As much as many Europeans may want them to, the Western Allies are not planning to carry out an invasion in mainland Europe by this point in 1942. By 1944 however, a major Allied landing will take place at Normandy. We are planning on covering that entire day, D-Day, minute by minute for 24 whole hours. This will be the most in depth documentary series ever created on that event, which means we have already begun work on it. This is an enormous task, and the entire TimeGhost Army is playing a part. Join the effort on www.patreon.com/join/timeghosthistory and contribute research over at community.timeghost.tv/t/d-day-research-contribution-here/7854 Rules: community.timeghost.tv/t/rules-of-conduct/4518).
Hello Indy...I was intrigued by your very pointed aside in regard to "Marshall and the B-17s" at 7:45...and I wanted to ask if what you had to say involves/stems from/centers upon Marshall's "secret" press conference in November of 1941 where he specifically announced that US policy in case of war with Japan was to "set the paper cities of Japan on fire" with B-17s...and all the fanciful ideas he had in regard to actually doing it? 🖖✌
The failed landings at Dieppe showed how deadly the coastal defenses were in France. Some say that Churchill wanted that operation to fail so as to convince Stalin and Roosevelt not to pursue a Channel crossing until it was properly prepared. The memory of Gallipoli probably plays a part in Churchill's opinion on this matter.
So do I...since I think I know what he is talking about. Marshall had a bunch of very fanciful ideas about how to use heavy bombers...in particular to firebomb Japan. I will not blather on any more, since that would partially spoil Indy's presentation...if it ever comes. 😁✌
He talks about it in the Pearl Harbor series I believe. Marshall thought he could counter any Japanese threat in the Far East with B-17s to preempt them. The problem was that 1. They couldn’t get them off the ground when the time came. 2. It’s hard to employ them when your airfields are being overran via naval invasion. 3. Strategic bombing can only do so much.
@@natethegreat1999 they were really over enthusiastic with the idea that new tech can help them hit anything they wanted from high altitude. In reality all those targeting computers were really not living up to expectations, one could say theranos style. If it worked, then they wouldn’t need to send any man toward danger, at least in theory. The marines were literally a suicide squad, going from island to island and its a bloodbath every step of the way. Btw, check out the pacific miniseries on hbo.
Until watching this series, I never quite realised how dire things looked until late 1942 - I asked my grandmother (a teenage nurse in southern england) if she felt that, if people were afraid. She said yes - people knew the empire had lost nearly every battle in the war, and the navy was the only real ace they had. But as a teenager, she didnt think about that much. She did tell me some stories I'd never heard before, though - going on an unsanctioned trip to her aunt's via london, and her parents reporting her missing and assuming she had been killed when st. Pancras had been bombed. And visiting the same aunt later in the war after overlord and being questioned about it by police and army due to the construction of the fuel pipelines to france. Many thanks for giving me new questions to ask - in real time, you get some little sense of how people really felt. That's what history is all about.
Now a days we look back and think it was impossible for the Axis to win on the long run, but that is not true, it was an uphill battle against unknown odds that many brave man volunteered to fight against tyrany... Never forget
Yeah ,the interesting point here is the allied invade Europe ,they Started the war with the intention of invasion and submission .this guys are very clear in this,so I glad to hear a bit of true
@@alisilcox6036 i meant what I said.the allied invasion to Europe with the idea of submission.the allies designed the invasion of Europe ,the European just defended their lands and lifestyle, Germany France Italy Spain Austria Hungary and the other traditional members of the sacro imperio Romano germanico didn't start the war they just reacted to British provocations .is like when I hear ,HITLER INVADES AUSTRIA! Hitler was Austrian ,he never invades his own land .but Churchill Roosevelt Stalin they did the invasion of Europe till this day
And he was right. Italy surrendered without a fight with just a few allied divisions landing in southern italy in september 1943. The fact that GERMANY decided to defend Italy to the death from that point onwards is unrelated to that. The Italian surrender is the most important Western Allied contribution to the war until the liberation of france. Germany was forced to relocate more than 50 divisions to the balkans and to italy, during the decisive 1943 battles in the eastern front, just because the allies landed a handful of divisions in southern italy. Meanwhile, the Italian surrender removed the italian navy as a fleet in being, and instantly opened the mediterranean for convoys with barely any effort. This, in turn, accelerated the build-up for D-day and eased the british logistics situation from England to Burma.
Anyone who wonders why the Germans never attempted an invasion of Britain should read up on the gigantic difficulties the Allies had landing in Normandy. There is no way in hell the Germans could have pulled that off in 1940, especially with a little organization called the Royal Navy still about.
@@shawnr771 saying much would suggest that 60% or more was done by it, i would use the term "significant" At least you consider the workers working under the reich to be slaves (which they were in a way)
A better comparison yet is to see how Torch went. It was a shambles only successful because of the dire state of the army of Vichy France in North Africa. The Americans in particular still needed the hard lessons of Kasserine before they could even begin to fight it out with the Germans at the main event.
@@huntergratzner1 honestly, we were probably extremely preoccupied with Japan. So I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't pay much attention to the Germans
I'm glad you brought up the whole landing craft issue because it would play a pretty major role when it came to policy regarding naval invasions for Italy and France. People often think of the US as having "infinite production capabilities" but in reality lack of landing craft (I think the LCP and LCVP) would create some huge issues and constantly delay operations. Especially since they had trouble reusing ones they deployed in operations. (if i remember correctly this caused issues after Husky since they had to bring in a new batch when they launched supporting invasions into the Italian mainland to coincide with their offensive, this predictably created a lot of delays) Most of this comes from: Neptune : the Allied invasion of Europe and the D-Day landings / Craig L. Symonds.
In fact, the availability of landing craft was still an issue even in May 1944, and the lack of them threatened Overlord so much that a crash program of landing craft manufacturing had to be undertaken to get the requisite number made in time.
The Higgins boats problem delayed D-Day five weeks. The original target was May 1st. Had it gone off on schedule, the Anglo-Allies would've romped over Adolf all the way to Paris. The 352nd division showed up during those fateful weeks, Rommel's anti-glider obstacles exploded in strength, the 82nd Airborne was entirely re-deployed to buddy up with the 101st, the anti-landing obstacles at Omaha all showed up during the magic five-weeks. Bradley's delay request, accepted by Monty, blew up when the enemy exercised his vote. Patton strikes me as a general that would not have asked for the delay. As it turned out, the wait was a TERRIBLE trade-off. The original defenders of Omaha's bluffs proved walk-overs when committed to Utah Beach.
@@odysseusrex5908 Likely issue with repairing hulls, patching holes, etc. However, it is also likely that many Higgins boats were also retained at each invasion site for several months ferrying supplies and reinforcements to shore until harbours with proper offloading capabilities were fully operational. For example, the landing craft used at Anzio in 1943 would have still been there ferrying supplies to shore until the link-up in May of 1944. The same thing would have happened at Normandy from June until December 1944.
@@odysseusrex5908 They took a beating during every landing -- trashing their bottoms -- and usually being a tad over-loaded. These were wooden boats, so wave action while beached was brutal to their hulls. And yes, some boats could be re-used -- but no general dared count on 2nd use craft for any major assault. That's how badly each invasion project abused its Higgins boats. You might note that it's hard to find such craft in museums. IIRC, the last decent display is down in New Orleans -- where Higgins built so very, very many. (Licensed production occurred -- in bits -- all over the USA. That's how dire the need became.)
I really like this sort of back and forth sytle of presenting you two have, I would like to see more of this in future! its has a real natural flow to it and shows the behind the scenes chemistry that we the fans know you two have.
The British and Churchill are often criticized for their reluctance to invade France in '43-'44 But British Grand Strategy has traditionally been patient and methodical. The Royal Navy's role was to systematically sever its adversaries from investments, allies, and trade. The army existed to further those goals, and preferred to fight on the periphery where it could achieve overwhelming local superiority against isolated enemy forces cut off from reinforcements and supplies by the Royal Navy. Unlike Germany, Britain didn't need to win wars quickly. The Navy could be used to protect British possessions while slowly strangling their enemies. As their opponents grew weaker, Britain would leverage its territories and dominions by mustering overwhelming resources and manpower. It's a sound strategy that served the British empire well for centuries. The British had one of the strongest militaries in the world in 1943 but the bulk of the budget went to the Navy, Air Force, and intelligence agencies, along with the best and brightest officers. The army was an "expeditionary force" designed to support it's allies, or project British power overseas. It didn't have the resources, training, or numbers to fight a prolonged land campaign against Germany on the continent. It's best formations already had their hands full with the three German divisions of the Africa corps despite nearly a two-to-one advantage in manpower and tanks. If Britain did attempt to land a handful of inexperienced divisions in France, they would have to contend with a lot more than three German divisions. The best case scenario was a successful initial landing followed by a year of stalemate while the allies consolidated and strengthened their bridge head in preparation for a breakout. But more than likely, the invasion forces would have been stopped on the beach, or smashed by a German counter attack within a week or so of the initial landing.
It doesn't matter,the point is that England invades and submit France because that's the plan , Germany in the other hand only support the nationalist government of France who was against the British rules over France
@@hernandemornay7559 What 'Nationalist' French government? The government of Petain & Laval? When the Allies eventually began the LIBERATION of France in 1944, how would you characterise the members of the French resistance who supported their efforts? Traitors, perhaps?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 France was not invades by Germans ok ,so there is not liberation of France by the allies that's propaganda,france wanted to be free from England because was submitted to London sinces the French revolution ,as Britain don't won't this obviously they gonna invades France ,so Germany send a support army to stop the British ambitious but Germany never invades France ,I told you my grandfather was there and there was not problem with the German ,the problem was with the Anglo American who killed French citizens before during and after the war
@@dovetonsturdee7033 the people of those days like my grandfather used to called the resistance members as traitors and foreign mercenary he called them miserables condottiere ,the resistance was in major of case foreign mercenary,my grandfather and his people captured many of them and guess what,there was a few French among a foreign mercenary group ,so please stop saying nonsense like LIBERATION instead of INVASION and RESISTANCE instead INFILTRATION ARMY ,the can cheat you ok but I'm trying to make you understand that is propaganda ,what the allies did in France was simply murderer ,the Germans didn't killed French or Italian ,the allies did
@@hernandemornay7559 so what was this whole going through the ardenne then for you? a so call british aggression even though the german were clearly the one invading poland, also the german killed french citisen as well (oradour sur glane mean anything to you?)
Spartacus makes a good point ten minutes in. The leadership and performance of the untested American troops in North Africa suggests an invasion of France would have been a disaster.
Bolero did set up the infrastructure and began the buildup to Overlord so it wasn't a total waste. Yes, a 1942 invasion of N. France would have been a disaster. Even if it secured a foothold, it would have come at a horrible cost as green American troops made the same mistakes as in Torch only on an order of magnitude larger scale.
You guys should also talk about the 90 vs 255 division plan America had. There was arguments during this time and before of how many divisions the US would make. The first plan to make 255 divisions would then have the US divisions working like most other nations in the war. In that a division when badly damaged would be pulled from the front line for rebuilding. The 90 division plan on the other hand allowed the US to need less officers but would then force the US to reinforce it's divisions while they were in the combat line. The US ended up going with the 90 division plan under the recommendations of it's allies because it allowed the US to keep more men within the US homeland working on production of war provisions that the US and Allies all needed.
I believe the 255 division plan was also dependent on how the war in the Soviet Union was going. If the Soviets collapsed and Germany was free to send it's forces elsewhere than the Allies would have to contend with an additional 200+ German divisions along with the forces of the minor axis allies. For context Rommel's Africa corps consisted of 5 German divisions at it's height and required nearly a third of the British army to dislodge it. Assuming US forces are successful in winning without the Soviets and they suffer the same casualty ratio of 1 vs 1.5 as seen from 1944-1945. US losses would be in the 5-7 million ballpark in order to liberate Europe and defeat the additional 8-10 million Germans that would have been otherwise sent to the Eastern front. And that of course doesn't account for either Spain or Turkey being persuaded to join the Axis with it's now plentiful fuel and food resources.
Other factors to consider are the size, organization, and capabilities of US divisions vs. German, Japanese, British, Chinese, and Soviet divisions. The numbers game alone can be misleading, particularly when ignoring such force multipliers as air power, sea power, command and control, logistics, manpower reserve, and production potential.
Realistically, the United States could not have raised 200+ divisions while also building up the world's largest navy and air force. There are just manpower and industrial limits that cannot be overcome.
@@FlintIronstag23 Well, you have to consider that under the 255 proposal, the divisions would actually be smaller. Around 11,000 to 12,000 instead if (as used) around 14,000/15,000. And during the war, the US manpower use was about 8% of population. Germany was over 10%, Great Britain was about 8.5% You are correct that it was limited due to the needs of industry.
@@FlintIronstag23 So if the US divisions were as large consistently as they were in real life in the 255 division plan then yes the US could not have recruited that many troops and still been the industrial power it was (it would of still been strong industrially though). But what would have really happened if the US went with the 255 division plan was the US divisions would have been smaller like other countries were during the war and the US would not have been consistently reinforcing front line divisions like they did in real life. Battered divisions would be replaced with fresh divisions that were not on the line and the battered division would wait to be rebuilt before going back on the line. Even with smaller divisions and not reinforcing the divisions as much as the US did with the 90 division plan the US would have still spent more man power in the 255 plan though because each division still needs all of it's officers even when not in combat which adds up to a lot more men just there. At the end of WW2 the US had a small amount more men under arms then the USSR did. With the 255 division plan the US would have had way more men under arms then the USSR.
Given how badly the Dieppe Raid in August 1942 went, it was very unlikely in the first place that an Allied invasion of mainland Europe would happen in 1942 or even 1943. Many of the units were still somewhat unprepared, not sufficiently trained and German power was at its peak in 1942. Units like the 82nd Airborne and the 101st Airborne were just starting out in training at the time. Anyway, a great video as usual from the team. Often Operation Sledgehammer and Roundup tend to get forgotten or overshadowed by later successful landings in the war.
German Power was definitly not at its peak in 1942. Only territorially speaking maybe, but militarily definitly not. THe germany "peak" was definitly June 1941 shortly before Barbarossa. Then they broke their army durign the advance in 1941 until getting pushed back the first time on a major frontline in Winter 1941/42. Economically speaking germany had its "peak" by 1944 do to cooking their books and simplifying a lot of their war production. The german armies quality had already decreased a lot in 1942. Their original officer core was already lying in the ground of russia and they couldnt even resupply their loses in spring 1942 to their previosus tate.
Sparty's epic performance in doing all those expressions without breaking character as Indy went through the intro deserves an Oscar, or an Emmy...or something made of metal and roughly human shaped. LOL 😂💯✌
The duel presentation is highly underutilized..... Hindsight prevents us from genuinely feeling the anxieties of this period of the war, every episode and special sure help bring you there as much as possible.
“They [Marshall and King] are so dissatisfied with the British admiralty”, underselling a bit how much King loathed/despised the British. He was actually working on war plans (a normal thing for sure for a country to do in peace time, but he was one who thought it had a good probability of happening) for a fight between the British Empire and America. Then you add in all his personal run-ins, King really didn’t like the British
He also completely ignored British recommendations for the convoy system to protect American ships from U-Boats. A lot of Americans died needlessly because King refused to accept the advice just because the British were the ones who suggested it.
@@roberthoward9500 He did do that, I am not denying that. In fact, his unwillingness to work with the British was a contributing factor to him not recommending/implementing a convoy system right away
Yes, there was a War Plan Red (against the British empire), but it existed LONG before King was in a position to have any influence on it. It was developed in 1927, at a time when King was learning to fly and commanding the airplane tender USS Wright.
King had a volcanic temper and didn't get along with anyone. This British weren't alone in being a target of his ire. A rather humorous quip about him made by one of his own daughters was that, "He is the most even-tempered person in the United States Navy. He is always in a rage." Roosevelt also had a humorous take on his temperament, describing King as a man who, "shaves every morning with a blowtorch."
@@lycaonpictus9662 I've heard both, but the version of the blowtorch story I heard was a gag gift. Someone gave king a box labeled "shaving kit". Inside was a blowtorch kit.
I knew there were divisions and tension in the allied camp in 1942 but I never realized that it was so bad that Roosevelt had to intervene to tell King and Marshall to back off on pressing the British to invade Europe. Churchill was right, an invasion in 1942 would've been a disaster. I can also see why he called Italy the soft underbelly of Europe at the time. By 1942 Italy was definitely the junior partner in the Axis alliance and that Mussolini was indeed nothing more than a Sawdust Caesar. Therefore Italy was ripe for switching sides like she'd done in WW1 or least an unconditional surrender. But then again they must've know how Hitler would respond given his response to the Torch landings when he occupied Vichy France.
Churchill objected to even Overlord - he just eventually gave in because the US made it clear they weren't interested in invading Greece... which would have been pointless except to extend British influence there.
@@robertkras5162 Churchill seems to have had a deeper grasp of the impending post WW2 world than FDR did. His interest in Greece was more to prevent Soviet influence there than to extend British influence. Just as, in the last days of the war, a British Airborne Division motored across Germany in order to reach the Baltic coast, literally hours before the Soviets did, in order to secure Denmark.
@@robertkras5162 Not really? I feel like British decision making was more based on how the world after the war would be like. An Balkan campaign would see the USSR being restricted much more in how much land it could occupy. By this point in the war Germany was already pretty much defeated and its defences in France and Western Europe where minimal at best, the Allies could've easily focused on securing the Balkans for the West and then doing an delayed Overlord, which would've been even quicker seeing as Germany was getting weaker week by week.
@@samwell3 I think the "Russia containment" concept of a Balkans strategy is myth created after the war; Churchill/FDR will eventually participate in the Yalta, agreeing to partitioning of eastern Europe as "Soviet influence". Granted that was after a Balkan campaign was nixed. FDR and his advisors saw a Balkan campaign as an attempt to have US fight for the future of British imperialism and empire - which was not a goal of the US, and the crawl up the Italian boot showed there was no soft underbelly. To say "Germany was already pretty much defeated" is to ignore Churchill's "End of the beginning" speech. There is a lot of war left and a lot of fight left in the Germans.
A 1942 cross channel European invasion was always unrealistic. Same with 1943. Meanwhile Stalin gritted his teeth and complained as his country bore the brunt of Nazi military power. The Brits and Americans were in the same position he had hoped to be when he made his cynical deal with Hitler in 1939. Watching others bleed themselves white. Casually building up their forces while picking and choosing where they wanted to fight. Stalin's self serving gamble had backfired spectacularly.
Yeah, but if a 1942 invasion did somehow succeed I feel like the USSR wouldn't of even been able to get back to the Polish border before Germany would fall to the Allies, which would've made the post war world a lot better as the USSR would be restricted to its pre-war borders.
6:43 these are LCTs (landing craft, tank). LSTs are much larger ocean going vessels with large clamshell doors at the bow resembling a small merchant vessel.
@@living2ndchildhood347 yep. had a good friend/mentor who was an aa gunner on one during ww2. he would tell with pride how hos skipper came up with the idea of dropping their 2 stern anchors on the way in so they could pull off the beach after unloading even though they were supposed to stay on the beach.
Dieppe. Don't forget Churchill had been burnt badly at Dieppe. That was one of the reasons for not attacking France for the time being, until the German defences were weakened. Stalin would be understandably annoyed, since the big battles were being fought in the Soviet Union, while the Western allies were shy of fighting them. Indeed, the North African campaign would show the American troops were still not ready to go into the "major league". They had to go through a battle hardening there first.
No matter what Churchill thought about Italy it was not the so called Soft Under Belly of the Reich. It was a tough slog up the boot from one heavily defended mountain range to another.
Well yes, but there are the Italians and then there is Italy. Taking out the Italians is a benefit to the British because of the Italian navy and the control of the Mediterranean. And the Italian army in Africa and Greece.
True. But invading Italy would take them out of the Axis and possibly act as a staging location for an invasion of southern France. Hitting the Balkans would motivate the already successful partisans in the area (looking at you, Tito) and put pressure on Romania and Hungary to rethink their contribution to the German war effort. Either operation would secure Allied control of the Suez and the Med easing supply issues for the Allies. Hitting the soft underbelly is a bad way to get to the brain, but a great way to get at the supporting vital organs.
@@michaelfodor6280 Italy just tied up the allies for no strategic value after Italy surrendered. Greece would have been the same, and I don't think Tito would have welcomed another occupying army; once linked up to the Soviets what do you do? Help them occupy eastern Europe?
@@robertkras5162 Tito was helped by the British SOE and he would have loved the Allies help in making life harder for the Germans. (Keep in mind that Tito was never really friends with Stalin and had good relations with the West after the war.) Post war would be no different except that the lines on the maps would have been different. Greece was with the Allies before Italy and Germany invaded. They would support an Allied invasion.
Joint Allied Planning for Gymnast/Torch began in July 1941, five months before Pearl Harbour and the USA entering the war. Torch resulted in a huge amount of Nazi resources being drawn down and away from the Eastern Front and culminated in 300,000 Nazi soldiers surrendering in Tunisia.
Watching this, all I can think is thank Christ NW Europe wasn't invaded in 42. Considering the sheer logistical power which made Overlord a success, and considering how the lack of it is holding up the Germans now, it really shows it's crucial role in victory. Invading Cherbourg and peninsular would've been another Dieppe shaped fiasco, but surely only worse. Just one point on pronunciation - 'Louis' is I think in American English "Lewis" but in British English is "Lewie", as in the French pronunciation. Only because I've a feeling Lord Mountbatten might be appearing quite a bit more...
You can forgive King since he only new the naval side of things, but what was Marshal thinking? The US Army was trained by the Germans in North Africa and Italy. I hate to think what the German's would have done to the US Army if it had attacked France in 1942 or 43.
FDR was proven correct when Torch was launched. The American army was woefully unprepared for a full scale campaign against German forces, but 1942 and 1943 gave them a chance to learn those lessons while still achieving victories and by the time of Overlord they were a very potent force
Marshal n King reminded me of petulant children When they didn't get their way with Sledgehammer. Good thing FDR did what he did to get them to fall in line. Nice video.
Perhaps Genial Uncle Joe might have thought of that before he became Hitler's bosom chum in 1939, and supplied Germany with raw materials consistently until June, 1941?
You two guys have such awesome chemistry together! I always await the next segment avidly. And now, I would like every segment to end with ‘Excelsior!’ Can we get a shirt, too? 😁
Yes, Alanbrooke was harsh and fair. I mean among other things this is the guy who was willing to use sprayed mustard gas on the beaches if Operation Sea Lion went ahead. Not a man to be trifled with. I like him.
Operations Sledgehammer and Roundup would've failed horribly. Germany in late 1942 and early to mid 1943 was still too strong for the Western Allies to confront in Northern France. I strongly believe that any type of "D-Day 1943" would've just turned into a WW2 version of Gallipoli. And if the Western Allies had tried to invade Northern France in late 1942, it'd be even worse. That was before the Germans had even lost at both Stalingrad and Kursk, & before Italy changed sides.
It's interesting that the allies thought that the German-Italian logistics were sufficient enough to make it into Russia via the middle east if Egypt fell. Specially considering they'd have to go through Iraq and Iran (at minimum) to do so. Iraq's Government may have been willing to allow passage considering the brittish had just recently invaded recently, but I'm not so sure about Iran or the populations of the countries.
Looking at the maps you showed, I can't imagine that either Sledgehammer or Roundup could have succeeded. To the contrary, they might well have been fiascos like the failed Dieppe raid.
A 1942 invasion made zero sense. With what? The US Navy was hanging on in the Pacific by its fingernails. The US Army didn't have sufficient forces to fight the German Army in France.
Though the delay for the liberation of Western Europe has not come. It will and shall come. It will be a long ways to go. But it will be done. The Allies of the free world will land on the shores of Western Europe and began the United crusade against Nazi Germany. But for now, victory must be secured in the deserts of North Africa and the calm waters of the Mediterranean Sea. Thy Will Be Done, Almighty God.
I recall an historian a few years ago writing that 'The Soviets were the main reason for the defeat of nazi Germany, but they did it whilst eating American food, driving in American vehicles, and wearing British boots.'
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Of course, Len-Lease helped the Red Army a lot, but after all, the USSR fought not only for itself, but also for the British and Americans, the more Nazis the Russians killed, the fewer ordinary guys from Liverpool and New York died. If the Soviet Union had lost the war, Hitler would have attacked Britain again, with these supplies they helped themselves first of all.
Was anyone in the room to point out that both the Balkans and Italy are mountain ranges and not a soft underbelly at all? I would have looked at snagging Sicily Sardinia and cirsice and invading southern France if the channel was "too much"
Churchill wanted the Balkans cuz he knew the Soviets had designs on Eastern Europe. The man had many faults but his distrust of the Soviets should have rubbed off more on Roosevelt.
The Americans needed combat experienced troops and time to build an overwhelming naval advantage in the Pacific. US advantage was industry and needed time to assert itself. I think this was all handled as well as it could have been.
I think the real delay of D-Day was to save the British crown jewels of the Suez Canal and trade to India. Which were eventually lost after the war anyway. And, Russia suffered 20 million dead because of that strategy. Therefore, when we finally crossed the channel the Germans preferred surrendering to the allies rather than those slaughtered on the eastern front. Setting us up for the iron curtain.
Surely securing North Africa enables lines of communication to the wider British empire in such a way as to not only threaten Germany and Italy, deny them access to oil, but release the Royal Navy to come and assist the Americans in the pacific. So far it seems that although the Americans have come out on top the battles have been a closely run thing and the nature of getting bogged down in the pacific seems glum. With the British freed to both secure the Atlantic and Pacific having dominated the Mediterranean, the Americans can both build up their strength in the UK and receive British reinforcements in the Pacific quickly having banked noticeable gains against the Germans in North Africa and bloodied the troops. It seems to me to be definitely the right call by Churchill and Roosevelt?
In hindsight, we can thank God that operation Sledgehammer did not proceed, and that instead North Africa and then South Europe were invaded first. Stalin may have pressured for an earlier invasion, but even he must have realised it would have been a futile suicide mission. Perhaps that is why he demanded it?
SLEDGEHAMMER was always going to be a desperation measure with whatever forces were available, either to try to bail out the Soviets before they could completely collapse or to take advantage of a German collapse. A competent military always prepares for hypothetical contingencies, even ridiculous ones. The Chieftain (on UA-cam) once described his outfit in Afghanistan preparing a contingency plan for a zombie apocalypse, and then having to explain it to their Afghan allies who don't have a "zombie" concept in their cultural and religious traditions.
Stalin was often delusional with the idea that determination and fervour was a substitute for numbers and equipment. It was a delusion shared by Hitler, and sometimes members of the Western Allies. Certainly, Churchill suggested that Tobruk should be determined to fight to the death, no surrender.
@@wbertie2604 Didn't Churchill learn from when he applied that theory at Gallipoli? Darn, now I understand why it took the Brits so long to take Caen.
@@wbertie2604 A lot of the timetables for Normandy, Caen included, were also ultimately too optimistic. Sometimes it's the plans that are flawed, not the execution.
When Churchill and Roosevelt had their meetings, the obviously had to be transported to their destinations by ship. How long did it take to cross the "pond?" Plus what kind ship did they use? Also, German U-Boats were infesting the North Atlantic, so each leader had to have a heavy naval escort. What kind boats were those, and how many? Dunkeschoen, Tomaz' Janik.
Google how FDR traveled to Tehran. This is an excerpt On 28 November 1943, President Franklin D. ... Traveling to Tehran, President Roosevelt had no Air Force One, Boeing 747, to take him there. His first leg would be via sea. It was not a submarine, but a battleship, the USS Iowa which transported him to Casablanca, Morocco, on the first leg of his trip.
Churchill often travelled in a fast battleship, such as Prince of Wales, or a battlecruiser, such as Renown, when he didn't fly. Both ships were capable of at least 28 knots, and were more or less immune from U-boat attack as a result. The big Atlantic liners ( Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary, etc) which transported US troops to Britain, were never escorted for the same reason, except when they reached Britain, where they received heavy AA escort for the last few hours of their voyage.
Indy is being more goofy, I only recently noticed it, but I’m not in favor of it, I enjoyed it more when he spoke more serious and professional. But as long as he’s having fun that’s all that matters.
When the topic is appropriate for some levity, but only then. Like in the war itself we can’t be walking around with a gloomy face every day for years on end.
First off, you have no idea how stoked I am you took the time to reply, second I very much enjoy your content, lastly thank you for presenting history as it should be, without any political bias. All of you who work hard to present this are a gem
Great special episode! I love to see how invested you both are, seeing each of you react to the other when you're not talking. It's a very engaging way to present history, I hope your video's get used a lot and in many places!! Keep up the great work so that we never forget!
I could never fathom how Rommel and his troops could ever take and hold something like Egypt. Yes, most people lived near the nile, but even then it had a massive population! Rommels troops were much to few to ever control that, and neither german nor italian help would ever come in sufficient numers. Were there groups willing and ready to form a clientel state as soon as the Brits were gone?
It was a good Idea that we didn't go for mainland Europe. We needed North Africa to blood our commanders and troops, to see what worked and what didn't in terms of doctrine as The US had an Idea of how to fight, but is it matching up with realities of war. That we saw very real problems on the beaches of North Africa where it was lower risk. Lessons that would be Learned and applied to Overlord. Furthermore, North Africa was safe- as in If it was a disaster, it would hurt the allies, yes but it would not be completely crippling as losing 15 divisions on Mainland Europe.
Another brilliant and informative episode focusing on an area of Allied planning frequently overlooked. Well done guys, keep them coming! BtW, I really can't be doing with mssrs Marshall and King, allies my foot!
Oooo, Indy and Sparty together! Nice job, guys. Americans and British: We will invade Europe through the soft underbelly of North Africa and Italy. Rommel: Ba humbug. *mutters* That's the first time I've ever gotten called the "soft underbelly" of anything.
Because Churchill's track record on amphibious assaults before they're ready, yet in strategically important areas is unsurpassed... Looking at you Gallipoli (from the last war) , the soft underbelly's extra coast - the adriatic - to prevent the iron curtain. All of thewm with the eye on the political rather than the practical / logistical.
Churchill gets heavily criticised for Gallipoli, much of which is unfair. His belief was that sea power should be used to knock Ottoman Turkey out of the war, as a strategic alternative to the unfolding carnage on the Western Front. Certainly, he argued for Gallipoli, but he neither authorised it (Herbert Asquith did) and nor did he plan it.
Mr Plumb, I think it’s fair to say that in the case of D-Day, Churchill kinda knew that he had to get it right, and it couldn’t go off half-cocked (as so many of his earlier “adventures” had done.) As the Grandson of an Anzac, I’d say Churchill often had good ideas but was hazy about the execution.
This is so interesting - all the confusion, fussing and fighting among the Allies before any invasion, which doesn’t get into the history books - is instructive.
Operation Torch gave the allies a clear victory, even if it was an arguably easy victory. Territorial and military gains aside, this must surely have given the allies, resistants and all those living under the Nazi yoke a moral boost or at least some hope. A great chunk of North Africa was now off limits to the Axis powers with little hope of them ever getting it back. It was the right call.
Excellent, excellent, excellent! This is such a great piece. It gets right into the bones of how such major decisions were made, and unmade, in the very difficult year of 1942.
13:32 Wait... weren't the Free French unaware of Operation Torch and sidelined from it ? De Gaulle had been deliberatly pushed aside by Roosevelt, which of course infuriated him, even more when he heard of his secret deal with Darlan and what he planned to do with Giraud, namely to organize a "third France" under him whom the Americans could control more easily. This political mess in the making and the fact Roosevelt kept prefering on and on to talk and negociate with Vichy collaborators rather than with the free french that never stopped fighting the Axis forces and joined the Allies from the beginning, will provoke lots of tensions and unneeded dramas for the months or even years to come. Spoiler alert: when the Italians switched side in 43, Roosevelt immediately recognized the new italian governement as legitimate but had still not recognized the free french governement under De Gaulle to this point. It will takes lots of pressure from Churchill for him to finally do so (after of course, De Gaulle himself pressured Churchill into doing the same).
The Americans as a whole deeply distrusted DeGaulle during this stage and preferred other figures to lead the Free French. Roosevelt, I believe, dismissed him as a dictator-in-training.
@@lycaonpictus9662 I don't know about the whole american people's opinion but the opinion of Roosevelt is well known and documented. He distrusted and despised De Gaulle with a passion since he ordered the liberation of St Pierre et Miquelon islands without his approval. It didn't help either that within his entourage there were French people loyal to Vichy, especially the French ambassador in USA who was a friend of Pétain, who influenced Roosevelt view of De Gaulle, portraying him as a dictator-in the making as you said, and implementing the false idea that the Vichy leaders would revolt against the Germans at the first opportunity, even though every attempts and negociations in that regard had proved otherwise to this point.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Italian king, Victor Emmanual established the Italian government replacing the Fascists - it was as legitimate a government as possible. De Gaulle had self-proclaimed "Free France" without any legal authority - he had no more legitimacy than Hitler in the Beer Hall putsch days. Churchill approved because he as sitting on 10K French soldiers picked off the beach of Dunkirk and needed any friend he could get - even one as bad as De Gaulle - to keep some French in the fight. The Darlan/Giraud efforts were an attempt to establish at least some vague legitimacy in the government that control North Africa. There would likely have been substantial resistance to De Gaulle at that point.
". . . So, what happened?" First, the USA could not build forces fast enough to invade Europe; mobilization was still in development. What happened next was actually 2 British disasters: 1. The Dieppe disaster, which could not be concealed from the public, despite official assertions that it was a 'Success because we learned a lot'. In fact, the British did not learn enough, because one month later they attempted Operation Agreement, which also ended in disaster. The fact is that Winston Churchill, who was a legitimately great leader, had poor military insight, and British Leadership had serious problems planning large scale military operations - a deficiency later to be demonstrated again in Operation Goodwood, a failed breakout attempt passed off as a 'diversion', or 'limited offensive'. Operation Agreement, a little publicized amphibious/land attack on Tobruk, occurred 1 month after Dieppe, and failed so badly that it threw all Allied plans to invade Europe into question. As a result, the Western Allies now had to make excuses to Stalin, who began to now distrust the West even more.
D day would not have happened without input of British planning, for example Operation Fortitude and Bodyguard also the laying of the fuel pipe to pump supplies across the channel. As for Goodwood even Omar Bradley said after the war that the planning with Monty was to draw German armour onto the Brits and Canadian forces to help weaken the Germans facing the US in the south. But at the time it was bad for morale to tell those forces that were just an anvil for the US hammer. Of course Monty though he could make a break out anyway but it did its job of holding up and grinding down German forces. Churchill did have bad ideas but I suggest you read about Brooke (chief of imperial war staff) who was pretty much spot on about the war who rained in Churchill a few times. :) But yes mistakes are always made in war and on one war side has a spotless record. Unless your post is pure Brit bashing at its finest
The British were miffed that the U.S. sent troops and naval forces to the Pacific, but the British were also diverting much of their resources to fight the Japanese there. Germany was fighting a two-front war, but so were the Americans and British once the Japanese entered the fray. Our Pacific War efforts were aimed at protecting the British Empire's Dominions of Australia and New Zealand. btw. I wonder if purpose-built landing craft were over-emphasized. Did anyone consider running destroyers and Liberty ships aground on the beaches and letting the troops disembark from those? Maybe not a practical idea, but I wonder if anyone considered it.
HMS Campbletown, St Nazaire. Problem being you can't go back for a second load of troops and destroyers are not designed for disembarking assault forces. Take a destroyers draft into account and your assault troops are going to drown. Unless you sail into a port which will probably be defended. Either way, not a good idea.
The British were not 'miffed' that the US sent troops and most of their fleet to the Pacific. The strategy throughout was that the RN would be responsible for the naval campaigns in the Atlantic, Arctic, and Indian Oceans, and the Mediterranean, leaving the US Navy free to concentrate almost entirely in the Pacific. By the way, Australia, whatever Curtin might have believed, and New Zealand were never in any danger of invasion, and did not need protection, although Australia was a useful base from which MacArthur could start. The Japanese had enough problems with New Guinea and, of course, never managed to capture Port Moresby.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 The Japanese got off to such a strong start by conquering prestigious British and American bases at Singapore and the Philippines, plus sinking many British and American warships, that it seemed they were unstoppable. In one of the MacArthur movies, the Australians are preparing to abandon the northern coast and fall back to Sydney. Perhaps an exaggerated fear, but there was panic even in the U.S. and Canada. Both countries interned their populations of Japanese descent until the end of the war, fearing that the Japanese would invade the coast and Japanese-Americans and Japanese-Canadians would reinforce them. A highly exaggerated fear on all counts, but the way the Japanese and Germans were tearing through countries in the first years of the war, perhaps understandable.
As much as many Europeans may want them to, the Western Allies are not planning to carry out an invasion in mainland Europe by this point in 1942. By 1944 however, a major Allied landing will take place at Normandy. We are planning on covering that entire day, D-Day, minute by minute for 24 whole hours. This will be the most in depth documentary series ever created on that event, which means we have already begun work on it. This is an enormous task, and the entire TimeGhost Army is playing a part. Join the effort on www.patreon.com/join/timeghosthistory and contribute research over at community.timeghost.tv/t/d-day-research-contribution-here/7854
Rules: community.timeghost.tv/t/rules-of-conduct/4518).
Will you be using parts of the 24 hour News broardcast from 1944 for that?
ua-cam.com/video/OxBO-YnxwNM/v-deo.html
EXCELSIOR! ^^
Hello Indy...I was intrigued by your very pointed aside in regard to "Marshall and the B-17s" at 7:45...and I wanted to ask if what you had to say involves/stems from/centers upon Marshall's "secret" press conference in November of 1941 where he specifically announced that US policy in case of war with Japan was to "set the paper cities of Japan on fire" with B-17s...and all the fanciful ideas he had in regard to actually doing it? 🖖✌
Can't wait!
The failed landings at Dieppe showed how deadly the coastal defenses were in France. Some say that Churchill wanted that operation to fail so as to convince Stalin and Roosevelt not to pursue a Channel crossing until it was properly prepared. The memory of Gallipoli probably plays a part in Churchill's opinion on this matter.
I want to hear about Marshal and the B-17s!
Let's get Indy started on it!
Join the army
So do I...since I think I know what he is talking about. Marshall had a bunch of very fanciful ideas about how to use heavy bombers...in particular to firebomb Japan. I will not blather on any more, since that would partially spoil Indy's presentation...if it ever comes. 😁✌
He talks about it in the Pearl Harbor series I believe. Marshall thought he could counter any Japanese threat in the Far East with B-17s to preempt them. The problem was that
1. They couldn’t get them off the ground when the time came.
2. It’s hard to employ them when your airfields are being overran via naval invasion.
3. Strategic bombing can only do so much.
@@natethegreat1999 they were really over enthusiastic with the idea that new tech can help them hit anything they wanted from high altitude. In reality all those targeting computers were really not living up to expectations, one could say theranos style. If it worked, then they wouldn’t need to send any man toward danger, at least in theory. The marines were literally a suicide squad, going from island to island and its a bloodbath every step of the way. Btw, check out the pacific miniseries on hbo.
Until watching this series, I never quite realised how dire things looked until late 1942 - I asked my grandmother (a teenage nurse in southern england) if she felt that, if people were afraid. She said yes - people knew the empire had lost nearly every battle in the war, and the navy was the only real ace they had. But as a teenager, she didnt think about that much. She did tell me some stories I'd never heard before, though - going on an unsanctioned trip to her aunt's via london, and her parents reporting her missing and assuming she had been killed when st. Pancras had been bombed. And visiting the same aunt later in the war after overlord and being questioned about it by police and army due to the construction of the fuel pipelines to france.
Many thanks for giving me new questions to ask - in real time, you get some little sense of how people really felt. That's what history is all about.
Same here i mostly came here for the smaller details that the big documentaries blaze through.
Now a days we look back and think it was impossible for the Axis to win on the long run, but that is not true, it was an uphill battle against unknown odds that many brave man volunteered to fight against tyrany...
Never forget
Yeah ,the interesting point here is the allied invade Europe ,they Started the war with the intention of invasion and submission .this guys are very clear in this,so I glad to hear a bit of true
@@hernandemornay7559 what do you mean
@@alisilcox6036 i meant what I said.the allied invasion to Europe with the idea of submission.the allies designed the invasion of Europe ,the European just defended their lands and lifestyle, Germany France Italy Spain Austria Hungary and the other traditional members of the sacro imperio Romano germanico didn't start the war they just reacted to British provocations .is like when I hear ,HITLER INVADES AUSTRIA! Hitler was Austrian ,he never invades his own land .but Churchill Roosevelt Stalin they did the invasion of Europe till this day
Churchill: "the soft underbelly of Europe".
Kesselring: "We'll see about that."
Never forget the "smiling"
He never used the phrase "soft underbelly"
And he was right. Italy surrendered without a fight with just a few allied divisions landing in southern italy in september 1943. The fact that GERMANY decided to defend Italy to the death from that point onwards is unrelated to that. The Italian surrender is the most important Western Allied contribution to the war until the liberation of france. Germany was forced to relocate more than 50 divisions to the balkans and to italy, during the decisive 1943 battles in the eastern front, just because the allies landed a handful of divisions in southern italy. Meanwhile, the Italian surrender removed the italian navy as a fleet in being, and instantly opened the mediterranean for convoys with barely any effort. This, in turn, accelerated the build-up for D-day and eased the british logistics situation from England to Burma.
As Viceroy Gunray would say: "This is getting out of hand. Now there is two of them!"
Anyone who wonders why the Germans never attempted an invasion of Britain should read up on the gigantic difficulties the Allies had landing in Normandy. There is no way in hell the Germans could have pulled that off in 1940, especially with a little organization called the Royal Navy still about.
The Germans might have pulled it off if British morale collapsed and they capitulated. But that is the only way it could have succeeded.
Air superiority would have helped.
Beating Britian's navy would have been in my opinion the most surmountable intial obstacle.
@@shawnr771 also if they didn't waste so many resourses into industrilising murder
The Fascists also industrialized slavery.
Much of their war production was done by slaves.
Those that could not work were sent to death camps.
@@shawnr771 saying much would suggest that 60% or more was done by it, i would use the term "significant"
At least you consider the workers working under the reich to be slaves (which they were in a way)
Meanwhile in Germany: “eh, properly not going to happen this decade”
"An eye should be kept on Calais, though, of course."
@@lxathu “and Normandy? Never heard of that place. Probably nothing”
@@andmos1001 "Thank God for Garbo I say."
Well judging how Dieppe went, the allies clearly needed more time to fully prepare.
Somehow the logistics of amphibious landings seem to have caught every side by surprise at the start of the war.
A better comparison yet is to see how Torch went. It was a shambles only successful because of the dire state of the army of Vichy France in North Africa. The Americans in particular still needed the hard lessons of Kasserine before they could even begin to fight it out with the Germans at the main event.
And it was going on +- the same time as the London talks illustrated with the fun graphics
@@huntergratzner1 honestly, we were probably extremely preoccupied with Japan.
So I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't pay much attention to the Germans
I'm glad you brought up the whole landing craft issue because it would play a pretty major role when it came to policy regarding naval invasions for Italy and France. People often think of the US as having "infinite production capabilities" but in reality lack of landing craft (I think the LCP and LCVP) would create some huge issues and constantly delay operations. Especially since they had trouble reusing ones they deployed in operations. (if i remember correctly this caused issues after Husky since they had to bring in a new batch when they launched supporting invasions into the Italian mainland to coincide with their offensive, this predictably created a lot of delays)
Most of this comes from:
Neptune : the Allied invasion of Europe and the D-Day landings / Craig L. Symonds.
In fact, the availability of landing craft was still an issue even in May 1944, and the lack of them threatened Overlord so much that a crash program of landing craft manufacturing had to be undertaken to get the requisite number made in time.
The Higgins boats problem delayed D-Day five weeks. The original target was May 1st. Had it gone off on schedule, the Anglo-Allies would've romped over Adolf all the way to Paris. The 352nd division showed up during those fateful weeks, Rommel's anti-glider obstacles exploded in strength, the 82nd Airborne was entirely re-deployed to buddy up with the 101st, the anti-landing obstacles at Omaha all showed up during the magic five-weeks.
Bradley's delay request, accepted by Monty, blew up when the enemy exercised his vote. Patton strikes me as a general that would not have asked for the delay.
As it turned out, the wait was a TERRIBLE trade-off. The original defenders of Omaha's bluffs proved walk-overs when committed to Utah Beach.
That's interesting. What was the problem with reusing Higgins boats?
@@odysseusrex5908 Likely issue with repairing hulls, patching holes, etc. However, it is also likely that many Higgins boats were also retained at each invasion site for several months ferrying supplies and reinforcements to shore until harbours with proper offloading capabilities were fully operational. For example, the landing craft used at Anzio in 1943 would have still been there ferrying supplies to shore until the link-up in May of 1944. The same thing would have happened at Normandy from June until December 1944.
@@odysseusrex5908 They took a beating during every landing -- trashing their bottoms -- and usually being a tad over-loaded. These were wooden boats, so wave action while beached was brutal to their hulls.
And yes, some boats could be re-used -- but no general dared count on 2nd use craft for any major assault. That's how badly each invasion project abused its Higgins boats.
You might note that it's hard to find such craft in museums. IIRC, the last decent display is down in New Orleans -- where Higgins built so very, very many. (Licensed production occurred -- in bits -- all over the USA. That's how dire the need became.)
I really like this sort of back and forth sytle of presenting you two have, I would like to see more of this in future! its has a real natural flow to it and shows the behind the scenes chemistry that we the fans know you two have.
The British and Churchill are often criticized for their reluctance to invade France in '43-'44 But British Grand Strategy has traditionally been patient and methodical. The Royal Navy's role was to systematically sever its adversaries from investments, allies, and trade. The army existed to further those goals, and preferred to fight on the periphery where it could achieve overwhelming local superiority against isolated enemy forces cut off from reinforcements and supplies by the Royal Navy.
Unlike Germany, Britain didn't need to win wars quickly. The Navy could be used to protect British possessions while slowly strangling their enemies. As their opponents grew weaker, Britain would leverage its territories and dominions by mustering overwhelming resources and manpower. It's a sound strategy that served the British empire well for centuries.
The British had one of the strongest militaries in the world in 1943 but the bulk of the budget went to the Navy, Air Force, and intelligence agencies, along with the best and brightest officers. The army was an "expeditionary force" designed to support it's allies, or project British power overseas. It didn't have the resources, training, or numbers to fight a prolonged land campaign against Germany on the continent. It's best formations already had their hands full with the three German divisions of the Africa corps despite nearly a two-to-one advantage in manpower and tanks.
If Britain did attempt to land a handful of inexperienced divisions in France, they would have to contend with a lot more than three German divisions. The best case scenario was a successful initial landing followed by a year of stalemate while the allies consolidated and strengthened their bridge head in preparation for a breakout. But more than likely, the invasion forces would have been stopped on the beach, or smashed by a German counter attack within a week or so of the initial landing.
It doesn't matter,the point is that England invades and submit France because that's the plan , Germany in the other hand only support the nationalist government of France who was against the British rules over France
@@hernandemornay7559 What 'Nationalist' French government? The government of Petain & Laval? When the Allies eventually began the LIBERATION of France in 1944, how would you characterise the members of the French resistance who supported their efforts? Traitors, perhaps?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 France was not invades by Germans ok ,so there is not liberation of France by the allies that's propaganda,france wanted to be free from England because was submitted to London sinces the French revolution ,as Britain don't won't this obviously they gonna invades France ,so Germany send a support army to stop the British ambitious but Germany never invades France ,I told you my grandfather was there and there was not problem with the German ,the problem was with the Anglo American who killed French citizens before during and after the war
@@dovetonsturdee7033 the people of those days like my grandfather used to called the resistance members as traitors and foreign mercenary he called them miserables condottiere ,the resistance was in major of case foreign mercenary,my grandfather and his people captured many of them and guess what,there was a few French among a foreign mercenary group ,so please stop saying nonsense like LIBERATION instead of INVASION and RESISTANCE instead INFILTRATION ARMY ,the can cheat you ok but I'm trying to make you understand that is propaganda ,what the allies did in France was simply murderer ,the Germans didn't killed French or Italian ,the allies did
@@hernandemornay7559 so what was this whole going through the ardenne then for you? a so call british aggression even though the german were clearly the one invading poland, also the german killed french citisen as well (oradour sur glane mean anything to you?)
Spartacus makes a good point ten minutes in. The leadership and performance of the untested American troops in North Africa suggests an invasion of France would have been a disaster.
Indy and Sparty together co-hosting an episode. I like it :D
Spartacus looked so captivated by Indy’s intro
That's what true bromance looks like
No cap
Sparty deserves an award for his acting performance in Indy's intro. LOL
It belonged in a museum!
Bolero did set up the infrastructure and began the buildup to Overlord so it wasn't a total waste.
Yes, a 1942 invasion of N. France would have been a disaster. Even if it secured a foothold, it would have come at a horrible cost as green American troops made the same mistakes as in Torch only on an order of magnitude larger scale.
You guys should also talk about the 90 vs 255 division plan America had. There was arguments during this time and before of how many divisions the US would make. The first plan to make 255 divisions would then have the US divisions working like most other nations in the war. In that a division when badly damaged would be pulled from the front line for rebuilding. The 90 division plan on the other hand allowed the US to need less officers but would then force the US to reinforce it's divisions while they were in the combat line. The US ended up going with the 90 division plan under the recommendations of it's allies because it allowed the US to keep more men within the US homeland working on production of war provisions that the US and Allies all needed.
I believe the 255 division plan was also dependent on how the war in the Soviet Union was going. If the Soviets collapsed and Germany was free to send it's forces elsewhere than the Allies would have to contend with an additional 200+ German divisions along with the forces of the minor axis allies. For context Rommel's Africa corps consisted of 5 German divisions at it's height and required nearly a third of the British army to dislodge it. Assuming US forces are successful in winning without the Soviets and they suffer the same casualty ratio of 1 vs 1.5 as seen from 1944-1945. US losses would be in the 5-7 million ballpark in order to liberate Europe and defeat the additional 8-10 million Germans that would have been otherwise sent to the Eastern front. And that of course doesn't account for either Spain or Turkey being persuaded to join the Axis with it's now plentiful fuel and food resources.
Other factors to consider are the size, organization, and capabilities of US divisions vs. German, Japanese, British, Chinese, and Soviet divisions. The numbers game alone can be misleading, particularly when ignoring such force multipliers as air power, sea power, command and control, logistics, manpower reserve, and production potential.
Realistically, the United States could not have raised 200+ divisions while also building up the world's largest navy and air force. There are just manpower and industrial limits that cannot be overcome.
@@FlintIronstag23 Well, you have to consider that under the 255 proposal, the divisions would actually be smaller. Around 11,000 to 12,000 instead if (as used) around 14,000/15,000. And during the war, the US manpower use was about 8% of population. Germany was over 10%, Great Britain was about 8.5% You are correct that it was limited due to the needs of industry.
@@FlintIronstag23 So if the US divisions were as large consistently as they were in real life in the 255 division plan then yes the US could not have recruited that many troops and still been the industrial power it was (it would of still been strong industrially though). But what would have really happened if the US went with the 255 division plan was the US divisions would have been smaller like other countries were during the war and the US would not have been consistently reinforcing front line divisions like they did in real life. Battered divisions would be replaced with fresh divisions that were not on the line and the battered division would wait to be rebuilt before going back on the line. Even with smaller divisions and not reinforcing the divisions as much as the US did with the 90 division plan the US would have still spent more man power in the 255 plan though because each division still needs all of it's officers even when not in combat which adds up to a lot more men just there. At the end of WW2 the US had a small amount more men under arms then the USSR did. With the 255 division plan the US would have had way more men under arms then the USSR.
Given how badly the Dieppe Raid in August 1942 went, it was very unlikely in the first place that an Allied invasion of mainland Europe would happen in 1942 or even 1943. Many of the units were still somewhat unprepared, not sufficiently trained and German power was at its peak in 1942. Units like the 82nd Airborne and the 101st Airborne were just starting out in training at the time.
Anyway, a great video as usual from the team. Often Operation Sledgehammer and Roundup tend to get forgotten or overshadowed by later successful landings in the war.
German Power was definitly not at its peak in 1942. Only territorially speaking maybe, but militarily definitly not. THe germany "peak" was definitly June 1941 shortly before Barbarossa. Then they broke their army durign the advance in 1941 until getting pushed back the first time on a major frontline in Winter 1941/42.
Economically speaking germany had its "peak" by 1944 do to cooking their books and simplifying a lot of their war production. The german armies quality had already decreased a lot in 1942. Their original officer core was already lying in the ground of russia and they couldnt even resupply their loses in spring 1942 to their previosus tate.
It might have ended up like Somme 2.0
@@stc3145 yeah let the Soviets do most of the work.
@@spqr1945 Who was "doing most of the work" before 22 June 1941?
@@nickdanger3802 80% of German losses were on the Eastern front.
Sparty's epic performance in doing all those expressions without breaking character as Indy went through the intro deserves an Oscar, or an Emmy...or something made of metal and roughly human shaped. LOL 😂💯✌
The duel presentation is highly underutilized.....
Hindsight prevents us from genuinely feeling the anxieties of this period of the war, every episode and special sure help bring you there as much as possible.
My father did 52 missions in B17's. Great video.
“They [Marshall and King] are so dissatisfied with the British admiralty”, underselling a bit how much King loathed/despised the British. He was actually working on war plans (a normal thing for sure for a country to do in peace time, but he was one who thought it had a good probability of happening) for a fight between the British Empire and America. Then you add in all his personal run-ins, King really didn’t like the British
He also completely ignored British recommendations for the convoy system to protect American ships from U-Boats. A lot of Americans died needlessly because King refused to accept the advice just because the British were the ones who suggested it.
@@roberthoward9500 He did do that, I am not denying that. In fact, his unwillingness to work with the British was a contributing factor to him not recommending/implementing a convoy system right away
Yes, there was a War Plan Red (against the British empire), but it existed LONG before King was in a position to have any influence on it. It was developed in 1927, at a time when King was learning to fly and commanding the airplane tender USS Wright.
King had a volcanic temper and didn't get along with anyone. This British weren't alone in being a target of his ire.
A rather humorous quip about him made by one of his own daughters was that, "He is the most even-tempered person in the United States Navy. He is always in a rage." Roosevelt also had a humorous take on his temperament, describing King as a man who, "shaves every morning with a blowtorch."
@@lycaonpictus9662 I've heard both, but the version of the blowtorch story I heard was a gag gift. Someone gave king a box labeled "shaving kit". Inside was a blowtorch kit.
Hi Indy and sparty.
Explained clearly why no second front in 1942..
Awating for d-day special epsiode..
Thanks...
This will be not a single episode. This will be a whole day. Some will say it will be The Longest Day...
@@grlt23 The Battle for Stalingrad has entered the chat.
Nicely done. The added depth as to why the Allies did what they did is a nice change of pace from other narratives.
I knew there were divisions and tension in the allied camp in 1942 but I never realized that it was so bad that Roosevelt had to intervene to tell King and Marshall to back off on pressing the British to invade Europe. Churchill was right, an invasion in 1942 would've been a disaster. I can also see why he called Italy the soft underbelly of Europe at the time. By 1942 Italy was definitely the junior partner in the Axis alliance and that Mussolini was indeed nothing more than a Sawdust Caesar. Therefore Italy was ripe for switching sides like she'd done in WW1 or least an unconditional surrender. But then again they must've know how Hitler would respond given his response to the Torch landings when he occupied Vichy France.
Churchill objected to even Overlord - he just eventually gave in because the US made it clear they weren't interested in invading Greece... which would have been pointless except to extend British influence there.
@@robertkras5162 Churchill seems to have had a deeper grasp of the impending post WW2 world than FDR did. His interest in Greece was more to prevent Soviet influence there than to extend British influence. Just as, in the last days of the war, a British Airborne Division motored across Germany in order to reach the Baltic coast, literally hours before the Soviets did, in order to secure Denmark.
@@robertkras5162 Not really? I feel like British decision making was more based on how the world after the war would be like. An Balkan campaign would see the USSR being restricted much more in how much land it could occupy.
By this point in the war Germany was already pretty much defeated and its defences in France and Western Europe where minimal at best, the Allies could've easily focused on securing the Balkans for the West and then doing an delayed Overlord, which would've been even quicker seeing as Germany was getting weaker week by week.
@@samwell3 I think the "Russia containment" concept of a Balkans strategy is myth created after the war; Churchill/FDR will eventually participate in the Yalta, agreeing to partitioning of eastern Europe as "Soviet influence".
Granted that was after a Balkan campaign was nixed. FDR and his advisors saw a Balkan campaign as an attempt to have US fight for the future of British imperialism and empire - which was not a goal of the US, and the crawl up the Italian boot showed there was no soft underbelly.
To say "Germany was already pretty much defeated" is to ignore Churchill's "End of the beginning" speech. There is a lot of war left and a lot of fight left in the Germans.
A 1942 cross channel European invasion was always unrealistic. Same with 1943. Meanwhile Stalin gritted his teeth and complained as his country bore the brunt of Nazi military power. The Brits and Americans were in the same position he had hoped to be when he made his cynical deal with Hitler in 1939. Watching others bleed themselves white. Casually building up their forces while picking and choosing where they wanted to fight. Stalin's self serving gamble had backfired spectacularly.
Yeah, but if a 1942 invasion did somehow succeed I feel like the USSR wouldn't of even been able to get back to the Polish border before Germany would fall to the Allies, which would've made the post war world a lot better as the USSR would be restricted to its pre-war borders.
6:43 these are LCTs (landing craft, tank). LSTs are much larger ocean going vessels with large clamshell doors at the bow resembling a small merchant vessel.
LST = Large, Slow, Target
@@living2ndchildhood347 yep. had a good friend/mentor who was an aa gunner on one during ww2. he would tell with pride how hos skipper came up with the idea of dropping their 2 stern anchors on the way in so they could pull off the beach after unloading even though they were supposed to stay on the beach.
Everyone should forever remember that this is exactly why we need the Americans and the Brits.
Dieppe. Don't forget Churchill had been burnt badly at Dieppe. That was one of the reasons for not attacking France for the time being, until the German defences were weakened. Stalin would be understandably annoyed, since the big battles were being fought in the Soviet Union, while the Western allies were shy of fighting them. Indeed, the North African campaign would show the American troops were still not ready to go into the "major league". They had to go through a battle hardening there first.
No matter what Churchill thought about Italy it was not the so called Soft Under Belly of the Reich.
It was a tough slog up the boot from one heavily defended mountain range to another.
Well yes, but there are the Italians and then there is Italy. Taking out the Italians is a benefit to the British because of the Italian navy and the control of the Mediterranean. And the Italian army in Africa and Greece.
That intro was one of the best you've done. Great comedic timing for both of you.
Thank you.
The thing about soft underbellies, there are sure alot of rocks and mountains....
True. But invading Italy would take them out of the Axis and possibly act as a staging location for an invasion of southern France. Hitting the Balkans would motivate the already successful partisans in the area (looking at you, Tito) and put pressure on Romania and Hungary to rethink their contribution to the German war effort. Either operation would secure Allied control of the Suez and the Med easing supply issues for the Allies. Hitting the soft underbelly is a bad way to get to the brain, but a great way to get at the supporting vital organs.
@@michaelfodor6280 Italy just tied up the allies for no strategic value after Italy surrendered. Greece would have been the same, and I don't think Tito would have welcomed another occupying army; once linked up to the Soviets what do you do? Help them occupy eastern Europe?
@@robertkras5162 Tito was helped by the British SOE and he would have loved the Allies help in making life harder for the Germans. (Keep in mind that Tito was never really friends with Stalin and had good relations with the West after the war.) Post war would be no different except that the lines on the maps would have been different. Greece was with the Allies before Italy and Germany invaded. They would support an Allied invasion.
Joint Allied Planning for Gymnast/Torch began in July 1941, five months before Pearl Harbour and the USA entering the war. Torch resulted in a huge amount of Nazi resources being drawn down and away from the Eastern Front and culminated in 300,000 Nazi soldiers surrendering in Tunisia.
Watching this, all I can think is thank Christ NW Europe wasn't invaded in 42. Considering the sheer logistical power which made Overlord a success, and considering how the lack of it is holding up the Germans now, it really shows it's crucial role in victory. Invading Cherbourg and peninsular would've been another Dieppe shaped fiasco, but surely only worse.
Just one point on pronunciation - 'Louis' is I think in American English "Lewis" but in British English is "Lewie", as in the French pronunciation. Only because I've a feeling Lord Mountbatten might be appearing quite a bit more...
Five divisions were never going to bring off a successful invasion in 1942, even if the best German divisions were not manning the Atlantic Wall.
You can forgive King since he only new the naval side of things, but what was Marshal thinking? The US Army was trained by the Germans in North Africa and Italy. I hate to think what the German's would have done to the US Army if it had attacked France in 1942 or 43.
FDR was proven correct when Torch was launched. The American army was woefully unprepared for a full scale campaign against German forces, but 1942 and 1943 gave them a chance to learn those lessons while still achieving victories and by the time of Overlord they were a very potent force
You have a great dynamic together. I really enjoyed that joined episode!
Glad to hear that!
you guys just keep getting better!
Marshal n King reminded me of petulant children When they didn't get their way with Sledgehammer. Good thing FDR did what he did to get them to fall in line. Nice video.
Russia: Can you help, we getting crushed over here
Churchill: We cant help until you defeat the enemy
Russia:...........................Fine
Perhaps Genial Uncle Joe might have thought of that before he became Hitler's bosom chum in 1939, and supplied Germany with raw materials consistently until June, 1941?
You two guys have such awesome chemistry together! I always await the next segment avidly.
And now, I would like every segment to end with ‘Excelsior!’
Can we get a shirt, too? 😁
"We are going to make a landing in france so epic that the future generations won't stop making remakes of games about it"
*EPIC*
Yes, Alanbrooke was harsh and fair. I mean among other things this is the guy who was willing to use sprayed mustard gas on the beaches if Operation Sea Lion went ahead. Not a man to be trifled with.
I like him.
Operations Sledgehammer and Roundup would've failed horribly. Germany in late 1942 and early to mid 1943 was still too strong for the Western Allies to confront in Northern France. I strongly believe that any type of "D-Day 1943" would've just turned into a WW2 version of Gallipoli. And if the Western Allies had tried to invade Northern France in late 1942, it'd be even worse. That was before the Germans had even lost at both Stalingrad and Kursk, & before Italy changed sides.
It's interesting that the allies thought that the German-Italian logistics were sufficient enough to make it into Russia via the middle east if Egypt fell. Specially considering they'd have to go through Iraq and Iran (at minimum) to do so. Iraq's Government may have been willing to allow passage considering the brittish had just recently invaded recently, but I'm not so sure about Iran or the populations of the countries.
It would come down to supply lines, captured ports, and maybe Turkey joining the Axis.
Yep. Like the Balkans... Iran is very very mountainous
Now I want to know about Marshall and the B-17.
Looking at the maps you showed, I can't imagine that either Sledgehammer or Roundup could have succeeded. To the contrary, they might well have been fiascos like the failed Dieppe raid.
A 1942 invasion made zero sense. With what? The US Navy was hanging on in the Pacific by its fingernails.
The US Army didn't have sufficient forces to fight the German Army in France.
Though the delay for the liberation of Western Europe has not come. It will and shall come. It will be a long ways to go. But it will be done. The Allies of the free world will land on the shores of Western Europe and began the United crusade against Nazi Germany. But for now, victory must be secured in the deserts of North Africa and the calm waters of the Mediterranean Sea.
Thy Will Be Done,
Almighty God.
Soviet soldiers liked the American stew in canned food, they called this stew "second front".
I recall an historian a few years ago writing that 'The Soviets were the main reason for the defeat of nazi Germany, but they did it whilst eating American food, driving in American vehicles, and wearing British boots.'
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Of course, Len-Lease helped the Red Army a lot, but after all, the USSR fought not only for itself, but also for the British and Americans, the more Nazis the Russians killed, the fewer ordinary guys from Liverpool and New York died.
If the Soviet Union had lost the war, Hitler would have attacked Britain again, with these supplies they helped themselves first of all.
Was anyone in the room to point out that both the Balkans and Italy are mountain ranges and not a soft underbelly at all?
I would have looked at snagging Sicily Sardinia and cirsice and invading southern France if the channel was "too much"
Churchill wanted the Balkans cuz he knew the Soviets had designs on Eastern Europe. The man had many faults but his distrust of the Soviets should have rubbed off more on Roosevelt.
Love the tag team .. two .. count them .. two .. extremely competent presenters.
I enjoyed the team approach with this presentation - a refreshing change up to an already awesome channel!
The Americans needed combat experienced troops and time to build an overwhelming naval advantage in the Pacific. US advantage was industry and needed time to assert itself. I think this was all handled as well as it could have been.
I think the real delay of D-Day was to save the British crown jewels of the Suez Canal and trade to India. Which were eventually lost after the war anyway. And, Russia suffered 20 million dead because of that strategy. Therefore, when we finally crossed the channel the Germans preferred surrendering to the allies rather than those slaughtered on the eastern front. Setting us up for the iron curtain.
Really do appreciate the two voice approach, makes easier listening.
I really hope Assoro in Sicily gets more than a brief footnote in '43. It's a huge source of pride for my Regiment
Legit i got this on my November exam and that forking history got so manny to study, im getting forking F
Surely securing North Africa enables lines of communication to the wider British empire in such a way as to not only threaten Germany and Italy, deny them access to oil, but release the Royal Navy to come and assist the Americans in the pacific. So far it seems that although the Americans have come out on top the battles have been a closely run thing and the nature of getting bogged down in the pacific seems glum. With the British freed to both secure the Atlantic and Pacific having dominated the Mediterranean, the Americans can both build up their strength in the UK and receive British reinforcements in the Pacific quickly having banked noticeable gains against the Germans in North Africa and bloodied the troops. It seems to me to be definitely the right call by Churchill and Roosevelt?
great info that is usually overlooked in most books and documentaries.... WELL DONE...
Thank you!
I was expecting the Dieppe Raid and left with knowledge I never had a clue about. Thank god for this channel!
I very much appreciate your time. Thanks for giving it! Regards from California and Arizona.
Thank you so much!
In hindsight, we can thank God that operation Sledgehammer did not proceed, and that instead North Africa and then South Europe were invaded first. Stalin may have pressured for an earlier invasion, but even he must have realised it would have been a futile suicide mission. Perhaps that is why he demanded it?
SLEDGEHAMMER was always going to be a desperation measure with whatever forces were available, either to try to bail out the Soviets before they could completely collapse or to take advantage of a German collapse. A competent military always prepares for hypothetical contingencies, even ridiculous ones. The Chieftain (on UA-cam) once described his outfit in Afghanistan preparing a contingency plan for a zombie apocalypse, and then having to explain it to their Afghan allies who don't have a "zombie" concept in their cultural and religious traditions.
Stalin was often delusional with the idea that determination and fervour was a substitute for numbers and equipment. It was a delusion shared by Hitler, and sometimes members of the Western Allies. Certainly, Churchill suggested that Tobruk should be determined to fight to the death, no surrender.
@@wbertie2604 Didn't Churchill learn from when he applied that theory at Gallipoli? Darn, now I understand why it took the Brits so long to take Caen.
@@TheEvertw the three things don't really have very related causes. Caen was as much due to traffic management on D-day itself as anything else.
@@wbertie2604 A lot of the timetables for Normandy, Caen included, were also ultimately too optimistic. Sometimes it's the plans that are flawed, not the execution.
Indy nailing the intro, as always.... my personal fav? *points to camera* "stalingrad!"
When Churchill and Roosevelt had their meetings, the obviously had to be transported to their destinations by ship. How long did it take to cross the "pond?" Plus what kind ship did they use? Also, German U-Boats were infesting the North Atlantic, so each leader had to have a heavy naval escort. What kind boats were those, and how many? Dunkeschoen, Tomaz' Janik.
Google how FDR traveled to Tehran.
This is an excerpt
On 28 November 1943, President Franklin D. ... Traveling to Tehran, President Roosevelt had no Air Force One, Boeing 747, to take him there. His first leg would be via sea. It was not a submarine, but a battleship, the USS Iowa which transported him to Casablanca, Morocco, on the first leg of his trip.
Churchill often travelled in a fast battleship, such as Prince of Wales, or a battlecruiser, such as Renown, when he didn't fly. Both ships were capable of at least 28 knots, and were more or less immune from U-boat attack as a result.
The big Atlantic liners ( Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary, etc) which transported US troops to Britain, were never escorted for the same reason, except when they reached Britain, where they received heavy AA escort for the last few hours of their voyage.
Indy is being more goofy, I only recently noticed it, but I’m not in favor of it, I enjoyed it more when he spoke more serious and professional. But as long as he’s having fun that’s all that matters.
When the topic is appropriate for some levity, but only then. Like in the war itself we can’t be walking around with a gloomy face every day for years on end.
First off, you have no idea how stoked I am you took the time to reply, second I very much enjoy your content, lastly thank you for presenting history as it should be, without any political bias. All of you who work hard to present this are a gem
Too many waistcoasts? No, Two men in waistcoats!
Lovely comment work there 👌🏼
Love watching as both are impressed by each other's presentation, great work gents!
Great special episode! I love to see how invested you both are, seeing each of you react to the other when you're not talking. It's a very engaging way to present history, I hope your video's get used a lot and in many places!! Keep up the great work so that we never forget!
Thank you so much, we are really glad to hear that! Please stay tuned for more
Sparty looking at Indy in the opening. LOL!!!
I could never fathom how Rommel and his troops could ever take and hold something like Egypt. Yes, most people lived near the nile, but even then it had a massive population! Rommels troops were much to few to ever control that, and neither german nor italian help would ever come in sufficient numers. Were there groups willing and ready to form a clientel state as soon as the Brits were gone?
Love the duo mix
It was a good Idea that we didn't go for mainland Europe. We needed North Africa to blood our commanders and troops, to see what worked and what didn't in terms of doctrine as The US had an Idea of how to fight, but is it matching up with realities of war. That we saw very real problems on the beaches of North Africa where it was lower risk. Lessons that would be Learned and applied to Overlord. Furthermore, North Africa was safe- as in If it was a disaster, it would hurt the allies, yes but it would not be completely crippling as losing 15 divisions on Mainland Europe.
Another brilliant and informative episode focusing on an area of Allied planning frequently overlooked. Well done guys, keep them coming! BtW, I really can't be doing with mssrs Marshall and King, allies my foot!
Oooo, Indy and Sparty together! Nice job, guys.
Americans and British: We will invade Europe through the soft underbelly of North Africa and Italy.
Rommel: Ba humbug. *mutters* That's the first time I've ever gotten called the "soft underbelly" of anything.
After first Alamein, in July 1942, Rommel's record in North Africa, apart from a day or two at Kasserine, was one of defeat after defeat.
Great episode, covered a lot of stuff I didn't know about.
Because Churchill's track record on amphibious assaults before they're ready, yet in strategically important areas is unsurpassed... Looking at you Gallipoli (from the last war) , the soft underbelly's extra coast - the adriatic - to prevent the iron curtain. All of thewm with the eye on the political rather than the practical / logistical.
Churchill gets heavily criticised for Gallipoli, much of which is unfair. His belief was that sea power should be used to knock Ottoman Turkey out of the war, as a strategic alternative to the unfolding carnage on the Western Front. Certainly, he argued for Gallipoli, but he neither authorised it (Herbert Asquith did) and nor did he plan it.
Mr Plumb, I think it’s fair to say that in the case of D-Day, Churchill kinda knew that he had to get it right, and it couldn’t go off half-cocked (as so many of his earlier “adventures” had done.) As the Grandson of an Anzac, I’d say Churchill often had good ideas but was hazy about the execution.
wait, indy and spartacus together? thats illegal, people can be together on camera only for the brunch
I love seeing these two in a video together. Absolutely captivating.
This is so interesting - all the confusion, fussing and fighting among the Allies before any invasion, which doesn’t get into the history books - is instructive.
Operation Sledgehammer hawks to Winston Churchill: "You've had one Dunkirk, yes, but what about the second Dunkirk?"
Churchill in 1942: Italy and North Africa are soft underbelly of Europe
Also Churchill in 1915: the Dardanelles are the soft underbelly of Europe
Indy you better talk about Marshall and the B17s now!
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor
have no food, they call me a communist.” ~ Dom Helder Camara
When they have no food, the government is probably communist.
Fantastic format bringing history to life well done by the presenters and the team behind the cameras.
Thank you, we are really glad to hear that. Stay tuned for more!
Operation Torch gave the allies a clear victory, even if it was an arguably easy victory. Territorial and military gains aside, this must surely have given the allies, resistants and all those living under the Nazi yoke a moral boost or at least some hope. A great chunk of North Africa was now off limits to the Axis powers with little hope of them ever getting it back. It was the right call.
Let's get Indie started on Marshall and the B-17s
Thanks guys!
Lovely intro, especially Sparty!
Excellent, excellent, excellent! This is such a great piece. It gets right into the bones of how such major decisions were made, and unmade, in the very difficult year of 1942.
Excellent Special. More about Marshal and the B-17's
Spartacus channeling Stan Lee again. Love it. Excelsior!
More Videos with 2 hosts please this was awesome :D
Can we please get Indy started on the B-17's?
13:32 Wait... weren't the Free French unaware of Operation Torch and sidelined from it ?
De Gaulle had been deliberatly pushed aside by Roosevelt, which of course infuriated him, even more when he heard of his secret deal with Darlan and what he planned to do with Giraud, namely to organize a "third France" under him whom the Americans could control more easily. This political mess in the making and the fact Roosevelt kept prefering on and on to talk and negociate with Vichy collaborators rather than with the free french that never stopped fighting the Axis forces and joined the Allies from the beginning, will provoke lots of tensions and unneeded dramas for the months or even years to come.
Spoiler alert: when the Italians switched side in 43, Roosevelt immediately recognized the new italian governement as legitimate but had still not recognized the free french governement under De Gaulle to this point. It will takes lots of pressure from Churchill for him to finally do so (after of course, De Gaulle himself pressured Churchill into doing the same).
The Americans as a whole deeply distrusted DeGaulle during this stage and preferred other figures to lead the Free French. Roosevelt, I believe, dismissed him as a dictator-in-training.
@@lycaonpictus9662 I don't know about the whole american people's opinion but the opinion of Roosevelt is well known and documented. He distrusted and despised De Gaulle with a passion since he ordered the liberation of St Pierre et Miquelon islands without his approval.
It didn't help either that within his entourage there were French people loyal to Vichy, especially the French ambassador in USA who was a friend of Pétain, who influenced Roosevelt view of De Gaulle, portraying him as a dictator-in the making as you said, and implementing the false idea that the Vichy leaders would revolt against the Germans at the first opportunity, even though every attempts and negociations in that regard had proved otherwise to this point.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Italian king, Victor Emmanual established the Italian government replacing the Fascists - it was as legitimate a government as possible.
De Gaulle had self-proclaimed "Free France" without any legal authority - he had no more legitimacy than Hitler in the Beer Hall putsch days. Churchill approved because he as sitting on 10K French soldiers picked off the beach of Dunkirk and needed any friend he could get - even one as bad as De Gaulle - to keep some French in the fight.
The Darlan/Giraud efforts were an attempt to establish at least some vague legitimacy in the government that control North Africa. There would likely have been substantial resistance to De Gaulle at that point.
“Risk another [Dieppe, not Dunkirk]”.
". . . So, what happened?" First, the USA could not build forces fast enough to invade Europe; mobilization was still in development. What happened next was actually 2 British disasters: 1. The Dieppe disaster, which could not be concealed from the public, despite official assertions that it was a 'Success because we learned a lot'. In fact, the British did not learn enough, because one month later they attempted Operation Agreement, which also ended in disaster. The fact is that Winston Churchill, who was a legitimately great leader, had poor military insight, and British Leadership had serious problems planning large scale military operations - a deficiency later to be demonstrated again in Operation Goodwood, a failed breakout attempt passed off as a 'diversion', or 'limited offensive'. Operation Agreement, a little publicized amphibious/land attack on Tobruk, occurred 1 month after Dieppe, and failed so badly that it threw all Allied plans to invade Europe into question. As a result, the Western Allies now had to make excuses to Stalin, who began to now distrust the West even more.
Churchill, the author of Gallipoli.....
D day would not have happened without input of British planning, for example Operation Fortitude and Bodyguard also the laying of the fuel pipe to pump supplies across the channel.
As for Goodwood even Omar Bradley said after the war that the planning with Monty was to draw German armour onto the Brits and Canadian forces to help weaken the Germans facing the US in the south. But at the time it was bad for morale to tell those forces that were just an anvil for the US hammer. Of course Monty though he could make a break out anyway but it did its job of holding up and grinding down German forces.
Churchill did have bad ideas but I suggest you read about Brooke (chief of imperial war staff) who was pretty much spot on about the war who rained in Churchill a few times. :)
But yes mistakes are always made in war and on one war side has a spotless record.
Unless your post is pure Brit bashing at its finest
Now that was a proper introduction to such a fascinating episode, I wonder what will happen next?
Thumbnail looks scary.. I hope FDR ghoul doesn't harvest my soul tonight
The only thing we have to fear is BRAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIINNNNNNNSSSSSSS
Well he cant walk i would be more afraid of Stalin ghoul
The British were miffed that the U.S. sent troops and naval forces to the Pacific, but the British were also diverting much of their resources to fight the Japanese there. Germany was fighting a two-front war, but so were the Americans and British once the Japanese entered the fray. Our Pacific War efforts were aimed at protecting the British Empire's Dominions of Australia and New Zealand. btw. I wonder if purpose-built landing craft were over-emphasized. Did anyone consider running destroyers and Liberty ships aground on the beaches and letting the troops disembark from those? Maybe not a practical idea, but I wonder if anyone considered it.
HMS Campbletown, St Nazaire. Problem being you can't go back for a second load of troops and destroyers are not designed for disembarking assault forces. Take a destroyers draft into account and your assault troops are going to drown. Unless you sail into a port which will probably be defended. Either way, not a good idea.
Landing craft made many round trips. A destroyer is a critical bit of kit to be doing one-shot landings with.
The British were not 'miffed' that the US sent troops and most of their fleet to the Pacific. The strategy throughout was that the RN would be responsible for the naval campaigns in the Atlantic, Arctic, and Indian Oceans, and the Mediterranean, leaving the US Navy free to concentrate almost entirely in the Pacific.
By the way, Australia, whatever Curtin might have believed, and New Zealand were never in any danger of invasion, and did not need protection, although Australia was a useful base from which MacArthur could start. The Japanese had enough problems with New Guinea and, of course, never managed to capture Port Moresby.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 The Japanese got off to such a strong start by conquering prestigious British and American bases at Singapore and the Philippines, plus sinking many British and American warships, that it seemed they were unstoppable. In one of the MacArthur movies, the Australians are preparing to abandon the northern coast and fall back to Sydney. Perhaps an exaggerated fear, but there was panic even in the U.S. and Canada. Both countries interned their populations of Japanese descent until the end of the war, fearing that the Japanese would invade the coast and Japanese-Americans and Japanese-Canadians would reinforce them. A highly exaggerated fear on all counts, but the way the Japanese and Germans were tearing through countries in the first years of the war, perhaps understandable.