Britain in 1940 (Part 1 of 2)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- This series, broadcast in Britain in 2000, covers the fateful year of 1940 when British independence hung by a thread. From the evacuation of Dunkirk to victory in the Battle of Britain, the series contains some superb archive footage and - most of all - some wonderful interviews with people who were there, both on the fighting front, at home, and even in government. The film quality in some places is a little fuzzy, probably because it was uploaded from an old VHS, but it's worth sticking with in my opinion. Uploaded for educational purposes only. Be sure to watch Part 2, and 'The Other Side of Dunkirk' also available on my channel. Comments are restricted but welcome if they engage with the subject matter.
Please visit our new site for the serious history enthusiast: www.historyroom.org We have recent history, old history, ancient history, debates, reviews, quizzes and much more. You might even consider contributing something of your own! See you there!
how can people watch big brother when stuff like this exists. Baffles my mind. This is amazing! My great Uncle died there at dunkirk. RIP to all who lost their lives
Could not agree more, brother.
That's the idea chum--fill the dimwits with more shite, so as to deflect them from reality. i.e.DUMBING DOWN.
you thrive on other peoples suffereing.....others like joy.
An informed populace on the horrors of the past can only be a good thing. Constructs like Big Brother are a huge and useless distraction of which the world would be much better off without.
soaringtractor And you are?
My great uncle was at Dunkirk. He was a sergeant and stood up to his chest in water with his rifle above his head for ages waiting for a boat for him and his men. He also was at Dday.
All those men where brave men. May they RIP..
@Proud Straight White Christian Conservative when I here of what is called brave these days like katlin jenner. My mind boggles🙄
Wonderful men. My dad was there, and he went back on D Day.
“Every man for himself.” That’s got to be soul-crushing for anybody who served in a unit and is used to having a team to rely on.
This series is epic. What a great perspective on the British experience early in WW2.
Peter Vaux - the man with the silver moustache and perfect English - what a story, what a gent, and what a man.
For me he is the personification of the Never Surrender message.
"Never was so much, owed by so many to so few." WSC
One of the very best WW2 documentarys that i have seen. Normally, I am not keen on the talking heads, but most of them were so articulate that they brought what they had experienced, l to life. And still they are intent in destroying Churchills reputation. They will of course succeed in this, by convincing the next generation. But those who know their history will always be grateful to him.
Some of us keep the flame alight. Sheltered from the shitstorm of globalist propaganda. My kids (in their 20s) know the reality, and how to ignore the BS of the globalist MSM, and waves of uninformed that crowd the "airwaves". All the best.
My mother lived in Lincoln at the time. The city wasn't too far from the coast. In preparation for possible invasion all churches were ordered to not sound their bells unless the Germans came. The local church got a new priest who didn't know the rule, His first morning he rang the bells for mass. The whole neighborhood panicked.
@ZebsFrend Norfolk was covered in pill boxes, preparing for a possible invasion on our East Coast.
cowards
My Grandparents, both of whom were born at the end of the nineteenth century and were therefore in middle age at the time of the war, had a very low opinion of Joseph Kennedy. Whenever his name was mentioned my Grandfather would refer to him as "That bloody man".
He was a bloody man...and bloody rich too. See "Joe Kennedy" for "Causes of Stock Market Crash 1929". His sons getting murdered was all the bad karma coming back to haunt him.
Americans; Late to Every War. They think they were the “saviours”. In reality, it was the Russians who helped save Britain. America profiteered from the war. It’s time America understood how little the rest of the world likes them.
You post the best stuff Doc Alan! Thanks.
Leslie-Ann Stoffel Thank you! I try and keep up the quality and not to tread on anyone's toes, but it's not easy! What makes the project worthwhile is that many films reach parts of the world where students either can't usually access them or have limited resources at their disposal. Regards - Alan.
Pity this film is only in 240p!
i was hoping for a doc on the battle of britain. looking back at it, it is truly inspiring.
The Battle of Britain features strongly in Part 2, Doug. I will upload it over the weekend once I've finished some clipping work. If you subscribe, you will get a notification when it's online. Regards - Alan
Alan Brown thank you...awesome channel
What a true gentleman the late Peter Vaux was.Typically he was credited as 2nd Lt.which was his rank at the time.He ended his career as a Brigadier and lived to a ripe old age.
David Worsley Thanks, David, I didn't know he climbed that high, and very worthily too as you say.
Second Lieutenant Peter Vaux you "got it right" you survived to tell your story. Your men were lucky to have such as fine young officer to lead them into battle. God bless you Lieutenant Vaux you were a hero vale to you sir.
There are so many lessons to be learned from a careful study of history. It undoubtedly had an influence on today’s events. Ukraine standing and fighting Russia and their president staying are reminiscent of what Britain went through! Never surrender, never!! This is a great documentary. Thanks 😊
You might also be interested in a new paper I recently published, available direct from Amazon. Simply search *'How socialist was National Socialism'* in the Amazon search box.
Dr Alan Brown If my memory is not shot to hell and back,we exchanged comments a while back...can't remember now over what topic..but your name,I recall.
I just want to thank you for the vid and wish you well.
Silentnighter Yes we did, and I can't remember either! Anyway, I'm pleased that you enjoyed this one - it's definitely one of my favourites. Regards - Alan.
+Dr Alan Brown If you claim that National Socialism was "going to be" a socialism based on culture and heritage, then you also have to classify the Japanese regime which ended in 1945 as socialist as well. But no one does this, and for good reason. Because the zaibatsu were private property, just as the gigantic corporations like Farben and Krupp in Germany were private corporations.
The right wing has been trying for decades, with some success, to locate Nazism and Fascism within some kind of socialist framework. Any closer examination of the facts reveals this to be a cheap trick of language, in which the definition of socialism, and of political economy, are conveniently forgotten and most certainly never provided to the reader.
You know I read Joachim Fest's "Hitler" about 15 years ago . . . and I remember reading an interview in which Hitler said (paraphrasing) 'I have learned from the Marxists and communists. Not any of their political ideology, not any of that claptrap. But I've learned from their methods.' That is to say, Hitler himself on this occasion and many others located himself and Nazism as the diametric opposite of socialism. If you watch videos of Nazi rallies, especially in the early 1930s, up to about 1934, you can see banners which read 'Gegen Des Marxismus' - sure I don't need to translate that for you.
Furthermore, as I'm sure you know, there was the phenomenon of 'Bulwarkism' in Western Europe - more commonly known (incorrectly I might add) as 'appeasement'. The ruling classes of Britain and France were quite pleased with the emergence of Hitler (and Mussolini) as a _bulwark_ against socialism and communism. You could see in London in 1934 and 1935, aristocratic socialites wearing diamond encrusted swastika pins. Trade was re-started, and of course Britain, not Germany, was the first to violate the Versailles Treaty by signing the Anglo-German Naval Pact in 1935 - a signal from Britain to Germany which Hitler interpreted quite correctly.
Fascism is a political form assumed by capitalism when capitalist economics stagnate or regress, and the capitalist class begin to perceive an existential threat to capitalist social relations. It was new in the 1920s and 1930s. The resurgence of fascism in the West today is the result of the exact same pressures of that time, except this time it isn't new. Neither is the denial by some in the intelligentsia that fascism is a capitalist phenomenon.
That academics play this game is a bit tragic. Some of them, perhaps, upon seeing the resurgence of fascism in the West today, may have regrets about what they have done, but I doubt it.
Edit : I should mention that I very much enjoy your video selections.
LTrotsky 21st Century Thank you very much for that interesting comment - it's not often that studious remarks get posted on UA-cam. While I understand the thrust of your argument, I still feel that you fall into the elephant trap regarding the definition of 'socialism' in that you still regard only Marxist socialism to be the genuine article. I argue in my work that this is only a variant, and that all one-party states practice socialist policies for the simple reason that they seek cultural and/or racial harmony. I also understand 'bulwarkism' very well, but Nazism was popular in the west because of its 'third way' trajectory - the emphasis on social unity through racial uniformity and its rejection of state-owned economies. Regards - Alan.
+Dr Alan Brown My congratulations on yet another incisive and fundamentally accurate contention. In my view,in more empirical and philosophical variation on the same theme,the concept of "exclusivity" pertaining to core abstract notions such as "right","truth","national interests" or any form of the superlative in creed or ideology leads to conflict and a repetition of history either as a farce or a poor imitation.
How the ego of politicians and/or ideologues strives to be sublime in all it's manifestations of manipulating the populace is historically well proven,from the Greeks with their "Pas mi Ellin,Varvar---He who is not Greek is a barbarian" to " Civus Romanus est---He is a Roman citizen" to " I'm a British subject" to" Deutschland uber alles" to "We are the greatest country in the world",all calculated, designed and created to infuse and inflame the masses with the sense of exclusive rights intrinsic to a higher state of being than their neighbours.
All this is bred of and perpetuates arrogance to the point of terminal idiocy enshrined in it's inevitable and tragic conclusion of wars,armed conflicts and general strife throughout our tragic history.
I take the liberty of writing this as I and too many of my generation were the recipients of flawed,dangerous and ultimately disastrous,futile and exorbitantly costly manifestations of this notion of "exclusivity" in fighting the war in Vietnam and paying a price that is valueless since it cannot be compared to it's farcical conclusion.
There is a tragic,seemingly inescapable quirk in human nature that prevents and impedes us from seldom if ever learning the lessons that history so generously bequeaths us.
Nothing more can be asked of a man than to stand up in the face of adversity and to do his duty. Semper Fidelis...Angel Fire Memorial.
I can imagine Peter Vaux driving his tank as calmly as he recalls it during his interview.
I remember watching this back in the states in 2000 as well. Great, beautiful documentary. I remember the the narrator being a man, with a deep voice.
This was a well-made doc.
May we never see this in our lifetime
We need to stay active in opposing this every day and everywhere to prevent evil from taking root.
It is coming..
I know I can't speak for my parents' generation here in the US... I don't live in their shoes...but to stand by and not help the UK when it was hanging by a thread...perhaps not to many here...but it's like seeing your parents in peril...
America is NOT responsible for defending colonial giant Britain just as nobody was there to defend the colonies from the Brits in their heyday.
love this channel
GPS system in 1940 was Second Lieutenant Peter Vaux of the Royal Tank Regiment armed "with his map and his compass" taking his men to battle. To fight the Germans who were better armed. Peter was a hero.
The question is really "what if?" what if Hitler had invaded? i would like to believe the Royal Navy would of wrecked havoc on German landing craft. But all in all i still give credit to Winston Churchill and the resilience of the British people. if not for their stiff resolve, i question very strongly where exactly the world would be today.
if Hitler would of invaded and the royal fleet didn't smash the German navy during crossing they surely would of cut off all supplies to the Germans leaving them on a hostile island with a populace determined to throw them back into the channel. I also believe if the Germans ever made to British soil the Americans would of been forced to enter the war early we couldn't let you limeys have all the fun now could we 😉
I see a really stupid discussion of whether Germany made peace offers that were declined. Hitler offered many agreements and never kept his word on any agreement he made. Just how stupid is it to try to promote the idea that war could have been avoided if the British had accepted some agreement or other. As I get older I am increasingly drawn to the difference between intelligence and wisdom. I presume many people can add and subtract just fine, thank you, but seem to have no idea whether something is good or bad for them or others. There seem to be a lot of intelligent fools around.
neo nazis obfiscate and lie like the jihadist allies they racially detest.
he learned from makensenn.....and the austrian demands on serbia in ww1.
What specificxagreement did he abrogate? Nomore than Churchill. Churchill who bombed civilians after saying he wouldn't. The British were the first to bomb the civil population, and that was a Swiss City of all things.
ziblot123 That's not really true. I must say that I really shake my head everytime I read comments like this one. And there are quite a few around. Obviously their authors are sympathising with Germany at the time. Or shall I say the political and ideological side of Germany at the time. Why else would they/you try so hard to dig up any possible blameworthy action during the war, and shuffle it over to the allied side only so you can say: "Look, look what they did! It wasn't the Germans. Hitler tried so hard to make peace with Britain. He didn't start the killing of civilians". Well, sorry that I have to break it to you,: Bullshit! That's mere bullshit.
Britain stood up alone against the nazi tyranny for years until help arrived. The men that fought and died during the ww2, did it so that you could live in a world where you have the right to say and think what you want without getting killed for.
In war there is sadly a build up of violations and revenge. One part sinks a ship with civilians, the other part bombs a city. ...... and on it goes. There was tremendous suffering on all parts during the ww2. The peoples of the world went through a time of despair. All because what. ....All because who started a war?
men will say for 1000 years - this was their finest hour !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and the some....the trojan wars were ....how long ago..?
@@scottleft3672
About 3,250 years ago ! (Circa 1250 BC). 😜
Roosevelt wasn't confident that Churchill wouldn't negotiate a separate peace until the Royal Navy attacked the French fleet at Oran.
Damn great show just wish it was in higher quality:((
So do I, Ax, but it's from an old, imperfectly-recorded VHS tape, so we're kinda stuck with it for now.
The No 10 staff had really good intelligence - not surprisingly - in advance of WSC's arrival. The oft quoted Marian Holmes, at 5:50, says "we'd heard ..." and then proceeds to described WSC perfectly. Reading about his ways, I can't help but feel pity for all those around him who new the technicalities that would make his grand ideas utterly impossible. But, he didn't care. He would nap in the evening and then keep the staff up until 3am. Need I even mention they didn't get naps - of course not. They'd been going nonstop since 7am many of them. Yet, they all speak glowingly of him later. It's like the difficult to please coach that all the players worship. He made my life a living hell, but I am a better player now. Maybe the staff thought that, but instead of "I'm a better player now" it was "I'm not speaking German now".
Dr. Brown, I checked out your essay. Looks very interesting. I recall finding my high school teacher's explanation problematic re the differences bw National Socialism and Communism. She gave the right and left theory. To me, however, they had a lot in common to be on opposite sides - even if it was the same coin. So, I thought, "well, maybe socialism is like a big circle - if one goes left from a certain point and the other goes right from that same starting point and if they go far enough ... they end up in the same spot." Looking back, I think that illustration can be used on a lot more than socialism.
+J.S. Reilly Excellent comment, thank you. I remember in my university days reading the diaries of Henry 'Chips' Channon who was close to the centre of things in 1940. He (among several others) was appalled by WSC's appointment as prime minister. His reputation as an anti-appeaser, a drinker and a political maverick went some distance before him, but within two months Channon had changed his mind, referring to WSC as a dynamic force who blew the dust out of the corridors of power in Whitehall. Warm regards - Alan.
Whatever his faults there was nothing sensible reasonable or logical about standing up to the Nazi's at that point. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight why focus on his shortcomings? He did it.
thx u for the video sir
Britain was heavily defended by the world's largest Navy and Empire.
Germany was desperate for negotiations throughout the war.
Britain along with it's Commonwealth members led the combined Allies to victory during World War 2.
+Whoami691
Hitler's ambition was to create a German Empire in Eastern Europe and Western Russia.
Hitler believed Britain and France wouldn't intervene to stop German expansion.
At first Britain and France attempted to appease Hitler allowing Germany to rearm and retake territories lost in the Versaille treaty.
However after Germany occupied Czechoslovakia both Britain and France decided to stop appeasing Hitler.
Germany went to the USSR for a non aggression pact. Hitler hoped Britain and France would back off and if they didn't Germany wouldn't have to worry about the USSR. Stalin agreed to feed Germany and fuel Hitler's war machine against France and Britain.
Germany invaded Poland on 1st September and two days later France and Britain declared war.
Hitler's plan was simple defeat France, force Britain into negotiations and create the new German Empire in Eastern Europe and Western Russia.
Hitler was a dictator he would do anything to get what he wanted and treaties were just a scrap of paper to Hitler.
Churchill should have played Hitler at his own game. Agreeing to negotiation and peace treaty in return for German force's to withdraw from Western Europe.
Once Germany withdraws and Western forces build up in Western Europe Churchill should have have broke the treaty and invaded Germany much like Hitler did to Stalin.
Marty Robinson you don't really believe that right
To Marty Robinson,
Maybe you should compare the size with Stalin's.
süß!
Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Denmark, Greece, Yugoslavia, USSR. They all knew how honestly Hitler "negotiated."
Winston Churchill had a ruthless streak that was needed to successfully prosecute the war against the AXIS powers.
good documentary. shame about awful blurred film quality....
Yes, sorry about that, Tim. The films were rescued from an old VHS tape and then twice-digitised for web upload.
I've read Churchill's autobiography. I think it's two or three big volumes long. It's interesting and very telling because Churchill didn't hold much back. I think Churchill was at the right place in the right time and history took it from there. He was meant to be a great leader, a goal he had for himself since he was very young. I know the British people especially were impacted by his speeches and chats. That's why I couldn't understand why the Churchill party was defeated less than a year after the end of the war. You'd have thought that the British would have wanted him to go on.
The Breavest The Brittish Empire in all Mankind History. We could be never gratefull enough. P. F. 2021. W. S. Churchill namely.
The most terible thing with ww2 is how people where played and lied to and no better in ww1.
The good old days of uk
The story starting at 32:00 is grand.
Intresting to see a woman in a documentary 70 years old when she was 21 years Young was surpeised to see this.
Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler if you think that England's done.
For every person who tries to defend Churchill’s drinking there are twenty who knew he was debilitated by his rampant alcoholism
Somebody doesn't live to 90+ years like he did being a major alcoholic. His drinking was grossly exaggerated and besides he even said "I've gotten more out of alcohol than alcohol has gotten out of me." So true...
@@jasonrogers469 There is a beautiful line in Das Boot where the party man on the sub proudly declares that Churchill is a paralytic alcoholic who won't go anywhere and will be brought to his knees. The captain quietly replies that 'for a paralytic alcoholic he's sure sending a lot of heat our way...'
You heard that in this documentary didn't you? Go on admit it? So who are the twenty you mentioned for every defender? Oh, you just made it up... Oh dear, for a moment there I thought you had some fantastic knowledge that you wanted to share with us.
Thank God for these people. They saved our asses.
Caused the death (indirectly) of over ten million. So you didn't want peace. Going to save the Poles. After a few havana cigars and a few bottals of brandy. Poland was in the east. Not in a French port. Must have given the Poles a lot of confidence. But wait you could join the worst criminal mass murdering communist in history, Stalin. Show how much you respect others countries in Europe. Mass murder was being perpetrated along the whole European Eastern front and you side with the mass murdering Stalin.
This is really good but the video is really fuzzy. Very disappointing
Yes, sorry Shelley. It's been digitised from an old VHS tape which in itself was imperfectly record.
Dr Alan Brown too bad. It’s really good
I live in Kent. I love these comments speculating what would have happened if the Deutsche had successfully invaded. Of course I could be wrong however I have total conviction that the people round here just would not have allowed it to happen. They wouldnt have done as they were told, they wouldnt have cooperated and they wouldnt have handed people in whoever they were. They are broadly unmanageable now, and the idea they would have done what they were told by the Germans is beyond comprehension to me. I love them.
In a situation of duress, or war, you might become bitterly disappointed by your neighbors and fellow citizens...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Guernsey
But of course, you may believe as you wish.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Absolutely and good point. No wishful thinking here. However look at the proportion of Jews 'removed' from France and particularly Holland vs Denmark's 1%. That is no accident
@@ralphbernhard1757 In addition I am v much commenting on the Kentish not the British and def not tax exiles
@@ralphbernhard1757 Major worries in Whitehall that if the South were invaded, Liverpool for eg would not join the fight
THANK YOU THANK YOU MY LIFES MAIN HOBBY HAS BEEN WW 2. IVE READ OVER 1000 BOOKS ON IT ALONE. SHALOM
The documentary strongly deals with the perceptions of people around at the time, most of whom had no idea about the true balance of power.
The odds against GB were mostly widely exaggerated.
By the time the Battle of Britain started, GB's aircraft factories also out-produced Germany.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production
Even as early as 1940, the combined resources available to GB (via the dominions and her colonies, and controlled and protected by the largest navy in the world) were already roughly equal to Germany and Italy combined.
For a full assessment of the odds later on in the war (against the Axis Powers, not the other way around).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
***** I agree completely.
I also prefer to see the "big picture" rather than to concentrate on a few key points.
A further "secondary war" taking place at around the same time, was the efforts of Bomber Command, who put up a brave effort to smash the German invasion armada in their French and Belgian ports. IMO, their losses and role they played in Hitler's decision to call off the invasion, are not mentioned enough.
I'm not so sure if the Germans had a chance of success in carrying out Sealion. IMO, any attempt would have been doomed.
The reason I state this, is because one needs to evaluate what the RAF would have done, in the event that the LW attacks had become successful.
In case this scenario had ever unfolded (in other words, total German air superiority within the range of their Me-109 in the late summer of 1940), Dowding would have simply recalled the remains of the fighter squadrons to mid- or north England.
Here,in relative safety, they would have regained their strength, and returned to the Channel area as soon as the first invasion barges appeared.
Off course, that would have meant a complete destruction of SE England by German bombers.
More importantly however,is the fact that the invasion would have failed, because the German forces landing in the SE England, would have been cut off from their supplies. The relative weakness of the British army would have played a subservient role to the supplies reaching a superior (on paper) German landing force.
As later shown in East and North Africa, an army is only as good as the supplies which consistently and reliably reach it.
I can't imagine any scenario under which a German invasion would have stood a chance of a likely success.
Ralph Bernhard
"the odds against GB were mostly widely exaggerated."
I have never read such rubbish.
TheVillaAston I know you think it's rubbish, because you don't like facts :-)
Ralph Bernhard
Have it your own way.
When Neville Chamberlain went to Munich in September 1938 along with France to negotiate the Munich agreement He was advised by each ofthe armed services that Britain could not be ready for a general war before
1941 - at the earliest. By the middle of 1940, despite an increase in the rate of rearmament this date had not moved forward.
By July 1940 France had collapsed in just six weeks (an event that Britain could not possibly have planned for) and Germany controlled the entire coastline of Western Europe from the north of Norway to Spain.
The Dominions had already pledged as much support as they could and in any case the nearest Dominion was the best part of 3,000 miles away.
The Army was short of modern equipment to enable it to meet German forces on equal terms.
The Royal Navy, with world-wide commitments as well the need to protect Great Britain and its trade and to blockade Germany, was short of almost every type of warship with not a single modern battleship in commission,and only two modern aircraft carriers in commission. Its shortage of modern cruisers, destroyers and escort vessels was just as acute.
In terms of The Royal Air Force had not much more than half the number of modern aircraft that Germany could deploy if it wished. The air defence system was still to be fully tested in combat and Fighter Command lacked large numbers experienced pilots.
Britain had no way of knowing for certain what Hitler’s intentions were going to be for activity after the Summer of 1940 and any assessment of German intentions had to include the possibility Germany might attempt an invasion in 1941.
So there you go.
Britain was right to instigate the measures it did in 1940: Maximum support for Fighter Command, raising the Home Guard, mobilising the entire adult population and putting in place all of the measures could be done to impede any invasion attempt including relatively minor measures such as taking down road signs, keeping petrol stations short of petrol stocks, fortifying disabling harbour and resort facilities and so on and so on.
The odds against GB were mostly widely exaggerated? I don’t thinkso. If they were, then you tell me who exaggerated them in 1940.
TheVillaAston That is all correct, if you analyse the British situation in 1939-41 without comparing it to it's main enemies (Germany and Italy).
While all the statistics you name are correct, it is what you are leaving out which is important.
After the fall of France, and Churchill turning down Hitler's (blunt) offers of peace, the entire war changed from a tactical (land warfare i.e. "Blitzkrieg") to a strategic war situation.
Note here. Almost overnight, other criteria become more important than loads of excellent soldiers trained to operate artillery, tanks and Stukas..
Oil, human and natural resources, the support (at least morally) of the worlds largest economy (USA), control of the trade routes, a geographical advantage of being a small compact island to defend, etc.
When, sometime in June 1940, the war changed from a tactical to a strategic war situation, all of Germany's initial advantages also disappeared almost overnight.
True, Germany had loads of excellent planes, but the wrong ones to fight a long distance strategic war.
A navy? Half of Germany's already small navy was sunk or badly damaged in Norway. Note: HALF.
That leaves an impressive and extremely powerful army, which would have needed to be dragged across the channel in unpowered and unseaworthy river barges by harbor tugs, in order to get to London, Honestly, if there was ever a more haphazard invasion plan than Sealion.
Resources? Apart from human resources, continental Europe lacked almost everything needed for a modern mechanized warfare, as any high school geography textbook could have told you in 1940..
Many of these facts are not "hindsight".
Almost all of these facts were known to those in power on both sides,and was largely the reason why the war unfolded the way it did. .
The Royal navy was at full strenght in May/June/July 1940.
The German navy was really weakend fter Norway in the Spring of 1940.
Any invasion made whould have been attacked furiously by the British navy, especially at night. Just look at the very swift Dunkirk reaction from even civilian British seamen.
I don't think even Hitler dared risk his army this way (german navy sure to be completly wiped out).
The demand for air supremacy over Southern England shows the Germans knew it was no picnic to Invade the British isles right?
maybee the hood and the prince of wales would have stayed home..?
I personally believe that this was the best opportunity Hitler ever had to invade Briton and win the war, Granted the Royal Navy was at full strength but entering the Chanel would risk attack from the German Air force, easy targets for German Bombers operating from French air bases, just as the Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk by the Japanese Air force. At the same time German commandos could have parachuted in to England capturing English Air bases. Much better idea than attacking Russia. I know Hitler thought he had to have superior air power but I think he was mistaken.
At that point no battleship had been sunk by an air force - and even if they could be, are you suggesting the Royal Navy would not have been able to sink German resupply? They would have taken horrendous losses, yes, but Hitler's army in Britain would have been cut off. A late summer 1940 invasion of Britain would have been a massive gamble...
Looking at it from Hitler's perspective. I think Hitler wanted a negotiated peace with Britain so he could turn his full attention eastward. Many people say Hitler broke the NAP with Stalin, but would Stalin have done that himself eventually? I'm inclined to think Hitler did not have the luxury of time and knew war was coming in the east, whether he arrived in time or not.
The blitzkrieg of western Europe must have stunned all military personnel and politicians alike. Given that it was revolutionary warfare. That countries had fallen so quickly, the British elites must have felt compelled to react to a possible invasion, whilst figuring out what the hell is going on.
Edit : And I don't buy for one minute that Hitler harboured any desire to share the world with the British Empire. I suspect he was looking to stall us until the East was under his control, and then look to do a proper and divisive invasion of Britain. Again, once he had the plan and everything in place, globally, to deal not just with Britain, but the power vacumn that would be created by Britain falling to Germany.
From 33:40 mins on wards.
Completely wrong assessment and conclusion.
Churchill (a "naval" man) wrote an overly pessimistic report about GB's chances of facing up to Germany to Roosevelt (also a "navy" man).
The truth was that both naval men knew that Germany's chances of succeeding in any attempt to invade GB, were most likely bound to fail. Any attempt to dramatize the situation was typical 1940's propaganda, aimed largely at the uninformed populations of the respective countries.
Of course, Roosevelt (being a naval man) was no fool, and knew Churchill was only worried about saving the Empire and remaining a dominant power in Europe (and that GB did not enter the war for any of the reasons often stated).
Roosevelt was therefore faced with the dilemma of supporting GB (which was his wish, but the British Empire also contradicted his ideas of freedom and democracy), while still appeasing the US population's overwhelming wish to stay out of yet another war in which Europeans bashed each other's heads in.
Understandable, since WW1 had already been fought to "end all wars".
Good Analysis . Pity half he imbeciles posting here haven't the slighest clue.
at 1:30, the lady looks just like Eugenia Doubtfire
1:11:09 - 'he never drank til he was worse for wear'? That's just a lie, isn't it? Many credible people attest to the exact opposite. They say that he sometimes made major decisions while very drunk.
Could you point us to some of the accounts please?
Several people who went to meet Churchill late at night, including Ivan Maisky, as he relates in the Maisky Diaries. He sometimes couldn't believe how drunk Churchill was when making vital decisions.@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684
Why is it in such very, very short focus?
Nounismisation Yes, the quality is not so good on this film. I think the problem was caused by it being first an old analogue copy onto VHS, then digitised onto DVD, then further digitised to MP4 for UA-cam. I wish it were better, sorry!
Ok Alan. I am fairly sure though that digitisation is an opportunity for tidying up fuzzy sound or image - the opposite of copying analogue tape time after time - any deterioration is not through repetition and wear but through the type of storage file it is made into. I'm sure you're doing your bit as ever. I think actually there is, somewhere on UA-cam, the same documentary without the fuzz. As soon as I find it I shall let you know.
Breda Jake Who said anything about begging. And as for spending money; do we only have rights to hope and/or expectation is it is involved.
Thanks for uploading
Without our beloved Winston Churchill. We would have lost the war.
Whenever I watch vids about WW2 on You-Tube--where some people state that Luftwaffe pilots were just as decent as the RAF-I immediately think of film footage --as shown here at 6.40, where barbarous acts of evil were committed by the Nazi pilots--as they target helpless women, babies, toddler's and the elderly--all fleeing the war zone--no threat to the enemy at all.
"It was standard practice at that time in the war for fighters to descend to low level and attack targets of opportunity: trains, trucks, railway yards, airfields, flak batteries, in short, anything of military value. Fighters at treetop level can make mistakes and attack civilian targets."
Furthermore, there is some consensus among historians that civilians (regardless of nationality) often subjectively conclude that they were also the intended target of an attack, whereas the real target was often a nearby valid military target.
Needless to say, there is no evidence that any crews of any side were given specific orders by a higher command to target civilians (in other words, official policy or doctrine to aim for civilians). In those cases it did happen, pilots acted against standing orders.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Bla Bla Bla bawk bawk bawk 🖕
@@acss4310 ua-cam.com/video/_xhOqvfOAG4/v-deo.html
British Pathe Newsreel showing advancing BEF and fleeing civilians on the same roads...
@@ralphbernhard1757 Fascists use terror as a tactic. They bombed civilian areas of London. Not mistake any more than beating up their opponents in the streets. A fascist is a criminal who uses murder terror and lies.
Hoover was pessimistic. During the depression he was horrible that was why he lost to FDR.
These are the real monsters
A giant bully looks intimidating till you put a nail under he's foot.
still....theres no athiests in a foxhole, during a barrage..
War is hell
"America First equals "Make America Great Again".
Are you referring to the "America First" movement created by Charles Lindbergh before WW2? If so, I agree
@user-wj6dt5bq3w you're correct, there was also that celebrity industrialist guy that was another America firster, and Hitler supporter Henry Ford
The imagery is terrible and what a waste of life, never again should this be allowed to happen.
Spelling corrected.
Allowed by whom?
+David Rodgers A very good and simple question that has no one simple answer.
It reminds me that it is easy for an individual, including myself, to believe and hold the view or mindset that it's always someone else's responsibility to stop or prevent bad things from happening when in reality this is not the case.
Accepting individual and personal responsibility for outcomes is the point from where preventive action must originate, for example, when we cast a vote for a particular political candidate our action may influence a certain result.
Responsibility for actions and outcomes can be passed to governing bodies continuing right up to the United Nations but sadly as we have seen these bodies have proved to be largely ineffectual.
In the case of global war the political climate should never again be allowed to escalate to the point where armed conflict is the only solution to settling national differences and foreign policies.
You raise a very complicated question the answer to which is certainly beyond the scope of these comments.
"EUROPA-THE LAST BATTLE"
when did britian ever stand alone during ww2. australia and new zealand were there from day 1, hell if it wasnt for a kiwi you would have lost
Yea, crucial.
debeeriz you said it perfectly
Actually, the British were alone at the beginning, in Europe it was only the British Expeditionary Force in France and Belgium, and then a steady trickle of Free Europeans came after Dunkirk, most of the commonwealth forces were split up like the British, the Far East, North Africa, Middle East. The fact was the Island of Britain and the British people were alone after Dunkirk to face the Germans, along with the French and a few Belgians rescued with the BEF at Dunkirk, Though the Canadians, Australians, South Africans and the Kiwi's were in the war from day 1, they were not in Britain, Their Armies, navies and air forces were elsewhere, those in Britain were volunteers in the RAF, even the Americans, 12 pilots, but all volunteers, all fighting to keep the British islands free., Britain needed fighter pilots only. So, in reality the Island of Britain, the UK, was alone, with a few volunteers, after the Battle of Britain, then the military force was strengthened by commonwealth forces in Britain. especially by the Canadians, yes, without the Aussies and Kiwi's, we'd have lost in North Africa, the Far East and the rest, but in the first months of 1940 Britain stood alone. That is what is meant by Britain stood alone, elsewhere in the world they were not alone.
@@johngrindley169 you just admitted they were not alone, the french actually helped them get out alive from dunkirk, and l maybe wrong but the first battle between the jerrys and the brits was the riverplate where a kiwi ship helped the brits out with the grafs spee, so britain was never alone
Lord Halifax was a coward.
Not supporting Britain because of political cowardice, rather than making the point about the threat of Hitler, was not America's finest hour.- an American
Każdy brytyjczyk to ............
Too blurry to watch without getting a headache. Horrible. Get it off of UA-cam.
Needs a male narrator for authority.
There is. Shalomeducation 1993 has posted the series, in HD, with a male narrator, and about 30 min. longer....
Appreciated.
lassisvulgaris I can't find that channel. Do you know where it is?
V 💳💳💳
All this stuff about German decision to invade Britain is just that -nonsense. The Battle of Britain pilots and soldiers were marvellous. But, in the end, Germany had isolated Britain. There was not the slightest chance that Britain could have landed on Normandy nor Italy. Britain was neutered. If the Americans had not entered the war, Britain would have been no more than an island on the Western borders of Europe. Either an armistice or a dependent on foreign aide to feed its populace.
..and without the 'British' the German fleet would have isolated the U.S. whilst the Japanese would have had no one to pin them down in the Far East resulting in abundant manpower to invade the U.S. west coast.
Of course, like all such bollocks it's pure conjecture.
+dangankk
England was never isolated.
How was England isolated?
Yes, English force's could have landed in continental Europe with or without American armed forces.
USSR made D Day possible, not the USA.
English forces could and would have invaded Italy after the victory in Africa with or without American forces.
This might surprise you but England was the world's global superpower.
England had world's biggest Navy and Empire.
England had access to more resources and manpower than all Axis members combined
+Dirtlawyer64
No, U.S Military didn't change the outcome of WW2.
U.S industrial production?
Can you name one battle on the Eastern Front where American tanks or airplanes changed the outcome?
USSR produced more tanks, artillery and weapons than the Axis Power's combined.
USSR produced more airplanes than Germany.
Britain could have continued to fight with or without the Lend-lease.
This might come as a shock to you but the world doesn't revolve around America.
The world was coping just fine without America, on the other hand you guys couldn't read or write till the White man showed you. You guy's hadn't even invented the wheel. You guys hadn't been civilized. You guys speak other people's language. You guy's follow other countries ideals. USA is an English version of Europe. It's like if England had conquered Europe, USA would be results
north africa and malta....brits and free french turned the tide....no yanks for miles fool.....exept at kassereine pass ....geting fucked in a ditch.....by a beduine bitch.
"I went to church and I just had a feeling that God was for me". Lol. So the German on the other side of the rifle thought as well. Each thinks and believes his fight is the righteous fight for which God has put his/ her weight behind and endorsed. Lol.
You're an idiot.
Polish pilots saved England and they were not in the parade. In 1940 was repeated that England was defended exclusively by english pilots. Polish pilots were heroes defending England recognized by english pilots who pretended to be Polish pilots in order to attract women.
Polish pilots did not save Britain,ALLIED FORCES SAVED BRITAIN. That's how they won, they worked together. I have huge respect to every nation which stepped up to face the Nazi regime. In Northolt England there is a war memorial to remember the Polish who fought.
You all who is asking questions like the above, learn the facts and you will know the answer.
+ramairgto72 You believe your stuff and I know facts.
I have to add that English people suffer to believe that they are superior and the truth tells something else.
+ramairgto72 . Enigma was first decoded by the Polish Cipher Bureau by three cryptoligists, Marian Rejewski, Jerzy Rozyki and Henryk Zygalski working for Polish military intelligence. Often again, is very little mentioned by the French and English and they often try to take the credit.
+krysty kava Yes this is true, but you have been economical with the facts here in order to drive your point home. The three Polish cryptologists did outstanding work _before the war_ (and even before the NSDAP came to power) on machines that were substantially different in complexity to the ones used between 1940 and 1945.
I remember that Britain had declared war on Nazi Germany and had sent troops to Germany´s western border to destroy Nazi Germany. Dunkirk was a disaster and Britain had lost the war. I ask me was Britain right to declare war on Nazi Germany. I have no doubts Britain was right even if this made Britain an aggressor because of Hitler and the Nazis who were dangerous for world peace. But was 1939 the best time for Britain to declare war on Nazi Germany - and this is the problem.