlike almost everybody else at his time, was able to know that Suez canal and Gibraltar was all what Germany needed in order to win the war.
I mean, yeah. I don't know what this presenter was on about.
Can you elaborate on why?
To be fair The Mediterranean is stupidly important
@@casteretpollux The answer is: Oil . Who ever controlled the Mediterranean Sea back then, he actually controlled who had oil in Europe and who didn't ! And the Mediterranean unlike any other Sea has only 2 gates. Today we have pipes, and roads everywhere but at 1940 Mediterranean Sea was the only possible way.
@@casteretpollux the other reason was supply routes, things like rubber would have to detour around Africa allowing surface and U-boats to raid. OTOH the Axis could have consolidated, reached Persia and threatened the USSR oil fields
Winston Churchill, a man who never once drew his own bath or shaved his own face, must be the only world leader in history who managed an afternoon nap every single day throughout a world war! 😂😁🥰
German: We have Italy with us this time.
Churchill: That's only fair. We had them last time.
they did ? i seem to remember quite a few battles against the Italians in WW1.
@@badpossum440
Congratulations on your 101st birthday. When was it?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Italy_during_World_War_I
I think we can agree Churchill was fading things just slightly. But no, you don't remember any battles against them in WWI.
Another myth, Churchill never said it.
@@wobblybobengland
I think the Churchill Quote Fairy sprinkles them along with hero-victory dust, after midnight. Industrial production has nothing to do with victory in war, it's all up to the Quote Fairy.
@@badpossum440 But where outside their own country? At diverse instances they had contingents of French and British to tide them over,
and just as the Austro-Hungarians - or rather the Austrians had Germans to hold them up…
I'm American but once again the poor Canadians didnt get their credit.
The British seldom give us any credit.
@@rapier1954 I'm from Texas and it's on my bucket list to visit Canada. Heard nothin but good things abt north of the border.
@War Child This documentary wasn't made that long ago and what you just said is not a good excuse for not giving proper credit to the Canadians. What happened back in 1914-18 is one thing but those in the Modern Era making documentaries ought not to be of the same mindset.
@@rapier1954 Pretty much. In 1914 we were forced into the war with Germany because we had no international power or any in the British government concerning their foreign affairs. It was only after the Statute of Westminster in 1931 did Canada have the power to get involved into foreign wars which is why it was significant that Canada didn't join the war effort in 1939 until seven days after Britain declared war. I still think that Canada gets the short end of the stick when it comes to the Second World War histories because we're not big empires such as America or Britain. Canada took the majority of the beating in Dieppe, we were at the defeat of Hong Kong, got the furthest inland during the D-Day landings, was a major part of the invasion of Italy, would have gotten to Rome first if it wasn't for political propaganda (gotta love the US), Ortona, holding Holland and the Netherlands along with the Battle of the Scheldt which is never talked about for some reason because if it wasn't for the first Canadian Army there would be no Antwerp for the allies to get their supplies while heading farther inland towards Belgium and Germany. Not to mention the war would've been over for Britain if we weren't sending convoys into the North Atlantic through U-Boat infested waters.
Just my two cents. It's just frustrating that Canada is almost never given its due and is usually only ever mentioned for the Dieppe raid. We did more than that!!
@@history_loves_anime8927 Speaking as a Canadian whose father and numerous other relatives served during WW II ( a number were killed ) it is an indication of how little the British care and take us for granted. We are seldom given an honest appraisal and very little credit. It is to our credit we stayed out of the second Iraq war which has proven to be a serious mistake and very destabilizing to the Middle East. But the British jumped into bed with the US for that one.
Churchill was a War Correspondent in South Africa during the South African War of 1899-1902 and my great grandfather assisted in Churchill's escape.
And....?
Boeren werden in concentratiekampen gezet door C.
Charles Tellis
That is a good post. Can we see some more of the ecape story please?
I read my early years where he talks about his time in the army and as a war correspondent in india ans south africa and he talks all about his escape and who helped him who was your grandpa in the book
@@cowboyjohnn I've not read the book, but my great grandfather was on the then Natal Government Railways as a conductor.
We have in our possession the letter sent to my great grandfather by Lady Randolph Churchill thanking him for his assistance and was saddened by his injuries sustained. My great grandfather was William Thomas Yallup who passed away in 1906 in Dundee Natal.
When a general decides to drive his men to victory no matter the cost, to pursue and turn a defeat into a rout regardless of casualties he is considered a "butcher." When a general takes a victory, consolidates as he has no desire to loose more men that absolutely necessary, he is branded a coward or "too careful." Either way, the general cannot win.
Difficult decisions are privilege of rank
Often the lives saved in the short term are more than lost when having to face an organized enemy another day when you didn't destroy them when their defeat could have been turned into a rout.
Percival
Assuming every battle is crucial, victory is compulsory. Minimizing losses is always important, but sometimes, sadly, secondary. We lost 500,000 but the Russians,Germans and Japanese lost millions each
@@bobandbally88 assuming every battle is critical, the general HAS to marshal all his resources, including men and material. Ever heard of a Phyric victory?
And thanks to a stuck cargo ship many years later, Churchill was proven correct...
Lol haha nice!!
@@markpannier6886Containers scattered across W German roads...one way to stop Red Army
8 ver hasta ver v ver hasta hoy voy hola Heather he hablado hoy voy hola hola hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h8
@Storm PBS space-time
@@paulholland7484 go to PBS space-time
Granddad was in North Africa and Italy with the 48th tank regiment. He drove trucks for quarter masters stores
Must have been awful, from what I have read unless som big offensive was going down the enemy airforce's objectives was to do strafing runs on supplylines. Unarmoured trucks loaded with petrol are really juicy targets.
@@Vollification at one time granddad drove his truck between the lines so they flew over him from both sides. He told dad sad stories but his grandchildren got the nicer stories. Like the incident with the loo paper.
This is one of the most professionally done documentaries on any subject I've ever seen. Everything about it from the narrator/host to the cinematography and directing is excellent. Now for part 2........
@@wheremyshekelsat1430 even that story never goes into the machinations of Montague Norman- Chairman of the Bank of England for 24 years- He carries more blame for WW2 than any other, cause he planned for it from 1920. Read this- written from Jewish source doc, amongst others. archive.org/stream/ConjuringHitler/ConjuringHitler_djvu.txt
Greatest story? The story of megalomaniac who brought ruin upon his country and death to millions?
@@wheremyshekelsat1430 Did you fall for that aswell? Don't admit to that on public, might aswell talk about the "facts" in Zeitgeist the movie. That had even more people fooled in the early days of modern internet.
@leonardimas1 Wait, what? Never heard of that. Was this about Bersaglieri alone or the Italian soldiers in general? I'm asking cause i still don't understand how Italy lost to Greece. You are a much bigger country
@leonardimas1 Hey. I didn't write that to insult the Italian bros. Just wondering
Everybody was losing to Germans ;) No shame at all
Every documentary Prof. Reynolds is involved with is exceptional, he is brilliant.
First time I've ever seen a doc done by him. Gives off a Starkey vibe but has his own style. This and the Stalin one on this channel were very entertaining.
Hitler's "soft underbelly" was where some of the most savage fighting of the entire war took place.
Not true. The Russians endured the worst
@@therealhypehype5617 it depends. Compared to the Russians? No. But the Mediterranean saw some intense battles as well. Not to mention that the region was far away from each nation's respective homebases, making resupply quite a nightmare. The Russians may have a broken nose in Kursk and Stalingrad, but they can replenish those losses easily due to shorter supply lines to Moscow and the factories beyond the Urals. In North Africa and Greece? Not so much.
Alexander Christopher without the Russians, most of the world will be speaking German today. Even if the US and Britain and its allies had not landed in Normandy or invaded Italy, the Russians would still have crossed the Marne and captured Berlin, crush Italy and the remnants of the Wehrmacht.
@@algrand52 1945 Russia occupied Berlin that had already been battered by The Allies bombing campaign . Japan,Italy,North Africa and the liberation of France those monumental task where checked of by America & it's Allied forces. Russian General Zhokov commented That Russia would not had been able to recapture Stalingrad without The Lend Lease of Approximately $130 billion in supplies that America fought its way to Russia to deliver . Russia didn't save the world from speaking German they saved Germany from looking like Hiroshima.
And we were close to making that a reality... close
Churchill took the right decision to defend the Suez Canal, irrespective of any Empire concerns Britain needed the resources going through the Canal to fight on. The decision to proceed through Sicily and Italy was, at that moment in the war, the only option : the allies were simply not ready at all for a channel crossing, it would have been an abject failure. Churchill was indeed a imperialist but above all a superb strategist.
If you can land torch in 1942, bomb German cities with fleets of 1000 bombers in 1942, and invade Sicily in 1943, then you can hit northern France before the Germans have 1-2 extra YEARS to build up defenses and men. The number of German troops in 1942 were less than half than 1944. Tanks were a fraction of 1944s. There was no Atlantic wall until after the 1942 raid on Dieppe, which went ahead after Britain refused US and Soviet calls for a major landing in France. In fact the earlier you go the less defended France is and we know from the scale of torch and Sicily that landing craft, naval vessels, logistical support, and aircraft were all in ample supply to land at least 110,000 troops in northern France as early as autumn of 1942 and at least 160,000 in summer of 1943. The unfeasibility of the operation pre 1944 is an opinion only held by the overly cautious British leaders and Eisenhower. Virtually every American commander in early 1942 wanted to go. The policy was Germany first and the Soviets were getting bled out. The fact that operation sledgehammer in 1942 would only be supported as a contingency if Germany OR the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse is further evidence that it was possible to conduct and the British were only willing to go if there was more to lose if they didn’t. Where were British possessions at risk? Africa. That’s why the Allies went to Africa. The idea that landing in France in 1942 was impossible is a myth. The British simply didn’t want to risk it.
@@davidlindsey6111 That's a hoot!! Yes, hypothetically if newly trained poorly equipped conscript soldiers could smash the Germans in 1942 and roll through Europe Germany would have less time to prepare.
But reality is different, Germany had to be bled dry, preparations had to be made and an air war fought to degrade Germany's capacity.
To take advantage of German over stretch fighting at the periphery, where they had extended supply lines vulnerable to attack
Churchill wasn't the lone strategist, but he was keen on maintaining contact with the enemy, by raiding forces if necessary.
this man is able to turn the nightmare of history into a soap opera
"Winston Churchill's Soft Underbelly." Great! Now I have to get that image out of my mind.
Just poke it, just once, right in the middle.
Except it's called Hitlers soft underbelly, you clearly just like the image.
Such memories coming back to you.
To be serious, the Royal Navy has fought many battles in and near the Mediterranean since 1798. So Churchill, with his love of history, may have had a natural focus on the Mediterranean, and invading southern Europe was secondary.
It’s simply a metaphor for how the Northern lands of Germany can be cut off from the Mediterranean by mountains and the sea, especially because of the Alps. And thus relatively easily lost from German access, control, and benefit.
The reason for the British defeats in North Africa was that the American representative was reporting to Washington about British strategy and tactics and these reports were intercepted by the Germans who knew exactly what the British were going to do and anticipated every move. It was not until the leak was discovered and the reports stopped going to Washington that the British started to get the upper hand. If the reports had not have ceased, the British would have suffered defeat at Allamein.
Exactly yes they cracked code from book they seized in Italy but soon as that was known everyone changed code, they did this more than once while looking for spy. Yank said he stuck with old code book as was quicker because he was used to it. Yet to see this in any American Doco and rare to see in a UK one.
Churchill knew what it would mean to loose the foothold in Africa and middle east as well as the mediteranian.
I shudder to think what the world would be like had Churchill not been at the head of Great Britten during WWII
And that comment about sums it up. Well said.
I love these Timeline documentaries! Always so well done!
I especially like the man in this one. Have seen him in other documentary films by Xive
@@danam0228 I'm just glad I can watch some history show history channel use to do things like this too but now it's all bulshit like american pickers and other fake reality junk
danam0228 agreed, he’s a very good historian/presenter.
Jason Goldstein The presenter has a little too obviously been coached in presentational "skills". A more natural style would be more bearable. And a style less obviously directed (see David Attenborough as the way to go). He's become insufferable by the end, and one reason to look forward to it.
Except when they suck and put to much money into the terrible dramatizations. Like... come on I just want to hear about the story.
What about the Canadians? They were the ones that lost big time in Dieppe and fought in Sicily, Italy and Normandy alongside the British with many other allies as well.
what about my grandparents that fought in Bosnia against Germans, what about them ??
What about the Jamaicans?
The Canadians were sent into a slaughterhouse.
@@dadob8458 were they Canadians?
That's Britains SOP, push the commonwealth troops out in front.
I am American, while the American sentiment of the time was very much for direct and immediate intervention in France, look at the magnitude of the growing pains felt by the American forces in both North Africa and Italy. You have disasters such as Kasserine pass and Rapido River, supply and logistical failures, imagine blowing out load all at once and trying to carve out a victory in France. It'd have been a slaughter. The Dieppe raid on a massive scale. Let's remember, it was only in early 1944 that the US forces would master Germany's own maneuver warfare tactics.
At the same time, it's obvious that Churchill was trying to have the Russians and Germans bleed each other.
1942 would have been one of the worst slaughters in history if it had been tried.
Adecodoo Monty was one of the only people that had a clue about Germany's warfare in 1942
In fact the Americans used the old British tactics when they first arrived in North Africa, by then Britain had switched more towards the German tactics and the Americans then followed suit. What helped the British win at El Alamein was also the RAF cutting of German fuel supplies.
Your last sentence is the real reason, at least as far as the British leadership was concerned. Sure the Allies would have lost more people by driving straight into Central Europe. But that was exactly what the soviets were doing.
Adecodoo the Soviet army by the end of the war were more than a match for the Germans, they smashed the Japanese army of almost a million men in 2 weeks and were storming up the Japanese islands when the war ended
THIS DOCUMENTARY STARTS IN JUNE 1942! The north african war was already 2 years old by then!, Please start at the beginning. June 1940 when the Italians declare war on britain and france (and their reasons for doing so),then start talking about what followed on from that point.
Ayebee Mk2 It does start 1942 (the surrender of British forces 1942) but you should watch some when he states it all started in 1940 with the shipment of tanks
@Chris Richardson Not to the people who were killed in that war very much real
@@howardpierce8460 Not every documentary can cover specifically what you want.
@Chris Richardson of course it is professor. And let me guess you have all the answers the whole world has been waiting for....🙄
My great uncle was buried in Tripoli in October 1941 with the rest of his bomber crew - the war was old then.
It’s great to see genl Jan Smuts in some of the footage. Another giant of a man who didn’t get half the credit he deserved.
I think that depends on who you speak to! I'm South African and my father couldn't stand the man!
Did he command forces at the front in N.Africa?
Didn’t he also command British and South African forces in German South West Africa in WW1 also?
Wasn’t he in charge of the 6th Bde, SA div? Is that the same Smuts? If so, he was the bloke who kept his men out of the battle? Even when kiwis and brits were getting killed, he was continually ordered to move his men forward to support, but he didn’t
Saw Smuts in the early scenes of this episode. Churchill trusted him and they kept up a lively correspondence during WW2.
"Give me two Australian divisions and I will conquer the world for you." - Erwin Rommel. German Field Marshall in Command of the Afrika Korps during the Siege of Tobruk 1941
When does he say that
Thought he said that about the Romanians?
he did say that..... when he was in the coogee bay hotel after 10 schooners
He must have been on crack again.. although the Australians are tough as nails so he wasn't far off..
Know he thought highly of our ANZAC Troupes but had never heard that one.
Amazing how troops would be sacrificed at times to make a point amongst the leaders.
Not a great strategy with a free press.
Stalingrad -- the greatest sacrifice -- came and went with a whisper in the German media. Goebbels saw to that.
If any of the countries that helped Britain ever got in a big war and needed help ie Canada, New Zealand, Aus, India, and countless others I would feel obliged to help and sign up to fight for them as their ancestors did for Britain
25:00 He should have mentioned that Montgomery was Churchill's second choice, his first candidate was Lieutenant-General William Henry Ewart Gott
And it was Auchinleck who flogged Rommel in the Crusader battles as well as stopping him at Alamein. Montgomery failed to catch a beaten Rommel all the way from Alamein to Tunisia and screwed up the Market Garden adventure.
another plane crash that changes history...
or was it just a small part in _this_ history ?
@@robertfindlay2325 It was Auchinlecks failure that resulted in the Rommel being at El Alamein. He was a brilliant General but his appointment of Cunningham and Ritchie that caused this disaster.
The slow movement of the Eighth Army after El Alamein is a myth. The advance was not as fast as Monty wanted, as he was held up by his officers not obeying orders and stopping, these included Lumsden, Freyberg and Gatehouse. The most ironic part it was Gatehouse who was sacked by Montgomery after failure to follow orders and attack Rommel’s retreating troops that made the allegations that Montgomery was too cautious after El Alamein. While the truth is he disobeyed orders sitting on a hill at Mersa Matruh saying “ This is Custances battle and I’m not going to interfere”. Gatehouse’s tanks were held up by one anti tank gun and he had approx 40 tanks. Monty had advanced so far that his headquarters were ahead of his own Generals. Rommel described the Eighth Army advance as vulture like, in a letter to his wife. The 8th Army did 1,100 km in just 17 days from El Alamein to Benghazi November 4th to 20th 1942. If you can find any one to beat that let us know, maybe look at the advance rate of the 1st Army in North Africa. After El Alamein the Germans and Italians had lost about 30,000 captured, including nine German Generals, 10,000 killed and 15,000 wounded.
Of Rommel’s 600 tanks, 450 were left on the battlefield and about 1000 Artillery guns.
Ewart 😂
@@benwilson6145 intersting thank you
Gidday from OZ, Claude Auchenleck was the best General the British had. He was always being told to attack without the resources by Churchill for political reasons, he then refused and started planning for the battle of Alamein. The Germans were reading all of Britians plans and communications through the "The Good Source" when Auchenleck was the commander and then Britian closed the good source and then they read all of Germany's plans and communications using "Ultra". This made Montgomery appear brilliant, which he was not.
Well put.
He wasn't very good at choosing his subordinate generals. He was better than Rommel (outfought Rommel every time he took personal command) but this wasn't supposed to be his role
Auchinleck's relationship with Morshead and the other Australian generals was toxic.
Don't forget the "Rats of Tobruk". Australians stopped Rommel capturing the port.
Slowed down*
at that time, the Americans had no experience, and the African wars gave both sides a chance to work together.
the americans didn’t really focus on the med. they handled the pacific against the japanese and the germans in europe. id say the americans got the worse of the two fronts
@ granskare Yes very important, especially as it gave the Americans experience in coming to grip with the Germans at a point where they were over extended and could not strike back with overwhelming force.
Another commie apologist. The Soviet Union did face 80% of the German military. By 1944 only 40% of the German military was against the Soviets. You commie apologist need to quit giving all the credit to the the USSR. It was an Allied victory not just a soviet victory.. The USA, UK (including it’s commonwealth),the Free French and Poland had soldiers, sailors and airmen that fought and died defeating the Germans as well. No country suffered worse than Poland did but that is hardly mentioned...
@@erichonecker1010 Did you bother to read my post? I was agreeing with you.although your 40 percent 1944 figure does not sound right to me,
Wasn’t referring to you Dennis. I was talking to the guy who claims that Soviets were fighting 80 percent of German military strength. That was probably true in 1941 but not afterwards. Yes it is estimated that by the late summer/fall of 1944 only about 40 percent of German strength was pitted against the USSR. The rest was against the western allies in France and Italy and the air campaign over Germany.
Been watching similar documentaries for years, starting with TV long before the internet. Recall of of this information from others, this has a much more in-depth take and editorials that I think weren't available 50 or more years ago. I would suggest this to reachers and people who want a revised look at history.
It is hopelessly inaccurate. It does not even mention Monty's first battle against Rommel - Alem el Halfa, when Rommel outnumbered Monty. Monty outfoxed him and *won.*
Monty beat Rommel in every event Rommel attacked him.
@@johnburns4017 I would think of this as " explores the reasoning behind the Second World War battles that took place in North Africa and Italy..." and not focused on Monty and his battles.
@@JohnPutnamalwayslearning
From day one the Royal Navy formed a ring around the Axis positioning ships from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Arctic off Norway, blockading the international trade of the Axis. This deprived the Axis of vital human and animal food, oil, rubber, metals, and other vital resources. By 1941 the successful Royal Navy blockade had confined the Italian navy to port due to lack of oil. By the autumn of 1941 Germany's surface fleet was confined to harbour, by the British fleet and the chronic lack of fuel.
A potential German invasion from the the USSR in the north into the oil rich Middle East entailed expanded British troop deployment to keep the Germans away from the oil fields, until they were defeated at Stalingrad.
Throughout 1942 British Commonwealth troops were fighting, or seriously expecting to be attacked, in:
♦ French North Africa;
♦ Libya;
♦ Egypt;
♦ Cyprus;
♦ Syria: where an airborne assault was expected, with preparations to reinforce Turkey if they were attacked;
♦ Madagascar: fighting the Vichy French to prevent them from inviting the Japanese in as they had done in Indochina;
♦ Iraq;
♦ Iran: the British & Soviets invaded Iran in August 1941.
Those spread-out covering troops were more in combined numbers than were facing Japan and Rommel in North Africa.
Look up the German Mesopotamia plan. If the Germans did defeat the Soviets in the south of the USSR, the British were waiting to stop them getting at the magic, and vital, oil and linking up with the Japanese.
*This documentary is complete garbage.*
Alam halfa was Auchinleck's plan and the massive mine field by Dorman smith.Monty was riding the allies coattails,lucky Churchill fired the wrong guy.What so called Field Marshall didn't cross the 30 Mile so called Channel for 4 FULL YEARS .It only took 16-20 days to leave? Burns because of monty your army was poorly led,and ineffective - kind of like you in life.Because of the RAF,ULTRA,RN and the Torch Landings with massive supplies even Bernard could not faff it up but he tried
My father served in Africa during WW2. He was a code breaker. He was injured and spent 7 months in a French hospital.
Code breaker injured? Did he break a finger nail or get tendinitis? My condolences
This isn’t history, it’s rewriting the war in a cynical sarcastic tone.
Germany lost the war because they couldn’t access oil. Africa campaign was about cutting off the mideast oil reserves.
Brittain didnt “fear” taking on the nazis in francr, they simply knew it was a stupid way to go about it until they were ready for the massive snd complex attempt at crossing the english channel abd up agains deeply defended french coast.
D-Day couldn’t succeed intil allies had air supremacy. It took time to achieve that, which they acccomplished with the battle of brittain and the massivr bombing of germany ehich decimatrd the wermacht.
Oil was only one reason they lost. Strategic materials were also denied them. Rubber, Aluminum, Tungsten, Copper, and more. The German economy wasn't strong either. The GNP was lower in 1939 than it was in 1914. Add to that the numbers of potential soldiers were fewer than in 1914. Finally they were led by a man who was a fool and not a good leader..
@@jpavlvs WW II in both theaters was about "strategic materials". Most wars are, in the long run, and behind the B.S. of propaganda are about economics and access to food, and energy sources. And wars are about keeping the rich and powerful, rich and powerful. If rich people over 40 did the fighting and the dying, wars would cease to exist.
The documentary is mostly right.
1) The Germans had oil in Romania (Ploesti). Although not as much as they wanted.
2) There was no oil drilling or production in North Africa at the time. Italy, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine shut the Mediterranean for Allied merchant convoys (save a few, expensive ones to Malta). Merchant ships got re-routed around Africa.
3) North Africa started with Mussolini's stupidity and later turned into UK doing something to show moral support for the USSR's decisive struggle with the Germans, while keeping the cost relatively low... Until USSR and Germany killed each other in sufficient numbers to make taking over Western Europe cheap for the US (UK was already beginning to be a US satellite during the war). Attacking Italy was the continuation of the same game, with an added benefit of being able to hit Ploesti with air raids, starting late 1943.
4) Most of Luftwaffe was bled on the Eastern front. Although not by a large margin.
For me, Turkey managing to stay neutral is very interesting. Had the Germans managed to get Turkey on their side they could have damaged Soviet oil facilities in the Caucasus with air raids from Turkey which could have had some serious consequences for the USSR's war effort.
@@VersusARCH Points 3 and 4 are not true. The war in North Africa against the Italians began in 1940 and the British Commonwealth were fighting the Germans in early 1941. This predated the Eastern Front war.
The vast majority of the Luftwaffe was destroyed in the west. Already by the end of 1942 only 25% of Luftwaffe fighters were on the Eastern Front.
@@lyndoncmp5751 You misread 3) and are wrong about 4)
Once again General Auchinleck's stopping of Rommel in the First battle of El Alamein is forgotten, which is typical of much writing etc., of these events. Further Auchinleck was replaced partly because he said he would not be ready for the offensive until mid September which upset Churchill. Also not mentioned is that Montgomery was not the first choice to replace Auchinleck but a man named Gott who was killed shortly after in a plane crash. It was then that Montgomery was made commander. Auchinleck was convinced Rommel would attack sometime in August and prepared plans to meet the attack which Montgomery adopted. After the war Montgomery added by a hero worshipping media spread a series of distortions and outright lies about Auchinleck's plans etc., to enhance his own reputation. I note that Montgomery put off the offensive not until mid September but until mid October!!
I also note that although this documentary does note the serious British defeats in Greece and Crete it fails to mention that in early 1941 there was a excellent chance for the British to drive the Italians completely out of Libya but Churchill decided instead to waste valuable men and resources in a foolish campaign in Greece which was a complete waste of time and energy. Clearing the Italians out of Libya at this time would greatly helped Britain's strategic position but Churchill muffed it chasing after military fantasies.
Great Post,O'Connor got screwed also - the 1st Desert Fox,captures 133,000 italian prisoners,400 tanks just under 1,300 artillary pieces then Churchill sends 50,000 of O'Connor's crack troops to Greece - which screwed both fronts.O'Connor could have ended the Desert Campaign before German Jackboots ever set foot in North Afrika .Churchill had no business sticking his nose into conducting the war
Churchill was a terrific politician-war leader, but he was a terrible military strategist. Roosevelt was the wisest of the war leaders, he left military planning to the generals and admirals.
Brazilians also participated in the Italian Campaign in 1944-45!
wow
Churchill did give them a favorable mention in his WW2 history/memoir.
Old Churchill was a bit of a war monger did not mind getting his own people killed or anybody in the commonwealth life meant nothing to him
As long as it was not his own life
Was not to happy about releasing the Australian soldier so they could defend there own country against the japenis
The Suez Canal and oil
Save your 44 minutes.
Thank you
Okay mate :)
Actually Britain was getting most pf its oil from America. The real point of the video is Churchill's commitment to Empire, but not fully developed is the poor performance of the British Army.
@@dennisweidner288 - You are saying oil is not relevant in the middle east ? Go away ejit.
@@MostCommentsAreFake-ud8by Fake comments?1> Please do not puts words in my mouth. I am not doing it to you. I am saying Britain's principal source of oil in World War II was America, Most Middle Eastern oil fields were still not developed during the War. The Iraqi fields were beginning to produce oil. But most of Britain's oil was coming from America or Venezuela where America played an important role. Just look at the 'SS Ohio' that saved Malta. It did not come from the Middle East.
Commonwealth forces is code for Canadian, Australian, Indian, New Zealander, South African and anyone else not from Great Britain. Most Australians did not like Churhill and it may have been better if he had been replaced. Perhaps the Italian front could have been avoided and resources used better elsewhere.
It is interesting to note that the in excess of 400,000 axis troops that were taken prisoner during the campaign were also resources that could have been better used elsewhere.
The most significant outcome of WW2 was the demise of the British Empire and European Colonialism. Before WW2 it was acceptable for Nations to rule over other Nations. After WW2 this idea was considered an affront to Humanity. The world owes the US a debt of gratitude for establishing this principle in International Relations.
24:38 whenever you're in a locker room, try to act as confident as Churchill. That man knew how to make an impression.
With pick up lines or preparing for the game?
A little unknown fact: The code breakers did work tirelessly trying to figure out the German enigma machine! However, final success came when the British captured enigma code books!
Funny thing, that the Nazis never suspected a code leak (just impossible) !
Correct by just adding a wheel/gear they were free until Bletchley caught up
The removal of an American military attache who was congratulated for the thoroughness for the reports that he radioed directly to America in a cipher that had long been read and provided to Rommel, changed more than we will ever know.
At the beginning of the "First Battle of Alamein", Rommel's DAK suffered an unexpected coup when they lost the signals intercept unit Nachrichten Fern Aufklarung Kompanie 621 (NFAK 621) which was commanded by the Hauptmann (Captain) Alfred Seebohm. This unit was overrun and captured by the 9th Australian Division in an attack initially directed against the Italian "Sabratha" Division near the coast on 10th July 1942. Rommel when told of the unit's loss was furious--he had suddenly lost his best source of intelligence. They had provided him with an unparalleled wealth of tactical intelligence. This was "quite the most important intelligence coup of the entire North African campaign".
ww2live.com/en/content/world-war-2-little-known-capture-rommel-s-signals-intelligence-unit-australian-battalion
Have you noticed HE is never mentioned in American Docos used to them glossing over ANZACS since only ones been in every stupid war with US since WW11 rare mentioned in any and all others that fought but never talk about HIM.
@@sandrarobinson3266 what?
Ya WTF must have jumped into the wrong thread
So concerned that he kept most British infantry divisions in Britain until D-Day. Left the Commonwealth troops to do most of the fighting in north and east Africa.
Why hated over here also little issue from WW11 and refusal to allow proper defence of country and those surrounding us. He was not happy when he was ignored and govt turned a troop carrier around to defend us and those around us like PNG.
@@sandrarobinson3266 Umm, what are you on?
These Timeline docs are very good. I had not considered the Desert campaign from the imperial perspective. Most informative.
@Chris Richardson Explain?
The British surrendered Tobruk to 1/2 the number of German and Italians. To this day many refuse to acknowledge this. Pride comes before the fall.
@Robert Cawley Yes thats true. Its also true that WW2 destroyed the British Empire and Soviet Union won the war in Europe. One saving grace for the British is that they were on the winning side.
@Robert Cawley Thats Great, good for you. Re a joint effort, well yes thats true, but its like saying the Italians and Germans had a joint effort. Reality is without the efforts of the Soviet Union, the British were on a hiding to nothing. They were in fact the Italians of the Allies. Also the British did not retire the empire, they lost it in their struggles against the Axis. Please dont take offence, I understand the average Brit has a need to take pride in their empire, and indeed it was a great empire, but unfortunately they have now lost it and history has turned its page. Best Wishes and God Bless the UK !
I think its fair to say that Churchill knew more about soft underbellies than about the Balkans.
Churchill was the "original war criminal" he sent the Australians and New Zealanders (ANZACS) into Galipolli
@@keithgray7361 You do know that out of 187,959 allied casualties at Galipolli 120,246 were British, don't you ?
Know what I mean Thanks Titan
I think the presenter too often forgets that Britain is a tiny country on the worlds stage and thus fails to give it adequate credit for what it achieved.
Ultra was being decoded long before Monty got their. One of the early failures caused by Ultra was when Rommel first landed Britain was reading Enigma codes, this was when Wavell was in charge. The Army in North Africa had lost most of its troops caused by Churchill sending the troops to Greece. When Rommel started advancing the British Forces in North Africa were not reinforced because the Ultra code breakers were reading the instructions being sent to Rommel not to advance, he ignored his instructions and advanced.
Nor is the Yank who used the old code book to send back to US full details of planed offensives all that time wasted looking for a spy changing codes all the time yet this guy was such A idiot he just kept using same old code book so many were killed just because of one person. It also helped cement Rommel's Rep as he was always there waiting no matter what the battle plan was.
nice to watch a documentary that do more than just showing the explosions and attacks that we all know but have a good analysis and explanation about what happened behind curtains.
#WengerIN #ArtetaOUT
The debacle at Dieppe was not an accident: Churchill knowingly and intentionally sacrificed those men.
Me your proof for this stupid statement is?
dont forget that the USA was somewhat preoccupied with some goings on in the pacific.
jeffrey mcfadden Oh yes, some little skrimish or something called the entire Pacific Theater of the war? :-) lol
......and don't forget Britain was not exactly absent in that theatre of war either. After the humiliation of Singapore in 1942 which was Britain's worst ever defeat, victories against the Japanese at Kohima and Imphal in 1944 helped change the direction of the war in the far east and then again in 1945 at the Battle of Mandalay.
As was the Uk giving the japanese the biggest defeat on land in history. Without the Brits and commonwealth forces the would have taken India and had the oil in the middle East.
So were the Brits.
@Clem Cornpone Great commentary. I'd also add that Churchill was preoccupied with shortening the communication lines to British colonies, trying to preserve the Empire. Opening the Suez canal helped with that. Well it ultimately didn't work and Britain lost her colonies. P.S. I'm American.
My dad was one of those green troops trained to fight the Germans. Luckily he came back from Europe . He was in the 13th Royal Horse Artillery. A good choice he made.
Why have specialized artillery just to shell Royal horses? How were enlisted horses treated? (sarc)
@@odysseus2656 The germans pranced around on horses too
Respect to your dad
Choice??
You guys didn’t once give any sort of props to the amount of aid the Americans gave in Africa.
The British supplied Tanks, free of charge, to the Russians. No Gold or Bermuda's required in payment.
Neil well that didn’t help America or England
Two reasons.
#1 It was the only place the defeated disheartened British Empire could conceivably strike back and challenge Germany.
#2 The Empire would have been shattered for good if Egypt was lost and India would have easily fallen.
Convenient for the Brits that the Germans went there in their half-hearted way. Britain had a lot in their favor in North Africa, their navy at Gibraltar, their most solid base at Cairo and Alexandria, a tenuous enemy supply line and as events showed vast distances of empty space which in a hostile climate melted the Germans away. Rommel never won anything of consequence but just raced back and forth over empty ground heroically until he ran out of gas and went home.
"america was not a colonial power" *looks at the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, ...*
And liberia...
*Cuba and wake island*
please @@IanMalcolm-rw5pn , elaborate how it's different, how going with an army and establishing a colonial goverment in the PH doesn't make America a colonial power
@@HelloQro Are you an edgy teenager or did you actually give any effort to see how the US came to be in control of those places? They gained Guam, Phillipines, Puerto Rico from the Spanish after the Spanish-American war for $20 million dollars. They won the war and they literally paid money.
Hawaii though was a straight up annexation though.
@@cefb8923 Right, 'cause getting the colonies from Spain after the treaty of Paris and the U.S. having to pay compensation to Spain over infrastructure in the Philippines somehow makes it not a colony ? dude, this is not the Louisianan purchase, this is the U.S. gaming ownership of the Spanish colonies and Spain being "compensated" for the infrastructure investment it made in the Philipines not for the land lost, and all of this doesn't make it so this former Spanish colonies were not American colonies after the war, unless they had been "freed" , which, they were not, or why would the PH people have to fight a war to try and free themselves from American rule after the Spanish American war ?
Montgomery never won a battle without material superiority (And didn't always win then)
that was what made him britains best General. You dont always need an Alexander the Great
I didn’t know Dieppe was such a mess to the Canadians.
My poor uncles. They never spoke of it.
Now we’re not a real nation were told.
Sacrifice in vain?
Like Gallipoli campaign mate our blokes were cannon fodder
Christopher Burnham I wouldn’t say cannon fodder just terrible military planning
Read 'Dieppe at Dawn'
Don't feel bad. We like you.
You could always become Americans.
We consider Canadiens to be honorary Americans, anyway.
I'm an American that considers himself an honary Canuck having been up their 32X on vacation/fishing trips
Its was a quagmire of a campaign! Respect for those men who gave all.
remember when historical documentaries told history and was focus on giving facts and not about getting ratings and focus on theater with little facts little history given
There's still plenty of those about, but not on TV and not on this UA-cam channel
Those were the good ol days when history channel was just history documentaries now its just american pickers and pawn stars
Ah George Marshall a good Pennsylvania boy from Uniontown. Eisenhowers family also initially settled in Pennsylvania after leaving the Palatinate.
Securing transport lines, gaining battle experience and draining resourses from the enemy, and knocking out an axis power.
Churchills strategy may have been selfserving, but also made perfect military sense.
And the US was an empire with colonies, just ruled by other means and rethoric. Just think of the philipines!
@goodfella21f Used as their own cheap food and mineral supply, but not controlled in the same way. There were military operations, and help for ruthless greedy elites in latin america. Calling them colonies in the traditional sense im not sure, it seems an overstatement...
But I do take the essence of your point to heart..
@goodfella21f I would say more like client states, letting the local elite bleed the populations dry !
@goodfella21f Since the US did not put men on the ground to do the dirty work, nor conquer these areas militarlly, and that most realestate and buisnesses is owned locally, that leaves the local elite to control the system locally, your point seem to be factually wrong. Perhabs we can talk of dominance in regard to exports. Or in the case of some smaller states where compaines like United Fruit, owned and controlled large sways of lands. But not so for most of Latin America..
@goodfella21f I am well aeare of the Monroe doctrine, and that supports my point..
@Toby Allis they did in my school!
This channel kicks UA-cam quality up a few magnitudes. How can we support you?
Timeline is a great series, but this is the best written and produced episode I have seen. Brilliant!
It was General Paulus who said Italians' make good workers but bad soldiers. They don't like loud bangs or the sight of blood.
Especially their own.' A bit unfair. The Italians fought with great courage in WW1 campaigns but they definitely weren't up for
this one!
The Italians were very good soldiers. They actually did very well in Russia (yeah, they were in Russia). Their failing came from not being able to fight (and logistically support) a mobile, mechanized style of warfare.
Soft underbelly is not Italy, its Balkans...
I was watching this and a siren started that sounds similar to the sirens sounded during the blitz... I forgot that siren testing happens once a month...
I love David Reynold's ability to recount history!
isnt history only opinions?
Great presentation of historic events
Congratulations
I learned a lot from You
Very interestingly portrayed- making light the seriousness of war.
K thanks i was gonna sleep but whAtever I’ll just watch another WWII documentary
Nice one mate
"Before considering marriage, the British officer must master the art of warfare" - General bernard Montgomery
@Shalindra Singh
What?
I think the sentence "Italy was not prepared for war" is incorrect. Italy was dysfunctional.
Italy had in 1939 a strong military and a more modern fleet and Air Force than the UK, France or USA. The main issue was that Italy was dysfunctional in technical, industrial and military aspects.
- While all nations that went to war in wwII increased their production of military equipment Italy not.
- While the allieds and Germany increased their pace of technical deveolpment, Radar, electronic warfare, Germany Me109e -> Me 109 G6 in 1943, USA P40 -> P47, Panzer II -> Panther, 0 -> M4 Sherman, Italy did not keep pace.
- Italy military failed at sea and as well on land, Greece, North Africa. Other nations as Russia, UK, USA improved their military and tactical skills and adapted it to the Germany tactics...Italy not...
Having a look on the pure 1940 numbers, Divisions, ships, aircraft Italy should have driven the British out of the Mediterranian.
You forgot to mention the big British spin. The Polish had broken the enigma code and given the info to Britten before Poland fell.
The Enigma machine the Poles decoded was a pre war civilian type, nowhere near as complex as the later 4 and 5 cog machine used by the German army and navy. They not only needed a whole new approach to code breaking, but also the invention of a pioneering computer in order to do it quickly enough to use the information in time.
Thanks are due to the Poles, especially those who gave their lives to supply the information. They gave the British the start they needed, but the rest was down to Bletchley Park......and the crew of HMS Petard capturing U559 with its code books (at the cost of two of of their sailors).
adventus saxonum , correct but the fifth wheel was used by the navy, latter. The reason no one mentioned the Poles is because the enigma machine was still being used by some countries up to the late 60s.
@@morganlove4379
Yes, the British thought that the Soviets were using the technology in the early years of the Cold War. The whole story was kept secret until comparatively recently, including the Bletchley invention of Colossus. The silence was not an attempt at ignoring the Poles, but of keeping the whole affair secret.
True and False. The Poles did indeed develop a method to break the simpler civilian Enigma. But they were quite unable to break the improved German military one. So, they handed over what work they had completed and the British took over. The Polish method would have been quite useless for the expanded plugboard and the 4th wheel Kriegsmarine/U-boat Enigma cyptosystems. They do deserve some credit for 'proof of concept' but NO WAY did they 'break' Enigma.
Interesting that the Americans broke the very tough Japanese naval HN-25 PURPLE system - but made no progress against Enigma.
Alastair Barkley False, the polls gave the information to the British about two weeks before Poland feel and destroyed all the information regarding what they did so the Germans wood not know. The so called improved enigma came later and was used by the navy, it had more wheels. The Army used the first variant. The work at Bletchley park enabled faster work.
Roosevelt should have made the English get out of Ireland as well
Then why is it the scots refer to themselves as Scotsman and the Irish as Irishmen and those from Wales welshman.But the English say British?Trying to spread the guilt around perhaps
Read Rick Atkinson's "An Army At Dawn" for a great analysis of all of this. Having airbases in Italy enabled us to bomb all the way up to the Wehrmacht supply lines in Russia, thus taking some pressure off of the Soviets. And also probably helping to drop the Iron Curtain further west than it might have been...
Amy Waters Not a good thing then, the farther east the iron curtain had been the better off Europe would’ve been.
And not only that, aircraft flew from Foggia to bomb Germany, Ploesti and to support Poles.
Especially Rendezvous at Cherchel chapter
This amusing but rather one-sided bit of revisionism should be viewed with the phrase "Errors and Omissions Excepted" aforethought.
The most major omission is that the fall of Egypt would not only have been a disaster for the British Empire but for the world. Nothing would have stood in the way of the Germans taking over the Middle Eastern oilfields and, worse, advancing along the coast of the Eastern Mediterranean to meet up with their armies in the Ukraine/Asia minor.
And a major error is how Reynolds talks about the Russians being a critical factor. El Alamein (Oct-Nov 42) was over and Montgomery was well on his way to Tunis 6 months before the Battle of Kursk (July-August 1943) took place, which is viewed as the turning of the tide on the Eastern front. El Alamein took place when the outcome in Russia was far from certain and took a lot of pressure off the Russians by securing their southern flank.
the only problem with your comment the germans taking over the middle east oil fields is that those oilfields were not developed as of yet noone knew how large those deposits were. at that time the u.s. and venezuela were the largest oil producers. the real danger britain faced in losing egypt would have been losing the suez canal which would have been a disaster. that was rommels real target.
They wanted the Middle Eastern oil, but that was a tertiary concern.
be neat to see gary Oldman do a movie about Churchill in Mediterranean with a supplemental action movie about the battles like they did for Dunkirk.
And it will be just as fictitious
I always appreciate a culture that can be honest and look back on their flaws objectively. America should start doing that.🤔
What are you talking about? Slavery? Hundreds of Thousands of our own people died and fought against their own families and friends in an effort to stop slavery in America. I am pretty sure that is the ultimate way one can atone for the sins of their past. It is utterly insulting to fail to acknowledge the huge sacrifice Americans made for African Americans. We paid in blood and lives.
Modus Tollens ...And then went on to further dispossess and massacre the original inhabitants of the country. Such selective memory.
Yeah... no. There was not a whole lot of "massacre" towards Native Americans after the Civil War.
Sorry, but there is no evidence of Native Americans being massacred in that article.
No doubt, however you shouldn't cross into self hatred.
According to Lt. Gen. Raymond Mason, he said, *"The Suez Canal you needed to protect at all costs. The bottom line is that to collect rather a large quantity amounts of Oil, You gotta use the Sea Lanes, and it's true today as it was then."*
A year on from your comment and we can see what a stuck container ship can do to the world's economy..
Oil was not a significant supply from the Middle East then. USA supplied 70% of world supply.
Exactly after the war the real drilling began
CHURCHILL, on Stafford Cripps: "He has all the virtues I dislike, and none of the vices I admire."
Paulus was the new Field Marshall of the 6th Army it wasn't like he was Cheif of Staff at the OKH or anything, definitely not the "Supreme commander"
paulus' promotion from general to field marshall was a mere invitation for him to suicide.
Churchill's first choice for replacing Auchinleck was General Gort, who died en route to Cairo. Also the presenter has forgotten to mention the strategic build up of resources undertaken by General Harold Alexander. The presenter has tended to gloss over several points
That was Lt gen Wm.Gott not Gort.After Dunkirk Gort went to Gibralter and Malta
@@bigwoody4704 You are correct Woody. My apologies, it was a typo, so l will need to proof read much better in future. Gott died in a plane crash in the Egyptian desert. Alexander took over as Monty's commander and doesn't even rate a mention. This doco seemed more interested in cherry picking facts, to suit a theory, rather than presenting an overview.
no worries Shame that plane crashed. Gott supposedly survived the crash but died trying to pull others out. I admired Adml Ramsey from what I've read and he also died in a plane crash.A risky proposition back then evidently
Bruh this feels like a massive hit piece on Churchill, even when talking about British victories he downplays it as if it’s not an achievement lmao, yeah obviously the Russians took more prisoners at Stalingrad it was quite literally the biggest battle in human history smh
It's quite typical of the revisionist style of academic these days, ever since the late 50's universities became breeding grounds for the political left and liberalist, they hate our history and constantly play upon the extremes to denigrate the people and actions of the past.
Todd S I get what you’re saying but when you’re comparing the whole of North Africa to one city, the density of the troops and equipment involved were very different
Todd S I understand, what you’re saying, I find it annoying when everyone just down plays Britain’s role in the war, as well as the rest of the commonwealth, people act as if the role and sacrifice of the 400,000 commonwealth troops was a joke and treat it as such
@@atriangle1865 how could anyone downplay the 0.4 mil commonwealth war dead by comparing them to the 10 mil Soviet war dead?
klein weich What? By doing exactly that, “sOVieTs wOn tHe wAr aLl On tHeRe oWN”
Timeline is a well done historical account. Quality information and production. Thank You.
Churchill also insisted on a role for the British Navy in the Pacific in the Second World War - presumably in an attempt to preserve the British Empire in the Pacific after the war.
There really wasn't much of a British Empire in the Pacific. Many senior RN officers viewed the BPF as part of a 'Debt of Honour' which required to be repaid.
Was Disobeyed more than once here.
The issue is the same revisionism continues with anglo narrators completely glossing over the important contribution Italian paratroopers and Bersaglieri made in North Africa. Only mentioning the losses and then attributing everything else to the Germans. This isn’t a complete history but selective retelling, that has gone on since the end of ww2... what a pity the full story never gets told.
Can 't Italian television make their
own documentary ?
Whilst the scene setting around the political and military situation in 1942 in Africa was accurate in this documentary, to describe the leadership of the British and Commonwealth Army as poor is a misrepresentation. The three biggest challenges they faced were lack of comparable equipment, distance from supply and above all, Churchill's constant meddling in affairs. The significance of the battle site of Alamein was glossed over as was any detail of the first battle which was indeed the turning point in the war. In that battle, Gen. Auchinleck not only chose the best possible field to fight it on, but also handed Rommel is first major defeat. This wasn't good enough for Churchill who was desperate for a second attack. Auchinleck would not launch that second attack until his men had been rested and refitted. September was the earliest he was prepared to go so it was ironic that the man who replaced him as Eight Army Commander, Gen. Montgomery, launched his attack (mostly using Auchinleck's plans that he took credit for himself) in October only after taking delivery of a large amount of US equipment.
Darren Mills I quite agree, this is very poorly handled. Not a good documentary at all.
I always enjoy all the different Documentaries that features Professor David Reynolds as the Moderator. He Tells it like it is and is not afraid to throw stones at some of the leaders of the Allies if he feels they fell short. Some of the pettiness of the Allied commanders demonstrated the large size of their egos, especially Patton.
Thank you for a very well produced series, maybe you have already done it but Malta is fascinating in the Mediterranean theatre. I will be looking out for others in this series.
Throughout all of this, and other historical takes on modern history he's produced for timeline, he can't help his 'Anti British'' 'Anti Empire' 'Pro Russian' 'Pro Socialist' 'Pro Globalist' sentiment.
It's cringeworthy left leaning.
I came to this conclusion within the first 10 minutes but i'm used to the whole hur dur britain bad freedom land and stalin land won the war rhetoric that is constantly vomitted on the internet.
I do not remember this guy being political.
@@tonyromano6220 You don't need to be political to have an agenda, idk about the socialist part but he is definitely pro-russian, i mean there is another document from the same people saying how "stalin saved the UK", yes Stalin, the guy who didn't trust the British and ignored all our warnings.
Agreed. I came to watch a WWII documentary and heard the narrator bash Sir Winston within the first three minutes. This guy probably wasn't worthy to shine his shoes. Goodbye, I don't need to see anymore.
@@hughes9754 USSR did win the war. You don't deserve to share my name
churchill wanted to secure the british empire BEFORE liberating france. that's is why.
@Edward Ray Comidoy exactly
An empire defending its territory against an encroaching empire builder. I mean...man, I hate Naxis...but I'm no lover of the history of European imperialism, in any form, one way or another. Comme ci comme ça.
@@ThomasFromTN haha. My cajun relatives use that so so all the time
And so we should have
@@ThomasFromTN but are you a lover of ottoman, chinese or russian imperialism?
In 1942, Tobruk was not seen as strategically useful, ironically, by the British General staff (Corelli Barnett 1961). But it was a loss of face for Churchill in front of Roosevelt.. It had come to "this" because Churchill had diverted the British army from securing north Africa to trying to defend Greece, allowing the Germans to land in Tripoli in 1941. Control of the Mediterranean was essential to control the Middle East, with oil in Iran and also enabling supplies to get to the USSR via Iran. And of course to keep the Italians at bay. It should be noted that the "soldiers" under Auchinleck had "delivered" in the Crusader battles in earlier 1942 and was building up strength to continue the attack when Rommel struck first.
Montgomery took the plans of his predecessor for the second Battle of Alamein and delayed the third battle until the Torch landings in Algeria. Rommel was completely out-gunned, out-tanked and was low on petrol, and had to retreat anyway(only after 12 days) because of the Anglo-American landings in Algiers. And Montgomery could never catch him during the long retreat across north Africa.
Churchill was a cigar-waving strategist whose mistakes were fortunately fewer than Hitler's. Churchill's vote of no-confidence came in the 1945 election when the returning soldiers kicked him out of office.
Churchill is the reason we are taking in English, not German.
I think my parents and some others who did the fighting might have helped a bit. Churchill said and did the right thing at the right time in regard to the UK's upper-class 5th column, as well as encouraging everyone else, but as a military strategist he was an incorrigible romantic whose desire for immediate victories for internal political purposes superseded military common sense; dashing around on polo ponies and charging around Omdurman with the cavalry was no good training for dealing with coordinated and effective Germanic warfare. Hence his sacking of Wavell; and of Auchinleck for a lesser man. Auchinleck would have been the ideal man to have worked with Eisenhower in Europe.
@@raydematio7585
With the A-Bomb and B-29 America was never going to speak German.
+Robert Findlay Indeed. Churchill had learnt nothing from the Singapore fiasco , scarcely six months before, and again insisted that Tobruk be defended "to the last man"!
I love documentary stories like this one, they tell you the truth.
diplomacy and statesmanship seems always a balancing act on a pin point.
'paddling around the Mediterranean' - LOL
Well, it wasn’t called Ancient Rome’s lake for nothing.
I think the main problem with this sort of history is its focus on a single individual.
The whole world was fighting and almost everyone involved had different aims and hopes, so why does he focus on what 'Churchill' wanted? He could not conceivably have wanted anything that went against the interests of the British ruling class, so the UK's policy in the war should really be seen from the general perspective - one of winning the war but maintaining class rule in the Empire and in GB.
Had Churchill really 'not conceivably have wanted anything that went against the interests of the British ruling class' then why did he continue the war beyond June, 1940, rather than agree to a negotiated peace, as Halifax wanted?
After Pearl Harbor, the United States (or, rather, General Marshall) was arguing for a landing in France in late 1942. The British General Staff ( not merely Churchill) feared that neither the US nor the British had anything approaching the resources to make a success of this. Thus, operations in the Mediterranean, where the British already had substantial forces, were the only realistic alternatives.
In view of actions such as Kasserine, it appears that there may have been something to be said for the British view
@@dovetonsturdee7033
In reality, as now, the ruling class was itself split into factions, based on sources of income. Imperialists needed to retain the empire so that revenues would continue to flow into the UK. Others, perhaps more politically motivated and unconnected with imperial exploitation, saw advantage in alliance with fascism against the USSR, which was a tempting target for European capital.
However, the dominant interest in both factions was to retain the status quo ante as regards the empire, and that was what Churchill strategically pursued during the war.
England's WW2 stratergy send colonial troops with no support to impossible situations , claim colonial troops are "British" when they win , otherwise blame colonials , avoid combat at all costs .
Silly angry child
So how did Britain suffer a higher proportion of combat losses as a function of percentage of her pre war population in BOTH World Wars than any of the Commonwealth or Imperial Nations then?
In WWI for example Britain suffered 1.91 - 2.23% of her 1914 population as fatal casualties.
Australia: 1.19 - 1.24%
Canada: 0.81 - 0.93%
India: 0.02%
New Zealand: 1.52 - 1.64%
Newfoundland: 0.64 - 0.79%
South Africa; 0.12 - 0.16%
That 1.91 - 2.23% of her pre war population comes in at somewhere between 750,000 - 890,000 dead, and on top of that around 1.6 million wounded.
That evidence kind of suggests they did not in fact do as you said, the casualty figures are similar in WWII, though Canada is in second place for that war when it comes to combat casualties as a percentage of population behind Britain.
Shall we look at the Canadian Corps in more detail? For a start, by 1918 a Canadian Division had 12 rifle Battalions compared to the British 9. A Candian Division had a full Brigade of Engineers, compared to a single Battalion for the British. As well as their own Artillery train the Canadian Corps was also given extra Artillery, crewed by British gunners. In other words the Canadians actually had MORE artillery support than a British Corps. The Australian Corps was the same.
Ah from a Britsh Royal reference no doubt mind leaving a link? Ya know kind of helps with the credibility. The Crown has been know to rival the Reds and the Reich when it comes to propaganda