Richard Frank got me into Guadalcanal, John Lundsrom course corrected Fletchers career for me, Barrett Tillman taught me about USN AirPower in Vietnam, and I haven’t picked up shattered sword yet but I’m happy to live in a golden 50-60 years of WW2 naval history books. Thanks to all of you who made that literature and scholarship happen.
I wish I could have attended this session and ask the following question: The interservice rivalry between army and navy in WWII Japanese military is legendary and very dysfunctional. To what extent was Nimitz and his staff aware of this and did they seek to take advantage of it?
Interesting question... Personally I think even if Nimitz knew about this fact, it would not change his strategies nor tactics. True that the Japanese army had 1m bogged down in China and southeast Asia. But even with that, they still inflicted heavy losses on the American forces.
These are three of the best Pacific War historians in modern times that I can think of. I appreciate the WW2 museum for having them discuss Admiral Nimitz and sharing their well researched viewpoints.
Thanks for this very interesting presentation. As a non US citizen, but former military officer, I can highly appreciate the accomplishments of the US in WW2. Even today many countries are not on the level of the US back in the 1940's.
With its passionate pursuit of a woke policy of a military replete with diversity, equality, unicorns, rainbows and everything else, I would suggest that the USA is regressing to a state it was in before 1940.
In a history nut and enjoyed this seminar. I was in the USN for 20 years as enlisted. Two of my tours were with Naval Amphibious school, Little Creek and Coronado, and a tour at the Armed Forces Staff College. My appreciation of those under the top commanders is great and support staff and logistics of supply of all needs of any Armed force on sea, land, and Air is also so important. I all have a personal knowledge of the people under them are better than some. One of those you mention was Gen Holland Schmidt (Howling Mad). My Uncle was his chief of staff on more then one operation, including the 5th Amphibious force, Gen Smithd when once praised his performance of these responded you need to give your Praise to Col and later Brigadier General Rogers. When at Little Creek we had signs around where we show a amphibious landing with models that were names of battles in the Pacific in WWII. Those in charge do recognize those who help them succeed. I have been amazed at the tech developed to make those landings successful. I often wonder how those capabilities compared to the Empire of Japan.
Great information! I read a lot of war history and love all of the recent books being published on WWII, especially love the latest on Nimitz by Symonds. Thanks so much!
After thwarting several Naval commanders, McArthur knew that he had to get along with Halsey. If not, the issue would then be identified as his (McArthur’s) ego, and not the US Navy.
Because Halsey had not started at an "equal" rank to MacArthur, Nimitz was a "theater commander" of equal rank, both covering parts of the Pacific campaign - hence they were vying for the same supplies and support.
Suggestion: Accept written questions. Other academic meeting have done this with a wonderful reduction to zero of people giving at length their alternative version of the presentation just concluded.
Re: luck vs better. The classic line that applies is ‘the harder I worked, the luckier I got’. I think the US task force worked harder and threw everything they could once they had an idea where the Japanese carriers were. That operational tempo was the factor that overcame the difficulties and deficits the US fleet had and made their luck in the end.
"The lazy man is never lucky". Nimitz knew that the US would make its own luck. Jon Parshal's point about the ambivalence of intelligence and how it is implemented on the field of battle was very much on point. Joe Rochefort's Station Hypo code breakers gave Nimitz the crucial insight on Japanese intentions that he needed to plan his ambush of the Kido Butai. His operational genius was to grant his task force commanders the tactical discretion to successfully carry it out. I think Parshal's point about how Ultra information was not effectively used by Montgomery in North Africa is not a good example in making his point. There was extraordinary paranoia on Churchill's staff about the risk of giving too much detailed information to field commanders about German tactical intentions lest the enemy suspect that the British high command was reading their mail. Montgomery received enough decrypted Ultra intelligence to eventually drive Rommel's forces out of North Africa, save Cairo, and ultimately the Suez lifeline.
Apologies, right around 31:00 there is a comment about relieving Nimitz that I am not understanding. Could some brave soul have a listen try to explain the significance to me? Amazing content, thank you.
King floated the idea of relieving Nimitz and Forrestal didn't give him any lip service. Forrestal said that if King relieved Nimitz, Nimitz's next job would be King's and King would be retired.
It doesn't get any better than this with these 3 historians discussing Nimitz and how he was able to assemble his subordinates. Think about this; being the CEO of a "fortune 100" company is extremely difficult as you try to assemble a team to run that company successfully. It must be extremely nerve wracking to know that if you fail, your career could be over! Nimitz, though, had to assemble a successful team that was going to keep the world safe for democracy! If HE failed, not only was his career over but people died! It's simply amazing how he did so well. Tom Ricks has a terrific video about how General Marshall assembled his team for the war and the TWO. It's extremely interesting.
To add to my earlier comment One of the reasons Hitler was defeated was he personally tried to manage his armed forces while Roosevelt may have influence his commanders and let them manage the details.
Gentleman, what Chet advised his son and demonstrated with his handling of King as well as Michener Towers is called passive aggressiveness. To paraphrase TR, 'talk softly but carry a baseball bat'.
I notice they DONT mention the nimitz disaster -pelelui. The dude in the centre needs to remember that monty commanded normandy for 1st 2months successfully and successfully recast the plan for Normandy
I'm so glad you brought up Adm. Frank Jack Fletcher. He got a raw deal. He was undefeated when was in charge. He did not always win a clear cut victory but he never lost. Every battle he was in made the Japanese stop or back up. Adm. King had a lot to do with this but the biggest factor was Samuel Elliot Morrison. I've read a whole lot of his stuff and this guy was a douche. My 2cents.
@@ghostinthemachine8243 alternatively it’s not that Spruance was good it’s that Fletcher broke the back of the IJN when the US was at its weakest and the IJN was at its strongest.
@@scottl9660 Spruance was good. Fletcher was senior and fended the IJN off while Sprance was still in command of cruisers. Spruance managed to put together a mostly good team to not only go toe to toe with the IJN but invade and conquer islands and keep the fleet in supply at a time when Fletcher had been unfortunately relegated to the back waters of the Aleutians.
31:00 (± 20s) Holy cow! Forrestal, coming in hot with a Knock-Out punch! What a move! Now, there's something I'd pay top dollars to see - almost as much as I'd pay to be a fly on the wall during King's "little chat" with BuOrd about their supposedly faultless Mk 14 Torpedo.
Рік тому+1
Nimitz contributed to Dőnitz defense at the IMT in Nurnberg 😊😊😊😊
@@Conn30Mtenor I think it was a tongue in cheek comment on Nimitz's German ancestry.
Рік тому+7
Love your channel but in WWII the guys that broke the German Wehrmacht were THE RUSSIANS. D-Day was successsful, but Bagration wiped out the German armies 😂😂😂
Your claim is false. Bagration was a success because of the thousands of Studebaker, Ford and GM trucks. Thousands of tons of aluminium, tanks, aircraft and rations provided by the West. The Red Army before that was reliant upon horse-drawn transports. The liberation of France and Belgium exceeded Bagration in terms of prisoners taken and equipment destroyed. Bagration= 500,000 German casualties (killed, captured, wounded) Allied invasion of Europe: 4,000,000 Germans captured, 650,000 killed. That, and the Allies in the west killed and captured all those and suffered far fewer casualties than the Red Army that couldn't care less about casualties.
Рік тому
@@Conn30Mtenor NO WAY. Eisenhower asked Stalin to advance BAGRATION because he was unsure about OVERLORD''s success. The Russians advanced 600 km in 2 months White Monty couldnot take Caen. 80% of German divisions fought on the Eastern front. The Russians stopped the WEHRMACHT at stalingrad BEFORE all the Studebakers were delivered
@@Conn30Mtenor do not forget the 8th air force bomber offense from 1942 pulled the german air force west it effected the recon and fighter strength before 1942 the german air force missions 50% wore recon mission the bomber offense let the red army could surprise the german
"The guys that broke the German Wehrmacht" were (predominantly) the Allies- meaning the United States, Britain, and The Soviet Union. Aside from the sacrifice and effort of all of the combatants; Lend- Lease literally prevented millions of Russians from starving, allowed the Russians to produce only eight (8) locomotives during the conflict, motorized and equipped Russian infantry formations, and provided over 3/4 of the Russian Air Force's high octane aviation fuel used by the latest generation of Yak, Lagg, and Mig fighters. The Russian armed forces- in turn bled the German army and air force white. Without their epic effort, D- Day would have either been impossible to attempt or would have been crushed on the beaches. Britain held the line against the Germans early in the war and was an invaluable source of intelligence (from Ultra) and technology (from the cavity magnetron to theory of the atomic bomb) to the United States. The United States supplied all of the allies, put almost 16 million men and women in uniform, and waged a multi- front war. Claiming that any one nation was primarily responsible for defeating the Germans is simply inaccurate.
@@manilajohn0182also, not "the Russians"; the Soviet Union. Just like today, the Russians preferred to let other ethnicities do the dying. A much larger proportion of Ukrainians, Belorussians, Balts, various Sibirians, etc died than Russians.
All he did was execute War Plan Orange at its fundamental level. He got extremely lucky at Midway. He was a C+ commander. Why? By the time the war machine got started in the U.S., he was in command of a force never seen before and he took only occasional advantage of his massive power and could have wrecked havoc on the Japanese like the world has never seen. It was more than possible to take Okinawa long before they were prepared for any kind of defense. Most of his subordinates made serious errors not just once but numerous times. The sad part is his lower level troops up to Major and Lt. Cdr were rated B+ and in many cases A and in a good number of cases A+. They made him look good with their lives. The even greater sad part is all the people who suffered and died producing the massive amounts of superior weapons. I mean in the first year of WWII almost 60,000 died from accidents producing weapons while only 12,000 died from combat.
Your analysis is based entirely on hindsight. The men to whom you have referred were not known quantities, and the ratings which you have conferred on them- assuming that they are accurate- were only in the process of being formulated. He did have luck at Midway- some bad but redeemed by more good. Napoleon was lucky in his 1805 campaign because of the unnoticed difference in the two calendars that the Austrians and Russians were using. The operational plan which he formulated- using Midway as bait to ambush enemy carriers- was sound. Both bad and good luck intervened. It was possible to take not only Okinawa, but Iwo Jima prior to the Japanese increasing their defenses of the two islands. That information was not clear at the time to either Nimitz or his subordinates.
Nimitz recognized talent and was able to get the right man into the right job, often in spite of King. Because he was in charge of the Pacific he was able to see details King would ignore or didn't see. He actually was more aggressive in the first 6 months of the war than King wanted to be, yet King chided Nimitz for not being aggressive until after Midway.
@Lawschoolsuccess - I look forward to reading your book on this subject, which I'm sure will provide thorough and copious citations of authoritative reference works documenting your claims and supporting your hypotheses. I am certain that Dr. Symonds, Mr. Parshall, and Mr. Hone will be grateful to be made aware of those hitherto unknown...er, facts.
Jon Parshall is reason enough to watch any video about the Pacific war.
Any video at all. He is smart and nice.
@c7042 HE SMILES 2 MUCHH ....Ernie King 2 little ..
Richard Frank got me into Guadalcanal, John Lundsrom course corrected Fletchers career for me, Barrett Tillman taught me about USN AirPower in Vietnam, and I haven’t picked up shattered sword yet but I’m happy to live in a golden 50-60 years of WW2 naval history books. Thanks to all of you who made that literature and scholarship happen.
I wish I could have attended this session and ask the following question: The interservice rivalry between army and navy in WWII Japanese military is legendary and very dysfunctional. To what extent was Nimitz and his staff aware of this and did they seek to take advantage of it?
Interesting question...
Personally I think even if Nimitz knew about this fact, it would not change his strategies nor tactics.
True that the Japanese army had 1m bogged down in China and southeast Asia. But even with that, they still inflicted heavy losses on the American forces.
These are three of the best Pacific War historians in modern times that I can think of. I appreciate the WW2 museum for having them discuss Admiral Nimitz and sharing their well researched viewpoints.
'The Finest Naval Officer this Country has ever produced' Well said, Sir, well said
Excellent panel. 1 hour and 15 minutes well spent while watching. Thanks!
I have books from all 3 panelists so you can bet I loved this.
I really enjoyed and love watching the The Military History of Admiral Chester Nimitz. I only wished that I was there in person to be present.
I have Potter's books on Nimitz, Halsey and Burke. They are a MUST for U.S. Naval history buffs.
"I want that Fourth (4th) Carrier"!!! Thank You Admiral Nimitz!
Thanks for this very interesting presentation. As a non US citizen, but former military officer, I can highly appreciate the accomplishments of the US in WW2. Even today many countries are not on the level of the US back in the 1940's.
With its passionate pursuit of a woke policy of a military replete with diversity, equality, unicorns, rainbows and everything else, I would suggest that the USA is regressing to a state it was in before 1940.
@@wuffothewonderdogdude lol you need to touch grass if you actually believe that.
In a history nut and enjoyed this seminar. I was in the USN for 20 years as enlisted. Two of my tours were with Naval Amphibious school, Little Creek and Coronado, and a tour at the Armed Forces Staff College. My appreciation of those under the top commanders is great and support staff and logistics of supply of all needs of any Armed force on sea, land, and Air is also so important. I all have a personal knowledge of the people under them are better than some. One of those you mention was Gen Holland Schmidt (Howling Mad). My Uncle was his chief of staff on more then one operation, including the 5th Amphibious force, Gen Smithd when once praised his performance of these responded you need to give your Praise to Col and later Brigadier General Rogers. When at Little Creek we had signs around where we show a amphibious landing with models that were names of battles in the Pacific in WWII. Those in charge do recognize those who help them succeed. I have been amazed at the tech developed to make those landings successful. I often wonder how those capabilities compared to the Empire of Japan.
It is the best video i have watched this year. Thank you
Great information! I read a lot of war history and love all of the recent books being published on WWII, especially love the latest on Nimitz by Symonds. Thanks so much!
I read somewhere that Nimitz himself thought that Spruance was the best, most competent admiral 🙂
So enjoyable and trustworthy. Thank you 🙂
Halsey and MacAurthur got along surprisingly well, Mac spoke glowing praise , called him " Bill" always
After thwarting several Naval commanders, McArthur knew that he had to get along with Halsey. If not, the issue would then be identified as his (McArthur’s) ego, and not the US Navy.
Halsey and Mac had complementary flaws as well. It's no wonder that they got on well together.
Because Halsey had not started at an "equal" rank to MacArthur, Nimitz was a "theater commander" of equal rank, both covering parts of the Pacific campaign - hence they were vying for the same supplies and support.
Just. Friggin'. Brilliant! 👍‼😎
Thank you. Sounds like these two books complement each other nicely. Just which one to read first...
interesting considering spruance stuffed up tarawa and iwo jima
Excellent. These men love their jobs
Suggestion: Accept written questions. Other academic meeting have done this with a wonderful reduction to zero of people giving at length their alternative version of the presentation just concluded.
Re: luck vs better. The classic line that applies is ‘the harder I worked, the luckier I got’. I think the US task force worked harder and threw everything they could once they had an idea where the Japanese carriers were. That operational tempo was the factor that overcame the difficulties and deficits the US fleet had and made their luck in the end.
"The lazy man is never lucky". Nimitz knew that the US would make its own luck. Jon Parshal's point about the ambivalence of intelligence and how it is implemented on the field of battle was very much on point. Joe Rochefort's Station Hypo code breakers gave Nimitz the crucial insight on Japanese intentions that he needed to plan his ambush of the Kido Butai. His operational genius was to grant his task force commanders the tactical discretion to successfully carry it out.
I think Parshal's point about how Ultra information was not effectively used by Montgomery in North Africa is not a good example in making his point. There was extraordinary paranoia on Churchill's staff about the risk of giving too much detailed information to field commanders about German tactical intentions lest the enemy suspect that the British high command was reading their mail. Montgomery received enough decrypted Ultra intelligence to eventually drive Rommel's forces out of North Africa, save Cairo, and ultimately the Suez lifeline.
FDR has been Assistant SECNAV once
Yes. The main reason FDR's "personal" military advisor and liaison was Fleet Admiral William Lahey.
Apologies, right around 31:00 there is a comment about relieving Nimitz that I am not understanding. Could some brave soul have a listen try to explain the significance to me? Amazing content, thank you.
Seemed easy to understand
@@larryzigler6812 then why didn't you explain it?
King floated the idea of relieving Nimitz and Forrestal didn't give him any lip service. Forrestal said that if King relieved Nimitz, Nimitz's next job would be King's and King would be retired.
@@Tacoriffics Read my comment 🤣
@@Tacoriffics Bless you.
It doesn't get any better than this with these 3 historians discussing Nimitz and how he was able to assemble his subordinates. Think about this; being the CEO of a "fortune 100" company is extremely difficult as you try to assemble a team to run that company successfully. It must be extremely nerve wracking to know that if you fail, your career could be over! Nimitz, though, had to assemble a successful team that was going to keep the world safe for democracy! If HE failed, not only was his career over but people died! It's simply amazing how he did so well. Tom Ricks has a terrific video about how General Marshall assembled his team for the war and the TWO. It's extremely interesting.
I'd like to know what Nimitz's relationship with his Marine Ground Commanders was like
To add to my earlier comment One of the reasons Hitler was defeated was he personally tried to manage his armed forces while Roosevelt may have influence his commanders and let them manage the details.
I'll go for the low hanging fruit. Adm. Nimitz and Gen Eisenhower were the same kind of commander. Switch the ETO & PTO and probably the same outcome.
They forgot Kirk Douglas, who commanded the Nimitz in 1980 & 1941.
Great Comment besides King and NacAurthur , Nimitz had to deal with subordinates named " Bull , Howling Mad and Terrible Turner .
Gentleman, what Chet advised his son and demonstrated with his handling of King as well as Michener Towers is called passive aggressiveness. To paraphrase TR, 'talk softly but carry a baseball bat'.
I notice they DONT mention the nimitz disaster -pelelui. The dude in the centre needs to remember that monty commanded normandy for 1st 2months successfully and successfully recast the plan for Normandy
now do Market Garden
Eisenhower and Nimitz
both Texans
just satin’🤷♂️😎🤷♂️
I'm so glad you brought up Adm. Frank Jack Fletcher. He got a raw deal. He was undefeated when was in charge. He did not always win a clear cut victory but he never lost. Every battle he was in made the Japanese stop or back up. Adm. King had a lot to do with this but the biggest factor was Samuel Elliot Morrison. I've read a whole lot of his stuff and this guy was a douche. My 2cents.
You could not have presented a more immature comment. Getting emotional about history is folly.
It's not that Fletcher was bad...it was that Spruance was better.
@@ghostinthemachine8243 alternatively it’s not that Spruance was good it’s that Fletcher broke the back of the IJN when the US was at its weakest and the IJN was at its strongest.
@@scottl9660 Spruance was good. Fletcher was senior and fended the IJN off while Sprance was still in command of cruisers. Spruance managed to put together a mostly good team to not only go toe to toe with the IJN but invade and conquer islands and keep the fleet in supply at a time when Fletcher had been unfortunately relegated to the back waters of the Aleutians.
@@bbmtge Your comment is immature and proved your a douche too.
By 1944 Admiral Halsey has two years of combat. Should Halsey have been moved as the fleet commander?
Where is my invite?
31:00 (± 20s)
Holy cow! Forrestal, coming in hot with a Knock-Out punch! What a move!
Now, there's something I'd pay top dollars to see - almost as much as I'd pay to be a fly on the wall during King's "little chat" with BuOrd about their supposedly faultless Mk 14 Torpedo.
Nimitz contributed to Dőnitz defense at the IMT in Nurnberg 😊😊😊😊
Which was a mistake; Dönitz was an ardent Nazi. A great leader of his subs, whose sailors adored him, but he was a Nazi.
Unfortunately. Dönitz should have had to mount his own "defense" of organizing "unrestricted" submarine warfare, at the "Nuremberg Trials".
They don't mention that Admiral Towers ends up supporting Nimitz during the war.
Also a very decent man.
A lot of NAVEL-GAZING here😂😂
Nimitz and Dőnitz: you cannot beat the Germans😅😅😅
They could and we did.
we defeated the german navy in mid 43
And Eisenhower.
@@brucenadeau2172what German navy.
@@Conn30Mtenor
I think it was a tongue in cheek comment on Nimitz's German ancestry.
Love your channel but in WWII the guys that broke the German Wehrmacht were THE RUSSIANS. D-Day was successsful, but Bagration wiped out the German armies 😂😂😂
Your claim is false. Bagration was a success because of the thousands of Studebaker, Ford and GM trucks. Thousands of tons of aluminium, tanks, aircraft and rations provided by the West. The Red Army before that was reliant upon horse-drawn transports. The liberation of France and Belgium exceeded Bagration in terms of prisoners taken and equipment destroyed. Bagration= 500,000 German casualties (killed, captured, wounded) Allied invasion of Europe: 4,000,000 Germans captured, 650,000 killed. That, and the Allies in the west killed and captured all those and suffered far fewer casualties than the Red Army that couldn't care less about casualties.
@@Conn30Mtenor NO WAY. Eisenhower asked Stalin to advance BAGRATION because he was unsure about OVERLORD''s success. The Russians advanced 600 km in 2 months White Monty couldnot take Caen. 80% of German divisions fought on the Eastern front. The Russians stopped the WEHRMACHT at stalingrad BEFORE all the Studebakers were delivered
@@Conn30Mtenor do not forget the 8th air force bomber offense from 1942 pulled the german air force west it effected the recon and fighter strength before 1942 the german air force missions 50% wore recon mission
the bomber offense let the red army could surprise the german
"The guys that broke the German Wehrmacht" were (predominantly) the Allies- meaning the United States, Britain, and The Soviet Union. Aside from the sacrifice and effort of all of the combatants;
Lend- Lease literally prevented millions of Russians from starving, allowed the Russians to produce only eight (8) locomotives during the conflict, motorized and equipped Russian infantry formations, and provided over 3/4 of the Russian Air Force's high octane aviation fuel used by the latest generation of Yak, Lagg, and Mig fighters.
The Russian armed forces- in turn bled the German army and air force white. Without their epic effort, D- Day would have either been impossible to attempt or would have been crushed on the beaches.
Britain held the line against the Germans early in the war and was an invaluable source of intelligence (from Ultra) and technology (from the cavity magnetron to theory of the atomic bomb) to the United States.
The United States supplied all of the allies, put almost 16 million men and women in uniform, and waged a multi- front war.
Claiming that any one nation was primarily responsible for defeating the Germans is simply inaccurate.
@@manilajohn0182also, not "the Russians"; the Soviet Union. Just like today, the Russians preferred to let other ethnicities do the dying. A much larger proportion of Ukrainians, Belorussians, Balts, various Sibirians, etc died than Russians.
All he did was execute War Plan Orange at its fundamental level. He got extremely lucky at Midway. He was a C+ commander. Why? By the time the war machine got started in the U.S., he was in command of a force never seen before and he took only occasional advantage of his massive power and could have wrecked havoc on the Japanese like the world has never seen. It was more than possible to take Okinawa long before they were prepared for any kind of defense. Most of his subordinates made serious errors not just once but numerous times. The sad part is his lower level troops up to Major and Lt. Cdr were rated B+ and in many cases A and in a good number of cases A+. They made him look good with their lives. The even greater sad part is all the people who suffered and died producing the massive amounts of superior weapons. I mean in the first year of WWII almost 60,000 died from accidents producing weapons while only 12,000 died from combat.
Your analysis is based entirely on hindsight. The men to whom you have referred were not known quantities, and the ratings which you have conferred on them- assuming that they are accurate- were only in the process of being formulated.
He did have luck at Midway- some bad but redeemed by more good. Napoleon was lucky in his 1805 campaign because of the unnoticed difference in the two calendars that the Austrians and Russians were using. The operational plan which he formulated- using Midway as bait to ambush enemy carriers- was sound. Both bad and good luck intervened.
It was possible to take not only Okinawa, but Iwo Jima prior to the Japanese increasing their defenses of the two islands. That information was not clear at the time to either Nimitz or his subordinates.
Nimitz recognized talent and was able to get the right man into the right job, often in spite of King. Because he was in charge of the Pacific he was able to see details King would ignore or didn't see. He actually was more aggressive in the first 6 months of the war than King wanted to be, yet King chided Nimitz for not being aggressive until after Midway.
@Lawschoolsuccess - I look forward to reading your book on this subject, which I'm sure will provide thorough and copious citations of authoritative reference works documenting your claims and supporting your hypotheses. I am certain that Dr. Symonds, Mr. Parshall, and Mr. Hone will be grateful to be made aware of those hitherto unknown...er, facts.
JOHN POWERS!!! JOHN POWERS!!! Sir, you just made an ASS of yourself. His name was Admiral John Towers!