US & German Atlantic Strategy 1939-1941
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лип 2016
- » HOW YOU CAN SUPPORT MILITARY HISTORY VISUALIZED «
(A) You can support my channel on Patreon: / mhv
(B) You can also buy "Spoils of War" (merchandise) in the online shop: www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
» SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS «
facebook: / milhistoryvisualized
twitter: / milhivisualized
tumblr: / militaryhistoryvisualized
The Atlantic in the Strategy of the US and Germany from 1939-1941.
Script & Further Information: militaryhistoryvisualized.com/...
--Sources--
Main source
Rahn, Werner: Der Seekrieg im Atlantik und Nordmeer, Kapitel I: Der Atlantik in der deutschen und alliierten Strategie, in: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg - Band 6 - Der Globale Krieg. S. 275-298
Supplementary sources - mainly used for translation, quotes and correct titles
www.legisworks.org/congress/77...
www.usmm.org/fdr/rattlesnake.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Oce...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroy...
--Song---
Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone (the Irony :D)
@+Harmless Black Guy
"At 4:25 you say 4 cruisers were transfered but only 3 show op"
and for the first time on this channel the number spoken is correct and not the visual part... :D thank you! Willl add an annotation.
btw. please change your google+ settings, because I can't respond to your comment directly... at least I think that is the problem.
So basically what killed the Germans in WW2 was invasion of the Soviets.
The lesson that German strategists learned from world war one was as follows: "Never fight a two front war". Hitler, as a strategist (he wore many hats, some of them quite well), had, however, a definite bias toward acquired expansion space for a proposed, renewed, German feudal Empire. This view of history and destiny colored his thoughts to the extent that he kept to his desire, despite the threat of a UK descent upon occupied France. Indeed, his first expansion was eastward into the hinterlands between his unified Germany and "Communist Russia".
France was forced upon him, in his view, by her demonstrable stupidity when she backed the guarantee conferred upon Poland by a "worthless piece of paper" (anachronistic reference intentional). Considering the threat represented by an armed, mobilizing, and bellicose, France and Great Britain, in his strategic rear, the French "Question" would have to be answered. This sword of Damocles, poised over his beloved Germany, blinded him to the most elementary-and important-lesson his generation had learned: never fight a war on two fronts.
Unfortunately, from the German point of view, the Wehrmacht and his suppliers, in the form of large public or private "conzerns" was not prepared for the losses, the urgent need for replacement materiel, the sudden, exponential, increase in the demands upon Germany's strategic infrastructure (multiliane highways, railroad nets, bridges, national radio and telegraphic communications, and ports/shipbuilding capacity) expansion, resulting from Hitler's Two Front War.
Moreover, the prevailing view that Soviet Russia was the same old, corrupt, doddering, system, as the one it had replaced, was, in historical hindsight, demonstrably incorrect. Nobody in his right mind could possibly have predicted the effect of Stalinesque Draconian Martial Law upon the fragmented, anachronistic, strategic infrastructure, not to mention the varicolored, often tribal, people, of that nascent nation.
Backed by the best wishes (and the deleterious abrasion of public trust caused by "Aluminum Overcast"--also known as the allies' strategic bombing campaign) of the UK and the United States, coupled with their world wide economic freedoms of trade, their power to impose and enforce sanctions, their crippling boycott powers, Soviet Russia proceeded to suffer the most horrible depredations in modern history inflicted upon her by the ragtag, underequipped, half modernized, armies of her numerically insignificant foe. The German Rat, as we USA citizens might've thought in those halcyon days of Hearst inspired yellow journalism, was kicking the Russian Bear's ass.
This effort, despite our oft stated, heartfelt, opposition to the human rights policies pursued by the government behind it, deserves respect from all historians, military planners, and strategists, evermore.
And then, as they say in drug rehabilitation centers, reality set in. The top industrialists, whose promises Hitler had believed (for they were the ones who'd underwritten his rise to power and whose continued support was essential to the creation of a socialist state) were, in the end, unable to provide him with the tools he needed to construct his proposed empire in the Ost (East). The reasons for the inadequacy were several, but, chief among them, was the difficulty of obtaining certain raw materials so important to the overall operations-and absolutely irreplaceable if industrial expansion was pending-of German forces everywhere. Nickel. Iron. Oil. Molybdenum. Copper . . . whole mountains of it. Fabled, holy, wolfram (known in the west as tungsten). which is so important to the die and tool effort that it is like blood to a bleeding man. Rubber. Quinine. Can't fight a war without 'em.
Beset by calamity from above, crippled by calumny within his own family of industrial giants, ravaged by a justifiably indignant Soviet Kaiju (a kaiju is a Godzilla class monster), by the middle of 1944 the Fuhrer und Reichskanzler had good reason to feel betrayed.
Soviet Armored Vehicle Production in WW2(Tanks and SP Guns):
106,000*
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
German AFV Production in WW2:
50,000*
* (note that this does not include the 30,000 halftracked afvs and armored cars-but, since Soviet figures include no SPW or armored cars this is a more useful comparison)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
United States of America AFV Production in World War Two
102,000, not including more than 30,000 armored halftrack carriers and prime movers,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
And leave us not forget the UK:
27,500 + 100,000 Armored cars and carriers*
*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_armoured_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
So Germany produced 50,000 AFVs (exclusive of AC and SPW/APC)
while her enemies produced 235,000 AFVs (exclusive yadda yadda)?
And, very important from the point of view of the originally vacillating USA:
Strategic Bombers
[4 engine and 2000+ mile mission endurance carrying two tons of bombs halfway]
35,000
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II
UK
15,000
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster
+Stirling and Halifax
Germany
0
Total:
His enemy allies produced 50,000 Strategic Bombers, while Germany produced none.
And, far out in the briny blue . . .
A great deal of German manufacturing resources was consumed in construction and maintaining the U-Waffe (Submarine fleet) so the fatherland could interdict enemy supplies flowing eastward from the USA.
Recapitulation:
So the western allies waged a war of supply against Germany by means of bombers overhead and by contesting control of sea lanes vital to merchant shipping of manufactured goods and raw materials from North America (and elsewhere) to Great Britain, Egypt, amd the Soviet Union. Opposite this effort lay the enormous meat grinder of the eastern front, where thousands upon thousands of 152mm and 203mm guns pounded most of central Europe into mud and indifferent rubble, and where millions of soldiers and citizens were atomized into the fetid air everyone left alive shared and into the Earth underneath when they slept.
Conclusion:
Without the US and UK's involvement the Soviet Union's life and death struggle against her German (and Hungarian, Romanian, Italian, and Slovakian), invaders would have been much prolonged. Congruently, without the Soviet Union, there could have been no war against Festung Europa (Fortress Europe) by the western allies. Specifically, had Hitler's national military NOT invaded the Rodinate (the Russian motherland) it is possible that today's European Union would have begun then and there . . . and been much stronger as a result.
And a bon mot:
Germany must NEVER fight a two front war
Thanks for taking time to read this.
Kind of, Remember that the U.S sent Lend-Lease to the USSR and it was a lot. The USA sent by 1945 the USA had sent over 75,000 Trucks to the USSR alone. it's a huge list.
Taking the USSR was a 50/50 gamble. but once war started against the USA, the Axis didn't have a chance
+Dogmeat1950+ And that is solely because the US of A could outproduce/outmanufacture any nation on Earth. It also had a massive supply of men. The Axis could only hope to win a short, decisive war. That is why Blitzkrieg (Lightning War) was developed.
AudieHolland Yep. But the Germans didn't have a chance against the U.S. talking about a country that could build Entire battle Fleets in just a matter of months
Well, at the start you have a tone like Hitler almost made a mistake for not focusing on a navy. In fact he was right. German economy was already at the verge of collapse due to military build up and he had to use his finite resources wisely. Supremacy at seas would mean nothing if his French border would not be save. Furthermore, Germany could not do much anyways with USA escorts without provoking USA earlier. In the end, Atlantic strategy was meaningless. Germany's defeat and victory relied solely on USSR defeat. If this giant would had fallen before allies could put their might to full swing, any invasion of Europe would had been impossible or too bloody for allies to dare pay the price.
since I agree with you mostly, I think you might be hearing something that is not there.
Although, Hitler definitely made an error about the use of large surface vessels, yet this something I didn't cover in that video. He basically was still thinking in the "duel mode", whereas Raeder was more thinking in a holistic strategy where each ship present would bind a larger number of enemy ships.
Also I disagree with most people here that think that conquering the UK before Barbarossa would be an intelligent move, I doubt it would have been possible at all. (Just consider the initial destroyer numbers and quite some got lost during the Norway campaign.)
I do agree that conquering Britain was an unreasonable expectation. Stalin got Hitler right where he had wanted him to be even if allies performed significantly worse than he had expected. Sadly, Hitler was not a man of reason, but vision. He made irrational decisions who despite all odds were guided by luck and timing which Hitler was a master at.
As for German navy, I do not think that it was possible to win Atlantic war no matter that Hitler would had done. Army and airforce were clear priorities and any invasion of mainland realistically would need to acquire at least equivalence in the seas which would had been impossible for Nazi Germany to accomplish for a long time. Hitler's choices would prove beneficial at constructing decisive battle fleet in order to strike UK shores faster than wasting resources on support ships who could not assist fleet in decisive battle. Decisive battle fleet were superior choice for a really long game then Germany would try to win in the seas, but holistic approach was better in a short term to starve Uk, to split its attention and resources and to redirect resources to non-vital areas. Even if it was ultimately impossible to starve out Britain, it is dissapropriate warfare at how much Nazi Germany must spend time and attention and how much UK has to spend its own energy and resources in protecting itself against submarine raids.
If Hitler had focused German efforts in building and developing a large submarine fleet since 1933, he could've knocked the UK out of the war, or at very least severely weaken the UK war effort and even help the Japanese by forcing the allies to use even more dozens of ships in the Atlantic. Let's say that instead of spending resources in building the 2 huge Bismarck-class Battleships, the useless Graf Zeppelin Aircraft Carrier, and even 2 of the Admiral Hipper-class Heavy Cruisers (of the 5 built, 1 was never completed and the other was sold to the USSR in 1940), all ships that were completely useless in the war but used a significant ammount of German ship-building capacity, they used the money and resources in building dozens of submarines. The UK would be fucked in 1939 and 1940. In fact, Germany in 1939 only had a very small U-Boat fleet (that also used torpedos that failed a lot), and even so they managed to cause a very significant impact. If their fleet was 2 or 3 times larger (which is very much possible if they didn't spend resources on large, expensive and useless surface vessels) when the war started, the British merchant fleet would've been devastated. It is very much possible they could've forced the UK to surrender, ending the blockade and aerial bombing of Germany (not to mention the secondary fronts in North Africa, Italy and the West). That alone would've made Germany FAR, FAR stronger against the Soviets, specially later in the war. Germany in late 1943, and all of 1944 and 1945 would've been several times better equipped, would have several million more soldiers and with their supply lines close to Germany would have no logistical problems (not to mention the Soviets would have no lend-lease, which would mean a weaker USSR as well)
@@alexandrejosedacostaneto381 This is true, if you've watched this channel, you would realise that soviets also had manpower issues, but they were able to re-arm "liberated" territories, something germany couldn't do, but would be able to do in this scenario, no blockade, no bombing, no need to build 1k u-boats, no need for the atlantic wall, all the anti-air artillery in the western front would be on the east, double as much airforce cuz 50% of them were gunned down in the west
@@REgamesplayer Why was conquering Britain so unreasonable. Without America, it was very reasonable.
You make absolutely amazing videos. The way you teach WW2 is much more realistic than what I was taught in school.
What were you taught? This is what I was taught,"Uh. The Germans no scoped. Poland. Then magically captured Norway,France,and the Low Countries as well as North Africa. Then America noscoped Germany."
If that's what you were taught, then your curriculum really needs to reform itself
Theodosius It really does. Of course,people would get suspicious of the term *noscope* was in the textbooks,but somehow,I doubt that. Because it's just as bad. You see,I live in America,so,all the history is American-centric. Therefore,Hitler killed puppies while taking meth in his free time,the Eastern Front never happened,and the North African front only exists after 1943.
Lord Kaisertum of All Creation I also live in the US
Theodosius Then you can testify to the shit of the educational system here.
I remember hearing in one of my junior high history classes where my teacher simply said "America was never neutral in the war" and after hearing all this it seems he was right. It was clear that the United States was going to be on the side of England during the war from the beginning despite whatever sense of neutrality that existed at the time.
There’s no such thing as a neutral United States, from day one
The United States has always been expanding or picking a side of something
@@looinrims US always protects its own best interests. Nothing wrong with that.
@@livingadreamlife1428 it was illegal how it was done, impeachable even
I’m just saying
@@looinrims same with Louisiana purchase and the back and forth crap they dealt with in the Barbary wars with the navy.
Same with tonnes of stuff Lincoln did to hold the line in the Civil War.
Do the ends justify the means always- no
Do the ends justify the means in the eyes of history- it very much depends.
Legality doesn’t dictate moral or strategic correctness. Just as Fabian tactics were incredibly unpopular, even sacrilegious in many instances they appeared. They were often the crucial element in every war they won. Past this we’d just dive into Montesquieu cultural relativism, Russian scorched earth vs America’s starving its own army both being key.
@@Souledex that first part is a big fat no, the second is a big fat yes, and no it doesn’t matter, because the mere act set the precedent that the government will throw everyone’s god given rights out the window whenever they please
Not equal by the way to the other stuff and the Americans never intentionally starved their army what the hell?
The British occupation of Iceland is worth its own video. An amusing story.
Or maybe the Battle of Castle Itter.
Would be appreciated, though I would like to correct the statement in 6:12 about Iceland being part of Denmark. Iceland was a sovereign nation, but shared a common king with Denmark (much like England and Canada).
Ilkka Murometsä Britain? Being a war criminal? Shocking
Ilkka Murometsä lol it was for their own good
@@andrei19238 who are you referring to? The British war cabinet and their view of Iceland or the Nazis and their view of Eastern Europe? Or the Japanese and their view of, well everyone
Fantastic! I've been anticipating some naval related videos.
Very informative and concise. Good job of writing.
great videos. I think they are the perfect length. You pack a lot of detail into a short presentation but the format works well for history snippets and the Bavarian (to my American ears, yes I know you are Austrian) accent is the cherry on the sundae 😃
thank you! Bavarian and Upper Austrian dialect is very similar, so that is almost spot on.
IMO, this is you most interesting video to date. Good work.
love your videos please keep making them
thank you!
Excellent as always
Great work amigo
Could you do a video on the Canadian navy and its expansion during the war?
Also great videos as always.
@ abrasivestepfather The Canadian Navy was vital in World War II. German war planning to the extent it existed ignored the Dominions. But if you af=dd the Dominions together they amount to another important European country. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/cou-bd.html
Great vid. I love your wit.
Nice explanation of the conflicting military and political points of view and objectives, for both sides, from the strategic and grand strategic levels. Well done!
Very interesting aspect of WW2. Is there any chance of a video on the Burma campaigns, or perhaps Operation Market-Garden? Keep up the good work!
nice video as always. And again yet another logistical headache.
Sir, you are amazing
thank you!
One area we do not see talked about much are the preparations the US made pre-war for the construction of a large navy. The navy saw a war coming and pushed for an expanded building program with the Vinson-Trammell Act was enacted on 03/34. Later Roosevelt pushed through the Naval Expansion Acts of 05/38, 06/40, 07/40, 04/41, and after war the began in 12/41, the Naval Emergency Construction Act of 02/42, and the Submarine Act 04/42. The pre-war naval construction acts meant that the US Navy would have a huge navy starting including those 99 carriers for the Pacific War far earlier than if they had started in 1941.
Great vid, made me want to load up my modded Silent Hunter 5.
This format is exceptional for visual learners. I would pay decent money for university quality content explained in such a nature!
@ Kyle Vokes And without the woke social-justice narrative.
You should pick up Clay Blair's "Hitler's U-Boat War" in two volumes. It's a phenomenal source on all things U-Boot throughout the course of the war. The books are a bit pricey but IMHO well worth it.
thx! I put it on my wishlist, but for now I stick mostly to the "Germany and the Second World War" (in 12 Volumes) due to it being free at the university library.
I don't watch documentaries anymore, I am too cautious, because well, I don't trust them and their delivery is often "enhanced" by music and footage that tends to "stick" more. Also they take ages with a limited amount of information density.
You shouldn't worry about the Battlefield series, each episode is 2 hours long and there are no silly effects or shortcuts taken that could lower the information value of the video (they were all made in the mid-90s, before "History" Channel was a thing). Having said that I did note a few little mistakes here and there, but they don't detract from the great overall impression that the series gives.
He loved the idea of interdicting sea lanes by means of the Panzer Schiffe, which is why we all called him "Commerce Raeder".
Very nice video. As an American it is a bit of a mystery why Hitler declared war on the United States when Germany was so engaged in a struggle with Russia. My speculation is that Hitler wanted to get Japan to attack Russia and thought declaring war on the U.S. might help, but that's just my own speculation.
I think that if Hitler had not declared war on the U.S. then we would have focused our efforts on Japan and the western front, with allied bombing, etc. would not have been a major factor in the war.
I think because of the alliance with Japan he had to declare. If not, the US would've found a way to declare on Germany, atleast after Pearl Harbour.
not because of Alliance with Japan, Hitler did not care about alliances, besides Japan never declared War on the USSR. US would have had a hard time declaring war on Germany after Pearl Harbor, but US actions in the Atlantic were designed to piss Hitler off, Hitler declared war because he wanted to wage unrestricted submarine warfare against US shipping
It's called pride.
AudieHolland Yeah well Hitler put it into Battleships and he paired for that mistake. In the end Aircraft defeated the Submarine
***** Not in 1940,1941 or early 1942.
Have you considered doing a video on the AVG(American Volunteer Group), they are my personal favorite group of pilots in all of aviation, they would be a good video, they had a lot going on behind the scenes that I think you would find interesting.
P.S. Love your videos, glad to see your channel is growing, keep up the good work
not really, but if I stumble across something and it is interesting and/or I have an idea I will make a video, but very unlikely.
thank you!
Ah, the Flying Tigers.
In early 1942 tiny group of German U-boats (the core of perhaps just 20) sunk more material of American Army than German army could destroy in battlefield during 1942-43. Even more important: those U-boats sunk so much bauxite that American try to produce 60 000 aircraft in 1942 was impossible: 12 000 aircraft was not produced mostly because lack of aluminium. No wonder why Allied had highest priority to block German U-boats in 1942. German army or Luftwaffe was never a headache for Allied.
German u boats werent a priority in 1942, That became in 1943, with british coastal command getting more aircrafts. And with tactical innovations the british broke the back of the german u boats in march 1943 forward, and by the end of the war they had destroyed 560 german u boats and 100 italian submarines, while the US destroyed 150 u boats and not a single italian submarine.
I would like to see an analysis of the potential Axis invasion of Malta in ww2. What forces could be involved, what could the potential ramifications be and what was 5he likelihood of success. I really enjoy your work.
Thank you.
Haven't watched the vid yet, but YAY MARITIME STUFF!
I'm a slight bit disappointed you didn't mention the differing naval strategies between Raeder and Donitz, but I guess that's after the relative unsuccessful operations of the German Surface fleet that Raeder loved so much. (Sinking of the Bismark and the Battle off the coast of Norway being the most prominent examples which lead to the switch in leadership)
Other than that you're pretty much spot on, good work.
different scope, there will probably a video on the strategy of surface fleet usage between Raeder and Hitler, read a bit about that. About Raeder and Dönitz I haven't read anything so far.
thank you.
Military History Visualized Ok, cool, I'm sure you'll get around to reading up on it.
It's a very big part of the WW2 German naval story, with a complete switch of strategy. Hitler lost faith in Raeders plans and decided to employ Donitz's plans for a strong submarine fleet after the failure of the German navy to engage and destroy a British convoy off the Coast of Norway which was escorted by a British Battleship.
I don't think I need to point out the advantages and disadvantages of a surface raiding fleet vs a submarine fleet to you.
Unfortunately I can't make a very thought-out or well-explained post as there's a happening in Turkey that's dividing my attention right now. Keep up the good stuff, really appreciate your channel.
Battle of the Atlantic by Jonathan Dimbleby is a good choice on the whole Raedar Donitz thing. (and also on the whole atlantic war obviously, AND the US stance before it)
Woohoo! Another navy video!
The combined USA/UK fleet is staggeringly powerful. That alone would essentially guarantee any German operations in the Atlantic was bound to fail. I don't understand how thinking otherwise wouldn't be suicidal.
@ Just bin Not to mention the liberty ships.
For some reason my iPad won't let me reply to your reply.First thanks for reading it, and yes I understand you said that.It wad the suggestion that the US lead naval strategy in the Atlantic 1939 to 1941 that I specifically objected to. US political decisions made serious changes to the strategic situation for sure, but there were a lot of very hard working men and women actually developing and delivering strategy in that period and they were British.Sorry to go on because I love your videos.
interesting, your original comment was actually in the "likely spam" section. I assume something ipad related.
yeah, I agree on that, I wasn't happy with my wording of "fighting", but I spent quite some time on that part too and at some point I move on.
I was relieved that Military History corrected a historical myth that the United States Navy should have formed convoys early in the war along the Atlantic Coast. When they couldn't because of lack of personal and lack of ships. The lack of sufficient aircraft was also a factor.
@James Woodbury What myth? That was just what happened. There were shortages of ships. But that was the case in Britain (1939). The Royal Navy turned to anything that floated including fishing boats. And why wasn't coastal lighting turned off? Was there a shortage of switches? I think Adm. King is not adequately appreciated in our new Woke America, but here he made a serious mistake.
@@dennisweidner288 The Navy did not have the authority to order blackouts, the Army did have the authority and all of the modern long range aircraft that had not been sold or Lend Leased to Britain.
@@nickdanger3802 Did the Navy press for blackouts? As far as I know, they did not in a timely manner. The Drum Beat sinkings went on for several months. You did not need long-range aircraft, the Drumbeat sinkings often occurred in sight of the coast. I find it hard to believe that no or very few aircraft were available. What is your source for this?
@@nickdanger3802 Sad to hear. I have not yet had trouble with UA-cam, although I have with other social media sites. I gave up on Quora because of their Censorship of Conservative thought. Interesting post. Which sounds accurate. Two things you neglect to mention:
1. Although foreign orders were increasing American production capacity at a time that U.S. military purchases were still very limited.
2. Even before the War began and budgets began to increase, the President instructed the military to work out a purchasing arrangement so as the Allies goit some of the production. Never did it all go to Britain. You speak of Wildcats and Buffalos. The British did not get any significant numbers of Wildcats until well into 1942. They continued to use obsolete biplanes for their carrier air arm. As for Catalinas, the British began getting them in 1941, but I would have to see a solid citation before I would believe that none were available and they all went to Britain.
@@dennisweidner288 The long range aircraft the Navy did have, Catalinas and Martin Mariners, were in the Pacific Involved in some minor actions around some place called Midway and doing ASP on North Atlantic convoys from places like Newfoundland, Greenland, Iceland and the new base in Northern Ireland.
"In October 1940 two Martlets of 804 Naval Air Squadron, based on Orkney, forced down a German Junkers 88A that was attempting to bomb the Home Fleet at Scapa Flow. This was the first victory credited to an American Built fighter in British service."
www.fleetairarm.com/exhibit/grumman-martlet-al246/2-38-103.aspx
PM Churchill "Before the United States came into the war, we made our calculations on the basis of British building and guaranteed Lend-Lease, which assured us of a steady and moderate improvement in our position by the end of 1943 on a very high scale of losses. There never was a moment in which we did not see our way through, provided that what the United States promised us was made good."
api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1943/feb/11/war-situation
@ Nick Danger Britain never could have taken on the Germans alone. The British never won one land battle on their own. Even at Alamein, there were huge shipments of American supplies. Simply put, the Whgermacht was just better at war than the British (and Americans). It took the Soviets cutting the heart out of the Wehrmacht and huge superiority in forces for the Western Allies to win land battles.
Excellent video about a very neglected and important topic. topic. A few comments.
1. You refer to U.S. public opinion, but not a word about the Isolationist Movement. Any discussion of this topic is incomplete without a mention of the President's struggle with Lindburg and the other isolationists. They had to be defeated before the United States could even begin to come to grips with the NAZIs. Here the President's performance was masterful, a case study in effective Presidential leadership.
2. It would be useful to mention Churchill's impatience. Listening to your video, you get the idea that Churchill just set back and allowed events to unfold., In fact, he was constantly pressing the President, not fully comprehending the strength of the Isolationist Movement.
3. You need to mention that the Two Ocean Navy Act was about Japan as much if not more so than the NAZIs.
4. Your discussion of September 1941 was accurate but incomplete. What needs to be said it as the opening of an undeclared naval war with NAZI Germany. Absolutely necessary, but in total violation of the Constitution.
5. You mention Lend Lease, but do not fully explain the level of American involvement, such as the fact that 'Bismarck' was spotted by an American Catalina with a U.S. Navy officer aboard training the Briitish flight crew.
6. It would be valuable to explain why Hitler did not want a war with America at this time. Basically, while America did not yet have a substantial Army equipped with modern weapons, the United States had an industrial economy far greater than all the Axis combined even with the 1939-40 conquests. (Hitler's decision to declare war on America is puzzling. I understand you did not have time to go into here, but it deserves video on its own.)
7. Also important to mention is why Britain was so important to America. The Royal Navy in German hands would have been far more dangerous than the French fleet. In addition, the United States had virtually no army in 1940. And often ignored is the secret British arms research which Churchill provided to the Americans without any strings.
8. And it needs to be addressed as to what was at stake here. The RAF fended off the Luftwaffe. But Britain on her own could not survive with Hitler controlling Continental Europe. Ther would have inevitably been a British Vichy. America had to be brought into the War, not only to save Britain but Europe. Without America, Europe would have fallen under either NAZI no Soviet domination.
9. And you totally miss the fact that Hitler sent the Ostheer east into the Soviet Union largely on foot with horse-drawn carts. The motorized units were less than a third of the German Ostheer and the Axis allies were even more poorly equipped. The reason for this was that German industry was largely oriented toward supporting the war in the West. Not much industry is needed to produce horse carts and shoe leather. A great deal is needed to produce the ships, aircraft, and anti-aircraft guns needed to fight the war in the west.
hey could you do a video on japanese carrier task forces # of ships and types
Why was the FW 200 so successful, considering it was a flying fuel tank ?
for quite some time there was no protection against it. Also merchant ships are rather easy targets due to being slow, unarmored and usually not well armed.
The answer is range. Initially, the Condor could strike slow moving and poorly armed merchant vessels at distances off the coast that most fighter planes were unable to effectively cover with their patrols. With better protected merchant vessels (increased AA capabilities) and an effective convoi system in place it became much harder for the FW 200 to attack allied shipping in the Atlantic. Of course the ranges and capabilities of fighter airplanes, as well as the range of RADAR evolved quite a bit during the war, so in the end the "terror of the Atlantic" really had no chance anymore.
Military History Visualized
yes, but still all it would have taken is one old lewis gun with incendary rounds, on each merchant ship to see these buzzards explode into a fire ball.
not to mention what a Bren would have done, probably no need for ammo with that war-winning über-MG ;)
actually, thinking about it, Junkers had developed a bomber with diesel engines, this would have been ideal for a long range bomber that wouldn't explode if hit by a hot bullet. A FW 200 with 4 diesel engines, and maybe 2 torps would have been an improvement.
Nice informative overview video as always. Just curious though, why did you choose to mention Great Britain at 1:10 and show a graphic of GB as opposed to the UK and a map of the UK? After all Northern Ireland is part of the UK and fought in the War.
yeah, because I have no map with Norther Ireland and usually I always use Britain (rarely) or United Kingdom, but since I only showed GB, I said GB, because I think I also limited to the trade.
Video!
Indeed!
I can confirm!
Haha
Nice Video BTW.
Its actually a motion picture!
Interesting note that the president can send volunteers without congress' approval. That makes the precedent for modern conflicts a lot more clear.
well, he could in 1941, not sure if this wasn't changed in some way.
Wait I'm pretty sure I remember that the UK was the leading partner for 1942 and early 1943, as the US was still extremely inexperienced. I mean they decided the strategy for invading Morrocco and then Italy and determined the strategy for the Battle of the Atlantic.
You're correct. Some hints for the masses: Royal Navy (LARGEST NAVY IN THE WORLD, at least in the early days of WW2), British EMPIRE (India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada), and I forgot in my other post, ROYAL AIRFORCE. Britain was no damsel in distress, it was just a major imperial nation that had suffered a severe setback and needed time to get back on its feet so it could smash its enemies (and in the process, trying to bomb every single German, man, woman and child, during their terror-bombing I mean area-bombing). I won't even call that strategic bombing because in strategic bombing you are supposed to hit your target, not claim a hit if the bomb falls within a few miles from its actual target.
Žiga Auer Your concept is rather simplistic. The United States had an economy three times and a population nearly three times the size of Britain. Britain was never going to be the senior partner in a protected war. American aid essentially kept Britain in the war, especially with Lend Lease (1941). Britain was mobilized for war in 1942, the United States was not. Even so, America carried the bulk of fighting in the Pacific War beginning with Pearl Harbor. As for Torch, Churchill raised the idea with Roosevelt who was an enthusiastic supporter. It was very much a joint decision. As for Italy, that was largely a British idea. The Americans wanted a cross-channel invasion. And the bulk of Allied power was amassed for that project and not for the Italian campaign. British opposition to OverLord was one of the two major issues plaguing the Anglo-American relationship. I suppose you are correct that the British decided the strategy for the Battle of the Atlantic, but that was largely because it was mostly waged by British and Canadian ships, but a vital component of the victory was raw American industrial power-producing ships, planes, and weaponry.
Could you do a video on the massive resource shipments from the Soviet Union to the 3. Reich in 1939 and 1940?
Not so much in 1939, but vital in 1n 1940 and the first half of 1941. histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/camp/axis/ns-coop.html
The USS Kearny and the USS Reuben James, were long remembered by average people in the U.S. from that time. Perhaps because they were emphasized to prepare the US population to support the coming war.
Even though there were few submarines sent against U.S. ships the losses along the Atlantic coast were initially very high. One problem was the U.S. didn't blackout it's coastal cities. This helped U-Boats targeting the silhouettes of ships.
btw "The British became junior partners'? I don't think the British allow anyone to marginalize their role in the war. You understand, Hitler was crazy, the German military was unstoppable, but Winston Churchill told FDR what to do so the Reds could win at Stalingrad. And then they argue over whether Montgomery or Alexander was the greatest general in history, after Wellington. I always chuckle at British documentaries about the war. Always near the end, they happen to mention, "and the Red Army was advancing from the east." Like it was a couple of guys and a dog.
Your videos are very informative and balanced. Each one is like 200 pages of a really good history book. I'm totally addicted.
@ Will Nettles The Ostkrieg was the decisive campaign of the War. But the British and the War in the West in general was a vital factor in the Red Army victory.
Additionally the British successes using convoys early in the war with only two escorts was more due the size of the Atlantic , a shortage of U-boats at the time and of course ULTRA which was reading U-boats cyphers from their ENIGMA machines up until January 1942 . That was when improved ENIGMA machines blinded ULTRA for several months the U-boats had a Happy Time along the East Coast of the United States.
"They (Britain) became the junior partner of the United Sates .." Shots Fired! Bernhard is single handedly trying to start, if not WW III, then certainly WW2.1
I hope you are planning a Lend Lease policy examination.
yeah, at some point, but I guess I will need to buy some books for that and since I have loads of other stuff still lying around in copies and in library books, it will be something for 2017 I guess.
Most people are not aware of the many millions of tons of Reverse Lend Lease supplies and equipment the US received in WWII from her allies. For example Australian in one year alone had to demobilize 10,000 troops to increase food production for the US forces in the Pacific Area. It may appear not important but Australia also supplied millions of bolts, nuts, washers, sparkplugs, thousands of pre-fabricated buildings, hundreds of marine engines to the US forces. This was all part of the British Commonwealth and Empire world wide integrated war economy. The Indian Ocean was effectively a British "lake" and even if the Japanese had captured the Pacific Islands as far as Fiji, Australia would not have been cut off as 70 per cent of Australia's wartime trade was through the Indian Ocean. Thus you will be hard pressed to find a accurate publication on what was once termed Imperial (British, later allied) trade defence as it was a far more complex subject than most post WWII people understand.
@@geoffreymowbray6789 The Indin Ocean was only a British lake because of the Battle of Midway. When the Japanese entered the IO in force (March 1942), the Royal Navy essentially evacuated the IO.
have you done any videos on the attacks on Austraila or the ANZAK forces and if not will you be doing any on them? and great video
not yet, but Australia is definitely planned and I copied quite some stuff for that, but so far my sources are mostly chronological stuff... with limited analytical stuff... I am rather not fond of chronological stuff.
ok
Gotta appreciate FDR's circumvention of the US' neutrality laws though. Shrewd politics all around!
FDR was a devious man who longed for a war that was not wanted and purposefully put american lives in harm's way to get the war he wanted in the direction he wanted. Shrewd, yes... an evil man who was willing to sacrifice citizens to get what he wanted, definitely.
@Khymerion: sounds more like a regular politician, especially for that time period.
from what I know so far, yes he wanted peace with Britain, but I think the peace with the United States was more of a temporary concern out of necessity.
Military History Visualized You are right. It is just that it is hard to portray America as pure innocence that was ruined by the actions of the Axis powers or that FDR was some savant that guided the country through the storm of war... a war he had done everything to try and make sure happened.
He had to do this because without the ordering of soldiers into harms way to create his desired conflict, to force an engagement that the people really were again. There was, at the time, a growing support for isolation and compassion for Germany that was not in favor of FDR's agenda.
He is a regular politician, a scummy one at that, and thus not exactly deserving the praise he gets heaped.
sympathy for Germany during World War II is misplaced
god I love Roosevelt, in a nation full set for sticking its head in the sand he knew what he was doing. even if pearl harbour hadn't happened he had set everything in place to give the uk all the help he could and had almost guaranteed an incident. damn good man
FDR maimed and murdered 1,000,000 Americans in order to spread Soviet communism
@@gregorywade1559 Try reading a history book or two.
@ yiggdrasill President Roosevelt is mostly remembered because of the New Deal. But while the New Deal has many important achievements, it did not end the Depression--World War II did. And I think you are exactly correct. He and Churchill essentially save not only Britain and America, but Western Civilization.
@@dennisweidner288 Try reading a Critical Thinking book, just one
@@gregorywade1559 I would be astounded to know that you have read one.
In US public schools, we never learn about all of the Acts of War which Roosevelt committed against Germany and Japan prior to their fighting back in Dec 1941 at Pearl Harbor, and Germany's subsequent declaration of war in support of her ally.
But then again, USA was illegally shipping arms and ammunition to UK during WW1. That's how the Lusitania was sunk. The illegal cargo exploded, taking it to the bottom.
And yet, USA claims that everyone ELSE commits Acts of War. Never HER!
Maybe. Certainly secondary schools do not emphasize that until the bombs fell on Oahu a modest number of Americans were active Nazi’s under the fig leaf of the Bund, with the brand of Lindbergh. No need to point out that some members of the greatest generation, and their parents had supported killing Jews and others.
U.S. strategy in the pacific in a nutshell:
Step 1: design a good ship of each class
Step 2: press copy and paste
Step 3: repeat step 2, do not stop repeating step 2
Step 4: profit
Seriously I don't even consider the Fletcher's , Sumner's, Gearing's, Essexes', Cleveland's, Baltimore's, destroyer escorts and their light carriers( which I can't remember the names of the individual classes) to even be worthy of being called classes.
The term swarm is more fitting.
And on the other hand "US" Convoys delivered Chemical Products to Portugal where they were transfered to Germany. In some cases U-Boats were even refueled by US Ships in the Atlantic.
source? Especially for the second part.
it was in a documentary or article about US companies involved in nazi germany. I think it was Texaco, who had Ships under other flags traveling between the US and Portugal. My internet sucks at the moment, but I'll let you know asap. It had some other interesting things in it, like the connection between GM, Opel and the Opel Blitz.
@@BelaM27X11 There is a lot of misinformation about U.S. companies because of the left-wing hate American effort. For example, you say U.S. companies " involved in nazi Germany". There were U.S. subsidiaries in Germany and many other countries. These were established BEFORE the NAZIs seized control. After 1933 the NAZIs basically seized control (but not ownership) of all German companies. The U.S.subsidiaries were theoretically still owned by parent American companies, but there were controlled by NAZI agencies like Goering's Four Year plan. Before the War, U.S. companies were largely unrestricted as to who they traded with. Congress after the outbreak of World War II passed regulations giving the Government the authority to regulate this trade. It is possible that some American products leaked into the Reich through Portugal, but the Reich's chief foreign supplier was the Soviet Union (1939-41). Sweden and Sweuiterkand were also important. The primary issue concerning trade with Axis countries was Japan. We were their chief supplier of scrap iron and oil. Armed with the new authority granted by Congress the United States began pressuring Japan, culminating in the oil embargo. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/us/aod/aiac/aiac.html
Will you do more videos on Japan and the East Asian Theatre in general? The biggest blunders of the Japanese Empire?
I have some copies of "in service of the Emperor" or something, so yeah, there will be more videos about Japan / Pacific / East Asian for sure. Actually, quite likely, since I did a lot of German videos recently.
Thanks for video. could you do also one on conscription ? especially conscription in nazi Germany, I'v heard that they forces Czecks, slovaks and other folks into army.
Also, do i eat wurst with mustard or as my diplomats recommend me, with ketchup? I need German comrade's word here bitte
Well true germans would consider mustard the right choice. The mustard also has some variety. The right choice here depends on the sausage. Greetings.
@ Chez You are incorrect. Czechs were not conscripted for military service. Slovaks voluntarily became a NAZI ally. The Germans did conscript ethnic Germans in occupied countries and annexed territories.
Germany would have used even much more than average 12% for sea warfare if they had new generation XXI U-boats in production line in early 1943. In early stage of the war navy needs were almost 15% of German munition production. In late 1944 U-boats once again passed the production of combat armor and in Jan 1945 XXI U-boats with aircraft the highest in German priority list.
@ Peace-Of-Mind One more example of how the German economy was oriented primarily toward supporting the war in the West and not supporting the Ostheer. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html
In HOI4, I basically focused 100% on building lots and lots of escort ships (cruisers), developing anti submarine and anti air capabilities and creating advanced escort and submarine doctrine as Great Britain. As a result, I was able to significantly diminish the effect of German submarines. I think that Germany certainly should have invested in killing as many convoys as possible with advanced Amir and sub tech; in HOI4 at least it's clear that Great Britqin relied heavily on imports for its war economy. By preventing the Germans to do serious damage in my HOI4 campaign, I continued a strong economy until the war ended in 1944.
In HOI4 subs are useless, even with cheats (all navy doctrines and type XXI in 1939) it is not possible to sink convoys in any significant number.
It takes 1 week to reach the convoys, but only 1-2 days for the destroyers to reach the subs. In the initial approach, about 1-2 destroyers per 10 magical supersubs will get sunk, after that only subs will go down. And if they don't engage escorts, they will get sunk one by one by surprise encounters and aircrafts.
I'm not sure about the USMC "volunteers" comment. I agree that US Marines were volunteers prior to the war but that in itself wouldn't give a US President the ability to use them without Congressional approval? I believe that the formation of the Marine Corps included language "other duties as directed by the President?" The current (1956) authority is US Code 10 Section 5063: "and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct." But that doesn't mean the earlier language had such delegation of authority. So can anyone help with this?
well, the source additionally stated that he informed congress afterwards, which also seems to be the case here: www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/410707awp.html
+Military History Visualized Yes, he did, but is he retroactively asking for permission or informing them of an action he has the inherent power to do already? I don't know the answer.
i feel the defense of Roosevelt's dithering due to public opinion and congress is over reach. He was surrounded by people much more hawkish than he that were mystified why he hadnt used the excuses German actions had given him to enter the war soon - as he promised Churchill he would. Public opinion was also in favour by the end of 1940, about 60%, and it carried on rising through 1941.
The USA was far more of a natural enemy of Hitlers Germany than the UK was .. we know that now, and they knew it then too
When you get a chance you might improve the video by doing a visual reference showing the extension of the US exclusion zones. German tactics were extremely hampered by the creeping extension of the zones. The Greenland-Iceland-UK-Gap started out as a favorite hunting ground for Uboats. As the US moved to Greenland then Iceland these areas became untenable for submarine operations. The Kriegsmarine was then limited to the western approaches to the UK and the mid-Atlantic. US Naval forces eventually moved into the mid-Atlantic and Uboats were force to operate nearer to the UK and its ASW forces. Uboat production never sufficient, because Hitler thought the continental war was more important, really became inadequate as the Uboat command began to suffer horrific casualties. This truly explains how the Kriegsmarine could take actions made by the USA as declarations of war.
@ Cole Rape You overemphasize the importance of the U.S. Navy. The critical battles in the gap (mid-1943) were largely fought by British and Canadian escorts.
@@dennisweidner288 That is the gist of what I said. The US exclusion zones didn't have much in the way of warfare going on because the Kreigsmarine couldn't afford going to war not only with the Royal Navy but with the US Navy as well. The exclusion zones funneled the KM into the Western Approaches allowing the RN to focus their efforts and reap the benefits. The USN didn't have to fight (although it did in limited circumstances). It took the Atlantic Fleet (USN) time to build up after the declaration of war. So it goes without saying that the RN would do the bulk of the fighting early on once the gloves came off for the KM. Through December 41 the RN benefited from the Exclusion zones because that meant they would not have to cover all the approaches to the UK. Not overemphasis just a basic statement of the facts.
@@colerape It was not just "early on". The KM was defeated in a series of convoy battles in the mid-air gap (March-June 1943), After which, Doenitz withdrew the U-boats from the North Atlantic. At his time the escorts were almost all British or Canadian. Although American aircraft were playing an increasing role. The Atlantic Fleet did not build up after Pearl Harbor, in fact, ships were shifted to the Pacific. It was not until 1943 that the Atlantic fleet could begin building up. By which time the Riyal Navy and Canadians had decisively defeated the U-boats. O would add that beginning in September, Roiisevellt opened up an undeclared naval war with the Germans, 3 months before Pearl Harbor. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/us/pr/41/unw.html
I did not understand your quote about "his name was the inspiration for all the Pirate references"... May you explain me that ?
Hmm can't find anything in the script that matches your text, this is the closest, but maybe I did a spontaneous thing.
Roosevelt used this incident and called the German attacks piracy and this is origin for his rattlesnake quote:
“But when you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him. These Nazi submarines and raiders are the rattlesnakes of the Atlantic.“ - President Franklin Delano Roosevelt Fireside Chat to the Nation, September 11, 1941
10005999 I think he was making a play ao Adm. Raeder's name. It sounds like raider -- pirate raiders.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I am guessing you were making a play on Adm Raeder's name, as it sounds like pirate raiding.
I thought this was about the Atlantic strategy, but it seems like only the prelude to the actual strategy .
@ Meow Dog Saving Britain was the central cog in American World war II strategy.
At 4:25 you say 4 cruisers were transfered but only 3 show op
Make a video about the Afrika Korps and why Rommel failed in North Africa.
5:21 Does this German soldier have a "Born To Kill"-button on his body armour?
?!?! you know that this is the peace sign and the guy from the movie had written next to "born to kill" as some kind satire or something.
It's a reference to this scene (watch?v=KMEViYvojtY) from Full Metal Jacket.
Seeing a peacesymbol on military hardware always reminds me of the movie and especially that scene.
It is the other way round from the film though.
are you trolling or what? I know that movie. Why are you asking when you know exactly what is about anyway?
I just wanted to make a stupid reference, and it ended up in miscommunication. Sorry!
sorry, my bad, I sometimes don't recognize trolls enough and sometimes I there are false positives.
Do you accept books as a donation? Industrial camouflage manual...Pratt Institute 1942. Thanks for your work
Read battle of the atlantic, jonathan dimbleby...
All about the atlantic strategies of the germans, americans... and british, that were somehow glossed over in this video, weird considering they were the main part of the battle. (destroying the german surface navy, 560 u boats, and losing 30.000 merchant marine sailors, in contrast to the US not even touching the german surface navy, destroying 150 u boats, and losing 5000 merchant marine sailors only - because they werent that big a part of it-- )
And yet when war came we (USA) were seemingly completely unready for our new situation and gave Germany a near free reign "the second happy time" from the U-boats crews perspective. Why we didn't immediately start convoy operations and institute black outs along the seaboard after dark? Those mistakes nearly cost England the war.
@ Whitpusmc They were costly but did not 'nearly cost England the war'. In fact, it reduced pressure on the vital Atlantic convoys. It is easy to criticize today from the perspective of history. Not so easy to shift a peacetime isolationist country into a war footing. And you are ignoring what was going on in the Pacific.
@@dennisweidner288 Churchill said in his case memoirs that the only thing that really cost him sleep was the Uboat menace.
England only had about six weeks of food at any time plus were low on coal and oil etc. The failure of the US (my country) to learn the lessons of the First World War Uboat threat and at least have convoys earlier was very very costly. Yes I get the difficulty of moving to a wartime footing getting lights off etc.
@@Whitpusmc You have to understand that his memoirs were written after the war and the purpose was in part to cement his very considerable role in winning the War. This they are not pure history, but still very valuable. Anyone who has studied Churchill knows that he was worried about much more than U-boats when he became prime minister (May 10). Actually, it was touch and go to convince the Cabinet not to make peace with Hitler.
Britain was never desperately low on coal. Oil yes, but not coal, except when the miners went out on strike.,
Now as to learning the lessons of World War I. Actually here the main culprit was Britain. The Royal Navy did not prepare for another U-boat conflict. As a result, they had to use anything that floated to fight the U-boats, including fishing boats. The answer was eventually the corvet, totally unsuited for operations in the North Atlantic. (It has an open bridge.) Fortunately, the Canadians virtually built a navy overnight.
I agree it was a mistake not to go to convoys as soon as possible, but even with convoys, the losses would have been considerable. The USN did not have the escorts needed to protect convoys properly. And unlike Britain in 1939, there was a pressing need in the Pacific.
Abd as for not learning the lessons of WW I, the Pacific fleet began a submarine offensive immediately after Pearl Harbor, the only successful submarine campaign in history.www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/sea/pac/sub/sc-us.html
@@dennisweidner288 I agree with pretty much all of the above. Sorry to be boring. In particular the part about the USN submarine campaign seems to be little known amazingly enough. Now imagine that they had the Japanese Long Lance torpedo or something similar? Or just a functional one. Heads should have rolled over that one. Thanks for an informative discussion.
Oh, and l like how Churchill learned his lesson and didn’t include the Enigma encryption success / Ultra in his memoirs. That he did learn form after WW1!
@@Whitpusmc I heartedly agree about the American torpedo problem, which amazingly two nearly 2 years to solve.
Lend Lease was a very long way from being the best way to aid an Ally.
It's because back then there were a lot of confusing and complex politics around thanks to documents and treaties made 50 or more years ago before that time. I remember hearing everyone including UK was doing legal maneuvering in order to avoid being obligated to become an ally to the Japanese or someone else they don't like all because the let's say the US for example found out about Pearl Harbor in advance and attacked them first for defense. When you get down to it. Politics always makes everything harder to do.
The best way possible
UltimateToby 17 Correction. It is what they thought was the best for the nation's welfare and well being during that time. Back then we weren't exactly a military giant. People were uneasy about potentially getting into another big war after ww1. Don't forget we still had a the neutral isolationist mentality. Also I am assuming they thought France would have been enough.
People who whine about the US being an awful ally for not getting involved earlier or should have helped Britain more in ww2 need to seriously can it. That special relationship is just propaganda BS politicians made up so people wouldn't act ethnocentric or xenophobic while working together. Alliances doesn't mean you must follow what your ally wants blindly even if it hurts you. You can say no and make suggestions to do something differently. The people who whine seem more like they are angry we didn't suck up to them, cater to their national pride, or not respect and understand our political beliefs during that time.
Name a better way.
Sure some form of straight up military aid.
He said 3 battleships 1 Carer 4 cruisers there were 3 on screen
one thing I never got; why did the germans even bother to build battleships? I mean, they had no chance of ever catching up with great Britain in terms of having a surface battle fleet.. why not take the materials used to build the Tirpitz/bismark and other "pocket battleships" (maybe even scrap their destroyer building program as well..) to simply build more u boats, which could then be used to starve England out of the war??.. such a plan could have given Germany the number of u boats needed to starve out England, possibly.. or at least given them a better chance at doing so..
Missile Cruisers, that's the ticket.
It would be interesting to know what the majority of the British public thought about allying with Germany instead of going to war against them, must have crossed the minds of many early on?
I was under the impression that Royal Navy was the principal naval combatant for the allies in the Atlantic? why didn't you cover that +UCK09g6gYGMvU-0x1VCF1hgA
Your impression is correct, he just glossed over the main actor in the atlantic... for god knows what reason.
By the end of the war the british had destroyed 560 german u boats and 100 italian submarines, while the US destroyed 150 u boats and not a single italian submarine. While the german surface navy was picked a part by the british, with the norwegians being more important in the fight against the kriegsmarine than the US (because of the battle of drobak sound where the norwegians sunk a german heavy cruiser).
While in terms of the regia marina, not in the atlantic but very important to it as every loss in the mediterranean had results in the disposition of forces in the atlantic, it was of course the british that single handedly fought the regia marina and scared them into their ports after taranto, cape matapan, and etc, while it was british submarines from malta that singlehandedly wreaked havoc in the german and italian convoys to north africa.
While in terms of merchant marine, it was the british that sacrificed the most, losing 30.000 sailors, in contrast to 5000 american sailors, less than what the canadian merchant marine lost.
the title of the video is NOT "Battle of the Atlantic" NOR "the Strategy of the Allies and German/Axis in the Atlantic". The Title is "US & German Atlantic Strategy 1939-1941"... because it specifically gives insights into US & German strategy, actions and background information. The UK will get its fair share and in a future video and since I covered the US from 1939-1941 already in this video, I don't have to waste time in that future video.
@ Imrose Bashir Aren't you rather forgetting the Canadians?
Was there any point in ww2 where germany could have negotiated with england and us to keep to a land battle and not to threatened uk or us. Would it have been able to last?
Probably you didn't have enough space to mention it, but I'd have thought Britains atlantic strategy would have been quite relevant to this, maybe it'd be the case that if Churchill had got that wrong, Germany could have won the war.
@ 101happyjack Absolutely. After the fall of France, Britain could not have won the war on its own, but it could have lost it. A British Vichy would have allowed the Germans to have concentrated on the Ostkrieg. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html
Only 6 submarines in the Atlantic ? My parent lived on the beach in Puerto Rico and watched for Submarines. Dad was in the Coast Guard. The subs sunk over half of our ships coming from New York. My Parents were worried that Germany would win the war and take over the USA. So I wasn't born until 1944. Were my parents fears of Hitler's intention exaggerated or do you think he would have tried to extend his conquests across the Atlantic ?
no only 6 submarines sent against the East Coast of the United States initially.
well, the Wehrmacht couldn't even cross the Channel to England, so probably a bit.
Thanks for the link to the Battle of Midway. I learned much about Naval Strategy and ship production during the war. I had visited the Boeing exhibit at the Seattle Museum of History and Industry and was astounded by the increase in production of planes per factory line from 1.7 per day to around 17. I came away from the exhibit feeling very smug after learning production was good because Boeing finally hired women on the assembly line. They liked their jobs and constituted 50% of the work force. My neighbor was raised on a farm in Alberta, Canada and got As in school, so Boeing hired and trained her as a draftsman. I asked her when and how Canada got into WW2 but she did not know.
Can you do the same for the Brits and Germans in ww1?
probably at some point.
kannst du auch alle videos auf deutsch machen?
nein, aus dem FAQ:
"
Are you going to do videos in German?
Maybe on very special topics, but highly unlikely. I originally
planned on releasing every video in German too, but nearly everything
takes longer than expected, thus I couldn’t create 2 videos a week if I
did them in German too. Additionally, a disproportionate amount of
negative comments are written by German-speaking people. Not to mention
that by keeping it English provides a certain deterrent/leverage against
maniacs from the “outskirtS” of the political spectrum."
militaryhistoryvisualized.com/faq/
+Military History Visualized seems legit. auf englisch zwar auch sehr gut verständlich trotzdem schade finde ich.
vielleicht mal zum Test. Eventuell werd ich mal eines nachträglich übersetzen und direkt neu sprechen, also ohne Skript und ohne Neuaufzeichnung, dadurch könnte ich einiges an Zeit sparen und wenn ich alte Videos nehme, hab ich auch genug Distanz zum Thema, weil wenn ich ein Video fertig hab, will ich meist mal mit dem Thema nichts mehr zu tun haben für ein paar Tage.
+Military History Visualized wäre sicherlich interessant. Wenn genug positive Resonanz kommt und es nicht allzu viel Arbeit ist könnte man es ja sogar ab und zu machen 😁
Antwort: ua-cam.com/video/x3p4dUFB_vU/v-deo.html
Can you do the same for the Brits and the Germans in ww1?
Hagen battle of jutland
I see this being mentioned alot, and I've heard it alot, but hitler wanted peace at many occasions in the war, can anyone send me any links for documentation of this?
well, not "real peace" more like peace to cover his "flank".
Military History Visualized same thing in essence, sinec we never saw beyond that :)
I know someone who looked into Hitler's plans and he mentioned alot about a ideological alliance
so I was mostly interested in knowing the sources for it really :) so I wont get the wrong interpretation of the situation
well, the best sources on this are either: Germany and the Second World War or Cambridge History of the Second World War, the later is from 2015. Note that both are quite expensive, thus check your library. The later book set is also quite focused on articles with a length of 20-40 pages. The problem with WW2 is that there is a lot of crap out there in terms of books and other media. Also Hitler made various statements at various times that were quite different from his actions or previous statements.
But in short the Axis was an extremely weak and dysfunctional alliance, something that is mentioned a bit in these two videos:
ua-cam.com/video/A_3R-Rkn_98/v-deo.html & ua-cam.com/video/c1OOUuj3WTo/v-deo.html
thanks! Ill check it out :)
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Absolutely correct. Hitler wanted to fight one target at a time.
Would you consider doing a video about some of the less prominent belligerents, Like Hungary and Romania, or the commonwealth nations?
did already something on Romania and more is planned on them, tried to get some information on the smaller ones similar to that video I did on Italy, but sadly these countries aren't covered that well by the same book series. So at some point possible, but to keep the output up I need proper articles / chapters, because piecing together stuff takes too long and often is also of limited quality.
I understand, but the same reasons information is hard to come by are the same reasons I want to know about them. Keep up the good work though, your stuff is great.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized A key point on the Axis allies is that they were poorly equipped. I don't think that Hitler really wanted to equip them, but in any case, Germany did not have the industrial capability of equipping them even if Hither had wanted to do so After all less than a third of the Deutsche Ostheer was properly equipped. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html
@@themoomaster787 Here is some information. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/camp/axis/axis-memb.html
"Despite the President's decision not to authorize actual escort of merchant shipping in the Atlantic, on 18 April he approved the allocation of $50,000,000 of lend-lease funds for construction of American naval and naval air bases in Northern Ireland and Scotland."
page 109
Chapter V The Atlantic Crisis of 1941
Sometimes I wonder why the German did not try to attack UK via paratroopers operation, hope it's not a stupid reason
clearly not enough, also you need to supply them. Although everyone states that after Dunkirk the British had little ground forces, well, they had more than 1 Million, maybe not well equipped, but paratroopers are only light infantry too. Also equipment, training, etc. gets less important in urban combat and I doubt the British would have given up London, so I would say, you needed at least a few hundred-thousand men to just to take London.
This is a bit off topic but I kick the Allies ass in about 8-10 months as Germany in HOI4 :P
"US & German strategies"? I suppose that Great Britain had no vested interest in developing strategies for the Atlantic.....
Human beings are so silly. However I think it'd amazing, it took soooss many countries to finally end Germans in the war! Germany was such a fighting force that even alone they took on so many countries. Like a great and strong behemoth of a man being brought down after a long and hard struggle by like 15 men. One country taking on the world, amazing
This quite nicely shows that contrary to popular opinion roosevelt was no hero but a sinister deamon. Constantly sending sailers to warzones in the *hopes that they might get accidently killed* so he can use their corpses to pass legislation.
Hitler after Pearl Harbour:
**NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN!!!**
im reading rise and fall of the third reich so these videos are great to fill in some of the military gaps!
I have taken many history classes. I think I have learned more here.
thank you!
Military History Visualized Keep up the good work. Kids these days do not get much history. They do not know how much they need it.
There are a few books on the motivations of Hitler and the causes of the war. One by Pat Buchanan (decent, but not great). Germany did not really want to 'conquer the world" in the way many think. One proof of this is the mediocre effort put into waging submarine war against Great Britain.
Bruno TaTa What nonscene. There is a huge number of books about the NAZIs and World War II. I suggest you read Hitler's second book. Or German weapons development for trans-Atlantic development. And just where was the surviving Jewish population located?
@@dennisweidner288 Soviet union.
@@username_3715 Not exactly. There were 3 million Jews in the Soviet Union. Some 2 million survived the War. The NAZIs succeeded in killing 1 million. But the Soviet Union destroyed Jewish culture for those who survived although antisemitism persisted--witness the Refusnik reaction of the 1960s. The largest surviving Jewish population after World War II was America with over 4 million and in America, Jewish culture was allowed to survive and thrive.
@@dennisweidner288 ua-cam.com/video/8vdyoTpYAaI/v-deo.html
@@dennisweidner288 Hitler only had access to 4.2 million Jews in all of continental Europe and 2.6 million of these survived outside the Soviet union and 1.1 million would be expected to die anyway just from being where they were when they were. There are only about 500000 unaccounted for Jews not 6 million. The official number is 5.3 million
i So the initial claim is automatically not true and probably not even slightly true since 100% of the details and "evidence" came from the Soviet union and zero from the wear and also the claim is 11 times larger than the maximum possible number.
fix your accent or include subtitles please.
read the description, hint there is a link to the script there.
pirate reference:)))) LOL :))
Loved this video until the very end. Atlantic operations until the end of 1941 were almost entirely a British affair with the US chipping in progressively in the western half. All the reasons you outline for overstretched Axis strategic forces are entirely the result of British strategic deployment decisions.Please do not re-write the first half of the war based on the events of the second.US power was decisive in bringing about victory in the west. That power was only just starting to develop into something that would take over the war and win it in 1943.
I clearly noted that the British did the most of fighting in that period.
No wonder hearts of iron democricies are so boring in the game they are pretending to be white and fluffy not waging war as they did.
It is sad to hear you say ""get go"" thats so dumb low brow English.. "right from the start" or "right from the very beginning" would be so much better..
you see, what maybe "dumb low brow English" for you, is actually sophistication for me, cause I am no native speaker nor lived I ever in an US / UK / CA / NZ / AUS community. Only a few weeks in Florida on vacation in 1999 and two trips to London.
Military History Visualized
You must have picked that up when you where in Florida..
completely unlikely because I spoke with almost nobody there that was not Austrian.
Military History Visualized
Ok.. Thanks for making your video's they are very interesting :)
thank you!
Didn't Admiral Rader go on to play a role in M*A*S*H*?
The content of your vids are great but I have trouble listening to you. Your channel is a perfect candidate for hiring a professional english voice person to read your scripts.
All videos since 2019 have proper subtitles.
the video is a lie, the majority of uk imports where from the British empire which was a 3ed of the entire world. india played a bigger role than the usa...
HaiLsKuNkY Great job backing up facts. Before you look like an idiot disclaiming, provide sources
***** just google yourself... can you not look things up on your own?
Just show us the site were you got those facts then.
Imports from North America were far more important than the rest of the world. Imports of US made weapons were vital. Even many British made weapons contained US made parts. All the plywood used in the Mosquito was US produced. US made Merlin engines powered many Spitfires. Mosquitoes, Lancaster's, Halifax's etc. All oil refineries in the UK stopped operating and fuel was imported from around the words mostly North America. US developed and supplied petroleum additives increased the octane of aviation fuel. Luftwaffe pilots immediately reported the acceleration and speed increase of RAF fighters. When a spitfire pilot disobeyed orders and flew over France where he was shot down the Germans discover the new higher octane aviation fuel was responsible which was immediately copied.
binaway NO