Those civilians were supporting a madman who was killing and enslaving millions and millions of innocent people including children. Thanks to heroes like your father the madman and his minions were stopped. All Germans knew what was happening but didnt' care.
My father was also in RAF Bomber Command during the war and after personally witnessing the devastation of once lovely old cities in Germany, like Hamburg, he came to the conclusion that it had been wrong. The only asset area bombing was to the Allied cause was that Germany had been forced to deploy millions of men, thousands of Flak cannons and fighter aircraft to defend the Reich, instead of using them on other fronts where they were desperately needed. However, the total destruction of German cities alone did not shorten the war.
The Germans were the same after WW1 . Troops should have been pushed back into Berlin . That way the idea that they were stabbed in the back could never have gotten into their heads .
The Japanese to this day, don’t accept they were beaten. The Yasukuni Shrine still celebrates the atrocious exploits of it’s armed forces in WWII. They have not accepted defeat nor do they teach the truth in their education system.
@@kenc3288 On one hand, there's nothing wrong in honoring the fallen on The Field Of Honor, because they had no choice but serve their country. On the other hand it's absolutely wrong to not acknowledge the awful crimes one's own government perpetrated in wars of aggression.
William Tecumseh Sherman's masters thesis has come a long way since the 1850s. Air Marshall Harris must have read it in detail, for he built his bombing campaign on Sherman's precepts. And to cast shade on the Encyclopedia Britanica, Erich von Ludendorf was not the architect of Total War. He was born long after it was first practiced in the state of Georgia, CSA in 1864. The horrors humans are capable of inflicting upon our fellows are beyond the depths of fiction.
Unfortunately, the dropping of the first atomic bomb was necessary. The US had planned on one million casualties to US troops if they had to invade the main islands of Japan. The Japanese could have suffered over ten million casualties or more.
No, it wasn't. We could have just blockaded them and starved them into submission. The only reason was to keep Russia out of any decision making in post war Asia, and to make them fear us.
@@NunyaDammeBiznis How many Japanese would starve to death before they surrendered? The Soviet Union declared war on Japan and any country the Soviets conquered they proceeded to occupy. How many Japanese would have survived Soviet occupation? It took Eastern Europe almost 50 years and hundreds of thousands of lives before they were able to escape Soviet bondage. Simply blockading Japan is an uninformed, illogical solution.
@@NunyaDammeBiznis Blockade was an option. But why do you think that was preferable? Far more people would have died if we had chosen your option. And none of the thousands of American and other Allied civilians and POWs in fetid Japanese camps would have survived the War. Rather than some 300,000 Japanese civilians dying from the two atomic bombs, MILLIONS of Japanese would have starved to death if we blockaded the Home Islands. And then you also have to calculate the civilian and military casualties in China, Southeast Asia, and the South Pacific if we had not ended the War in August.
@@billymule961 Absolutely correct. In addition to the MILLIONs of Japanese who would have starved, millions of other Asians in China Southeast Asia, and the South Pacific would have died in the fighting had the War continued.
The atomic bombs actually helped save Japanese and American lives. If there had been a land campaign, many more people would have died, and the Soviets would have invaded from the north. There could have also been a Soviet occupation North Japan just like there was a North Korea and a Northern Vietnam. It ended the war sooner and allowed the country to rebuild sooner.
one fire bombing raid caused 100,000 deaths, the bomb was just like using a $100 bill instead of 100 single dollars, if 2 more fire bombings would have caused more damage than the bombs ,than you cannot say it ended the war,it just happened to come at wars end,,dropping the bomb was better and cheaper than a 1 fire bombing i guess and it also scared the world well into not using it again
This is a very good documentary in that it explains in detail how and why the bombing of cities escalated during WW2. While the actual destruction of German cities did not shorten the war, the fact that Germany was forced to keep millions of men, tens of thousands of deadly Flak cannons and hundreds of fighters (55% of the Luftwaffe's fighter strength in 1943 was deployed in the West against the RAF and USAAF) at home to defend Germany. These weapons and resources were desperately needed on other fronts, yet had to be reserved to defend the Reich against the Alied bombing offensive.
It's silly to talk about "terror". When they are trying to kill you and yours, you're quite justified in hammering them into oblivion and roundly ignoring their feelings. If they don't like it, they can stop fighting. If they don't, you keep killing them until they do. All the rest is stupid hand wringing. What comes around goes around. Don't start no shit, won't _be_ no shit.
This series is one of the absolute greatest documentaries pertaining to the realities of WWII. I wonder if the series available on DVD? I hope so..it would be amazing to have in my collection.
@@dennisweidner288 maybe not ours, no, but it benefits those pulling the strings. Weapon dealers are laughing all the way to the offshore bank-accounts.
Most people are simple enough that all you need do is have enough people point and say "them kill them, we hate them" and human social traits of wanting to belong, be a part of something, group think, etc will do the rest for you. Just so we're all aware every side in every conflict always thinks they have the moral high ground. That their justifications are more just, more correct, and more virtuous. That is human nature. One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One mans dictator is another man's fearless leader. One mans massacre is another man's excusable defense. Principles are only principles when they don't change to fit your wants and desires.
A paranoid man attacked me swinging a machete. Being weak with heart disease, I realised he was intending to end my life. Therefore I painfully immobilised him. The twenty four planes that bombed the fleet at Williamsharven were Blenhaeims and their bombs failed to arm, one flew into a building where an American radio journalist was speaking live on US broardcast radio.
The troops on the ground in the Pacific who fought island by island knew that the Japanese would fight to the very last man. They treated POWs as subhuman, Logs actually. The idea of surrender was totally out of the question. But when you think about the systematic destruction of one city every other night. I think even America would have surrendered if the Japanese would have developed the bomb first and they nuked every city on the west coast no matter how strong our resolve was. I always wondered what would have happened if we had three. And dropped one 20 miles away from Tokyo on the first day and said, there's plenty more where that came from.
"we are going to set Japan ablaze" the Japanese government mindset at the time was that Japanese people are better than the other Asian people and it was their right to rule of all they defeated they soon fund out the hard way, many people don't feel any sorrow towards the destruction of Japan because they did worse to the rest of the world, it was horribly beautiful some might say 🤔
Depends on who you ask. If you ask Thai peoples they're probably feel bad about destruction of Japan because they're actually did have good relationship with Japan at least until war situation got worse. With the effect of allied bombing and allied naval campaign against Thai-Japanese merchant marine begin to felt which sour both nations relationship that led to Thailand backstabbed Japan near the end of war.
Dropping the bombs on Japan was a horrible thing but I believe it was necessary. I've seen many historical and Military experts say that the United States nuking Japan save not only American lives but also Japanese lives. the Allies were not going to accept anything but an unconditional surrender from Japan which they were refusing to do. Far more Japanese lives would have been lost when the Allies invaded Japan let alone Allied and American lives that were saved by this. And I pray nuclear weapons are never used again in war.
It's like Netflix for history... Sign up to History Hit the world's best history documentary service with code 'WARSTORIES' for a huge discount! bit.ly/3kXAyfP
Pity Bomber Command was not told by the Americans, where they had built the three factories for manufacturing the vital fuel additive Tetra Ethel Lead. Wiping those facilities out would have grounded Germany’s entire airforce almost overnight. The Germans could have added ethanol to keep petrol driven ground vehicles going, but not the airforce. Even so, the ethanol would have quickly ruined any latex rubber engine components very quickly. Hitler's war machine would have been crippled, and the massive allied casualties from broad spectrum strategic bombing, would have been unnecessary.
@@MrDaiseymay Thank you for the information. isn't it but justice, that the innovators of aerial bombing in one war howl their complaints when the compliment was returned to them in the following war they themselves started again ! ?
@@Charlesputnam-bn9zy The VERY FIRST civilian terror bombing. Carried out by Germany on the 16th August 1914, when zeppelins bombed Liege in Belgium. They just LOVE dropping the stuff on others, but can't take it when it comes to visit them !!!!
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Sir Arthur Harris said of them that they began the war by bombing other people & assuming that the compliment had no right to be returned.
@ babaloo42 Four engine bombers were a way of destroying the ability of Germany and Japan to wage war and a major Axus war goal was to murder civilians in the millions..
one fire bombing night in Tokyo caused 100,000 deaths, Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a total of about 140,000 deaths . so 2 more fire bombing raids would have done more destruction,, in context the bomb just happened to come at wars end and wasn't extra horrible in comparison to other bombings other than it being just a single bomb..
yet u still get people saying that "The USA are hypocrites for not wanting countries to have nuke weapons when they are the only ones who have used them " the bombs saved millions of Japanese and American lives to end a war they didn't start or want. It was either that or invade Japan because Russia had declared war on Japan and they would have been turned into slaves not to mention the millions of Japanese men, women and children civilians who would have been slaughtered defending the homeland with sticks rocks and shovels like they had been ordered to ( they didn't have much left to fight with )
If someone said “you can end the war tomorrow but it will cost 100,000 lives” most people would take that considering something live on average 6000-9000 people died daily during WW2, if the war went in for 2 weeks longer at that rate then it would exceed Nagasaki’s death toll
True, but we can only apply this logic in hindsight; fortunately the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war. There was no guarantee that they would. We may have had the cost of 100,000 dead in Nagasaki and an enemy all the more determined to fight on. I believe a better solution might have been to demonstrate the immense power of these new weapons where they could do no harm to life. I think that if they could have witnessed what they may face a rational enemy might have surrendered. But then, the Japanese were not exactly rational. . . .
The British & French declared war on Germany, not the other way around. That whirlwind statement is like when a thief cries "police brutality" when an officer shoots him in the act of looting a store.
@@larkinblake1327 Then why didn't the French and British declare war on the USSR if they were "guaranteeing" Polish independence? The truth is an inconvenient one for you, but it remains that the British and French selectively enforced their decree against one invader of Poland but not the other. They then proceeded to invade Germany in the area of the Saar. It was not Germany that declared on France/Britain, neither directly nor by proxy - that was the decision of the French and British. Meanwhile, amidst all of this, the British continue to occupy Ireland and the French continue to occupy Vietnam. One set of rules for Germany, another set of rules for ourselves. Apologists for allied war crimes like yourself are some of the worst historical revisionists outside the local communist party.
No German soldiers or military equipment was placed into Monte Casino before its bombing, as confirmed by the archabbot of Monte Casino and the Holy See. After bombing and destruction of the abbey, the ruins were occupied by the Germans and it became a difficult stronghold to beat for the allies.
It should did backfire for the Germans cause they bombed plenty of civilians in Russia, UK, France, Poland..... and at the end they got their behinds bombed the same way. What goes around comes around.
It was morally wrong yet justified, the reasons being that Germany engaged in it first to benefit their war effort..& when taking into consideration the fact that it was not a war crime at the time, the allies justifiably returned the favor..👏
What I will never understand: Pearl harbour, a military base (if not a legime military target, what is a legitime target?) on a stolen line of islands far away from the own home country attacked --> no question, an agressive act to be answered. US response: Applying area bombing directive on cities (!) with killing hundrets of thousands of civilians and destruction of uncoutable irreplaceable cultureal goods and architecture by topping it with the only used atomic bombs in mankind history, also on CITIES!! How can the US-Americans till today look into the mirror and say I´m a proud American?!?!
There were seven American pilots in the Battle of Britain. SEVEN. I'll venture that NONE of those pictured 12:27 were American. There's barely a mention of the hundreds of Poles, Kiwis, Canucks, or the dozens from several other countries. You mislead, and it's not the first time.
@@davidwilkinson8136 The Irish Caths DO have a valid point, one that is actually much older than Churchill or Montgomery. One of the worst atrocities occurred just after the potato harvest failed.
@@yakkityyak9336 My point is to remember history forgive but never forget or would you prefer to pull down statues and start burning books?. Fed up with bigots bringing up terrible mistakes made hundreds of years ago. Life is to short, the alternative is for Britain to invade Italy as punishment for one Julius Caesar invading our country and building nice straight roads. One last thing if the Irish Welsh and Scottish hate England so much what are they doing living and working in said country?
Some cold historical facts reveal that - 1) out of Britain and Germany it was the British who bombed German civilian targets first and not the other way round; 2) the Germans switched to bombing London in early September 1940 as a reprisal only after their cities were bombed for 4 months; 3) some 25 times more tonnage of bombs were dropped by the Allies on Germany during the war than the Germans dropped on the UK; 4) some 1 to 1.2 million German civilians were killed due to air raids as opposed to 55,000 British; 5) in one firebombing of Dresden alone more people died than during the entire 5 years of the Blitz (it's safe to discount the 'official' Dresden death tally of 35,000 as being grotesquely underestimated); 6) to this day the actions of the British are seen as heroic while those of the Luftwaffe are seen as evil. History is indeed written by the victors.
Which "cold historical facts"? Where is your evidence for points !) and 2)? Please foreward documentation on which squadrons were involved, which kind of bombers, bomb load, intended targets and casualties. 3)anf 4) "They have sown the wind. Now they shall harvest the whirl wind"..... 5) Estimates are from 25.000-35.000, even in German sources, like "Tagesschau" and ZDF; up towards 250.000, due to undocumented refugees from the east, depending on sources. The higher number comes from NS sources, to exaggerate the numbers. 6) Very few people today regard the bombing of Dresden as heroic. Most, including myself, mean it was an unnecesary act, made at a point when Germany was almost knocked out. But again, please show documentation on the opposite.... As we know, WWII was started when Germany invaded Poland on 1st of September 1.939, by bombing both military and civilian targets, like the town of Wielun. No military targets, but a hospital with red cross markings, was bombed. Time was 0440, five minutes before "Schleswig Holstein" started to bombard Westerplatte. 29 Stukas from StGsw 76 and StGsw 2 "Immelmann". 700-2.000 people were killed. Numbers are uncertain, due to difficullty to identify the victims. Source: Sven Felix Kellenhoff "Das Kriegsverbrechen des Wielun" Die Welt 2. september 2.009. In other words, this was the first warcrime of WWII, and it also set the stakes of war to come. So again, Germany started it, and got it back, with interst. Britain and France declared war on 3rd of September, when Germany refused to withdraw from Poland....
To clarify, the raid on Berlin was in retaliation for a lost Luftwaffe bomber unknowingly dropping his load on London. German civilian deaths due to allied bombing were 350,000-500,000 vs 45,000 British losses. A guy called Adolf started it all, Goring's Luftwaffe hit the defenseless evacuating Brits and French during the Dunkirk evacuation, levelled Warsaw, Rotterdam having trained in Guernika back in 1937. So yes, your 6th point is quite accurate.
Many polish towns and cities were bombed by the germans and also rotterdam. History is written by the winners?? you have your say here, you have freedom of speech! a typical trite parrot remark.
I spoke with a German woman once who lived as a teenager in Hamburg. She said that the bombing was good because they used the rubble to fill in the canals and that stopped the rats.
43:04 ok dude, yes we could have avoided an atomic weapon. It was widely believed that the Japanese would NOT stop fighting regardless of who was winning. For the US to obtain victory the only other option would have been a boots-on-the-ground invasion. Had that happened the number of deaths, on both sides, could have been in the millions. I’m not saying it was “right”, but I do think it was the only viable option left on the table. That being said, I do wish the bomb never needed to be used, but unless you’ve got a better suggestion and a time machine - not much to be done.
I also think it’s easy to forget just how horrible American POW’s were treated in the pacific. It was awful. It was probably very close to what the Jewish people faced in concentration camps.
@@Andy_Babb Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books". Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. *Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...* By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) *technically known* as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. It was a policy. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs) *Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".* There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia." So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900). *Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.* Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I." EPISODE I: From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one." There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was *"standing down and standing by"* to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend. 1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail... EPISODE V: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets. *No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no Empire.* Now, fill in the blanks. EPISODES II THRU IV... Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®) Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere. After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable *alpha bark* to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games. *All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries* Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
What the allies did was indeed nefarious but compared to the Nazis, they aren't judged as harshly. Either way, if it wasn't necessary to win the war then it's just done out of malevolence.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books". Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. *Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...* By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) *technically known* as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. It was a policy. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs) *Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".* There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia." So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900). *Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.* Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I." EPISODE I: From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one." There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was *"standing down and standing by"* to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend. 1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail... EPISODE V: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets. *No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no Empire.* Now, fill in the blanks. EPISODES II THRU IV... Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®) Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere. After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable *alpha bark* to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games. *All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries* Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
Absolute foolish statements about the bomb. To suggest there was no military justification. This guy would be the last one to suit up for the invasion japan. Falsely suggesting a zero sum game, that no bomb = no deaths is ridiculous. Typical propaganda
@@PaulSmith-lj2gc Why are you asking this to me? I am against all types of terrorism. Don't forget how many civilians killed by USA Air Force bombings and UCAV attacks.
You people are ridiculous. Let us never forget who started the total war including civilians and that was Germany. It was all fine when it was being done to the Russians or the Brits or Poland but im suppose to feel bad for the German civilians when its done to them. No I don't think so. Its called Karma where I come from. You reep what you soe
@@user-gh1vc9kb4e Thanks for letting us know... if we ever see you being attacked and stabbed by an assailant, we'll just let him get on with it then, as you prefer.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 The Russians "attacked and stabbed" both the Finns and the Poles, but the British and French sat idly by and did not intervene. Don't give me any of that moral high-horse bullscheiße. It is a fact that the British and French were aggressors on the Western Front.
@@user-gh1vc9kb4e Germany was the clear and present danger... the predatory psychopath to the USSR's lumbering opportunist. What exactly could the British/French do to attack the USSR anyhow? As it turned out there was not much an unmobilised UK could do to help Poland never mind attack USSR. P.S British / French "Aggresors"? Remind me who attacked who on the western front?
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Okay so, first you imply that I would not want someone to help me if I were mugged, but now you are throwing up your hands and saying "oh well, what were the British/French to do about the USSR invading Poland and Finland?" Alas, your cognitive dissonance is beginning to manifest. Britain and France declared war on Germany. The Saar Offensive was an act of French aggression against Germany. You're not too keen on history, I take it...
War stories, the best sleep aid I've found since I had cable and used the history Channel. Thank you.
aye. The civil war series by Ken burns puts me out. The narration is soothing.
@@minnowpd mine is the Vietnam one, also by Ken Burns 🔥😴
I like these military documentaries. This kind of history should never be forgotten.
Military history is big on UA-cam. Plenty of channels to watch.
@@de_petal ww2 in real time
@@de_petal the great war
@@de_petal military history visualized
@@de_petal TIK
I have watched many documentaries about WW2 and this one did the best job of discussing the utter horror of war.
I'll take your word for it since at least a third are blocked from us here in England, ironic or what! *🙏
Those civilians were supporting a madman who was killing and enslaving millions and millions of innocent people including children. Thanks to heroes like your father the madman and his minions were stopped. All Germans knew what was happening but didnt' care.
My father was a bomber pilot, 9th Airforce, in WW2. He had reservations about killing civilians. I believe it haunted him a bit.
Remember history is written by the Victor what they write is history true or not.
There were good men like your grandfather in ww 2 God bless him
He was part of the Greatest Generation, and we are free because of him and his mates.
My father was also in RAF Bomber Command during the war and after personally witnessing the devastation of once lovely old cities in Germany, like Hamburg, he came to the conclusion that it had been wrong. The only asset area bombing was to the Allied cause was that Germany had been forced to deploy millions of men, thousands of Flak cannons and fighter aircraft to defend the Reich, instead of using them on other fronts where they were desperately needed. However, the total destruction of German cities alone did not shorten the war.
Thank and God bless him for his service, fighting to keep the world from tyranny.
"The Japanese have to be beaten until they KNOW they are beaten." That's almost a compliment but true.
Same thing with HAMAS in Gaza!
And, Hezbollah in Lebanon!
The Germans were the same after WW1 . Troops should have been pushed back into Berlin . That way the idea that they were stabbed in the back could never have gotten into their heads .
The Japanese to this day, don’t accept they were beaten. The Yasukuni Shrine still celebrates the atrocious exploits of it’s armed forces in WWII. They have not accepted defeat nor do they teach the truth in their education system.
@@pooddescrewch8718
That's what happens when you don't apply
vae victis to vanquished aggressors.
@@kenc3288
On one hand, there's nothing wrong in honoring the fallen on The Field Of Honor, because they had no choice but serve their country.
On the other hand it's absolutely wrong to not acknowledge the awful crimes one's own government perpetrated in wars of aggression.
William Tecumseh Sherman's masters thesis has come a long way since the 1850s. Air Marshall Harris must have read it in detail, for he built his bombing campaign on Sherman's precepts. And to cast shade on the Encyclopedia Britanica, Erich von Ludendorf was not the architect of Total War. He was born long after it was first practiced in the state of Georgia, CSA in 1864. The horrors humans are capable of inflicting upon our fellows are beyond the depths of fiction.
Unfortunately, the dropping of the first atomic bomb was necessary. The US had planned on one million casualties to US troops if they had to invade the main islands of Japan. The Japanese could have suffered over ten million casualties or more.
Jerry Shepherd Absolutely correct. The Emperor himself said that the bomb was why he decided to end the War.
No, it wasn't. We could have just blockaded them and starved them into submission. The only reason was to keep Russia out of any decision making in post war Asia, and to make them fear us.
@@NunyaDammeBiznis How many Japanese would starve to death before they surrendered? The Soviet Union declared war on Japan and any country the Soviets conquered they proceeded to occupy. How many Japanese would have survived Soviet occupation? It took Eastern Europe almost 50 years and hundreds of thousands of lives before they were able to escape Soviet bondage. Simply blockading Japan is an uninformed, illogical solution.
@@NunyaDammeBiznis Blockade was an option. But why do you think that was preferable? Far more people would have died if we had chosen your option. And none of the thousands of American and other Allied civilians and POWs in fetid Japanese camps would have survived the War. Rather than some 300,000 Japanese civilians dying from the two atomic bombs, MILLIONS of Japanese would have starved to death if we blockaded the Home Islands. And then you also have to calculate the civilian and military casualties in China, Southeast Asia, and the South Pacific if we had not ended the War in August.
@@billymule961 Absolutely correct. In addition to the MILLIONs of Japanese who would have starved, millions of other Asians in China Southeast Asia, and the South Pacific would have died in the fighting had the War continued.
The atomic bombs actually helped save Japanese and American lives. If there had been a land campaign, many more people would have died, and the Soviets would have invaded from the north. There could have also been a Soviet occupation North Japan just like there was a North Korea and a Northern Vietnam. It ended the war sooner and allowed the country to rebuild sooner.
one fire bombing raid caused 100,000 deaths, the bomb was just like using a $100 bill instead of 100 single dollars, if 2 more fire bombings would have caused more damage than the bombs ,than you cannot say it ended the war,it just happened to come at wars end,,dropping the bomb was better and cheaper than a 1 fire bombing i guess and it also scared the world well into not using it again
Rebuild for the next war? Why do you desperately try to be positive about humans though we are the worst rats on Earth.
and still saving lives today..I wish kindness and neighborliness were deterrent but they aren't..fear of obliteration is..
Nuking Japan was the greatest humanitarian act ever!
@@juusohamalainen7507 hey! I resemble that remark...
This is a very good documentary in that it explains in detail how and why the bombing of cities escalated during WW2. While the actual destruction of German cities did not shorten the war, the fact that Germany was forced to keep millions of men, tens of thousands of deadly Flak cannons and hundreds of fighters (55% of the Luftwaffe's fighter strength in 1943 was deployed in the West against the RAF and USAAF) at home to defend Germany. These weapons and resources were desperately needed on other fronts, yet had to be reserved to defend the Reich against the Alied bombing offensive.
Thank you..Information well delivered in this doco’..
It's silly to talk about "terror". When they are trying to kill you and yours, you're quite justified in hammering them into oblivion and roundly ignoring their feelings. If they don't like it, they can stop fighting. If they don't, you keep killing them until they do. All the rest is stupid hand wringing. What comes around goes around. Don't start no shit, won't _be_ no shit.
Well said, old boy!
Totally agree 👍
Killing civilians is not war and can not be justified under any circumstances.
when in total war you can either fight it or lose(or lose a lot more of your soldiers)
@@Tronddenstore I'm starting to think the absolute worst human trait is the desire to appear virtuous.
This series is one of the absolute greatest documentaries pertaining to the realities of WWII. I wonder if the series available on DVD? I hope so..it would be amazing to have in my collection.
Beware. They censor footage to protect Snowflakes in some videos.
War is Hell. Don’t play war unless you want hell. It’s simple.
Or to boost your economy, or Install a middle-eastern puppet sate
@@iggyharl5780 How ignorant. American involvement in the Middle East has not boosted our economy.
@@dennisweidner288 maybe not ours, no, but it benefits those pulling the strings. Weapon dealers are laughing all the way to the offshore bank-accounts.
@@iggyharl5780 What weapons dealers? The American Arsenal of Democracy saved Western Civilization.
@@dennisweidner288 I'm not saying it didn't. What point at you making? I'm just saying there is A LOT of money to be made from war mongering.
Another great history lesson!
I just love history!
Love From Orlando
get your medication checked
@@MrDaiseymay I hope you have a nice day!
Love From Orlando
complete and clear explaining of war events with showing super abilities of German weapons and successful arranging of unites in Battel fields
Most people are simple enough that all you need do is have enough people point and say "them kill them, we hate them" and human social traits of wanting to belong, be a part of something, group think, etc will do the rest for you.
Just so we're all aware every side in every conflict always thinks they have the moral high ground. That their justifications are more just, more correct, and more virtuous. That is human nature. One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One mans dictator is another man's fearless leader. One mans massacre is another man's excusable defense. Principles are only principles when they don't change to fit your wants and desires.
Japanese stated the war we finished it
That aussie woman could have mentioned New Zealand since we are right next door for battle of Brittan volunteers!
New what sorry?
@@aussiedonaldduck2854 lol New Zealand...you know, we have a small island about 3 hrs west of us you may have heard of...called Straya.
And the only two-time VC winner of the war!
@@kiwidiesel Australia doesn't exist, how can you be near it?
@@itsreallyjustmehere611 lol
My nan was an ambulance driver during the Canterbury blitz. She had the only canvas top and firemen had to spray water on it so it didn't catch fire.
Our generation has had it so easy compared to the "Greatest Generation".
A paranoid man attacked me swinging a machete. Being weak with heart disease, I realised he was intending to end my life. Therefore I painfully immobilised him. The twenty four planes that bombed the fleet at Williamsharven were Blenhaeims and their bombs failed to arm, one flew into a building where an American radio journalist was speaking live on US broardcast radio.
The troops on the ground in the Pacific who fought island by island knew that the Japanese would fight to the very last man. They treated POWs as subhuman, Logs actually. The idea of surrender was totally out of the question. But when you think about the systematic destruction of one city every other night. I think even America would have surrendered if the Japanese would have developed the bomb first and they nuked every city on the west coast no matter how strong our resolve was. I always wondered what would have happened if we had three. And dropped one 20 miles away from Tokyo on the first day and said, there's plenty more where that came from.
We did have 3.
The narrator makes you so deeply interested with his voice
Yes increasing victims numbers of air bombing were moving in parallel with period of times movement
"we are going to set Japan ablaze" the Japanese government mindset at the time was that Japanese people are better than the other Asian people and it was their right to rule of all they defeated they soon fund out the hard way, many people don't feel any sorrow towards the destruction of Japan because they did worse to the rest of the world, it was horribly beautiful some might say 🤔
Depends on who you ask. If you ask Thai peoples they're probably feel bad about destruction of Japan because they're actually did have good relationship with Japan at least until war situation got worse. With the effect of allied bombing and allied naval campaign against Thai-Japanese merchant marine begin to felt which sour both nations relationship that led to Thailand backstabbed Japan near the end of war.
36:55 chills
thank you
Google just blanked my ten minutes research details, for deaths on Okinawa, which i took from their own research ---why bother eh?
we'll only know what they want us to know--scary
Dropping the bombs on Japan was a horrible thing but I believe it was necessary. I've seen many historical and Military experts say that the United States nuking Japan save not only American lives but also Japanese lives. the Allies were not going to accept anything but an unconditional surrender from Japan which they were refusing to do. Far more Japanese lives would have been lost when the Allies invaded Japan let alone Allied and American lives that were saved by this. And I pray nuclear weapons are never used again in war.
@Highway Horsepower agreed
It's like Netflix for history... Sign up to History Hit the world's best history documentary service with code 'WARSTORIES' for a huge discount! bit.ly/3kXAyfP
It is you or them.. ethics and morals go out the window. 🤔
The only moral filing that America and Britain could have made would have been not to have confronted Axis evil.
Agree it should never be forgotten, with respect to this, poor continuitey lets this documentry down.
It’s funny that there’s a warning on this but the same documentary on one of the sister-channels does not lol
Then came the Thunderbolts and Mustangs.
10:00 I hope the dog jumping in the aircraft didn't really go, it could of got hurt or killed!
39:10 All bombings was area. When first one of the group targeting and released the bombs, all did it.
The Radio Bomber
A movie about not being able to find the Spitfire movies.
Why are so many uploads on this channel #blocked and #Banned from us all here in England? Kind of ironic wouldn't you say..
Because England is woke.
Pity Bomber Command was not told by the Americans, where they had built the three factories for manufacturing the vital fuel additive Tetra Ethel Lead.
Wiping those facilities out would have grounded Germany’s entire airforce almost overnight. The Germans could have added ethanol to keep petrol driven ground vehicles going, but not the airforce. Even so, the ethanol would have quickly ruined any latex rubber engine components very quickly.
Hitler's war machine would have been crippled, and the massive allied casualties from broad spectrum strategic bombing, would have been unnecessary.
"Battle of Britain"
* shows P-47s and B-17s
2:44
let's talk 'bout the Zeppelin bombing raids on London.
The graves of downed Crew can be seen in the National memorial in Staffordshire.
@@MrDaiseymay
Thank you for the information.
isn't it but justice, that the innovators of aerial bombing
in one war
howl their complaints when the compliment was returned to them
in the following war they themselves started again ! ?
@@Charlesputnam-bn9zy The VERY FIRST civilian terror bombing. Carried out by Germany on the 16th August 1914, when zeppelins bombed Liege in Belgium. They just LOVE dropping the stuff on others, but can't take it when it comes to visit them !!!!
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684
Sir Arthur Harris said of them that they began the war
by bombing other people &
assuming that the compliment had no right to be returned.
You seriously dont compared the random experimenting with Zeppelins to the ww2 Air fleet carpet Bombing
No one truly wins a war
@@Bryan-cs9to this is a modern phenomena. What I mean is since before any world bank existed
The first casualty of war is the truth.
@@EJStormful explain
USA absolutely won the world wars from Blackwater to global superpower
Is Frank Langella the Narrator?
The worst two months for hitlers aims were may 1941 and December 1941
After this war. the world has never been the same
Four engine bombers are ALSO "revenge" weapons. Just to keep things in context.
@ babaloo42 Four engine bombers were a way of destroying the ability of Germany and Japan to wage war and a major Axus war goal was to murder civilians in the millions..
The warplanes at 11:38 were not UK warplanes.
Also argentinians were among the fews who fly for britian in the battle of Britain and the blitz and along the war
Not according to the Official Battle of Britain website they didn't.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 but I personal know people who were
Argentinians can't fight. They were badly beaten at the Falkland Island war.
14:16 JESUS WEPT LOL
CAT LADY LOL
Used to be a bloke
women in combat could not press the button to fire the bomb haha"
Why,best they know,nice to have a history of none violence,political views all roads point to death.
one fire bombing night in Tokyo caused 100,000 deaths, Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a total of about 140,000 deaths .
so 2 more fire bombing raids would have done more destruction,, in context the bomb just happened to come at wars end and wasn't extra horrible in comparison to other bombings other than it being just a single bomb..
yet u still get people saying that "The USA are hypocrites for not wanting countries to have nuke weapons when they are the only ones who have used them " the bombs saved millions of Japanese and American lives to end a war they didn't start or want.
It was either that or invade Japan because Russia had declared war on Japan and they would have been turned into slaves not to mention the millions of Japanese men, women and children civilians who would have been slaughtered defending the homeland with sticks rocks and shovels like they had been ordered to ( they didn't have much left to fight with )
the air raid...
The Sea that Separated the island of england.Saved england
maybe the heroism and determination of the British themselves may have played a hand in it--ya think?
If someone said “you can end the war tomorrow but it will cost 100,000 lives” most people would take that considering something live on average 6000-9000 people died daily during WW2, if the war went in for 2 weeks longer at that rate then it would exceed Nagasaki’s death toll
True, but we can only apply this logic in hindsight; fortunately the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war. There was no guarantee that they would. We may have had the cost of 100,000 dead in Nagasaki and an enemy all the more determined to fight on.
I believe a better solution might have been to demonstrate the immense power of these new weapons where they could do no harm to life. I think that if they could have witnessed what they may face a rational enemy might have surrendered.
But then, the Japanese were not exactly rational. . . .
WHY do we have University Profs reading the Autocue , sure many millions know all the things they say off by heart !
Its not only nations that indulge in total war.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
The British & French declared war on Germany, not the other way around. That whirlwind statement is like when a thief cries "police brutality" when an officer shoots him in the act of looting a store.
@@larkinblake1327 Then why didn't the French and British declare war on the USSR if they were "guaranteeing" Polish independence? The truth is an inconvenient one for you, but it remains that the British and French selectively enforced their decree against one invader of Poland but not the other. They then proceeded to invade Germany in the area of the Saar. It was not Germany that declared on France/Britain, neither directly nor by proxy - that was the decision of the French and British.
Meanwhile, amidst all of this, the British continue to occupy Ireland and the French continue to occupy Vietnam. One set of rules for Germany, another set of rules for ourselves.
Apologists for allied war crimes like yourself are some of the worst historical revisionists outside the local communist party.
hurting killing n destroying civilians during Wartime is barbaric insanity inhumanity madness unnecessary unacceptable stupidity on opposing sides.
Oh dear. Toward the end, the film features second guessers whose calculations are made in moral and logical error.
Bombing raids 24hrs.a day .
When the Germans put soldiers in Monte Casio its status changed to a military fortification (and military target) by that act.
No German soldiers or military equipment was placed into Monte Casino before its bombing, as confirmed by the archabbot of Monte Casino and the Holy See. After bombing and destruction of the abbey, the ruins were occupied by the Germans and it became a difficult stronghold to beat for the allies.
Targeting civilians can backfire greatly . It incites the populace to redouble their efforts . An impersonal war is best to keep moral low .
It should did backfire for the Germans cause they bombed plenty of civilians in Russia, UK, France, Poland..... and at the end they got their behinds bombed the same way. What goes around comes around.
All they had to do was isolate Japan at the end of the war. There was never any need for an invasion or an atomic substitute.
Well, that would have given the Japanese ample time to exterminate all the allied PoWs in their hands I suppose.
It was morally wrong yet justified, the reasons being that Germany engaged in it first to benefit their war effort..& when taking into consideration the fact that it was not a war crime at the time, the allies justifiably returned the favor..👏
Ah yes two wrongs always make a right.
Please be aware that this video is narrated by Aaron Cartwright.
Woke a sleeping giant. Didn’t calculate the American determination and drive for ultimate victory. 🙏🏻🇺🇸
Thought americans were soft and had no heart for war.
Should have studied American history and the tragedy if the civil war.
What I will never understand: Pearl harbour, a military base (if not a legime military target, what is a legitime target?) on a stolen line of islands far away from the own home country attacked --> no question, an agressive act to be answered. US response: Applying area bombing directive on cities (!) with killing hundrets of thousands of civilians and destruction of uncoutable irreplaceable cultureal goods and architecture by topping it with the only used atomic bombs in mankind history, also on CITIES!! How can the US-Americans till today look into the mirror and say I´m a proud American?!?!
@33:05 the video admits that the Blitz was not about terror.
What was it about then Sherlock?
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 I should say not only about terror.... because they kept bombing the ports. My bad.
There were seven American pilots in the Battle of Britain. SEVEN. I'll venture that NONE of those pictured 12:27 were American. There's barely a mention of the hundreds of Poles, Kiwis, Canucks, or the dozens from several other countries. You mislead, and it's not the first time.
Please provide the details without the moral lectures.
So sad the wrong side won we helped the wrong side
Please explain your statement !
Churchill the war criminal committed genocide in Ireland as well as general Montgomery in loughrea as a army Lt
Let me guess your an Irish Catholic IRA sympathiser.
@@davidwilkinson8136 The Irish Caths DO have a valid point, one that is actually much older than Churchill or Montgomery. One of the worst atrocities occurred just after the potato harvest failed.
@@yakkityyak9336 My point is to remember history forgive but never forget or would you prefer to pull down statues and start burning books?. Fed up with bigots bringing up terrible mistakes made hundreds of years ago. Life is to short, the alternative is for Britain to invade Italy as punishment for one Julius Caesar invading our country and building nice straight roads. One last thing if the Irish Welsh and Scottish hate England so much what are they doing living and working in said country?
@@davidwilkinson8136 Sorry to bother you, for just a minute I thought you were a reasonable person. Mea Culpa
@@yakkityyak9336 So don't bother me then and stay in your little bubble and keep reading Latin.
It's a shame American Standard Oils dealings with IG Farben made The Blitz possible 🤔👎
Some cold historical facts reveal that -
1) out of Britain and Germany it was the British who bombed German civilian targets first and not the other way round;
2) the Germans switched to bombing London in early September 1940 as a reprisal only after their cities were bombed for 4 months;
3) some 25 times more tonnage of bombs were dropped by the Allies on Germany during the war than the Germans dropped on the UK;
4) some 1 to 1.2 million German civilians were killed due to air raids as opposed to 55,000 British;
5) in one firebombing of Dresden alone more people died than during the entire 5 years of the Blitz (it's safe to discount the 'official' Dresden death tally of 35,000 as being grotesquely underestimated);
6) to this day the actions of the British are seen as heroic while those of the Luftwaffe are seen as evil.
History is indeed written by the victors.
Which "cold historical facts"? Where is your evidence for points !) and 2)? Please foreward documentation on which squadrons were involved, which kind of bombers, bomb load, intended targets and casualties.
3)anf 4) "They have sown the wind. Now they shall harvest the whirl wind".....
5) Estimates are from 25.000-35.000, even in German sources, like "Tagesschau" and ZDF; up towards 250.000, due to undocumented refugees from the east, depending on sources. The higher number comes from NS sources, to exaggerate the numbers.
6) Very few people today regard the bombing of Dresden as heroic. Most, including myself, mean it was an unnecesary act, made at a point when Germany was almost knocked out. But again, please show documentation on the opposite....
As we know, WWII was started when Germany invaded Poland on 1st of September 1.939, by bombing both military and civilian targets, like the town of Wielun. No military targets, but a hospital with red cross markings, was bombed. Time was 0440, five minutes before "Schleswig Holstein" started to bombard Westerplatte. 29 Stukas from StGsw 76 and StGsw 2 "Immelmann". 700-2.000 people were killed. Numbers are uncertain, due to difficullty to identify the victims. Source: Sven Felix Kellenhoff "Das Kriegsverbrechen des Wielun" Die Welt 2. september 2.009. In other words, this was the first warcrime of WWII, and it also set the stakes of war to come. So again, Germany started it, and got it back, with interst.
Britain and France declared war on 3rd of September, when Germany refused to withdraw from Poland....
To clarify, the raid on Berlin was in retaliation for a lost Luftwaffe bomber unknowingly dropping his load on London. German civilian deaths due to allied bombing were 350,000-500,000 vs 45,000 British losses. A guy called Adolf started it all, Goring's Luftwaffe hit the defenseless evacuating Brits and French during the Dunkirk evacuation, levelled Warsaw, Rotterdam having trained in Guernika back in 1937. So yes, your 6th point is quite accurate.
Many polish towns and cities were bombed by the germans and also rotterdam.
History is written by the winners?? you have your say here, you have freedom of speech! a typical trite parrot remark.
@@merlin6955 Keep preaching, keep preaching..... The truth most be heard.
I spoke with a German woman once who lived as a teenager in Hamburg. She said that the bombing was good because they used the rubble to fill in the canals and that stopped the rats.
Broken Window Fallacy
43:04 ok dude, yes we could have avoided an atomic weapon. It was widely believed that the Japanese would NOT stop fighting regardless of who was winning. For the US to obtain victory the only other option would have been a boots-on-the-ground invasion. Had that happened the number of deaths, on both sides, could have been in the millions. I’m not saying it was “right”, but I do think it was the only viable option left on the table. That being said, I do wish the bomb never needed to be used, but unless you’ve got a better suggestion and a time machine - not much to be done.
I also think it’s easy to forget just how horrible American POW’s were treated in the pacific. It was awful. It was probably very close to what the Jewish people faced in concentration camps.
@@Andy_Babb Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
*Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...*
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) *technically known* as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
*Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".*
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
*Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.*
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was *"standing down and standing by"* to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."*
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
*No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no Empire.*
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable *alpha bark* to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
*All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries*
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
I can abide much, save communists and Catholics.
Huh?
@@dr.barrycohn5461 are Catholics really that awful?--granted some of them got a lil freaky but.....
@@richardcolton4125 I have no idea why you are asking me that question.
@@dr.barrycohn5461 sorry it was for the other guy
@@richardcolton4125 OK. No problem.
No American professors...
What the allies did was indeed nefarious but compared to the Nazis, they aren't judged as harshly. Either way, if it wasn't necessary to win the war then it's just done out of malevolence.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
*Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...*
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) *technically known* as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
*Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".*
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
*Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.*
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was *"standing down and standing by"* to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."*
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
*No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no Empire.*
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable *alpha bark* to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
*All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries*
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
YT warnings at outset of this documentary? Shameful attempt at attacking history and the decisions that no one wanted to make but had to.
unjudged warcrimes
That’s how it usually goes. Harris would no doubt have stood trial after a German victory with no more or less justification than Alexander Löhr.
some misinformation
The observant hydrogen univariately wink because substance lally rescue along a parsimonious approval. alleged, ancient disadvantage
What ?
Absolute foolish statements about the bomb. To suggest there was no military justification. This guy would be the last one to suit up for the invasion japan. Falsely suggesting a zero sum game, that no bomb = no deaths is ridiculous. Typical propaganda
Bomber crews convinced themselves that there were no people in the structures they were bombing.
They convinced themselves that there was an evil madman who needed to be stopped and I'm so glad they did. God bless them.
USA doing same in different countries.
But its ok to wear a backpack with a bomb in it to kill civilians?
@@PaulSmith-lj2gc Why are you asking this to me? I am against all types of terrorism. Don't forget how many civilians killed by USA Air Force bombings and UCAV attacks.
You people are ridiculous. Let us never forget who started the total war including civilians and that was Germany. It was all fine when it was being done to the Russians or the Brits or Poland but im suppose to feel bad for the German civilians when its done to them. No I don't think so. Its called Karma where I come from. You reep what you soe
The British & French declared war on Germany, not the other way around.
@@user-gh1vc9kb4e Thanks for letting us know... if we ever see you being attacked and stabbed by an assailant, we'll just let him get on with it then, as you prefer.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 The Russians "attacked and stabbed" both the Finns and the Poles, but the British and French sat idly by and did not intervene. Don't give me any of that moral high-horse bullscheiße. It is a fact that the British and French were aggressors on the Western Front.
@@user-gh1vc9kb4e Germany was the clear and present danger... the predatory psychopath to the USSR's lumbering opportunist. What exactly could the British/French do to attack the USSR anyhow? As it turned out there was not much an unmobilised UK could do to help Poland never mind attack USSR.
P.S British / French "Aggresors"? Remind me who attacked who on the western front?
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Okay so, first you imply that I would not want someone to help me if I were mugged, but now you are throwing up your hands and saying "oh well, what were the British/French to do about the USSR invading Poland and Finland?" Alas, your cognitive dissonance is beginning to manifest.
Britain and France declared war on Germany. The Saar Offensive was an act of French aggression against Germany. You're not too keen on history, I take it...
For the people that say the US should not have dropped the bomb they no nothing about ww2 and the crimes committed by Japan and should stop speaking.